Definition and Universality, Universal definition of carriage:
The Problem:
Definition and Universality in Anthropology The problem of universal definition of marriage is almost as puzzling a phenomenon today as it was at the dawn of anthropology, Generations of anthropologists spill gallons of ink to give a definition of marriage that can be applied to all human societies but all their efforts were in futility.
The greatest barrier to this anthropological effort is the unimaginable variation in the institution of human marriage. The institution of marriage exists in every human society. But what it means varies from society to society, Given this variation can anything general be said about marriage from the point of view of all societies? This is the crux of the problem of the universal definition of marriage.
Early Definitions:
The most frequently quoted early definition of marriage is that of Westemarck. Definition and Universality According to him “marriage is a relation of one or more men with one or more women which is recognized by custom or law and which involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of children born into it” (Westermarck 18B9; vol.I)
Westermarck’s definition of marriage defies many ethnographic situations. The woman-woman marriages among the Nuer the man-man marriages among the Azande, the sham marriages among the Kwakiutl Red Indians, and the concubinage unions among the Jamaican Negroes cannot fit into this definition of marriage. Therefore it fails to have universal applicability.
The other early definitions are those given by Malinowski, Radcliffe Brown and Notes and Queries on Definition and Universality of Anthropology, Malinowski and Radcliff-Brown say that “marriage is a union of a man and woman in which they are the jural father and mother of the children born to the woman‘ (Malinowski 1930: 134- 143; Radcliffe-Brown 1950: 5). Notes and Queries on Anthropology also give similar definition of marriage, According to it, “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both parents (1951:10). All these definitions imply the same thing. They stress legitimacy, linking marriage to the legitimation of children as the offspring of the husband and wife, rather than simply as members of society. They stress that marriage is not the licensing of sexual intercourse, but of parenthood, That means, marriage establishes the jural basis for a group consisting of a man, a woman, and their children, legitimating the man ‘ s and woman’ s parenthood and assigning them whatever rights and responsibilities parenthood brings.
Definition and Universality These definitions cannot accommodate the institution of marriage in those societies where men and men marry, women and women marry, ghosts and women marry. Among the Dahomey of Africa, a woman marries another woman, exercising her right of sexual access and her right to desire of children through someone acting in her name. Among the Nuer there are ghost marriages in which a man takes a wife in the name of a dead brother or son from whom he acts as proxy. in some societies like the Onotoa and Trukese in Melanesia marriage is not at all necessary to get legitimate offspring, Thus the definitions of marriage given by Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown and Notes and Queries on Anthropology are inapplicable to several cases, hence they have no universal applicability.
According to Murdock, “marriage exists in every known society that it involves residential cohabitation, economic cooperation and formation of the nuclear family (1948:8). Further, marriage “exists only when the economic and sexual functions are united into one relationship and this combination occurs ‘only in marriage” (1948:8). Thus seen, marriage is a contractual union of a man and a woman and involves sexual privilege, economic cooperation, cohabitation, the production of children, and responsibility for the children’s care, socialization and education. If the marriage is fruitful, the resulting social unit is a nuclear family in Definition and Universality.
Marriage is therefore a social transaction that establishes a nuclear family. Thus the definition cannot be applied to cases like Nayar of Kerala, where the concubinage rights and the acknowledgement of paternity clears a child’s membership in its “tavari” and ’’taravad”, whose adult members are responsible for the child’s maintenance.
By Murdock’s definition, there is no combination of sexual cohabitation and economic cooperation, and there is no nuclear family among the Nayars, and therefore no marriage. In Kibbutz communities of Israel, there is no economic cooperation between the mating pairs. Among the Jamaican Negroes involved in concubinage unions, there is matrifocal family but not the nuclear family. Murdock’s definition fails to accommodate these instances. In Definition and Universality in Anthropology Therefore it has no universal applicability
Modern Definitions:
Modern definitions also fall short of universal applicability.
