Table of Contents
Notes By-
Sachin Gupta
Cleared UPSC 2017 with AIR-3
INTRODUCTION
KINSHIP, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
The character and quality of social relations based on kinship, marriage and family are
of paramount importance in all societies. The primary reason for this is that kinship,
marriage and family play a dominant role in social systems.
Kinship refers to human relationships by blood or consanguinity affinity with relations
brought by marriage. Kinship relations are actually or fictiously traced through parentchild
or sibling relations, and recognised for social purposes. The first unit delves into
the basic concept of Kinship. In each kinship system, a set of terms are used in addressing
or speaking of relatives. In the kinship systems more usually associated with simpler
societies the terms used in addressing or speaking of relatives are termed as ‘classificatory
terminology’. Lewis Henry Morgan developed the distinction between ‘classificatory’
and ‘descriptive’ kinship terms (i.e. between merging or distinguishing lineal and
collateral). The three related aspects of kinship – ‘lineage’, ‘clan’ and ‘descent’ are
also being discussed in this section.
The second unit on Descent and Alliance Theories reflects upon these defunct theories.
In the contemporary scenario though not functional, the theories give an insight into the
constitution of family, sib, clan, moiety, marriage, exchange etc.
Unit 3 on Marriage provides the preliminary definition of ‘marriage’. Marriage confers
acknowledged social status of the offspring, a matter of great importance in regard to
such matters as inheritance and succession. This unit details the different types of
marriages. ‘Monogamy’ is the custom of being married to only one person at a particular
time. Polygamy may be ‘polyandry’ (plural husbands) or ‘polygyny’ (plural wives).
Laws of prohibition and injunction that regulate marriage are being dealt with herein.
Under prohibition, sex relations between individuals related in certain prohibited degrees
of kinship is considered as ‘incest’. This unit gives an anthropological insight on marriage.
The family is the smallest and most basic social unit based on descent and filiation. The
fourth unit on ‘Family’, explores the kin based relationship and how extending outward
from the circle of family, people operate as a member of larger kin groups which too
have descent and affinity as their constituent bases. The elementary or simple family is
a group consisting of a father and mother and their children, whether they are living
together or not. The compound families are of three types: a group consisting of a man
and two or more wives and their children (polygynous); a group consisting of a woman
with two or more husbands and her children (polyandrous); and a group formed by the
remarriage of a widow or widower having children by a former marriage. The notion of
physiological parenthood and socially recognised parenthood is present in the context
of the family and forms a part for discussion in this unit.
Finally, the last unit in this block, ‘Kinship, Marriage and Family in India’ summarizes
the earlier units with examples from India. This unit discusses in depth the rules of
kinship, family and marriage as prevalent in the caste and tribal societies of India
KINSHIP
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Human beings are known as social animals even though many species have shown
social behaviour, what sets humans apart is the complexity of our social organisation.
This unit will introduce the students to the concept of kinship. The underlying
factors that help a person trace his/her kinsman. The concentration herein would
be in understanding the terminologies used in kinship and in tracing relations. We
would also discuss in this unit the early studies in kinship and how with the
changing times the focus of kinship studies have also changed and the addition of
new kinship terminologies which were not studied till recnt times.
1.2 IDEA OF KINSHIP
As soon as a human child is born it enters this world with some given characters
like a system of beliefs, a language, parents and siblings and many other relationships
and sometimes social positions, like a potential heir to a throne, a priestly position,
an occupation or a vocation in life. Such are the ascriptive characters of what is
understood as social personhood. Thus to be born is to have an identity as a
member of a society and a receiver of a culture. But these social identities can
only be reproduced through marriage or a socially recognised bond rather than by
mere mating. To be human is to reproduce socially and not simply biologically.
Every human is embedded in a network of relationships that can be called kinship
relationships that are either based on the notions of putative blood connections orof marriage as a socially recognised bond; what in anthropological terminology are
known as consanguineal and affinal relationships; that is relations by blood and
by marriage respectively. Relatives by blood are those who are recognised culturally
to be so and not who are genetically connected, as with the case of adoption,
fostering and step-relations.
The basic principle of kinship is to keep these two categories separate. In other
words those who are supposed to be blood relatives can never be joined by
marriage and in all human societies these rules appear as the fundamental rule of
incest taboo. Apart from the basic relationships of parents and children and
siblings, there is a wide variation in the rules of incest taboo, like the taboo on
marrying within the same village in Northern India and the variations in rules of
marrying children of one’s parent’s siblings. In a few historical instances like the
Egyptian royal family, even the incest taboo between siblings could be broken, but
such was very rare. The definition of who is a blood relative is not determined
biologically but socially and thus kinship is about the social interpretation of putative
biological relations. It is the concept of legitimacy that determines the social
recognition of parent child relationships and not the fact of a biological descent
1.2.1 What is Kinship? Concept and Definitions
The term kinship enfolds in it the various organisations of a society. Inheritance
and property rights, political office and the composition of local communities are
all embedded in kinship. In societies where ancestor worship was practiced, even
religion was based on kinship. To understand the intricacies of the term kinship
let’s start with a few definitions of kinship.
Kinship and marriage are about the basic facts of life. They are about ‘birth, and
conception, and death’, the eternal round that seemed to depress the poet but
which excites, among others, the anthropologist. Man is an animal, but he puts the
basic facts of life to work for himself in ways that no other animal does or can,
Fox (1996 [1967]: 27). While, Godelier, (1998: 387) stated that Kinship appears
as a huge field of social and mental realities stretching between two poles. One
is highly abstract: it concerns kinship terminologies and the marriage principles or
rules they implicitly contain or that are associated with them. The other is highly
concrete: it concerns individuals and their bodies, bodies marked by the position
of the individual in kinship relations. Deeply embedded in them are the
representations that legitimize these relations through an intimacy of blood, bone,
flesh, and soul. Between these two poles lie all the economic, political, and symbolic
stakes involved from the outset in the interplay of kinship relations or, conversely,
that make use of them. Stone, (1997: 5) recognised Kinship as a relationship
between persons based on descent or marriage. If the relationship between one
person and another is considered by them to involve descent, the two are
consanguines (“blood”) relatives. If the relationship has been established through
marriage, it is affinal. Encyclopaedia Britannica in its webpage has defined Kinship
as the socially recognised relationship between people in a culture who are or are
held to be biologically related or who are given the status of relatives by marriage,
adoption, or other ritual. Kinship is the broad-ranging term for all the relationships
that people are born into or create later in life and that are considered binding in
the eyes of their society. Although customs vary as to which bonds are accorded
greater weight, their very acknowledgment defines individuals and the roles that
society expects them to play. Tonkinson, (1991:57), stated in his work that Kinship
is a system of social relationships that are expressed in a biological idiom, using
terms like “mother”, “son,” and so on. It is best visualized as a mass of networks
1.2.2 Definitions of Some Basic Terms Used in Kinship
Before we embark on the history of Kinship, it would be beneficial to understand
some of the basic premises and the definitions on which kinship relations are
based.
Descent refers to a person’s affiliation and association with his/her kinsman. In
a patrilineal society a person traces his descent through father while in a matrilineal
society descent is traced through the mother. Descent Group comprises of
people having a common ancestor, the common ancestor can either be a living,
non living or mythical being like an animal, tree, human being, thunder etc. Rules
of descent can be divided into two distinct types a. Unilineal and b. Cognatic or
Non-Unilineal descent. Unilineal Descent is a descent group where lineage is
traced either through the father’s or mother’s side. Herein, only one parents
descent is taken into account based on the type of society – matriarchy or whether
patriarchy. In a partilineal society it is traced through the father while in a matrilineal
society it is traced through the mother.
