Arranged Marriage: The Politics of Tradition, Resistance, and Change

By Asha L. Abeyasekera, Marian Aguiar, Shalini Grover and 9 more

Arranged Marriage: The Politics of Tradition, Resistance, and Change shows how arranged marriage practices have been undergoing transformation as a result of global and other processes such as the revolution of digital technology, democratization of transnational mobility, or shifting significance of patriarchal power structures. The ethnographically informed chapters not only highlight how the gendered and intergenerational politics of agency, autonomy, choice, consent, and intimacy work in the contexts of partner choice and management of marriage, but also point out that arranged marriages are increasingly varied and they can be reshaped, reinvented, and reinterpreted flexibly in response to individual, family, religious, class, ethnic, and other desires, needs, and constraints. The authors convincingly demonstrate that a nuanced investigation of the reasons, complex dynamics, and consequences of arranged marriages offers a refreshing analytical lens that can significantly contribute to a deeper understanding of other phenomena such as globalization, modernization, and international migration as well as patriarchal value regimes, intergenerational power imbalances, and gendered subordination and vulnerability of women. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Release date: Mar 17, 2023
• ISBN: 9781978822849

Book preview

Introduction

Conceptualizing Arranged Marriage – From Binary Oppositions to Hybridity, Processuality, and Contextual Dependency

PÉTER BERTA

Quantifying Arranged Marriages: Statistical Invisibility, Performative Diversity, and Definitional Proliferation

Like the great majority of social scientists, researchers dealing with the causes, dynamics, and consequences of the transformations of marriage and family life are often forced to demonstrate the unquestionable significance of the practices they study and the timeliness of their investigation—for example, in the context of tournaments of value (Appadurai 1986: 21) waged for publication in high-impact factor journals or for teaching posts in prestigious universities. One of the techniques often used for the strategic demonstration of relevance is to focus on the extensive spread of the practices studied, that is, their quantification. However, primarily due to the lack of reliable databases, this poses a big challenge for researchers of arranged marriages and often proves to be an insoluble task (Aguiar 2018; Allendorf and Pandian 2016; Clawson and Fyson 2017; Julios 2015 and chapter 5 of this book; Marcus et al. 2019; Samad 2010).

For this reason, many analyses of the social, cultural, economic, and political causes and consequences of arranged marriage either refrain from the quantification of this practice or give subjective estimates emphasizing the (global or regional) spread of arranged marriage. These estimates are generally very brief, often vague, and sketchy, supported (if at all) mostly by findings obtained from research using qualitative methods with a usually narrow (for example, local or regional) geographical focus, or by the estimates of other authors. To cite only a few examples of statements falling into this category: arranged marriages have existed for millennia, and are widely instituted among many cultures around the world (Bowman and Dollahite 2013: 207); most of the world’s marriages are arranged by parents and matchmakers (Epstein et al. 2013: 341); arranged marriages between adult men and young girls traditionally occur in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Near East, and Latin America (Soliman et al. 2018: 125); or arranged marriages so defined remain typical for large parts of the world like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (Munshi 2017: 36). (See also Batabyal 2001: 273; Chawla 2007: 5; Gupta et al. 2016: 75; Myers et al. 2005; Singh et al. 2016: 243; and others.) Penn even argues that arranged marriages … remain typical for around half the world’s population. He hypothesizes that the number of arranged marriages will increase globally, since they predominate in countries with high rates of population growth (Penn 2011: 637).

Since there have been only very few surveys focusing—among other things—on arranged marriage (see, for example, the Indian Human Development Survey 2004–2005, 2011–2012 or the 2013 Taj Wedding Barometer Survey), one can rarely find research reports (a) that are based primarily on surveys or (b) that contain not only subjective estimates and findings drawn from qualitative ethnographic studies but also make emphatic use of surveys in quantifying arranged marriages. (See, for example, Allendorf 2013; Ghimire et al. 2006; González 2013; Malhotra 1991; Meekers 1995; Nedoluzhko and Agadjanian 2015; Xiaohe and Whyte 1990; Zang 2008.)

