Love, particularly the marital aspect of love, is an innovative research topic in twentieth century anthropology. Many historians contend that romantic love is a novel invention from the Age of Enlightenment and so can only be experienced by elite societies. In this essay I examine the ways ‘the West’ has been placed above ‘the rest’, particularly in terms of the supposed shift from arranged to love marriages. I discuss Anthony Giddens’ (1990) theories on modernity and question the relevance of modernity to love. I contrast Giddens’ ideas to the views of William Jankowiak, Helen Fisher and Elizabeth Gilbert’s research who assert that love is an innate emotion and thus, a universal experience. I contend that marriages transform their style and function in response to changing societies. In order to identify the differences between love and arranged marriages and, their affect on personhood I examine the capricious features of religion, agency, honour, sexuality and gender in Perveez Mody’s ethnographic research in ‘The Intimate State’ (2008). I then draw on Gilbert’s autobiographical accounts and Strathern’s (1988) concepts of the individual and dividual to avow that a ‘successful’ love marriage is a delicate balance of interdependence.
Romantic love and the supposed evolution of love marriages have been rationalised as a product of modernity (Lipset 1990; Giddens 1990). Anthony Giddens and many other historians alike believe that the European Enlightenment in the seventeenth century was a catalyst to the West’s evolution in becoming modern and self-reflexive subjects (Lipset 1990, 1991; Aries 1962; Rougement 1974). Modernity refers to de-traditionalising socio-cultural customs, rejecting feudalism, and an emergence of capitalism and industrial order (Giddens 1990:11). It was assumed that romantic love was exclusive to the culturally refined societies who have the time and sophistication to engage in a supposedly complex task (Jankowiak 1990:1). Giddens (1990:37) emphasises that modern persons are characterised by their self-reflexivity, and in effect condemns that traditional societies are not capable of self-contemplation.
What is characteristic of modernity is not an embracing of the new, but the presumption of wholesale reflexivity- which of course includes reflection upon the nature of reflection itself (Giddens 1990:39)
However, René Descartes’ (1644) philosophical statement ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ defined all humanity as self-reflexive as it is the factor that seems to set us apart from all other creatures. Therefore, I contend that the theory that modernity influenced the rise of self-reflexivity and thus, romantic love only in the West is an egocentric approach that places the West over the rest.
As I reject the assumption that romantic love is a product of modernity I instead contend that marriage changes its function and style in response to fluctuating societal conventions. I believe that romantic love is a universal phenomenon (Jankowiak, 1995; Gilbert 2010) and so it is not the primal emotion of love that transforms but the role of marriage. Research into romantic love in non-Western cultures has been practically non-evident until recent years (Jankowiak, 1995). William Jankowiak contends that the freedom to select a partner was not a European innovation and is near-universally experienced. In an examination of 166 cultures Jankowiak and Edward Fischer (1992) found that 148 cultures displayed romantic love - 89 per cent (1995:4, 11). Additionally, there are a myriad of ancient art that portray romantic love all across the globe; the love story of Isis and Osiris written in Egypt over three thousand years ago (Wolkstein 1991); Ovid’s romantic love poems in the first century B.C. in ancient Rome (Melville 1990); even ancient Arabic poems influenced European notions of romantic love i.e. the story of Layla and Majnun inspired the tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet (Davis & Davis, 1995). Fisher (1995) asserts that love is an innate part of our primary emotions like fear, anger or joy that evolved
Four million years ago in conjunction with the primary human reproductive strategy, serial pair bonding, to rear successive altricial young through their periods of infancy
Therefore, romantic love is an emotion we can all experience. However, I argue that marriage is dictated by the social-cultural demands within a given time.