Kathaleen Gough’ s definition of marriage may be considered first. On the basis of her study of Nayars of Kerala she says that: “Marriage is a relationship between a woman and one or more persons which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances, not prohibited by the rules of the relationships, is accorded full birth status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum” (Gough 1968:68). According to Gough, any institution to be called marriage must fulfill two requisites:
The social acceptance of the relationship and the legitimacy of the children. Therefore , she says that marriage is a customary transaction that functions to establish the legitimacy of new born children as acceptable members of society. in a Western society these requirements are ideally taken care of in two transactions. One of them is the transaction of marriage , the other one is the registration of birth , in which the responsibility for the child is allocated to a woman as mother and to a man as father., the two being already married to each other . Definition and Universality, The Nayars handle these matters in separate transactions: the “talikettu Kalyanam” which makes a woman eligible for sexual relations; the “sambandam” which establishes concubicular rights; and acknowledgement of paternity which clears a child membership in it “tavari ” and “taravad ”. By Gough ‘s definition there is marriage here because the “sambandham” relationship and acknowledgement of paternity with gifts as the Nayar and western society. a child’s acceptability as a proper member of society is in part dependent both on the mother’s eligibility to her children and on the acceptance of responsibility for the child’s existence by a man who is eligible to be its genitor – one of the woman’s “sambandham partners among the Nayar and the woman’s legal husband among Westerners. But mere two cases do not make a determination in every society; but it need not involve a transaction between a man and woman or any consideration of who is the genitor. in fact there are societies like the Onotoa and Trukese in Micronesia , where marriage is not at all necessary for a woman to bear children , and to establish the legitimacy of new-born children as acceptable members of society.
Definition and Universality Prince Peter of Greece and Leach also raised their objections to Gough’s definition of marriage , Louis Dumont and Gough treat “talikettu kalayanam” as primary marriage and “sambandham” as a secondary marriage. But Prince Peter says that the notion of marriage is lacking among the “sambandham” husbands of a Nayar woman. The “sambandham’’ husbands who are Namboodiris call “sambandham’’ as concubinage. Leach says that the notion of father-hood is lacking in the , sambandham’, as well as “talikettu kalayanam”. The children of a Nayar woman refer to the “sambandham” husbands who are Namboodiris as “Achchan” (Lord or Leader). This term is used for father by Namboodiris. The children of a Nayar woman refer to the ritual husband or “tali tier” of their mother as “Appan”, a term used for father among the Tamils and Kannadigas. The kinship term “Appan” is reserved for the ritual husband of their mother provided they happen to be personally acquainted with him (Gough 1961:358) . unless he has subsequently entered into a “sambandham” liaison with the mother, he has nothing to do with the acknowledgement of paternity and legitimation of children. Thus Prince Peter of Greece and Leach raise basic issues against the definition of marriage given by Gough.
W.N.Stephens proposes that marriage “is a socially legitimate sexual union, begun with the public announcement, undertaken with some idea of permanence, and assumed with a more or less explicit marriage contract, which spells out reciprocal obligations between spouses, and between spouses and their future children” (1963:7). He tests this definition cross-culturally and finds many cases like the Nayar, Kibbutz, Navajo, copper Eskimo, Ashanti and Wogeo not fitting it. He concludes that it is very difficult to arrive at a definition of marriage that has universal applicability.
Levy and Fallers (1959) criticize that the definitions of marriage given by numerous anthropologists are unworkable. Mogey comments that there is the necessity to clarify the concept of marriage (1963: 53. Nimkoff (1965:16) writes that the earlier definitions of marriage which emphasize “co residence, coitus and economic cooperation” are “incomplete for crosscultural purposes”. Definition and Universality in Anthropology Leach emphasizes that “marriage is (to borrow Maine’s phrase) ’ a bundle of rights ‘ and concludes that all universal definitions of marriage are in vain (1963:108). He listed ten classes of rights in this regard. These rights are concerned with couple’ s legal paternity and maternity, monopoly of the couple over each other’s sexuality, labour services and property, and the establishment of a socially significant relationship of affinity between the husband and wife’s brothers. Leach concludes that no single right of marriage occurs in all societies , nor all ten rights of marriage recur in a single society and that to lay down a definition of marriage to suit all the societies is an exercise in futility (1963:107 – 108).
Robin FOX has sensibly dealt with some of the underlying considerations of marriage common to all human groups, but the conceptual or theoretical issues need further examination (1967). Does it mean that the institution of marriage is not universal ? The institution of marriage is universal but a definition of marriage that has universal applicability is yet to be framed.
E.R. Leach defines marriage as a “bundle of rights” : Partner’s monopolistic rights over each others sexuality , partners ‘ rights over parenthood , over each others labour services and over each other ’s property, responsibility of providing a joint fund for the children and the right of * husband to maintain good relations with wife ’ s brother , All ethnographic situations failed to accommodate these rights , in the words of Leach neither all rights occur at!east in one society nor atleast one right occurs in every society.
Thus , the existing definitions of marriage are debatable. Definition and Universality in Anthropology This does not mean that the institution of marriage is not universal , Till data pertaining to every ethnographic situation are obtained , analysed and elements common to all ethnographic situations are identified , the debate over the universal definition of marriage may remain unresolved.
–