Patrilineal Descent is a kinship system based on patriarchy where inheritance,
status, authority or property is traced through males only. It is also known as
agnatic descent. For example: sons and daughters belong to their father’s descent
group, sons’ children both sons and daughters will be a part of grandfather’s
descent group, but the daughter’s children would belong to her husband’s descent
group. Many of the societies of the world belong to this realm like the classical
Romans, the Chinese and also the Hindu society of India. In the Hindu society,
the rule of descent follows the transfer of authority and immovable property to the
oldest son or the first born commonly known as primogeniture.
Matrilineal Descent is a kinship system based on matriarchy where inheritance,
status, authority and property is traced through females only. It is also known as
uterine descent. A matrilineal descent group comprises of a woman, her siblings,
her own children, her sisters children and her daughters’ children. The Ashanti of
Ghana studied by Meyer Fortes, the Trobriand Islanders of Western Pacific studied
by Malinowski, some of the societies of Indonesia, Malaysia, some Native American
tribes like Navajo, Cherokee and Iroquois, and also some of the tribes in India
like the Khasis of North East India and the Nayars of southern India are examples
of societies with matrilineal descent. Among the Ashanti of Ghana, the authority
lies with the mother’s brother and a son inherits the property of the mother’s
brother, whereas among the Khasis of Meghalaya of North East India the immovable
property like the ancestral house is inherited by the youngest daughter from her
Endogamy and Exogamy are two concepts which we would be referring to in
terms of marriage, which also follows the kinship rules. Endogamy is the practice
of marrying within the group. In most of the tribes and caste based societies the
rule of endogamy exists. For example among the Naga Tribe of North East India
there are different Naga Tribes like the Semi, Ao, Sumi, Angami etc. The tribes
rarely marry outside their own tribes. Likewise in the caste based system of India
a caste group always marries within their own caste like a Brahmin would marry
a Brahmin and not a Kshatriya. Exogamy is marrying out. Within the tribe and
caste the system rule of exogamy is followed by which a person has to marry
outside his own clan while in a caste based society one has to marry outside his
gotra. Herein the moiety and phraty also comes into play. As stated earlier a
moiety is exogamous and one has to marry into the other moiety
1.3 A BRIEF HISTORY OF KINSHIP STUDIES IN ANTHROPOLOGY
The study of Kinship has its home in anthropology since the early 19th century. In
the initial ages it emerged as a subject which became an integral part of social
anthropology and the anthropologists engaged themselves in collecting data on
genealogies. The terminologies used in describing kinship relation took centre
stage in social anthropological studies but by the turn of the century the new
generation of anthropologists started questioning the relevance of collecting
genealogies when it was looking at the society from Marxist and Feminist
perspectives. Kinship studies were on the verge of collapse as the than
anthropologists moved on to explore new avenues in anthropology. It was with the
work of Schneider that there was a revival of kinship studies which tend to be
historically grounded, focus on everyday experiences, and understandings,
representation of gender, power and differences. Thus, under this section we
would take up Kinship studies in two perspectives: i) Morgan’s Kinship system
which laid the basis for the study of Kinship and ii) Contemporary Kinship studies
how it emerged and what are the aspects under its consideration.
UNIT 2 DESCENT AND ALLIANCE THEORIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will deal with two theories which sought to understand kinship
relations in an elaborate way. As we have already learnt in the last chapter, kinship
is the relationship between individuals who are connected through genealogy, either
biologically or culturally. When relationships are created through birth it leads to
descent groups or consanguineals and when relationships are created through
marriage, it forms affinal groups. Based on these relationships, two theories of
kinship were advocated, the first as early as the 40s and the second was discussed
in the 60s. These theories, descent and alliance are in today’s anthropological
enquiry considered almost defunct for various reasons which we will try to decipher
in this unit. However as these theories formed an important part in kinship studies
it is important for the student to have knowledge about these.
2.2 DESCENT THEORY
Descent theory also known as lineage theory came to the fore in the 1940s with
the publication of books like The Nuer (1940), African Political Systems (1940)
etc. This theory was in much demand in the discussion of social structure in British
anthropology after the 2nd World War. It had much influence over anthropological
studies till the mid-60s but with the downfall of the British Empire and its loss of
colonies, the theory also sort of fizzled out. However its presence in certain works
even now, like descriptions in ethnographic monographs, or its use by French
Marxists to understand the lineage mode of production etc. makes it eligible
enough for some intellectual enquiry.
Descent theory when it first became popular, it seemed to be a new idea, a
revelation, but deeper studies exhibit that it was actually a part of the ongoing
changes in ideas and notions which took place in the study of anthropology.
Descent theory, in order to be explained clearly can be divided into two periods,
the classical and the modern. Both these periods have three stages each. The first
phase of the classical period involves the creation of the new models of descent
which was done by Henry Maine and Lewis Henry Morgan. These models were
revised and given a new form by some anthropologists of that time, more notably
by John F. McLennan. Finally in the third stage these models were empirically
made use of in field studies by students of Franz Boas. The classical phase
reached a low and remained mere speculations after this but were revived all of
a sudden by British Africanists, and the modern phase of descent theory came up.
The main issues in both the periods however were the same even though the
approach applied to study them differed. The issues were relationship between
blood and soil, kinship and territory, family and clan etc.
2.2.3 Counter Theories
Considering that so much of effort and time was used for creating the perfect
descent theories, it nevertheless faded out in the 1960s because of the many
complicacies and misunderstandings created by the ideas postulated by the thinkers.
In the 1960s in fact it faced the main challenge from a model which was designed
by Levi-Strauss based on the primitive social structure. It was referred to as the
Alliance theory. This model too agreed to the existence of segmentary organisation
of unilineal descent groups but posited the main arena of the system in exchanges
of marriage between such exogenous groups.
This alternative also critiqued Radcliffe-Brown by offering another interpretation
on the relationship between family and clan. For Radcliffe-Brown the universal
family created sentiments which took solidarity among siblings to a larger grouping
while Levi-Strauss stated the siblings can be linked through the exchange of sisters
in marriage. Similarly Edmund Leach argued on Fortes’ complementary filiation.
For Fortes, ties of affinity while generating importance to ties of descent came
under the expression, which Fortes called complementary filiation. For Leach both
segmentary lineage systems and primitive states could be identified by the system
of preferential unilateral marriage alliances which finally is linked to local descent
groups.
A neo-Malinowskian model was introduced during the same time which was
called the Transactional theory. In his study of a village named Pul Eliya in Sri
Lanka, Edmund Leach postulated that the reasoning behind social action was to
2.3 ALLIANCE THEORY
The alliance theory in the study of kinship is also known as the general theory of
exchange. It bears its roots to the French structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss and
hence is also known as the structural way of studying kinship ties. The alliance
theory was first discussed in Lévi-Strauss’ monumental book named Les Structures
élémentaires de la parenté (1949). Its English version is known as Elementary
Sturctures of Kinship. Alliance theory was quite popular during the 1960s and
went on to be discussed and deliberated till the 1980s where the issue of incest
taboo was taken up by not only anthropologists but also by psychologists, political
philosophers etc. Alliance theory tries to enquire about how inter-individual
relationships are woven and how finally they constitute society.
