or perhaps I should have titled this "Discussing Prop 8 with students, in the context of cross-cultural marriage practices". I decided I'd like to share these class notes and discussion here at DKos.
I am required to teach about marriage, family, and kinship, as topics in my introduction to anthropology classes each semester.
My students are mostly American, mostly white working class (they think they are middle class) from fairly conservative Republican Protestant or Catholic families here in upstate New York. I have a sprinkling of Latino Catholics and Pentecostals from NYC, one or two African-Americans, also from NYC who are usually from standard Protestant denominations, I might have one Haitian-American (Catholic) or Guyanese-American (Hindu) and each semester I have three or four foreign exchange students - most often from Japan, who don't usually practice any formalized religion, or from India or Pakistan; split them equally as Hindu or Muslim. I have 2 or 3 students who are Jewish, and they tend to be from the downstate NY city suburbs on Long Island or in Westchester County. Class size: about 50 students. Female to male ratio: 75% female. Sexual orientation: usually 5 or 6 students are LBGTQ.
I wanted to give you a sense of the class demographics so that you can picture just who I'm discussing these concepts with.
Most are freshmen and sophomores since it is an introductory class; they are generally 17, 18 or 19 years of age.
When we open up the discussion, I ask them to define marriage. Though they have a textbook, which has a culturally relativistic definition, since most have not done the reading prior to class they proffer what they know.
They say "marriage is a permanent union of a man and a woman" Some add "forever, till death do them part" or some such stuff. Hmmmmm.
A few of them who have read the text throw in the word "monogamous". We then discuss what monogamy is, or isn't.
I then ask for a show of hands for how many come from homes where there was a divorce. Usually half answer in the affirmative. That allows me to to throw in the term "serial monogamy" which is practiced in this country. One man, one woman at a time, but multiple partners over time.
They are usually silent for a bit as they mentally chew on this. A few bring up monogamy being a sham in their own experience, mentioning "adultery" and I get a laugh out of my Latinas (I usually have female Dominican and Puerto Rican students) when I mention the cultural practice of the "corteja" (mistress) and her offspring who has a separate, unequal, but acknowledged place in their culture. Heads nod, and stories are shared.
We move on. Recently there have been news stories about the FLDS in the papers and on television and I play a newsclip, opening up for the discussion of polygyny. They are a bit confused and use the term polygamy, and don't know the distinctions between polygyny (one male with multiple spouses) polyandry (one female with multiple spouses) and polygamy (the overall practice of having multiple spouses not specific to the gender)
They are usually pretty upset about the FLDS, since there are aspects of coercion involved. I let them talk a bit, and then I tell them a story. I share with them the life of my roommate from college days, who was from Senegal, and was Muslim culturally, but non-practicing. He was the son of a polygynous father. His mother was the second wife. Wife number one was selected for his father, from the home village. She had no interest in living in the urban center of Senegal, and did not want to leave her kin network. He visited, from Dakar, and she had 3 children. He was a European educated medical doctor who chose as his second wife a European educated medical professional, who had 3 children with him. This woman was my roommate's mom.
Many years later my roommates mom, a professional woman who did not want to have more children, as she was growing older, actively searched for a younger wife to expand the family. A third wife was married, and that is how it stands to this day. College educated, the younger woman has a good relationship with the more senior wife. They do not live together.
The family cannot move to the United States, though the father was offered a job here. Because neither wife (2 or 3) would be legal, and the children of the two unions would be deemed illegitimate.
The students are usually quite vocal in their response to this anecdote.
For most, it is a perspective they have never thought about.
I'm going to include here a standard list of definitions used in anthropology that we cover in the course (please skip and scroll down if this is something you already know or find too technical):
ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Ethnocentrism often entails the belief that one's own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.
marriage
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
monogamy
Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos "μονός", which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos "γάμος", which means marriage or union. Serial monogamy is having no more than one sexual partner at a time but allows for multiple partners in a lifetime.
polygamy
The term polygamy (a Greek word meaning "the practice of multiple marriage") is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, and sociology. Polygamy can be defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."[1]
In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as group marriage (one person having many wives and many husbands at the same time). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast, monogamy is the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are gay and recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid).
Polygyny
Polygyny is the situation in which one man is either married to or involved in sexual relationships with a number of different women at one time. This is the most common form of polygamy. This was the most common form of polygamy practiced by Mormons in the 19th century, and practiced today by self-identified fundamentalist offshoots.