There have also been attempts at quantification based on unique logic. Aguiar (2018: 3), for example, in her fascinating book on how the meaning of arranged marriage has been continuously reinvented in the South Asian diaspora in Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, draws conclusions about change in the popularity of arranged marriage not on the basis of documented or presumed numbers of arranged marriage cases but instead on more reliably quantifiable discursive representations of arranged marriage. Her examination of references to arranged marriage in major newspapers—that is, the quantification of textual representations of the phenomenon—enabled Aguiar to draw sound conclusions regarding the dynamics of social interest surrounding arranged marriage as well as on the transformations and changing intensity of its discursive presence:

It is clear that arranged marriage exists in the diaspora, but it is difficult to say whether the number of arranged marriages is increasing or even holding steady in this context. No major empirical studies have been published quantifying conjugal choices in the diaspora.… Although one cannot claim that there has been an increase in the number of arranged marriages, one can safely assert that the discourses concerning the concept and practice of arranged marriage have multiplied and taken on significant roles and done so globally. (Aguiar 2018: 3)

Numerous studies examining forced marriage mention the methodological and empirical difficulties in attempts to quantify the practice.¹ Samad (2010: 195), for example, in his pathbreaking study investigating forced marriages among men, notes that in its quantification of the phenomenon, the Home Office Working Group on Forced Marriage in 1999–2000 examined a number of sources available … without success. In the absence of a definitive figure it simply took the supposition that one case was one too many. Samad adds that the research he directed in 2001 (see Samad and Eade 2003), focused on the perceptions of forced marriages in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, was also unable to arrive at any conclusive figure, in the same way that the attempt at quantification made in 2008 by the research team of Hester et al. also failed due to the lack of accurate data. Hester et al.

examined 29 databases, including those held by police and those held by organizations in the voluntary sector. It emerged that there was inconsistency in the way data were recorded, the categories used and the number of times the same individual was recorded on different databases. Hence it was not clear whether these were the same cases dealt with by different agencies or were separate cases and there was no evidence to prove or disprove speculation in the media that the problem may be as large as a thousand cases a year. (Samad 2010: 195)

On the basis of the annual number of forced marriage cases handled by the Forced Marriage Unit (founded in 2006 by an act of the British Parliament), the Community Liaison Unit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Southall Black Sisters, and the Bradford Police, Samad (2010: 195–196) finally reached the conclusion that the only thing that can be confidently said about numbers is that the numbers of cases recorded have increased considerably.

In her insightful chapter examining cases in Great Britain of forced marriage interpreted as part of honor-based violence (HBV) (see chapter 5 of this book), Christina Julios also discusses in detail the methodological challenges involved in quantification:

Given the hidden nature of HBV and the lack of standardized reliable data, it is not feasible to fully ascertain the scale of the problem. The work therefore must rely on flawed data, mostly featuring underestimates of what is believed to be a much larger problem.… Without a national centralized system of data collection and analysis, the United Kingdom’s information gap continues to be filled by a combination of government and law enforcement agencies, grassroots service providers, and academic institutions, among others.… As a result, the data are not entirely reliable and are generally believed to reflect only a small part of a much larger whole.

Marcus et al. (2019) report a similar experience in their overview of empirical analyses of forced marriage in the United States.