Cicero (cited by Gilbert 2010:52) contends that, “The First Bond of Society is Marriage” therefore highlighting the functional importance of marriage to social order. I argue that marriage styles vary in terms of its function; two men could marry in ancient Rome or two children in Medieval Europe to secure agriculture or investments; in China ghost marriages (marrying someone who is already dead) were performed to maintain or gain fortunes. Marriages seem to have no predictable pattern of change as they vary with customs. Religions alike have not been consistent with their views on marriage, particularly the Catholic Church (Gilbert 2010:55). The Old Testament had always advocated the importance of love marriages, sex and keeping the blood lineage whereas the New Testament brought innovative ideas of treating everyone as kin but, in an attempt to create heaven here on earth, it was advocated to repress all sexual desires as to be more like angels (Gilbert 2010:56). Although the New Testament brought rise to individual choice and the acceptance of ‘the other’ it was an apocalyptic religion and therefore, held little focus on procreation and avertedly replaced sex with shame. Gilbert contends that the way we live also effects marriage; in nomadic times individuals would seek safety and security within partners, later with the formation of cities and villages marriage turned to a way of managing wealth and social order (Gilbert 2010:61). The freedom to select one’s partner (love marriages) can be traced back to medieval times; in medieval Germany people could marry for economic or personal reasons and two types of legal marriage were permitted, a Muntehe (a permanent contract) or Friedelehe (a casual living arrangement). However, in the thirteenth century, Gilbert (2010:64) states that ‘the church got involved’ and instead of trying to create heaven on earth were rather occupied with ‘controlling their growing empire’. In 1215, Pope Innocent III forbade divorces and only permitted marriages under the church order, turning marriage into a ‘life sentence’ (Gilbert 2010:64). A legal notion of coverture was then enforced, taking away women’s rights upon marriage. Gilbert (2010:66) affirms that these laws were maintained for longer than they should have; as it was not until 1975 that a married woman in Connecticut could legally open bank accounts or take out loans without her husband’s permission. And only in 1984 the state of New York overturned ‘the marital rape exemption’ that allowed a man to do anything he liked to his wife; no matter how violent it was (Gilbert 2010:66-7). As much as we would like to believe that ‘the West’ has broken off from the negative connotations of ‘unfair’ arranged marriages, even supposedly ‘modern’ places like America have their exceptions. There are extreme instances of racism that have limited any marriage or procreation at all, for instance; Paul Popenoe’s program of breeding only the ‘fit’ and, the imperceptible rights of slaves who were deemed unfit to make choices or to marry. These erratic patterns of marriage leads me to discern that we are not moving in a particularly predictable or practical direction rather, marriage transforms in response to fickle societal norms and limitations on the individual.
Taking a particular interest in how marriage shapes a person I endeavour to identify the differences between arranged and love marriages. As I reject the idea that love marriages were a product of modernity I examine specific facets that set love and arranged marriages apart; particularly the roles of religion, honour, sexuality, agency and gender rights. In northern India arranged marriages are seen as a ‘religious union’ in which Hindu and Muslim parents give the gift of a virgin girl to a respectable son, as per the parents’ judgement (Mody 2008). In this respect, the person views themself as a part of a religious collective; the marriage is formed by kin and sanctified by God with the gift of subsequent love. Mody translates from an ethnographic interview:
Love is a gift from God, gifted to two people on the day of their marriage. Love isn’t something that one does, that is lust. Love is given, only by God.
There is a focus on divine love and in the process of marriage the couple become followers who respect others’ wishes in hope of reaching enlightenment or salvation. Alternatively, love marriages in Delhi challenge this belief and so are seen as ‘defiant love’ that represents the most ‘unholy union’ which disorders the ‘natural’ caste system (Mody 2008:8-9). Love marriages are characterised by a freedom to choose a partner however, in Delhi this is not advocated and so the degree of agency is obscure. Mody cites Strathern’s (1998) ‘Gender of the Gift’ research of Melanesian personhood to conceptualise agency in love marriage. Mody adopts Strathern’s concepts of the dividual and individual to assert that persons in love marriages need to juggle both “agency and personhood”; the individual love relationship and dividual legal and community restraints in urban Delhi. Mody gives an ethnographic example of a love marriage between Subhash and Indu prevented because of family honour. Subhash and Indu began their ‘love-affair’ in April 1995 however, in July 1997 Indu had a rishta (proposal) from another person of her caste, Subhash was not of her caste. Initially for Indu “honour came after love, [as] she was willing to challenge her parents through a court-marriage.” (208). However, Subhash considered that disobeying his father would be jeopardising both his income and honour. Hence, agency is a “double-edged sword” whereby persons have to consider ‘self-agency’ and ‘self-as-agent-of-groups’ (46).