The theory developed to study those kinds of kinship systems which exemplify
positive marriage (cross-cousin marriage) rules. However besides providing
conjectures on marriage, it also provides a general theoretical awareness about
kinship. The study of marriage rules have been used from the initial days of kinship
studies to comprehend kinship terminologies. Scholars like W.H.R. Rivers also
used marriage (symmetrical cross-cousin marriage) and terminology (bifurcate
merging) and tried to exhibit a relationship between each other. For him the
marriage rule is the cause and the terminology is the effect. Australian kinship
system, which is quite perplexing, was also studied elaborately by anthropologists
to be familiar with their descent system. They too made use of marriage alliances
for this. Most scholars agree with each other on the notion that in symmetrical
cross-cousin marriage pacts, double descent is always seen, directly or indirectly.
However exponents of descent theories tried to go on about this through various
instances, like for example B.Z. Seligman’s tries to convert types of marriage to
forms of descent or Radcliffe-Brown’s extra stress upon descent where he finds
it worrying that the Australian kinship system has a core matrilineal exogamy along
2.3.2 Main Exponent
Alliance theory was categorically created by Claude Lévi-Strauss, though analytical
assessment has been also offered by Rodney Needham and Louis Dumont. Lévi
Strauss studied and observed the connections formed between consanguinity and
affinity in his investigation of non-European societies. These two are both opposed
and complementary to each other. Due to this rules of preferential marriage and
marriage prohibitions are an incorporated part of this theory. Such rules in fact rise
due to the connection between blood ties and affinal ties. It is the marriage ties,
according to Levi Strauss and many of his contemporaries which create
interdependence between families and lineages.
According to Levi-Strauss alliance theory is based on incest taboo and the
prohibition of incest is recognised universally. It is viewed as a fundamental condition
of human social life. A man is not allowed to make a woman his wife who is his
immediate kin and in fact he has to give her away to another man. It is this
prohibition of incest that led human groups to follow exogamy. Lévi-Struass says
this prohibition is beyond any sociological explanation and clearly shows a difference
between consanguinity and affinity as the basis of kinship system. For him incest
taboo is thus seen as a negative prescription and it is only because of this that men
had to move out of the core kinship group or come in from another group to it.
This theory has much similarity with Sigmund Freud’s work Totem and Taboo
(1913).
This process of incest taboo where a daughter or sister is sent to a different family
commences a circle of exchange of women. Strauss views marriage as primarily
a process of exchange (between one men and other men or between one domestic
group and others). He observes positive marriage rules from the negative
prescriptions of prohibition. The main notion of alliance theory is then a reciprocal
exchange which creates affinity. It is the positive marriage rules which regulates
this exchange and thus gives rise to what Strauss call ‘elementary’ structures.
For Lévi-Strauss, there are two models of structure in the study of kinship and
exchange in marriage. When women in the ego’s group are proposed to another
group which is eligible for such exchange then such a situation may be called as
elementary structures of kinship. Similarly if the group of possible spouses for the
women are not known and kept open in the ego’s group, excluding particular kin
people like the nuclear family, an uncle, an aunt etc, this Strauss terms as complex
structures of kinship. This is easily seen in the western scenario.
In a society, keeping in mind incest prohibition, a kinship system is made up of
a combination of many traits, like inheritance, affinity, descent, residence etc. and
an understanding is reached by the combination of these features as a whole. If
all the transmission between these features takes place systematically between
generations in one and the same line it is known as harmonic while it is said to
be disharmonic if some of it is passed patrilineally and some matrilineally. It was
observed that the rules of cross cousin marriage where it exists is associated with
this. Theoretically from this, three types of affinal relations can exist, bilateral
matirlateral and patrilateral. In bilateral cross cousin marriage, the spouse is mother’s
brother’s child and father’s sister’s child. It forms a self sufficient unit as two
intermarrying groups exchange women as wives. Lévi-Strauss calls this closed or
restricted exchange. He also connected it with disharmonic transmission.
In contrast to this, he talks about the implications of matrilineal cross-cousin
marriage. Here a man marries his mother’s brother’s daughter. So to elaborate if
a given line A gives their women to Line B and themselves take women from C,
finally at the end a circle is formed where Z after receiving from Y, will give back
to A. This is what Levi-Strauss class generalised form of exchange. It is opposed
to the closed type as it first consists of three groups and can accommodate any
number of groups. This type has similarities to harmonic transmissions, which are
either matrilineal or patrilineal.
It is the network of relationships which shows the identity of the intermarrying
group. Relationships that come out of different generations within the same group
of affines are terminologically compared. It is due to intermarriage being directionally
adapted to, hence a group does not receive wives from a group to which it gives
its daughters, as has been mentioned above. A possibility of disparity in status is
noted between wife-givers and wife takers. Levi-Strauss’ third type, the patrilateral
type has been superficially dealt with. It seems to be there in his discussion as a
failed hybrid of the other two.
Lévi-Strauss’ model tried to offer a proper description of cross-cousin marriage,
exchange of sisters, rules of exogamy etc. He postulated that it is the marriage
rules which after a certain period generate social structures. This he says is because
marriages are a coming together of not just two individuals but also of two groups.
With his root for such relationships as based on incest taboo, he formulated that
it was because of it that natural impulses were kept under check and it also
created the division of labour based on sex. We have discussed the former notion
in the above paragraphs about how women are exchanged and the latter idea
prescirbes work for women at a domestic level. As noted this exchange of wives
are arrangements which advances inter-group alliances and helps in creating
structures of social networks. The kinship structures that Levi-Strauss proposed
were of three kinds, which are created out from two types of exchange. They are
elementary, semi-complex and complex structures.
The first i. e. elementary structures are centered on rules of positive marriage
which indicate whom an individual can marry. Elementary systems work on two
forms of exchange, direct exchange or restricted exchange between two groups
of people which is symmetric. In restricted exchange, father’s sister and mother’s
brother marry and the children born out of them become bilateral cross cousins.
Then to maintain the continuity the two lineages marry again. Restricted exchange
structures are not very common.
Elementary structures have another form of exchange which is called generalised
exchange. Here a man can marry either his mother’s brother’s daughter, which is
a matrilateral cross-cousin marriage or his father’s sister’s daughter, which is a
patrilateral cross cousin marriage. These forms of exchange give rise to asymmetry
between three groups. According to Levi-Strauss matrilateral cross cousin marriages
are common in Asia, especially among the Kachin.
Compared to restricted exchange, generalised exchange was considered to be
finer as it permitted the incorporation of innumerable numbers of groups. Levi-
Strauss gave the example of Amazonian tribes who followed restricted form of
2.3.3 Analytical Assessment
Levi-Strauss’ alliance theory is not without its flaws. His arguments are based on
societies about which he has given examples of, which are clearly viripotestal and
also that his ideas of marriage was simple. The fundamental character and
explanatory value of exchange as defined by Levi Strauss faced some extreme
criticism. For supporters of consanguinity as a self-explanatory system, the
prohibiton of incest as the basis for the difference in consanguinity and affinity is
redundant. Marriage as been seen as a form of exchange was also questioned,
one because women were seen as possessions, private properties and also because
exchange was used in too wide a sense that it lost its meaning. Strauss’ main
confronter, R. Needham tried to make clear cut distinction between prescription
and preference in rules of marriage. For Needham, prescription on its own has
structural involvements in the whole social system. He states that if prescription
rules are seen not only as a marriage rule but as significant in the entire system,
then the danger arises in underrating the importance of other types, like preferential
marriage. These too have structural elements and the distinctions are sometimes
not visible at all.