Perhaps the most detailed discussion of the problem of the quantification of arranged marriage is found in a study by Allendorf and Pandian (2016), in which the authors examine whether there was really a decline in the number of arranged marriages in India between 1970 and 2012, as suggested by the modernization theory and the developmental idealism theory, and if so, how the dynamics of this decline can be characterized. After analyzing trends in spouse choice, consanguineous marriage, intercaste marriage, and the length of time spouses knew each other prior to marriage at the national level and … variation by region, urban residence, and religion/caste (2016: 436–437), Allendorf and Pandian draw attention to two important methodological obstacles regarding the quantification of arranged marriage. One is that questions touching on partner selection are only rarely included in nationally representative surveys, with the result that relevant survey-based data are only very rarely available. The other obstacle they note is that many of the survey-based studies documenting the decline in arranged marriage that they examined drew on samples that are exclusively representative of cities or other localities within countries. Consequently, the data of such studies cannot be used to draw conclusions valid for a given region or country. Because of these methodological challenges, it is difficult to evaluate the extent of change in arranged marriage at global, regional, and even national scales (Allendorf and Pandian 2016: 436). Among other reasons, the study by Allendorf and Pandian is of special note because its conclusions are based on the only source of nationally representative data on arranged marriage (Allendorf and Pandian 2016: 438), namely, the Indian Human Development Survey.

Basically, three factors make the quantification of arranged marriages problematic. First, in a significant number of cases, arranged marriage is an informal and hidden practice that remains invisible to the authorities (see, for example, Petrella 2014 and chapter 1 of this book) and difficult to identify. Second, quantification can also be made difficult by the great variety of forms in which arranged marriage is manifested (see, for example, the various mixed or hybrid variants of the practice)—that is, by the fact that arranged marriages can be transformed and reinvented flexibly in response to individual, family, religious, class, ethnic, and other demands and constraints. And third, an obvious methodological obstacle to quantification is that the definitions of arranged marriage used in scientific, policy, media, and other discourses are themselves strikingly varied and often differ significantly from one another. The following section deals with this latter phenomenon.

Definitional Attempts and Challenges: From Binary Oppositions to Hybridity, Processuality, and Contextual Dependency

As Pande has pointed out about the great variety of arranged marriages (see chapter 11 of this book), there is no singular practice of arranged marriage; instead, many different forms of matchmaking come under this umbrella term, all offering different degrees of choice and arrangement based on individual family backgrounds (see also Aguiar 2018: 6; Bowman and Dollahite 2013: 208; Pande 2014: 76; Pande 2021). Precisely for this reason, arranged marriage resists attempts to formulate a comprehensive definition covering all the main types of the practice. To quote the similar experience of Aguiar (2018: 6), despite the widespread recognition of arranged marriage as a concept …, it is surprisingly difficult to fix a definition. In this section of the chapter, I undertake a brief survey of the dominant analytical strategies or perspectives that have been used in the literature in the past few decades in attempts to grasp the changing and varied meanings of arranged marriages.

Based on Brackett’s insightful analysis (2016), I argue that the process of partner selection is shaped primarily by two groups of factors. One is the group of personal preferences that include, among others, desired characteristics (physical attractiveness, personality, socioeconomic status, educational level, occupational prestige, and so on) of the prospective partner as well as interpersonal experiences (of shared values and the like) acquired through the premarital relationships with the potential marriage partners. Another group of factors comprises direct or indirect, short-term or long-term contextual forces or influences, such as parental marriage politics, control, and authority; sociocultural expectations focusing on the ideal spouse (religious orientation, educational level, occupational status, and so on), marital relational work, marriageable age, and age difference; the current availability of potential marriage partners on the marriage market, and so on. Interpretations of personal preferences and premarital interpersonal experiences, of course, are intensely shaped by various contextual influences and forces. Strategic choice not only can be made when individuals attempt to assert their own personal preferences in the context of partner selection but can also be one type of individual response to contextual influences of forces.

Binary Oppositions

As Aguiar (2018: 6) warns, the identities of fluid categories are often fixed relationally through binary oppositions. This is precisely the strategy followed by many definitional attempts focusing on arranged marriage—they try to grasp the essence of the practice by contrasting it to the concept of either love marriage or forced marriage.

