In classifying marriage we have to consider the possible parties to a marriage and their number.
- A union one man with one woman;
- of one man with two or more woman; or
- of two or more men with one woman; or
- of a group of men with a group of women.
All these are types of marriage which exist or alleged to have existed. Monogamy is the type of marriage in which there is a union of one with a woman. Approximately the ratio of the male and female births is even and monogamy seems to be natural condition. However if the natural ratio is disturbed the result is plural marriage which may be either of the type of polygamy. Monogamy is the rule of some primitive tribes. The Hopinsist upon it so do various pygmy groups. More frequently it is not compulsory but actually prevalent. One mostly contented themselves with a single woman.
Polygamy is a type of union of one man with more than one i.e. two or more wives. Polygamy depends not only on the ratio of adult men and women but also on economic and social factors. When the women farm, as often hapens in Africa, every additional wife adds to the ladder. In Africa absolute monarchs take unlimited number of wives by royal prerogative, and wealthy stock breeders can buy many wives. Polygamy is neither primarily due to masculine just nor it is considered degrading for women.
In primitive societies men had sexual relation outside matrimony and without its duties. They married additional wives because it enhanced their social prestige and economic value. In some cases the first wife induced her husband to get another wife and several wives got along with surprising harmony.
Polyandry as an established institution is very rare. When one woman consorts with more than one man, the result is polyandry. It is true that many primitive tribes permitted a wife to consort with many men. This simple means plural sexual relation but not plural marriage. Marriage does not imply only sexual intercourse but a bond with specific mutual duties. Thus an Eskimo may oblige a visitor by surrendering his wife temporarily, but it is no polyandry. In some cases several brothers jointly live with a woman, all being socially on at par both as husbands and as fathers of all her offspring. When the husband are unrelated they may live in different villages and the woman usually spends a month with each in turn. All the men enjoy equal marital relations but the official status of a ‘father’ to the children is established by a ritual.
Marriage being a permanent bond of fixed mutual rights and duties there is no such thing as a group marriage anywhere. Temporary looseness is not to be confused with the group marriage, which is purely hypothetical condition. For instance, the Masal warrior live together with the girls of the settlement. But this involves no further obligation and therefore cannot be classed as fixed marriage relationship. There is no evidence of any group marriage as such so there may be found some exogamous group practising some sort of combination of polygamy and polyandry. But to say that it constitutes a group marriage is a sweeping sunrise. One can hardly say that these different types of marriages had any appreciable effect on the status of woman. On the whole the status of woman in the primitive society was very low.
Hobhouse goes to the length of saying that “Favourable as the position of woman under mother-right-family appears on the surface the truth is that it is not bar whatever to complete legal subjection. Among the Cribs for instance the position of women was inferior.” In short, the different types of marriage according to number, in the primitive society do not have any direct impact or influence of the status of women. The status was due to economic and physiological reasons. And as we have already mentioned, polygamy was not considered to be a result of masculine lust nor was it a degradation of woman. It was not the type of marriage that was responsible for the subjection of women. In cases of polyandry women did enjoy a great degree of freedom but it seems to be confined to the capacity of maintaining plural sexual relations. In polygamy of course the man retained all the authority in him; but even there women were not regarded as chattels. In the majority of cases woman’s status remained inferior.
Group marriage
There is a great deal of controversy over the question of group marriage quite a few, sociologist agree that there was such an institution as group marriage. All the evidence we have tend to point out in the direction of some kind of looseness. And temporary looseness, no matter on what scale, should not be confused with group marriage. There is no such thing as a group marriage.
Hobhouse writes, “Indeed, it cannot be regarded as certain that any such institution as the actual marriage of two groups as distinct from the combination of polygamy and polyandry with certain marriage taboos, has ever existed.” On a controversial topic like group marriage it is better to marshal evidence which was found amongst some Central Australian tribes. The tribe called Urabunna has a peculiar custom. The tribe is divided into two classes which are exogamous—that is man must not marry out his class. Secondly there are distinct totems within the tribe and these are similarly exogamous. Thirdly, each of the two classes in further divided into four groups and in choosing a wife a man restricted to one of these groups. Thus there existed a group of men and definite group of women with whom they can marry an who are called their Nupas. Thus in the tribe there are man and women who are nupas to each other-that is potential husbands and wives. A man will have one or more Nupas assigned to him as his wives. He will also have others to whom he is Piriaungaru—that is he has access to them under certain conditions. Similarly a man may lend his wife to any of his Nupas. Thus the husband has a preferential right in his wife and the wife in the husband. The husband will have a secondary right to other woman as his Piriangaru. While his wives are Piriaungaru to other man.
Now this scheme of marriage as it stands may be classified as a form of polyandry combined with polygamy, such as exists among Nairs. It is possible to explain the system as the relic of earlier customs where the two Nupa groups were actually married to each other so that intercourse between them would be promiseous. But this is only a probable inference. What we actually find is not the actual marriage of two groups, but exceedingly loose relations, polygamous and polyandrous with in the groups combined with strict taboos outside them.