The main development in the alliance theory which was observed was that there
was a refinement of the concept of alliance and to make to more empirical, it was
given a more structural identity. Initially the theory was mostly concerned with the
exchange of women between greater exogamous components of the society.
Needham tried to improve the notion that matrilateral marriage rules would result
in groups intermarrying in a circle. It was suggested that the marriage circle was
too limited in number and the people involved should be aware of them. Needham
further asserts that such alliance cycles do exist, and that too implicitly, however
their existence does not bring to an end the function or meaning of marriage
UNIT 3 MARRIAGE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Marriage is a phenomena found in all types of societies though the pattern of
marriage differs in different societies. The first section of the unit would introduce
the students to the concept, definition and meaning of marriage, the various types
of marraiges that are prevalent in different societies. Herein, we would be able to
answer the question as to why marriage rules though not similar among the different
societies yet have almost the same functions. With the changing times, marriage
too has come under the hammer and the institution itself is going through various
changes. These would be discussed in the last section of this unit.
3.2 CONCEPTS, MEANING AND DEFINITIONS
Marriage by most anthropologists has been described as a universal phenomena
yet the debate continues as to how marriage came into existence. In the early
year’s social thinkers and anthropologists basically the followers of the theory of
evolutionism were of the opinion that human beings lived in a state of promiscuity
where individual marriage did not exist. In such a society all the men had access
to all the women and the children thus, born were the responisbility of the society
at large. This slowly gave rise to group marriages to bring regulation and general
order in the society where either many men were married to several women or
sereval men were married to a single woman and vice- versa. However, later inthe day the natural instinct of jealousy imbedded in human beings has been assumed
as the reason behind single marriages to restore harmony in a society. So far in
the theoretical part Block 3 unit 1 Classical Theories, and also in Block 1 unit 2
Philosophical and Historical Foundations of Social Anthropology, we have discussed
that the earlier societies were nomadic and the rule of the age was anarchy, so it
is impossible to state exactly where and when marriage first originated. While
anthropologists like Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht (1861), McLennan Primitive
Marriage (1865) and others were of the view that society emerged out of mother
right, there were others like Sir Henry Maine through his work Ancient Law,
(1861) postulated that since the emergence of soceity the rule was partiarchy. So
far this goes, the debate continues. Leaving this aside let’s start with understanding
what the term ‘marriage’ stands for, instead of trying to focus on how marriage
originated, through some of the definitions provided by anthropologists who had
worked in this field.
George Peter Murdock (1949) has defined marriage as a universal institution that
involves residential co-habitation, economic co-operation and the formation of the
nuclear family. While Westermarck had emphasised on marriage as a recognised
union between a man and a woman, that the spouse live together and that the
couple have clearly recognised mutual sexual rights. These definitions could not be
considered as universal definition of marriage as it failed to encompass types of
marriages such as polygynous and polyandrous marriages. Such definitions also
did not take into account marriages where the spouses lived in separate residences
and societies where the responsibility of the child lies with the mother’s brother
rather than with the biological father. These are some of the aspects which we
would take up in later part of the unit.
Kathleen Gough (1959) in her study of the Nayars has defined marriage as a
‘relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which
provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by
the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal
members of his society or social stratum’. This definition of marriage by Gough
took into consideration polyandry which was missing in the earlier definitions.
While, Edward Westermarck in a later edition of his book, The History of Human
Marraiges, fifth edition rewritten 1921 due to the criticisms levied redefined
marriage as a social institution which may be defined as a relation of one or more
men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law, and involves
certain rights and duties both in the case of parties entering the union and in the
case of the children born in it. However, among the Azande of Sudan where
marraiges based on homosexuality is a prescribed norm it does not find a place
in the above definitions of marriage.
William N. Stephens defined marriage as ‘a socially legitimate sexual union, begun
with public pronouncement undertaken with the idea of permanence, assumed with
more or less explicit marriage contract which spells out reciprocal economic
obligations between spouses, and their future children’. This definition also fails to
take into considertaion the taboos that exist in various societies related to marriage.
Thus, for the convinience of anthropological discourse we would refer to the
definition of marriage as in Notes and Queries (given below) to understand the
types of marriages acceptable and practiced in 80% of the societies across the
world. The other forms of marriages would be taken up as variations from the
prescribed norm as they are acceptable only in a few societies
3.2.1 Prescribed and Preferential Marriages
Societies have their own norms when it comes to marriage whom to marry and
who is out of bounds. In certain societies there are certain rules of suitability based
on which a person has to acquire a mate. While selecting one’s mate one has to
follow certain rules and choose the bride/groom within these norms. A man/woman
might be prohibited from acquiring a mate who does not fall under the suitable
category as for example in the Hindu society a woman belonging to a higher caste
cannot marry a man belonging to a caste lower than her. Such, rules when strictly
followed even though when very few members of the suitable category are available
is termed as prescribed norms. The rules which are preferred but not strictly
followed are known as preferential norms. Cross cousin marriage in many societies
is seen as a preferential norm.
Incest taboo is a universal norm for almost all societies, which pertains to restrictions
in marriage and sexual relations among certain categories of close relatives generally
related by blood like father and daughter, mother and son and sometimes also
parallel cousins. Though, incest taboo was not prevalent among the earlier Greek
and the Hawaiian royal families where it was a prescribed norm for marriage. In
these ancient royal families it was believed that royalty could only be passed down
to the child of two royal family members, usually a brother and sister. The Tallensi
of Ghana also does not strongly prescribe to the norm of incest taboo between
brother and sister while a relationship between a man and the wife of a lineage
mate is an unpardonable sin (Mair, 1997).
The rules of either endogamy or exogamy are also prescribed norms in many
societies to which a man has to adhere while acquiring a mate. Endogamy refers
to marriage within a group, while exogamy means marriage outside the group.
Endogamy encompasses marriage within the believers of the same faith or religion,
caste in Hindu society and within members of the same tribe.
In societies where endogamy is prevalent parallel cousin marriage is the preferential
norm. Among such societies marriage between first cousins is permitted, though
where the rule of lineage exogamy is practiced cousin belonging to different lineage
is preferred. For easy understanding; the children of siblings of opposite sex
(brother- sister) – are called cross-cousins; while the children of siblings of the
same sex (brother-brother) are called parallel cousins. In many of the Islamic
societies a man marries his father’s brother’s daughter known as parallel cousin
marriage which is a very rare form of endogamy. The Kurds of eastern and
southeastern Turkey still continue with the practice of parallel cousin marriage.