Polyandry
Polyandry is a practice where a woman is married to more than one man at the same time. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic Tibetans in Nepal and parts of China, in which two or more brothers share the same wife, with her having equal sexual access to them. Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival. A woman can only have so many children in her lifetime, no matter how many husbands she has. On the other hand, a child with many "fathers", all of whom provide resources, is more likely to survive. (In contrast, the number of children would be increased if polygyny were practiced, and a man had more than one wife. These wives could be simultaneously pregnant).[2] It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also within the elite.[3]
Group marriage
Group marriage, or circle marriage, may exist in a number of forms, such as where more than one man and more than one woman form a single family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Another possible arrangement not thought to exist in reality (on the social level), although occurring in science fiction (notably in Robert Heinlein'sThe Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), is the long-lived line marriage, in which deceased or departing spouses in the group are continually replaced by others, so that family property never becomes dispersed through inheritance.
Rarely discussed is polyamory:
(from Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [literally "love"]) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. The term polyamory is sometimes abbreviated to poly, and is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is sometimes used more broadly to refer to relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies.
Polyamory can refer to the practice or status of a relationship at a given time, or used as a description of a lifestyle, philosophy or relationship orientation (much like gender orientation), rather than of an individual's actual relationship status at a given moment. It is an umbrella term that covers many orientations and modes of relationship. There is fluidity in its definition to accommodate the different shades of meaning which might be covered. Polyamorous relationships are themselves varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals concerned.
Sororate marriage
Sororate marriage is the sociological custom of a man marrying (or engaging in sexual activity with) his wife's sister (rarely with her brother), usually after the wife is dead or has proven infertile.
From an anthropological standpoint, this type of marriage strengthens the ties between both groups (the wife's family or clan and the husband's) and preserves the contract between the two to provide children and continue the alliance.
The Inuit people (formerly known as Eskimos) of northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland follow or followed this custom.[citation needed] Sororate marriage is also practiced by Swazi people and for the same reasons as stated.
Levirate marriage
Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which a widow is required to marry one of her husband's brothers after her husband's death, if he died childless, in order to continue the family line of the dead husband.
The term is a derivative of the Latin word levir, meaning "husband's brother".
Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage, i.e. that outside the clan, was forbidden. It is or was known in societies including the Punjabis, Jats, Israelites, Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), Apache, Mongols, and Tibetans.
In the Hebrew Bible and Judaism
In Judaism, a levirate marriage (Hebrew: yibbum) is mandated by the Torah (Pentateuch) (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) which obliges a brother to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother, with the firstborn child being treated as that of the deceased brother.
The practice was extremely important in ancient Israelite society, as well as other ancient near east societies, because children enabled the inheritance of land, which offered security and status. A barren woman or widow was often believed to be cursed by God so every possibility was exhausted in order to bear children.[citation needed]
However, there is another provision known as halizah (Deuteronomy 25:9-10) which enables either party to avoid the levirate marriage. According to some opinions in Jewish law, yibbum is strongly discouraged and halizah is preferred, although Scripture itself prescribes a curse on anyone who disobeys the practice.
Examples of levirate marriage include the marriages of Tamar and Onan the son of Judah (Genesis 38:6-10), who was also cursed to death for attempting to avoid conception during the process. An extension of levirate marriage is the idea of a kinsman redeemer found in the Book of Ruth. It holds the same idea of carrying on a lineage but instead of a brother, the duty falls to the closest kin. In the book of Ruth, Boaz acts as the kinsman redeemer. This type of union is no longer practiced.
We also discuss cousin marriage and degrees of kinship or consanguinity. Most are surprised at the laws in states that define the degrees differently.
We discuss degrees of kinship, the history of various Presidents who were married to cousins, and we also look at cross cultural definitions of "kin" and define cross cousins and parallel cousins.
What surprises them the most is the variation in US laws: Cousin Couples
Inevitably the discussion moves on to same-sex marriage. I am pleased to report that most of my students (not just those who are LGBQT), are solidly in support of same-sex marriage, though there are a few dissenters. Those who oppose it, in the beginning of the semester do so for religious reasons. The same goes for discussions of women's reproductive rights. I still have a few students who oppose abortion, but most have changed, by the end of the year to the position of choice - they will choose not to have abortions themselves but will respect the right of other women to make different choices. I link both of these topics to civil rights.