The looser type of marriage are confined to savage and harborous races. It is here that we may find the relies of group marriage. It is here that we find polyandry too. But as marriage hardened into an institution it had no place for any group marriage or any promiscuity. The existence of group marriage, therefore, remains a hypothetical proposition. There seems to be no conclusive evidence to prove the actual establishments of the institution of group marriage as such.
Women in mother family and the father family
There existed two main types of family in primitive society—the mother-right family and the father-right family. A contrast between the two should be instructive.
Under the mother-right family the wife, and under the father-right the husband is the pivot in which the family relationship turns. Under the mother family, the wife remains the member of her own family. Under the father family she passes of her family altogether, she is separated from her family cult and family-gods, her husband’s people and her husband’s good are her gods. Under the mother family husband goes to live with the wife’s people and the position is reversed, the children takes mother’s name and belong to her kindred. In mother-family it is brother of the wife who acts as guardian of those children and discharges all duties towards them. Mother’s brother is their natural guardian. The maternal kinfolks stand together in blood-bond. They and not the husband protect the wife and the children. They may even protect her and children form her husband himself.
Under the father-family it is the relationship through the male which counts. The father is the natural guardian of the children and in case of divorce he retains them. It is to him and his kin that the wife and the children look up for protection. In mother-family relationship through mother is generally a bar to marriage. The degrees are not carried so far as on the masculine side. Even in father-family the wife’s family retains the right the property passes through the women if not to be woman. Under father-right family it goes from father to the son.
In the end it may be remarked that while in the father-right family woman’s status was at the lowest-ebb it was under the mother-right family that woman rose to the highest position they ever reached. It was at that time that they were the complete masters of the situation. They ruled over the family their voice was heard in the councils and they controlled the food. In the wake of the rise of the patriarchal family the influence slowly waived.
One most important point of contract between the two types of family is that whereas in the father-right family decent is determined through the father’s name, it is done through mother’s name in case of mother-right family. When all this is said and done one must admit that “favourable as the position of woman under the mother-right family appears on the surface, the truth it is not bar to complete legal subjection.”
Theories regarding Origin of Marriage
It is difficult to tell the origin in human society. Truly speaking it is shrouded in mystery and it still remains one of the secrets of science. The views of sociologists on the theory of primitive promiscuity change almost as rapidly as fashions, and are much influenced by the subjective attitudes of loading authorities for or against.
The most agitated question on this topic is that human begins, by natural inclination are polygamous or monogamous? We all know that the sexual impulse in human beings is polygamous or rather varietiest, i.e. it is attracted by novely and change. However science cares more for truth than obvious beliefs and as such certain scientists have started advancing a theory that humanity by nature is monogamous. The arguments in favour of monogamy are as follows :
- It is argued that general numerical equality of male and female adults in human communities go to show that Nature’s plan indicates monogamy. But even if equality was absolute which infect is not it may prove at the most that polyandry or polygamy are unnatural but it won’t prove that monogamy is instinctive. For evidently ten men and ten women might just as easily live in a ground marriage or total promiscuity as in ten separate marriages.
- The advocates of the monogamous theory point out that no existent race has been found to practice absolutely indiscriminate sexual promiscuity. It is contended that even the most primitive and nomadic savages lived in families and knew the institution of marriage. This argument is certainly erroneous. It rests on the confusion in people’s minds between prehistory and the conditions and achievements of the lowest grade of hunting nomads known to us.
- The monogamists ask if the people are not naturally monogamous why do they live in separate families even in primitive types. The answer is plain.
Not monogamous instinct and not indeed, any motive of sexual kind, but economic need and economic convenience have founded the marriage tie of primitive man.
- It has been contended that the immense majority of contemporary primitive peoples live in monogamy, but a monogamy, not of inclination, but of necessity. In fact the most frequent type of primitive marriage is monogamous.
- It has been argued that natural jealousy of mankind makes indiscriminate sexual relations wholly impossible. However this argument is not admissible sexual jealously does not disapprove the polygamous instinct. The probability is in the opposite directions.
- The monogamists base their arguments on the physiology of reproduction. It has been declared that women who habitually copulated with different man become sterile. The assertion some what ill supported by evidence is based on the sterility of professional prostitutes. The argument of the monogamists, therefore is based on the conditions of particular class, in which case sterility may be due to some other causes. In case of prostitute continuous and indiscriminate genital connection causes morbid local irritation which injures the fertility of a women. But those conditions do not obtain in a horde of savages. Even the factual evidence do not support the monogamous view. In India polygamy is practiced even now and yet it did not show any signs of sterility in women. In fact in agricultural countries polygamous marriages were popular as an incentive to increase manpower.
In short, we have seen by now that all arguments put forward in favour of the instinctively monogamous nature of humanity fail before careful scrutiny. Let us therefore turn to the arguments in favour of polygamous theory.
- Many authority have tried to prove primitive or prehistoric mankind had a special mating season and hence sexual congress could only have occurred at certain definite times of the year. Permanent monogamous mating is incompatible with any special intensive sexual activity in recurrent seasons.