Cross-cousin marriages are the preferential norm in societies where the rule of
exogamy is adhered to. A man’s lineage is traced either through his mother’s or
father’s side. If the lineage is traced through the father than marriage with his
aunt’s (father’s sisters) daughter is the preferred norm and when lineage is traced
through the mother than the preferred norm for marriage is mother’s brother’s
daughter. When a man marries a daughter of his mother’s brother it’s a matrilateral
cross-cousin marriage while if he marries a daughter of his father’s sister then
it’s a patrilateral cross-cousin marriage
3.2.2 Types of Marriages
Depending on the type of society, the marriage pattern and style also vary. Before
going into the depth of the topic let’s outline the types of marriages universally
found which are (a) Monogamy and (b) Polygamy. Monogamy is a form of
marriage in which the practice is to have only one spouse at one time. In the
western world the divorce rate is increasingly higher and serial monogamy is
witnessed. Serial monogamy pertains to a state where a man has a series of
wives one after the other, but only one wife at any given point of time. Thus, in
the United States where divorce rate is high but only monogamy is legal, serial
monogamy is widely noticed. In societies like the Hindu society of India monogamy
pertains to non-serial monogamy where a man has a single wife throughout his
life. In such societies the divorce rate is rare and as such it is the preferred norm.
Polygamy is a term derived from the Greek word polys gamos meaning often
married. It is a form of marriage in which an individual has more than one spouse
at any given time, or married to more than one individual. In polygamy when a
marriage involves one man with many women it is known as polygyny. The wives
of a man if sisters or related then such a marriage is known as sororal polygyny.
In many of the Islamic countries this practice is prevalent. In some Australian
Aboriginal societies, the elder brother often marries the two eldest sisters. While
the younger sisters of the wives’ would also marry their sisters’ husband’s younger
brother or brothers. This is said to create a clear advantage in power and selfsufficiency
in these societies. The Swazi society of Africa practice sororal polygyny.
In societies practicising sororal polygyny it is believed that two sisters have better
chances of getting along with one another rather than two unrelated women who
have not grown up together. It is a resilient approach because sisters are assumed
to have less of a competitive approach towards their husband’s affection because
as sisters they would be more inclined towards maintaining harmony and live in
mutual understanding.
The rules of residence in sororal polygyny differ from society to society. In some
societies the wives co-habits like among the Zulus of South Africa, while in the
Swazi society each wife sets up separate residence. Upon death of a husband, the
marriage does not come to an end. A blood relative of the husband assumes full
3.2.3 Ways of Acquiring a Mate
Marriage as the term implies has a lot of connotation in different societies. It does
not just mean a man finding a girl to be his wife. Even when a man chooses a mate
for himself he has to ascribe to the norms of the society while claiming his bride.
Herein, we would outline some of the prescribed customs in societies through
which a man can acquire a mate.
Marriage by negotiation is a very frequently practised way of acquiring a mate.
It is found in most of the simple societies like the Ituri of Congo region in Africa,
Siwai of Soloman Islands, the aboriginals of Australia, Andamanese of Andaman
Islands and also in complex societies like the Hindu society of India, China, Japan,
Europe and America. In such a system either the girl’s family or the boy’s family
(as per the custom) puts forward a propsal for marriage through a thrid party or
mediator. This third party is generally someone known to both the would be bride
and groom’s family. In Indian context it is also known as arranged marriage. In
earlier times the bride and groom meet each other only during the wedding, but
this rigidity is being relaxed now a days. In such a system bride price, bride
wealth, dowry also has an important role to play and it is usually a long drawn
process where consensus of the bride and groom’s family is all done by the
mediator.
Bridewealth is usually the compensation given upon marriage by the family of a
groom to the bride’s family. Varieties of currencies and goods are used for paying
the bridewealth depending upon the societies. Mostly the bridewealth is movable
property given by the groom’s family. For example reindeers are given as
bridewealth by the reindeer-herding Chukchee, sheep by the Navajo, cattles by
the Nuers, Maasai and Samburu of Africa, spears in Somalia etc. The amount of
bridewealth to be paid is based on various factors of which some are related to
the status of the broom’s family and others on the bride and her social acceptance
as prescribed by the society. For example: if a woman has given birth to a prenuptial
child than her bridewealth is very low whereas among the Kipsigis of
western Kenya if the distance of the brides natal home is very far away from the
marital home than the bride wealth is very high as she is able to spend less time
at her natal home and devote more time to the domestic chores in the husbands
home. In some cases if the groom’s family is not able to pay the bridewealth than
compensation is made in the means of bride service in the form of labour wherein
the groom goes to the brides house and helps in the hunting, farming and other
related activities. The time span of the bride service varies from society to society
and it might last from a few months to several years (Nanda et.al). Dowry on the
other hand is the transfer of goods and money from the bride’s family to the
groom’s family. Previously a practiced norm in the Hindu society, the tradition of
dowry was prohibited in 1961 under Indian civil law and subsequently by Sections
304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code. The move was made to protect the
women from dowry related harassment and domestic violence.
Marriage by exchange also forms a part of the marriage by negotiation system.
Herein, such a system the bride price or bride wealth, whichever is applicable to
the society, is waived off by marriage through exchange. This happens generally
if there are daughters or sisters for exchange for the grooms. This helps in not only
forming an alliance but also strengthens the bond between groups. Examples of
such excahnge is seen is societies of Australia, Melanesia, Tive of Nigeria and also
in the some of the tribes in India- Muria Gonds, Baiga of Bustar and the Koya
and the Saora of Andhra Pradesh. (Majumdar 1986, Jha 1994 et.al)
3 5
Marriage by service is found among some of the tribes in North East India.
Among the Naga’s of North East India the bride wealth forms a part of the
marriage negotiation and if the groom’s party is not able to pay the bride wealth
then the compensation is through service. The boy works for the bride’s family
and only when the brides family is satisfied that the marriage is solemnised.
Marriage by probation invloves the consent of the brides parents alongwith the
girls consent wherein the groom stays at the brides place on trial basis. Herein,
the groom is allowed to stay with the girl so that they both get to know each
others temperament and if the girl likes the boy the marriage takes place, else the
boy has to pay compensation in cash to the girl’s family. Among the Kukis of
Manipur of India such a marriage is a practised norm (ibid).
Marriage by capture is found in many societies. The capture can be a physical
capture or a ceremonial one. Among the tribes of Yahomamo of Venezuela, Northern
Brazil and the Nagas of Nagaland in India during raids the men from one village
capture and take home females of the other village and marry them as wives. Such
a situation is ascribed as physical capture. In ceremonial capture a boy desiring
to marry a girl propositions her in a community fair or festival and makes his
intentions towards her known by either holding her hand or marking her with
vermillion as in the case of Kharia and the Birhor of Bihar (ibid).
Marriage by intrusion is a type of marriage wherein a girl forces her way into
the boy’s house and forces him to accept her as his spouse. Such marriages are
seen in Birhor and Ho of Bihar and also among the Kamars of Madhya Pradesh.
Marriage by trial is a process in which the groom has to prove his strength and
valour while claiming his bride. In the two great Indian epics Mahabharata and the
Ramayana we have examples of how Draupadi and Sita were claimed by Arjuna
and Lord Rama after they proved their skills in the swayamvar (a gathering where
the eligible males are invited to prove their strength to claim the bride). Such
marriages by trail are still found in many societies in India and some of the
examples are the Bhils of Rajasthan and the Nagas of Nagaland.
Marriage by Elopement is a customary marriage in some societies whereas
looked down in others. In societies where a huge amount of wealth is required for
the marriage rituals and which is usually difficult for the families to bear in such
societies marriage by elopment has come up as a customary practice. Such marriage
is quite in vogue among the Karbis of Karbi Anglong district of Assam. In other
cases marriage by elopment takes place when either of the prospective groom or
bride’s family does not approve of the wedding or when marriage is fixed with a
distasteful partner. In such a case, the would be bride elopes with the partner of
her choice. Such marriage by eleopment is seen in almost all parts of the world
(ibid).
