Let us begin with a confession (admission rather) about the motivation for writing this piece: observations and personal experiences. To that extent, this is an opinion. Hear me out.
Institutionalizing acquisition
It would be appropriate to start this part with the history, etymology and different definitions of marriage, which I believe, can be accomplished - adequately or inadequately depending on what and more importantly how less one learns - through the mind-boggling sources - ranging from the sublime to the frivolous - that are available.
One thing is for sure - no one knows for sure.
Anyway, moving ahead, a few intelligible patterns that one notices when speculating about the origins and evolution of marriage as a system or as an institution, one could suppose that before humans felt the need for the marriage there is no evidence of any sort of emotional attachment or between males and females. Once again, we really cannot say for sure that there was or wasn't any liking or preference. And that is because we don't have any evidence to show that they could or couldn't express their feelings. We have no idea whether they had any affection towards their partner before and beyond mating. We aren't saying that their behaviour was like that of snakes. What we are saying is that we really don't know how they behaved.
A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago across the world (Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003)). Anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas found a strong correlation between intensive plough agriculture, dowry and monogamy. If the propertization of the female was wild nature, then its cultured, civilized version was the imposition of monogamy through the institution of marriage.
In other words, men 'settled down'. Without a doubt, humans moved towards monogamy driven by the need to 'settle down' and 'stop wandering about'. While this refers to an occupational and physical move away from a mobile hunting-gathering to a static cultivation, the reference to sexual 'settling down' and stop 'looking around' is unmistakable.
So much for the origin and evolution of marriage.
On the other hand, an arranged marriage is like a zipper, where the partners' fathers, mothers, siblings are linked to each other. Frankly, this is the stuff of nightmares for relationship experts and behavioural scientists! It's like a relationship fault line running between two colliding family plates. Incompatibility anywhere along the fault line could build up massive stresses leading to disastrous shock waves and undo the entire fastening.
Having seen a few acrimonious divorces from close quarters I'm beginning to believe that the man doesn't divorce the wife nor does she divorce him. Rather they seem to divorce the institution of marriage itself. Therefore the question should not be 'do you like him/her?' but do you like marriage at all.
Consider an association. Any association. By association I mean any situation where people come together for a purpose. The purpose could be anything: celebration of an event (a reunion); enjoyment (trekking trip, children playing together); employment (office); common goal (society, welfare associations, a team sport) or to be with someone (love, marriage). A lot is known about the what contributes towards the success or failure of associations. The variables include:
- Expectations of individual members from other members and managing the same
- Skills and capabilities of members and delegating responsibilities accordingly
- Interpretation and understanding among members of what is the association's goal and handling of the same
- Motivation of members to join, remain and contribute towards the association and sustaining these levels
- Expectations of individual members from the 'association' and managing the same
By far, from my observations and expectations, the single-most common reason for associations to fail has been a combination of the third and fifth points. Associations unfailingly fail when members of the association disagree on what is the purpose of the association or what is the reason for the association to exist. These differences in the interpretation on the very goal of the association leads to differences in expectations from the association.
Institutionalizing acquisition
It would be appropriate to start this part with the history, etymology and different definitions of marriage, which I believe, can be accomplished - adequately or inadequately depending on what and more importantly how less one learns - through the mind-boggling sources - ranging from the sublime to the frivolous - that are available.
One thing is for sure - no one knows for sure.
Anyway, moving ahead, a few intelligible patterns that one notices when speculating about the origins and evolution of marriage as a system or as an institution, one could suppose that before humans felt the need for the marriage there is no evidence of any sort of emotional attachment or between males and females. Once again, we really cannot say for sure that there was or wasn't any liking or preference. And that is because we don't have any evidence to show that they could or couldn't express their feelings. We have no idea whether they had any affection towards their partner before and beyond mating. We aren't saying that their behaviour was like that of snakes. What we are saying is that we really don't know how they behaved.
Even if the male was protective about his female partner, did this protective nature exist before and beyond the mating act? We really don't know. And more importantly was this protective nature restricted to just one female? Or was it chiefly about defending one's territory and competing with other males for a larger pool of females to mate with? Was there love and affection and belonging? Really doesn't seem so.
But what is conspicuous by its absence in all this is the propertization of the female and her subsequent subjugation and acquisition.
Monogamy - Nature (prakriti) versus culture (sanskriti)
But what is conspicuous by its absence in all this is the propertization of the female and her subsequent subjugation and acquisition.
Monogamy - Nature (prakriti) versus culture (sanskriti)
It should be safe to assume that culture came after nature. So the question is whether marriage is enforced, acquired, enforced, imposed behaviour and not necessarily natural behaviour. The question is whether marriage is a cultural practice of ensuring monogamy?
There are as many types of monogamy as there are species of animals. On one end we have the prairie vole and the hornbill that are ambassadors of life-long loyalty to their first mate. On the other end we have emperor penguins who are monogamous as long as their young needs care. On a lighter note the black widow spider and the female praying mantis bestow monogamy-immortality to their mates.