- On a analogical grounds it is argued that among the gregarious and social mammals, no species has till now been found to practice exclusively monogamous paring and parental responsibility in the herd.
- Many people believe that monogamous marriage is unnatural and illicit innovation. According to Scidlitz, exclusive union between man and woman seemed to be covers of the Camases illicit and disgraceful.
- The trend of polygamous ideas and habits have given the prostitutes an honourable position especially in antiquity.
- Religious prostitution also point out in the direction of polygamous nature of man.
- It is argued on the basis of biogenetic law that wherever free intercourse with girls of their own age is suppressed and penalised by religion or law, prostitution appears forthwith as part of the social organism.
- With the awakening and differentiation of individuality the polygamous urge becomes transfigured into romantic love among civilized persons who tend to prefer one and the one object to love, above all other objects.
- The reason to believe in the naturalness of polygamous inclination in mankind is the force and the universality with which the primitive love of novelty promiscuity breaks forth, as soon as the pressure of circumstances and public opinion is relaxed. There have been period of ‘moral decadence’ among civilized people. “If we expel nature with a pitch fork-back it comes a gallop.” In short, the love of sexual novelty and variety is innately human and has not been eradicated by force on fear, or even by moral developments of culture and progress.
Feasibility of divorce in Primitive Society
Just as the question of the number of parties of the marriage is important, the permanence of the marriage tie is equally important. It supplies easier basis for the classification of marriage. In many of the lower races, the dissolution of marriage is so easy and frequent that it become a question whether the term of marriage is at all applicable. In some other cases, the marriage bond is an strictly regarded as in the Roman Church. Here again there are no hard and fast rules but we can point out certain tendencies which remain fairly constant. We shall first distinguish the different possibilities of divorce :
Divorce may be perfectly free to either party.
Divorce may be free to both by mutual consent.
Divorce may by absolutely at the will of the husband or the wife.
Again, divorce may be free to one party or both or obtaining the consent of the family, clan or court. Divorce may again be open to either party on certain conditions. These conditions may be infinitely various. Finally, divorce may be wholly forbidden, marriage being indissolute. In such cases separation may be allowed, but sometimes that too is forbidden.
Marriage is indissoluble among the Andamans, some Papuans of New Guinea at Watubela, at Lampong in Sumatra among the Veddabs of Ceyloneg and in the Roman Church.
Ordinarily, both in the civilized and uncivilized world marriage may be dissolved either at pleasure or under certain condition. Among uncivilized people divorces is not infrequently free to either party. The man dismisses his wife without ceremony, or injured woman leaves her husband without much ado and runs back to her own relations, or they part with mutual consent. In the higher stages of primitive civilization, the consolidation of the family under the higher authority of the husband tends to make divorce more difficult. Sometimes it drops almost entirely out of use.
Sometimes with less justice, the power of divorce is left to the husband and withheld from the wife. It may at times entirely remain in the hands of the husband. Thus the Hebrew who was dissatisfied with his wife gave her in writing about his wish to divorce her and that writing sufficed to terminate the marriage. The divorcing husband lost the bride-price if the fault was on his part. The same applied to the woman in case she was at fault. The condition of pecuniary Penalties often tended to make marriage relatively stable.
The condition on which divorce could be obtained also showed variety. The husband could divorce his wife for unfaithfulness, sterility and sometimes because she bears no sons, often too for disobedience, bodily defects or for moral failings. The wife again had the right to divorce her husband in case he neglected her or deserted her, or was impotent or treated her with cruelty but vary rarely for his unfaithfulness. As a rule divorced husband may marry again but this privilege was not always extended to the divorce wife. Sometimes she is wholly prohibited, sometimes she is allowed to remarry with the permission of her former husband.
The customs of uncivilized people to divorce vary so widely that it is very difficult to lay down any generalization about them. It may be said that with a few exceptions mentioned at the beginning of this answer, divorce is generally allowed. It is, however, generally easier for husbands to get the divorce on easy terms, and very often also the wife, or the two parties by mutual agreement. But it is sometimes restricted to special cases. As the patriarchal system begun to rise and as the marriage by purchase increased in number, divorce tended to be easier to the husband than to the wife.
The altitude of the modern people to divorce is base on the recognition of equality between man woman. In most parties of the world of to-day monogamy is an accepted custom and even though in certain countries marriage is considered as indissoluble generally the divorce is made possible by the invention of the court. It should be noted that divorce is not easy to obtain even if the two parties to the marriage give mutual consent. In the modern world it is the state that intervenes and divorce require not only the contact of the parties but also the consent of the court. The divorce is granted in case of Adultery, Bigamy, Impotence, Idiocy, Willful desertion, Venereal diseases.
The distinguishing feature of the attitude of the modern people to divorce is that it does not meet out only discriminatory treatment to women. And it looks upon marriage as a partnership. However in countries like America divorces are tending to increase on an alarming rate. The root cause of this unhappy trend is the attitude of giving too much importance to sex in material life and excessive emphasis on the freedom of individual.
