Mating is natural; marriage is cultural. Mating is a sexual union between a man and a woman, often temporary, that creates no family obligations. Marriage is a socially recognised and publicly approved union in which the partners live together, cooperate economically, and accept responsibility for the children born to them. In the words of Beals and Hoijer, marriage is everywhere a set of cultural patterns to sanction parenthood and provide a stable background for rearing children.
This note explains the distinction between marriage and mating, with definitions, thinkers and ethnographic examples, for the UPSC Anthropology Optional. It falls under Paper I, topic 2.3 (marriage: definition and universality) of the Anthropology Optional syllabus.
What is mating?
Mating refers to a union of man and woman entered into primarily for sexual gratification.
- It is biological. Humans share it with other animals. It needs no rule or ceremony.
- It is usually transitory. Such unions may be brief or even casual.
- It imposes no obligations. The partners owe each other, and any child, no recognised familial duties.
- Societies regulate it. Nearly all societies provide for mating in one fashion or another. In some, young adults are expected to have a number of casual relationships before taking up the serious business of marriage.
Even mating, therefore, is never purely natural among humans. Every society has rules about who may mate with whom, of which the incest taboo is the most general.
What is marriage?
Marriage, like mating, is a means of sexual gratification, but it has other and more important social functions.
- Public recognition. Married couples live together in a union recognised and approved by other members of the society.
- Cooperation. They are expected to cooperate with each other, and sometimes with other relatives, in maintaining the household.
- Children. They are expected to produce children. In some societies a marriage is not regarded as complete until the first child is born.
- Responsibility. The couple must acknowledge the children as their own and provide for their care and rearing.
- Permanence. Most cultures allow divorce, but those who marry are ordinarily expected to intend a lifelong union, not one to be broken at the whim of either partner.
Marriage is thus the major cultural mechanism that ensures the continuation of the family and of other groups based on kinship (Beals and Hoijer, 1978).
Definitions of marriage
| Scholar | Definition |
|---|---|
| Edward Westermarck (1891) | A more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring. |
| Bronisław Malinowski | A contract for the production and maintenance of children. |
| G. P. Murdock (1949) | Marriage exists only when the economic and the sexual functions are united in one relationship. |
| Notes and Queries on Anthropology (1951) | A union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are recognised as the legitimate offspring of both partners. |
| Kathleen Gough (1959) | A relationship between a woman and one or more other persons which provides that a child born to her, in circumstances not prohibited by the rules, is given full birth-status rights. |
| Edmund Leach (1955) | Marriage is a "bundle of rights"; no single definition fits all societies. |
The common thread is legitimacy. Marriage does not create children; mating does. Marriage gives those children a recognised place in society.
Marriage and mating compared
| Basis | Mating | Marriage |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Biological; natural | Social and cultural; an institution |
| Found among | All sexually reproducing animals | Humans only |
| Primary purpose | Sexual gratification and reproduction | Legitimate parenthood, economic cooperation and alliance between groups |
| Duration | Usually transitory | Intended to be lasting |
| Social approval | Not required | Publicly recognised, usually by a ceremony |
| Rights and duties | None | Mutual rights and obligations between spouses, their children and their kin |
| Status of children | Not defined | Legitimate; given descent, inheritance and group membership |
| Economic aspect | Absent | Division of labour, property and often marriage payments |
| Parties involved | Two individuals | Two individuals and their kin groups |
Ethnographic evidence that marriage is more than mating
The clearest proof that marriage is a social and not a biological fact comes from cases where the two do not coincide.
Mating without marriage
- Trobriand Islanders. Malinowski described the bukumatula, the bachelors' house where unmarried young people formed temporary attachments before settling into marriage.
- Muria Gond of Bastar. Verrier Elwin described the ghotul, the youth dormitory in which boys and girls spent their evenings together. Marriage was arranged separately, by the families.
- Oraon and Naga youth dormitories. The dhumkuria and the morung similarly served as places of training and companionship before marriage.