3.2.4 Divorce
Divorce is the situation wherein the husband and wife separates and gives up the
vows of marriage. It can happen due to many reasons and the most common one
is incompatibility of the two partners. Divorce is a situation which can be unpleasant
and painful for both the parties as it leads not only to physical separation of two
people, but all that has been build up during the time together like family, children
and material objects. Divorce is also a universally accepted norm as marriage but
still it is looked down in many societies more so in the case of the wife in a
patrilineal society.
Marriage
3.3 FUNCTIONS OF MARRIAGE
Marriage is a sanction for two people to spend their lives together and it has many
implications and functions related to it. Some of the functions are mentioned
herein.
Biological Function
The most important function of a marriage is to beget children. The society gives
recognition to children born out of wedlock and the children thus born are ascribed
status as per the norms of the society. A society basically channelizes the sexual
rights through the institution of marriage and it helps in mating within the rules and
regulations as ascribed by a society. This helps in maintaining the norms of incest
taboo also.
Economic Functions
In order to do away with the discrimination of labour by sex, marriage comes in
as a protective measure wherein the men share their produce with the wives.
Marriage leads to an economic co-operation between men and women ensuring
the survival of every individual in a society.
Social Function
Marriage is the way to forming a family. A marriage sanctions the status of both
husband and wife in a society and thus, they are also collectively accepted by
society as husband and wife. In many societies there are norms where only a
married person can take part in the rituals. For example in the Hindu society there
is a ritual during wedding in which the bride is blessed with oil. In this ceremony
atleast seven married women hold a ring with the tip of their right hand forefinger
on the brides head. Oil then is poured on this ring by the married women. It is
believed that the oil which pours down from the head to below takes away all the
evil and brings in good luck to the would be husband and wife. Normally, widows
and divorcees do not take part in such rituals. Marriage helps in forming new
kinsmen and widening his network.
3.4 DEVIATIONS IN MARRIAGE
Till now we have discussed the general trend that we had seen in the societies so
far that has been observed and written by anthropologists at different times. Herein
this section we would discuss about the deviations in the marriage rules and the
coming up of new types of kinship and family due to a change in the pattern of
mate selection. In the present era two new types of relationship has emerged
which were not prominent in the earlier days – lesbian and gay relationship. A
lesbian relationship is based on the liking of a girl for another girl instead of a man
as it happens in the normal course. Anthropologist Gill Shepherd explored female
sexual relationships among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa, Kenya, and found that
relationships between females were perfectly acceptable, as were relationships
between men. Women were allowed to choose other women as sexual partners
after they are married; so many such women also have a husband at home, or are
widowed or divorced (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cultural_Anthropology/
Marriage,_Reproduction_and_Kinship#Lesbianism_in_Mombasa accessed on 23rd
March, 2011). In other cases in the present day a women has sanction by law to
take up another women as legally wedded. Such marriages are certified by law
in a few American States like Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon. In 2005
3.4 DEVIATIONS IN MARRIAGE
Till now we have discussed the general trend that we had seen in the societies so
far that has been observed and written by anthropologists at different times. Herein
this section we would discuss about the deviations in the marriage rules and the
coming up of new types of kinship and family due to a change in the pattern of
mate selection. In the present era two new types of relationship has emerged
which were not prominent in the earlier days – lesbian and gay relationship. A
lesbian relationship is based on the liking of a girl for another girl instead of a man
as it happens in the normal course. Anthropologist Gill Shepherd explored female
sexual relationships among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa, Kenya, and found that
relationships between females were perfectly acceptable, as were relationships
between men. Women were allowed to choose other women as sexual partners
after they are married; so many such women also have a husband at home, or are
widowed or divorced (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cultural_Anthropology/
Marriage,_Reproduction_and_Kinship#Lesbianism_in_Mombasa accessed on 23rd
March, 2011). In other cases in the present day a women has sanction by law to
take up another women as legally wedded. Such marriages are certified by law
in a few American States like Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon. In 2005
FAMILY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
When a child is born, he/ she is born into a family which is known as the smallest
social unit. Family is the social unit which endows the child with social norms,
values, rules and regulations through the process of enculturation. This unit would
help the students understand the social institution of family, how it emerged, its
concepts, definitions and functions as a social unit. The focus would also be on
the changing dimensions that have taken place in the family structure.
A family is established through marriage which is known as the nuclear family;
the unit of one set of parents and children, is often embedded in larger groupings
like joint families, lineages, clans and domestic groups of various kinds. The relatives
connected through the father or the patriline are called as agnates and those
connected through the mother or matriline are called as uterine, a combination of
these or all relatives from side of both parents are called as cognates. The basic
family also presupposes a monogamous marriage while in actuality there can be
a polygamous marriage by virtue of which even the basic unit may be differently
constituted. Since the incest taboo makes the family discontinuous over generations,
every adult belongs to two families, one in which he/she is born and another that
is established through marriage; these are known respectively as the family of
orientation and the family of procreation. Let us now consider each of these
aspects in details.
4.2 CONCEPTS, MEANINGS AND DEFINITIONS
How has the concept of family emerged? Was family always a part of society?
These are certain questions which would be taken up in this section alongwith the
various definitions of family postulated by anthropologists. The word family has its
origin in the Latin word familia derived from famulus meaning servant. Familia
must have been used to refer to all the slaves and servants living under one roof,
including the entire household that is the master, on the one hand, and the wife,
children and servants living under his control. Today when we use the term family
it covers all the various groups of relatives representing a household (all the
individuals living under one roof), gens (all those descended from a common
ancestor), agnatic (relatives on the father’s side) and cognatic (relatives on the
mother’s side, and then by extension all blood relatives).
The family though considered universal in nature found in all types and levels of
societies and cultures, yet it is difficult to trace the origin. In the early years of the
anthropological history the origin of family, how it emerged in society was much
discussed and debated. Followers of the evolutionary theory were of the opinion
that family as an institution has evolved just like the society. Lewis Henry Morgan
in his work Ancient Society (1877) stated that in the early societies the concept
of family was not prevalent. Such societies were nomads and promiscus where
free sex relations were prevalent thus, the role of the father was not important and
the mother-sib was the earliest form of grouping. He stated, ‘The principal institutions
of mankind originated in savagery, were developed in barbarism, and are maturing
in civilization. In like manner, the family has passed through successive forms, and
created great systems of consanguinity and affinity which have remained to the
present time. These systems, which record the relationships existing in the family
of the period, when each system respectively was formed, contain an instructive
record of the experience of mankind while the family was advancing from the
consanguine, through intermediate forms, to the monogamian’ (1877:18). Though
today, Morgan’s evolutinary scheme is not followed, his work is important as he
gave the first classification of five forms of family based on five different types of
marriage.
4.3 FUNCTIONS OF A FAMILY
The family as a social group is universal in nature and its existence is seen at all
levels of cultures. Thus, the family having a status in society also has certain
responsibilities and functions. The basic functions of a family are outlined below:
Satisfaction of biological need
The family as an institution regularises the satisfatcion of biological needs. It
serves for the institutionalisation of mating a primodial need among all humans.
Family helps in channeling of sexual outlets by defining the norms with whom
one can mate and who are out of bound in the terms of incest taboo. Family
thus helps in establishing a legal father for a woman’s children and a legal
mother for a man’s children.