Arranged marriage versus love marriage. The binary distinction between an arranged and a love marriage, on the one hand, is based on the assumption that in the former case, the affective dimensions of interpersonal relationships (for example, the formation of a strong emotional bond between the future couple) are not regarded as indispensable in partner selection (empty love, lovelessness), in contrast with a love marriage, in which the mutual existence of romantic love is the dominant consideration in spouse choice and an indispensable precondition for marriage. On the other hand, according to the binary arranged versus love marriage paradigm, partner selection in the case of arranged marriages is a decision based primarily on strategic choices in which family values and interests are a primary consideration and cold rational calculation plays a dominant role, while in the case of love marriages strategic choices and cold rational calculation are (almost) entirely absent. Finally, the third level of meaning attached to this binary opposition concerns individual choice and consent in partner selection: according to many definitional attempts based on contrasting arranged and love marriage, the young people approaching arranged marriage do not exercise any or only a negligible degree of individual agency and autonomy, and the decision-making power lies primarily with the parents.

In many Euro-American discourses, the arranged versus love marriage opposition does not stand alone but is linked to many further interconnected binary oppositions that—seemingly—mutually authenticate and reinforce one another. As the following opposition pairs illustrate (see table I.1), the Euro-American popular depiction of arranged marriage is intended to represent and normalize the ideals and expectations of the advanced industrial democracies regarding marriage—that is, this popular depiction is far from being independent of Western ethnocentric … ideologies, institutional arrangements and even laws that pose ‘love’ marriages as the only appropriate model for marriage (Ralson 1997: 51; see also Pande 2014; Yakushko and Rajan 2017). The negative characterization of arranged marriage that can often be observed in Euro-American public opinion is eloquently illustrated by the fact that numerous public discourses position this type of matchmaking as a negatively defined key marker of one’s ethnic, cultural, or religious identity and—through the strategies of essentialization or iconization—contribute to the process of othering, stigmatization, and marginalization of (often migrant) populations practicing arranged marriage (see also Aguiar 2018; Davé 2012; Shaw 2006).

Countless critiques (see, for example, Aguiar 2018; Annabi et al. 2018; Chantler 2014; Davé, 2012; Fuller and Narasimhan 2008: 751; Hart 2007; Julios 2015 and chapter 5 of this book; Pande 2014, 2021) and research findings warn of the restricted applicability and limited explanatory power of this simplistic and essentializing definitional logic.

In numerous cases of young people entering arranged marriage, it is in fact justified to assume that their relationship is characterized by lovelessness—for example, because they first met only shortly before their marriage and did not have time to get to know each other, or because they are attracted romantically to someone else, not to their future marriage partner. I encountered many such cases during my fieldwork among the Gabor Roma of Transylvania (Berta 2019 and chapter 3 of this book). It is not by chance that in his highly influential theory elaborating the types of love—A Triangular Theory of Love—Sternberg (1986) names arranged marriage as one of the typical examples of empty love, arguing that here only the decision/commitment component is present: This kind of love emanates from the decision that one loves another and has commitment to that love in the absence of both the intimacy and passion components of love.… For example, in societies where marriages are arranged, the marital partners may start with the commitment to love each other, or to try to love each other, and not much more (Sternberg 1986: 124). In many sociocultural contexts, romantic attraction and love are not regarded as indispensable preconditions for a successful partner selection and a happy marriage; they are defined as emotional dimensions that in cases can emerge—as a result of, among other things, successful marital relational work between the couple—in some later stage of the marriage (see, for example, Aguiar 2018; Berta 2019 and chapter 3 of this book; Chantler 2014; Epstein et al. 2013; Merali, chapter 2 of this book; Myers et al. 2005). Epstein et al. (2013: 353) estimated that love emerges in perhaps only half of arranged marriages.

However, many researchers argue that romantic attraction and love are not accidental by-products of arranged marriages; they are treated by their interlocutors as important considerations in partner selection. Convincing examples of this are the mixed or hybrid forms of arranged marriage, such as arranged love marriage (see Abeyasekera 2021 and chapter 9 of this book; Allendorf 2013: 463; Grover 2009, 2018, and chapter 8 of this book; Pande 2014, 2021, and chapter 11 of this book; Srinivasan 2020; Twamley 2014: 72; Uberoi 1998: 306). In this type of partner selection, by taking into consideration both their own personal desires for romantic love as well as parental and sociocultural expectations and ideals related to marriage, the young people themselves choose a partner after which their parents authenticate their choice by organizing an arranged marriage or the young people at least are able to exercise considerable influence on the process of partner selection.