To further the discussion we examine an article published in on the American Anthropological Association website:
Gay Marriage and Anthropology, by Linda S Stone,Washington State U
Her introduction:
Politicians and the public in the US today are raising a question once pursued by anthropologists in the 1950s, namely, what should we mean by marriage? The politically charged issue concerns whether or not a constitutional definition of marriage can exclude same-sex couples. With over a century of experience in the study of kinship and marriage worldwide, anthropology can offer perspectives on this debate that may be of interest to our students or the general public.
She describes the difficulty of actually defining what is or isn't marriage:
It is true that virtually every society in the world has an institution that is very tempting to label as "marriage," but these institutions simply do not share common characteristics. Marriage in most societies establishes the legitimacy or status rights of children, but this is not the case, for example, among the Navajo where children born to a woman, married or not, become full legitimate members of her matriclan and suffer no disadvantages. "Marriage" around the world most often involves heterosexual unions, but there are important exceptions to this. There are cases of legitimate same-sex marriages as, for example, woman-woman marriage among the Nuer and some other African groups. Here, a barren woman divorces her husband, takes another woman as her wife, and arranges for a surrogate to impregnate this woman. Any children from this arrangement become members of the barren woman’s natal patrilineage and refer to the barren woman as their father. Among some Native American groups, males who preferred to live as women (berdache) adopted the names and clothing of women and often became wives of other men.
Marriage usually involves sexual relationships between spouses. Yet this was not true of Nuer woman-woman marriages and we find in European history cases of "celibate marriages" among early Christians. Often spouses are co-resident but very often this is not the case. A separate residence of husbands in "men’s houses," away from their wives and children, has been common in many places. Among the polyandrous/polygynous Nayar of India, wives and husbands remained in their own natal groups with husbands periodically "visiting" their wives and with children raised by their mothers and mothers’ brothers. Indeed the only feature of marriages that is apparently universal is that they will create affinal (in-law) relationships, or alliances, a fact that Lévi-Strauss and others considered to lie behind the origin of human marriage. But even here, affinal relationships are themselves quite varied in their nature and importance across societies. Thus, in terms of child legitimacy, sex of spouses, sexual activity, residence and so on, what we see around the world in terms of marriage is most notable for its variation.
She goes on to discuss variation and change, focused on the United States:
Anthropological studies of kinship and marriage can also provide an understanding that within any society, marriage and the family will change over time. Whereas in the US legal marriages have been traditionally monogamous unions between a woman and a man, the nature of marriage, the domestic economy, husband-wife relationships, parent-child relationships, family structure and household structure have seen considerable transformation since the 1700s (Stephanie Coontz, The Social Origins of Private Life, 1988). Relevant transformations of marriage and the family have been in particular occurring in the US since the 1960s. Here we have seen rising rates of divorce, resulting in greater numbers of single-parent households. A rise in remarriage following divorce has additionally brought about the growth of so-called blended families, consisting of various combinations of step-parents, step-children and step-siblings. Many US children today are raised in two separate households, where one or both may consist of a previous parent and a newer set of step-relations.
The development of New Reproductive Technologies (such as, surrogate motherhood, in-vitro fertilization, frozen embryos) meanwhile has conceptually fragmented motherhood. We can today distinguish a birth mother from a genetic mother from a legal mother; all three "mothers" may be one, two or even three separate women. By contrast, fatherhood, once considered "uncertain" compared with motherhood, can now be made certain, one way or another, through DNA testing.
Her powerful conclusion (my bold):
It is within these new dimensions of family variation and choice as a basis of kinship that, I think, we can best view the movement for legalization of same-sex marriage. From an anthropological perspective that focuses on the whole of humanity, what same-sex couples seeking legal marriage in the US are trying to do is not to redefine marriage. They are seeking legal recognition in the US for doing what people around the world have always done, that is to construct marriage for themselves.
My students have been impressed by this piece, and once they have been exposed to cultural diversity in marriage, are viewing the way it is defined with more open minds. They are becoming less ethnocentric.
Our final discussion centers on the Constitution, and separation of church and state.
I leave them with this question.
Should the government be involved in marriage as a religious ritual at all, or should it only define civil law for the disposition of property material goods, and other rights like hospital visits?
I make my position clear. If people want to marry, as long as they are of age, they should go to court or the town hall, sign a contract, file it, then leave and do whatever ritual rocks their boats. Head to a church, temple, mosque, sacred grove, hop over a broom, or simply head home.
The answer to this question after their cross cultural journey, has been a resounding yes.
I realize that my position does little to affect the current status of Prop 8, or any other state restrictions of same-sex marriage, and is probably more radical than many of you, who support same-sex marriage "between two persons" are willing to consider.
But I would be interested in discussing it.