Reproduction and Inbibing Social Values
A child as we have learnt is born into a family. As soon as a child is born
into a family he is entitled to certain social position, system of beliefs, language,
parents and kins as per the family sytem that he is born into. This family
nutures the child and imbibe in him the ways of the society through the
process of enculturation preparing him to accept statuses of adulthood.
Economic
A family as a social group is responsible for satisfying the basic needs of its
members like food, clothes and shelter. In order to achieve this objective all
the members of a family cooperate and divide the work among themselves
and make contribution towards the upkeeping of the family. Emile Durkheim
in his book Division of labour has brought forth this fact and laid emphasis
on economic satisfaction of the need of a family. It thus, serves as the
4.4 CHANGING DIMENSION OF FAMILY
Till now we have been focusing on the traditional norms and what comprises a
family. We have been concerned with the classical terminology in which a family
has been described and concieved but with the changing times the composition,
meaning and definition of family have also under gone changes. The high divorce
rate and remarriage in the present era leads to a tangled nuclear family leading to
the creation of complex kinship relations also. Presently the blended family is
coming up which comprises of networks which include previously divorced spouses
and their new marriage partners and sometimes children from the previous marriages,
as well as multiple sets of grandparents and other similar relations also. Then,
again there is the surrogate motherhood as discussed in Unit 1 of the same block
which also leads to a different type of family besides adoption. Divorces at times
also lead to families with a single parent either the children staying with mother or
at times with father. In the present day scenario single parenthood and a single
parent household is fast overtaking the nuclear family due to the rise in divorces.
Society being dynamic, we see a lot of changes and such changes have occurred
in the family system and the conception of the family itself. As we have learnt in
the last section of the Unit 1 about lesbian and gay kinship, these new patterns
have also arisen in the family structure – lesbian and gay family. In a lesbian and
gay family the partners usually adopt kids of either sex. There has been a lot of
debate in the recent past on whether or not a same sex couple should be allowed
to parent children, whether artificially implanted or adopted. This debate has gone
on for so long mainly because many religious groups believe that children can only
be properly parented by a father and mother combination. As most of the religions
do not sanction the union of same sex couples and also believe that the child will
suffer if parented by the same sex (Nanda & Warms, 2011). While the upcoming
feminist movement and many welfare agencies have strongly vouched for the
competency of two people as adults regardless of gender to be allowed to adopt
a child and care for the same. This fact is based on the idea that heterosexual
couples often have problems raising children, too. Research has found no major
differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two
mothers and other fatherless families. In 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman overturned
KINSHIP, FAMILY AND MARRIAGE IN INDIA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit will introduce the students to the concepts of kinship, family and marriage
with illustrative examples from India. We shall touch upon a few debates and also
see that at times the representation of Indian society has been more idealistic than
actual. We shall make an attempt to represent the family and marriage practices
of all sections of Indian society rather than being confined to the sanskritic or
textual norms. It must be emphasised that although marriage and family are universal
for human societies the form and practices vary considerably across cultures and
are also not static, and change with times and situations. As the definitions of
kinship, marriage and family has been elaborated in the earlier units, they would
not be taken up here.
5.2 MARRIAGE
There has been considerable debate about the definition of marriage given the
huge ethnographic variations in what passes as marriage in various societies. The
basic working definition of marriage appeared in the Notes and Queries (1951)
“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to
the woman are recognised as legitimate offspring of both parents”. However such
a definition of marriage as is obvious is highly Eurocentric and has limited cross
cultural applicability. Among the Nuer for example, a rich widow with no children
can enter into a ghost marriage with a young and fertile woman so that the children
born to the ‘wife’ are socially considered as children of the dead man and become
legitimate heirs. In India the practice of Niyoga enabled a 50 young widow to achieve
the same end through a brother /classificatory brother or family priest. However
as Kathleen Gough has pointed out the fact of producing legitimate children does
remain the most important function of marriage. She was replying to scholars like
Edmund Leach who were of the opinion that the Nayars of Kerala did not have
a real marriage as the father had no role in the identity of the children who took
on the mother’s name and identity in a matrilineal system of inheritance. The
society had no social role of father as the children were begotten through visiting
husbands who were only sexual partners to the mother and had no rights over
their children. The mother’s brother wielded authority in households comprising of
brothers and sisters and the sister’s children. However Gough points out that
every Nayar woman did undergo a marriage ceremony with a person of proper
caste ranking and wore the tali (a kind of necklace worn as a sign of marital
status). Although the husband did not have any social role, he did have a ritual
status of legitimizing the woman to be socially sanctioned to bear legitimate children.
A woman observed pollution rites at the death of this husband like a woman
would of a regular husband. More importantly if a woman bore a child before this
marriage ceremony the child would be considered illegitimate and the mother and
child banished. Thus a Nayar marriage was a proper marriage in bestowing legal
and social status on the child. She gave a often quoted definition of marriage as
“—a relationship between a woman and one or more other person, which provides
that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules
of the relationship, is accorded full birth status rights common to normal members
of his society or social stratum” (Gough 1959:32).
Gough’s definition takes care of polygamy that is both polygyny, where a man
may have more than one wife and polyandry, where a woman may have more
than one husband. While polygyny was practiced in many parts of world and is
often associated with horticulture and the practice of bride-wealth, polyandry is
found only in South Asia. Polygyny is associated with those economies where
women play a significant role in the economy, like in hoe cultivation and also
where the number of wives signifies high social status as among the aristocracy of
the East. However polyandry is confined to some rare geographical regions
especially among some communities of the Himalayas, like the Jaunsaries and
Kinnauries; also among some Tibetan and Bhutiya communities. In most such
societies it takes the form of fraternal polyandry where a group of brothers may
have a wife in common. In Hindu mythology polyandry is described in the
Mahabharata where five Pandava brothers have a common wife in Draupadi.
Some scholars have criticized Gough’s definition in that she does not take into
account those societies where children from concubines may also have legitimate
status.
Polygyny has often given rise to conflicts of succession between children, especially
sons of co-wives, as depicted in the popular Hindu epic The Ramayana. According
to law giver Manu, the son of a wife of proper caste ranking and who has been
married in the most appropriate manner, that is gifted as a virgin by her father with
proper ritual has more rights than the sons of other wives and concubines.
5.2.1 Caste and Marriage
In India caste and marriage are almost inseparable among the Hindu majority and
except the indigenous populations, caste is found even among Muslims and Christians
in India. Caste does not aptly describe the Indian social organisation based on two
levels of differentiation, one at the abstract level of Varna, where all beings are
Kinship, Family and
Marriage in India
51
Kinship, Marriage and
Family
5 2
divided into four broad and ranked categories, Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas
and Shudra; plus a category that lies outside the varna system the untouchables
(asprcya or achuyt). At the actual level of social interaction including marriage
and kinship it is the ‘jati’ an endogamous and geographically localised group that
is the effective social unit. Thus jati is an extended kin group as for any person
all relationships of blood and marriage will lie inside one’s own jati. However
rules of exogamy were operative within the jati in the form of gotra exogamy and
sapinda exogamy.