In each case premarital relations were socially permitted, yet they created none of the obligations of marriage.
Marriage without mating
- Ghost marriage among the Nuer. E. E. Evans-Pritchard recorded that a man could marry a wife in the name of a dead kinsman who had left no heir. The children belonged to the dead man.
- Woman-to-woman marriage among the Nuer. A barren woman could pay bridewealth for a wife and become the legal "father" of the children the wife bore by a chosen man.
- The Nayar of Kerala. In the traditional system, a girl went through a tali-tying rite with a ritual husband, and later received visiting partners in sambandham unions. Husband and wife did not live together, and the children belonged to the mother's matrilineal group. Kathleen Gough framed her definition of marriage to cover this case.
These examples rest on the distinction between the genitor, the biological father, and the pater, the socially recognised father. Mating produces a genitor; marriage assigns a pater.
Did marriage evolve from promiscuous mating?
- The promiscuity theory. Nineteenth-century evolutionists such as J. J. Bachofen, J. F. McLennan and L. H. Morgan held that early humans lived in sexual promiscuity, from which group marriage, polygamy and finally monogamy developed.
- Westermarck's reply. In The History of Human Marriage (1891), Westermarck argued that pairing is found among the higher apes and in the simplest human societies, so that marriage is as old as humanity. He put it that marriage is rooted in the family, not the family in marriage.
- Present view. No known society lives in promiscuity. The long dependence of the human child, and the need for cooperation between the sexes in rearing it, favoured lasting unions. Culture then turned the pair bond into an institution.
Why did human societies turn mating into marriage?
| Function of marriage | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Regulation of sexual relations | Reduces sexual competition and conflict within the group. |
| Legitimacy of children | Gives each child a social father, a descent group and rights of inheritance. |
| Care of the young | The human infant is dependent for many years and needs stable care. |
| Economic cooperation | Unites the complementary work of men and women in one household. |
| Alliance | Links families and groups. For Claude Lévi-Strauss, marriage is an exchange between groups, made necessary by the incest taboo. |
| Continuity | Ensures the continuation of the family and of kin groups. |
Using this topic in a UPSC answer
- Open with the one-line contrast: mating is natural, marriage is cultural.
- Give one definition stressing legitimacy, such as that of Notes and Queries.
- Set out the differences in a table of five or six rows.
- Prove the point with two cases: the ghotul (mating without marriage) and Nuer ghost marriage (marriage without mating).
- Use the terms pater and genitor.
- Conclude with the functions of marriage, which explain why every society has it.
For presentation, see our guide to anthropology answer writing with diagrams, thinkers and case studies.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between marriage and mating?
Mating is a biological union for sexual gratification, usually temporary and without obligations. Marriage is a culturally defined and publicly approved union that creates rights and duties between the partners and gives their children legitimate status.
Why is marriage called a cultural institution?
Marriage is called cultural because it is governed by rules that vary from society to society: who may marry whom, how many spouses, what ceremony, what payments and where the couple live. Mating, by contrast, is a biological act common to all animals.
Is marriage universal?
Most anthropologists, following Murdock, regard marriage as found in all known societies, though its form varies widely. Cases such as the Nayar led Gough and Leach to redefine marriage in terms of the legitimacy of children.
What is the difference between pater and genitor?
The genitor is the biological father of a child. The pater is the man socially recognised as its father. Marriage determines the pater, whoever the genitor may be.
How does the ghotul show the difference between mating and marriage?
In the ghotul of the Muria, young people were allowed companionship and relations before marriage, but these created no marital rights or duties. Marriage was arranged separately by the families.
What are the main functions of marriage?
Marriage regulates sexual relations, legitimises children, provides for their care, unites the economic efforts of the spouses, creates alliances between groups and ensures the continuity of family and kin groups.
Did early humans live in promiscuity?
Nineteenth-century evolutionists such as Morgan thought so, but Westermarck showed that there is no evidence for it. No known human society lacks rules of mating and marriage.