Several authors have reached the conclusion that comparison of arranged marriages and self-choice marriages reveals no differences in marital quality (satisfaction, happiness, and so on), or any differences found are typically insignificant (Bowman and Dollahite 2013: 208; Levesque 2011; Myers et al. 2005), there are not huge differences in marital outcomes between ‘love’ and arranged marriages (Strier and Zidan 2013: 204). At the same time, some of the relevant comparative analyses argue that those who choose their own future marriage partners are more satisfied with their marital relationships (Xu and Whyte 1990: 709; see also Allendorf and Ghimire 2013; Hortacsu and Oral 1994) than those who live in arranged marriages. Others found that the level of marital quality is higher among those living in arranged marriages (Madathil and Benshoff 2008; Yelsma and Athappilly 1988) than among those in self-choice marriages. As Epstein et al. (2013: 341–342) show in their excellent analysis—which gives an overview of research examining the connections between spouse choice and marital quality—the relevant research findings are so contradictory that it is not really possible to draw from them general, reliable conclusions applicable beyond the given narrow ethnographic context. Despite the contradictory nature of this overall picture, it can be said that the findings of research analyzing the connections between type of spouse choice and marital quality give little or no support to the widespread stereotype that the practice of arranged marriage is associated with a low level of marital satisfaction and happiness. To put this conclusion into context, it is essential to recognize that the hegemonic Euro-American construction of romantic love cannot be regarded as an exclusive global norm, because a wide variety of equal sociocultural definitions or logics of love exist. As Hart (2007: 351) points out similarly, the feeling of love, in all its forms, from gentle support to passion, is not uniquely ‘modern’ or ‘Western.’ In other words, the criteria, manifestations, meanings, and significance of love, happiness, intimacy, and marital success can differ widely depending on family or other types of sociocultural contexts.

A frequent element in media and other discourses on arranged marriage is the above-mentioned stereotype, according to which love marriages are characterized by the presence of romance, love, and premarital intimacy, and the absence of strategic choice and arrangement, while arranged marriages can be described by the concepts of empty love or lovelessness, and the dominance of strategic choice and arrangement based on cold rational calculation. Similar to many other researchers, I argue that individual choice and agency of the young people to be married may play a decisive role in the establishment of arranged marriages, and the desire for as well as the possibility or realization of romance and love may be present in this type of marriage, too, while individual strategic choices as well as contextual (for example, structural) influences can exercise a significant impact on the formation and management of many self-choice marriages.

The determining presence of strategic choice, that either is linked to individual preferences related to spouse choice (educational level, occupational prestige, and so on) or can be interpreted as a response to direct contextual forces, is a phenomenon frequently documented also in the case of non-arranged partner selections. Besides romantic attraction and love, the choice of partner is often influenced by such considerations as the search for emotional or financial security, an intense desire to have a child or set up a family, or the attraction of upward social mobility. Although the Euro-American popular depiction of marriage focuses on romantic love and at the same time renders invisible and marginalizes the non-love-based emotional and other considerations as well as their significance, it is obvious that in the course of partner selection individuals (even in advanced industrial democracies) make many strategic choices that contribute to the realization of their own (non-love-based) emotional, social, or economic desires, plans, and identity projects. To quote the argument put forward by Ralson (1997: 51–52), "many ‘love’ marriages of free choice are, in fact, contracted between partners of similar personal, social and cultural background such as race, class, educational level, ethnicity, religion and language—particularly when ownership of property and wealth is at stake. In other words, borders and boundaries are constructed in love marriage contracts well as in arranged