Gotra is a group based on socially constructed mythical ancestry, where some
mythical divine being in the form of an ancient sage is considered the common
ancestor of the group. Since only Brahmins could be the descendants of the rishis
(ancient sages), all other varna had probably taken on the gotra of their presiding
family priests. While gotra exogamy is found among all Hindus, the Sa-pinda
(Sa=together, pinda= a ball of rice) rules are applicable mostly in North India.These
include all those who have right to offer panda (ritual offering to a dead person)
to a man. All those who share the same body, metaphorically the same flesh,
belong to the sapinda category. It includes those who are putatively related by
blood and excludes those who are related by marriage, thus a son and brother’s
son is sapinda but not a son-in-law.
Depending upon the community, the rule of sapinda exogamy was extended to all
persons descended from certain generations from the father’s and mother’s side.
The most common expression of this rule was that a person must not marry
someone who may have a direct male ancestor in the direct male (father’s) line
up to seventh ascending generation and up to fifth ascending generation in the
mother’s line. This obviously excluded all collateral kin through the blood line.
In south Indian kinship the rule of Gotra exogamy is prevalent but not that of Sa-
Pinda exogamy as certain persons in collateral lines are eligible for marriage.
5.3 NORTH AND SOUTH INDIAN KINSHIP
In addition to the practice of polygyny and hypergamy, marriages in North India
are marked by a higher status given to the bride receivers than the bride givers,
thereby giving the man’s family a higher social status than a woman’s family that
has resulted in a general degrading of women in society, where the mother of a
son receives more prestige than the mother of a daughter and the birth of a
daughter is viewed as a lowering of rank of her entire family. Among the status
conscious Rajputs of North-Western India, it is this status consciousness that is
one of the reasons for widespread female infanticide as the father of a daughter
feels socially degraded. This is also the reason why there is no preference for
women exchange, rather women preferably move in the same direction, that is it
is preferred that sisters be married to a set of brothers rather than an exchange
of siblings take place as it is done in Bengal, in the custom of Palti Bodol, where
to save on dowry, siblings can be exchanged if they are otherwise properly matched.
Since the practice of exogamy is done at the village level, entire villages stand in
relations of bride givers and bride receivers with appropriate rankings and taboos.
Thus a person from a bride giving village will not accept even water from a bride
receiving village.
In South India there are two distinct differences, the first is the separation of the
cross and parallel siblings of the parents and a merging of the grandparents
generation in terms of kinship terminology that had led the south Indian kinship
terminology to be labelled as “bifurcate-merging’, the second is the practice of
what was referred to as the practice of cross-cousin marriage by those following
the ‘descent school’ in kinship studies. In South India it is preferred that a boy
marry his mother’s brother’s daughter or his father’s sisters daughter, neither of
which categories is referred to as a ‘sister’ and the father’s sister and mother’s
brother are also referred to by the same term as used for mother-in-law and
father-in-law.
Louis Dumont in his analysis of kinship on what he calls as the principle of affinity,
takes a different theoretical stand. According to Dumont, where there exists
positive marriage regulations, that is some categories of kin are ear marked for
marriage, the following criteria apply;
1) Marriage becomes part of an institution of marriage alliance, which spans the
generations. This is in opposition to the descent theorist’s views that marriage
relations are confined to one generation and only descent runs through
generations.
India joint living is not found at all, Channa (1985). As rightly pointed out by Shah
land ownership often provides the economic base for joint living. For households
who have to live off their daily earnings it is a difficult proposition to pool in the
earnings at the end of the day and go for joint living. What the earlier authors had
relied upon was an ideal basis for the family based on values and scriptural norms.
But in reality the economic and political considerations determine at the actual
level what shape is going to be taken by the household. The main resource of the
dhobis for example are the households, referred to them as grahak (clients) from
whose houses they get clothes to be washed. As a couple get older their capacity
to wash and iron clothes decrease. When a son grows up he gets a few clients
from his father but most of his clientele he can built up on his own depending upon
the capacity for hard work, initiative and luck both of his own and that of his wife.
Very soon after their marriage young couples prefer to set up their own chullah
or hearth, in other words set themselves up as separate production and consumptions
units separate from their parents. Because the young couple does not want that
they should do all the hard work and the aging parents should share the fruits of
their labour. Unless they get very old and disabled, their children rarely support
parents.
According to Shah, among the upper castes and elite section families of society,
the sentiments and bonds, both economic and social continue to operate even if
the members are living in different locations because of necessities of work, or
lack of urban space or any such factor; For example, children of middle class
families who are settled abroad or in different places within the country, still
consider the parental house as their own, returning for major ceremonies and
events on a regular basis. Economically too the bonds of sharing and cooperation
persist even from a distance. Thus the joint family as noted by Shah is acquiring
a ‘federal’ multi-centred character.
However in some parts of India, apart from the joint families, or joint sentiments
based on monogamous marriages, some different forms of families are also present.
The polyandrous families are still found in some hilly areas like Himachal, where
it is considered good to marry a set of brothers to a single woman so that scarce
resources of land can be preserved and since these communities still depend upon
sheep grazing and agriculture, the undivided household of several brothers and
their wife leads to more prosperity.
Among the Khasis of Meghalaya, the family property and name is inherited in the
female line with the youngest daughter inheriting the family house and property.
The husband of the youngest daughter in a Khasi family comes to live with her and
she is primarily responsible for the performance of all the household rituals. The
family name also runs in the female line. Thus the patrilineal and patrilocal family
is not absolutely universal in India.
The practice of resident-son-in-law, also called ghar-jawai, ghar-jamai or magpa
is found among many communities of India. Among the Bhutiyas and other hill
people it is a common practice with the son-in-law becoming like the adopted son
of his parents in law and even performing their death rituals. Among the Tibetans
and Bhutiyas the daughter has inheritance rights and even when the resident sonin-
law performs the rituals like a son, it is the daughter who is socially recognised
as the mistress of the property and remains dominant over her husband.
The Muslim households usually follow the Hindu pattern with the wealthy families
living in large joint households and the poorer ones living mostly in nuclear families
5.4.1 The House-hold Dimension of the Family
In addition to the class and caste based difference a family can be viewed in terms
of its development over time and Shah has described the developmental cycle of
the Indian family following the model given by Meyer Fortes. Even the simple of
basic family may exhibit different structures depending upon the stage at which it
is found. The basic household in India is called a ‘chullah’ or ghar. The following
possible compositions are possible
1) Husband, wife and unmarried children
2) Husband and Wife (when there are no children born or they have left the
household by marriage or migration)
3) Father and unmarried children (when the wife is dead or divorced)
4) Mother and unmarried children (for same reasons as above)
5) Unmarried brothers and sisters (because of death of parents)
6) A single man or woman (for various reasons of death or separation or
migration).
In the formation of the simple household, the terms “children”, “father” and “mother”
also include all step children and adopted children, step mothers and adoptive
mothers and step father and adoptive fathers so that in reality a simple family may
at times be a ‘compound family’.
The actual power structure of the household may also vary. Thus widowed mothers
may play a considerable significant role in the affairs of their sons even though by
the rules of patriliny the son inherits the father’s status. Similarly the role of women
as wives and daughters may also be significant in certain situations.
As Shah points out the development process of the household is not random but
may follow a pattern depending on the following factors.
1) The demographic factor, like birth, marriage and death and also the sex ratio
and the actual number of persons who come to live in a household by what
is known as the process of accretion.
2) The second depends on the norms of residence that may also vary; like for
example the phenomenon of the resident son-in-law and the norms regarding
residence of parents.
WhatsApp