Subhash’s honour and selfhood are dependent on him maintaining his own father’s honour, Indu’s family’s honour and that of a third party betrothed to his beloved.
Similarly, Indu ends up sacrificing her own individual happiness by honouring her parents’ wishes; “she permits her agency to be appropriated by her parents, such that her strength and honour in resisting their pressures is now theirs to domesticate.” (Mody 2008:211). Mody contends that in India the meaning of marriage is not of sexuality or consummation but of forming social and moral relations between kinships. However, this is not so in Indu’s case as it is deemed ‘unnatural’ that she has not had sex with her arranged partner (Mody 2008:216). Indu has a divorce from her first marriage as she is truly unhappy and asks Subhash for marriage albeit, still against her parents’ will. Subhash is discomforted by her immodest sexuality and rejects her offer for letting her sexuality be dictated by her parents in her first marriage (Mody 2008:220). This is an instance of both love and arranged marriages failing due to the fickleness of agency, sexuality and shame. Gender can also restrict the degree of agency in both types of marriage (Mody 2008:156). In Delhi, women who return from an elopement (love marriage) will often be rejected by kin as she is presumed to be no longer a virgin fit for a respectable son however, men can easily find a wife again and assimilate back into the community regardless of past relations (Mody 2008:155). In the most extreme cases women are killed by their fathers or brothers to remove the family shame i.e. Rajput clans (Mody 2008:198). Hence, agency can be dictated by gender, sexuality and shame.
As love marriages are associated with the freedom of choice I challenge whether the promotion of individual agency forms ‘successful’ matrimonies. I define successful as a fulfilling and everlasting relationship. Elizabeth Gilbert (2010) interviews Hmong women, from the mountains of Vietnam, and makes careful comparisons between their dividual culture and her own individual American nation. Hmong women do not place their marriage at the centre of their existence whilst in America the person you choose to marry is expected to be a best friend, academically equal and inspiring; Hmong women find these qualities in kin. Gilbert contends that while women in America look for a man who can inspire them, Hmong brides only ask for the “gift of certainty” (Gilbert 2010:47). From face value, it seems that the Hmong women are a part of a dividual system whilst Gilbert acts within an individual union who seeks a partner who can exclusively complete the other.
Marriage becomes hard work once you have poured the entirety of your life’s expectations for happiness into the hands of one mere person. (Gilbert 2010:48)
I theorise that love marriages that hold the expectation that a partner should ‘complete’ them are more susceptible to being unsuccessful. I believe that there needs to be an interdependent relationship between the partner, the individual self and the dividual external support systems; biological and social kin. I agree with Giddens (1992:93) idea of a ‘pure relationship’ whereby the individual recognises that:
The other is an independent being, who can be loved for her or his specific traits and qualities;[it is a] release from an obsessive involvement
Gilbert (2010:106) contends that she only learnt this concept during her second marriage: “he cannot complete me, even if he wanted to”. Similarly, in Mody’s ethnographic research Indu moved from a dividual marriage to an attempt to form an individual love marriage though, I argue that both her marriages failed due to an imbalance of interdependence.
Over centuries, marriage has changed shape and form in response to collective norms however love as an emotion has been traced back to The Middle Ages. I believe that marriage will continue to change its function yet love will always be experienced as an innate sentiment. In terms of building healthy or successful unions, I think it is important to consider the individual and dividual layers of marriage.
Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward at the same direction
– Antoine de Saint-Exapery