According to Wikipedia, "...Some researchers have attempted to infer the evolution of human mating systems from the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Several studies have reported a large amount of sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus, an evolutionary ancestor of human beings that lived between 2 and 5 million years ago. These studies raise the possibility that Australopithecus had a polygamous mating system. Sexual dimorphism then began to decrease. Studies suggest sexual dimorphism reached modern human levels around the time of Homo erectus 0.5 to 2 million years ago. This line of reasoning suggests human ancestors started out polygamous and began the transition to monogamy somewhere between 0.5 million and 2 million years ago..."
However, these studies remain controversial and inconclusive.
Anyway, every one agrees on one thing: monogamy in mammals is rather rare, only occurring in less than 3% of these animal species. So it is safe to say that monogamy and 'marriage-like' behaviour is cultural and not natural.
A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago across the world (Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003)). Anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas found a strong correlation between intensive plough agriculture, dowry and monogamy. If the propertization of the female was wild nature, then its cultured, civilized version was the imposition of monogamy through the institution of marriage.
In other words, men 'settled down'. Without a doubt, humans moved towards monogamy driven by the need to 'settle down' and 'stop wandering about'. While this refers to an occupational and physical move away from a mobile hunting-gathering to a static cultivation, the reference to sexual 'settling down' and stop 'looking around' is unmistakable.
So much for the origin and evolution of marriage.
Institutionalizing a relationship
Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially, legally and ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights (sexual, economic and social) and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity.
So we now have the society and the judiciary getting involved and dictating the terms of recognition.
On a lighter note I happened to read a forwarded definition of marriage:
"I love you so much that I will involve our relatives, religion, society, the courts and the police and make it nearly impossible for you to leave me"
"I love you so much that I will involve our relatives, religion, society, the courts and the police and make it nearly impossible for you to leave me"
At this juncture it is important to remind ourselves about the life-long loyalty of the prairie vole and the hornbill without the interference of other prairie voles or the existence of a hornbill court. This is another evidence of the fact that 'laws are irrelevant and ineffective with matters that exist in the realm of conscience'. No external factor can make or break loyalty. Something like monogamy or fidelity is a cultural aspect. Given that having multiple partners is a natural trait, being loyal to only one partner is exceptionally rare.
At this juncture we must also remind ourselves about 'Gandharva Vivaha' (instant marriage by mutual consent of participants only, without any need for even a single third person as witness), which was a socially and formally accepted form of marriage in ancient India. This is still prevalent across the world as cohabitation (commonly known as live-in relationships). While advocates of cohabitation champion the right to privacy and resist the involvement of others in their personal affair, opponents decry the perceived and alleged infidelity, immorality and imminent disregard of aforesaid rights and obligations and other legal and social complications as a consequence of dissolution of the cohabitation.
But it is evident that infidelity, immorality and disregard for rights are things that exist in the realm of the conscience and institutionalizing marriage has been an effort to prevent the same through deterrents. To what extent has marriage as an institution been successful in this regard is another topic for another day.
Institution or Relationship?
When I talk about love and arranged marriages I use an analogy to describe each. A love marriage is like linking two chains - each partner linked to each other with their families linked to only the respective partner. Compatibility need exist only between the partners.On the other hand, an arranged marriage is like a zipper, where the partners' fathers, mothers, siblings are linked to each other. Frankly, this is the stuff of nightmares for relationship experts and behavioural scientists! It's like a relationship fault line running between two colliding family plates. Incompatibility anywhere along the fault line could build up massive stresses leading to disastrous shock waves and undo the entire fastening.
Having seen a few acrimonious divorces from close quarters I'm beginning to believe that the man doesn't divorce the wife nor does she divorce him. Rather they seem to divorce the institution of marriage itself. Therefore the question should not be 'do you like him/her?' but do you like marriage at all.
So what warrants discussion is whether marriage as an institution TODAY is one of the causes for destroying relationships - and not just of the married spouses but even that of their families?
Is it time to gradually but surely dismantle 'marriage - the institution' to save 'marriage - the relationship'?
Personally I believe that any consensual relationship between two emotionally-healthy adults that is not based on coercion, exploitation, dependence or falsehood (including cohabitation or gay marriage) should be the business of no one except that of the two partners. Neither the society, nor even the families and least of all the court should have anything to do with the relationship as long as it is based on respect, love, truth and trust.
But, I still do respect marriage as long as it is between two people ONLY and based on respect, love, truth and trust. There is no doubt that marriage as 'a socially, legally and ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights (sexual, economic and social) and obligations' was constituted at a time and era when it was NECESSARY to protect the rights of less-empowered, less-educated women.
But does TODAY's educated, aware, confident and financially independent woman need 'marriage as an institution' to define the contours of her 'marriage as a relationship'?
