the marriage alliance

8/3/2019 The Marriage Alliance

1/9

lL(~s~'p13 L . DumontThe Marriage Alliance

Excerpt from L. Dumont, 'Hierarchy and marriage alliance in SouthIndian kinship', Occasional Paper no. 12, 1957, Royal AnthropologicalInstitute.

To introduce an institution which is shared by all groups referredto here and, I believe, by many others, some criticism of currentanthropological categories is first necessary.Marriage regulations and affinitye . . _ (positive) marriage regulation like 'a man slumld_ro!u-r.Y_hismother's brother's daugl_1ter' might be a native statement in-dicating whom a given individual should marry. But, in anthrop-ological thought, it takes on a slightly different meaning. There it. appears as a rule for deriving a man's marriage from a relationshipexcluding any idea of marriage or affinity, i.e. from a relationshipof consanguinity .~Itis implied that consangllinity,is.,pre~e](ist~Rtt , { ) the, tlJ,arriage,sin~e I inustbe bOfI~~f~r~ I marry. The m~~i~g~regulation is in fact used as a tool for deducing a secondarycategory (a certain marriage) from a primary category (a certainrelationship of consanguinity). After marriage is so introduced, itbrings with it relationships of a secondary kind (a.ffinal relation-shi s which are never considered as full kinship relationshi s,because they are individual an a ove all temporary - theydisap-pear with the married persqn and are not transmitteC! to his o.!.I_erdescendants but under the form of a ~nsanguinity relationship.ISUbmit that all this is wrong and needs revision for the follow-ing reasons: (1) it rests only on undue generalization of our com-monsense categories, and does not do justice to the facts becausein our societies marriage is an individual affair, not positivelyregulated; (2) it is contradictory for, as I shall show. the veryexistence of the marriageregulationimplies that affinity is tra.ns-mitted-from o';~ generation tothe next just as c~nsailguipitYJi~are. We have thus to give a proper definition of marriage regulation

'4 ' ,' ' '- ' '' ' '' ' '' - ' ' . . . . -

L. Dumont 183oticeThis material may beprotected by copyrightlaw (Title 17 U.S Code)San Francisco State University


2/9

on the one hand and to widen our concept of affinity on the other.First, it isalmost unnecessary to recall that marriage cannot ingeneral be considered as a secondary product of other institutionssuch as descent, which are then taken as being primary; there israther an interrelation in the complete make-up. Still less it ispossible to reduce the content of the marriage regulation to thecodification of an individual affair, which marriage is not. Conse-quently, the regulation should not be considered as consisting ofa relation between consanguineous ties and affinity, but as a

'. feature of affinity itself. It ispossible to do so, bypointing out that~ th re ati etermines one's 'a e b reference to one'st . . & ' ~ ~endant~~'~I,l_1_~ri~~ a eatrilIDal..Qatr!lQ~!~_


3/9

denote two cll.lss.es.Jhemeoo~rs..oLwhicbm;e respectie~rothe.t:s,.in-law to one another. Or, ifwe call 'alliance relationship' thisrelationship between two persons_of the same sex, and representit by ~[=] ~, standing for A = Mas well as for 5:6= A etc.,the relation between the two c 1 a s s e s i s M=] ~.ThlS1Strue alsoin Ego's generation (for older and younger relatives), whereasthe distinction does not fully operate in Ego's son's generation,where a mere prefix is used, and disappears in the grandson'sgeneration. Terms for males are recapitulated in Figure 2 (a).

. ~-(Jf"/;/~jr?~1.~(., " , . J f . J . ",f)i:1.~' ,V ', JII,

---+---1 '0 .r /)} "

(a) (b)generations termsgrandfather b. .father b..Hb..t ' A [ = J b. .egct


4/9

~~:~r institution, but one to which each social group willgivea particular!' concrete form according to its particular institutions. 0Ne may: J)i~a~ne,.ror.instance, that y: ! a matI.:il~aLmatriiocal society the, . . f 9 n link IS with the mother's brother while the father is an affine;\\" ~!Llb~iLru:dinilQl~ositions_in_the_sys.tem ):Yould be reversed,without the structure being altered.} Among our groups, the actualrelationship with the father's sister may vary, but there will always

be found as a common background the fact that she is differentfrom a 'mother', first of all in the sense that Ego may marry herdaughter even if she is not the preferred mate, while he may notmarry a 'mother's' daughter.Again, within one and the same terminological class the dis-tinction of particular relatives, whether expressed or not in thelanguage, may differ from one group to another. The broadopposition between kin and affines suggested by the terminology

will itself be unequally realized for different relatives: among theterminolog!cal kin, a Dart is singled alit as really or fyJjy_Jcin,and the same happens among terminological affines. The choicevaries, but all the different choices fitinto the general terminologicalframe, no doubt because they fit into a common alliance pattern.Another general difference is found in the degree to which re-lationships are extended from the groups of siblings to extensivesocio-political groups. A comparison will show how the termin-.~cal categories are~ven different shaRes by diff~~_Q!.jp:-stitutions. -.-----.The Pramalai Kallar are patrilineal and patrilocal. In onelocality there is as a rule only one or a few patrilineages. Hence:

1. The category of 'brothers' issplitin1Q.J.YlQ.:n the one hand allmy paternal 'brothers' (sons of my father's brothers etc.) aremembers of my local descent group, on the other hand my~~I 'brot.~ers' (sons of my mother's sisters etc.) are spreadover different groups and places. On the paternal side each indiovidual link ismade to endure through generations by becoming anelement among all other similar elements in the continuous fabricof the local group, clearly defined as against others by the exo-gamic rule. On the maternal side, each individual relationship,being isolated - see however (2) below - is liable to be rapidlyforgotten. While the paternal half is stressed to the point ofbecomins3ll!Q.g_!


5/9

kinship relationships are not backed by corresponding .relation-ships between groups. Here the sons of two brothers on the onehand and of two sisters on the other are recognized as 'brothers'in two different ways and the two kinds ofLeliltionship are stre~edin quite different conditions, the first in a context oflocality and thesecond in a context of alliance 9r _QLsl>La:L~l


6/9

Siftstothein-laws on the occ~~f marria~itse~~~~~~well.If the details vary, the broad institution is general, at least inY:;:;rthe Tamil c~~y, even among well-to-do. people. This ~ouble&~'~ transmission Q[w:olletlY..m_nfirlJl~QllPosltiQn betVi~llJ~ndIJ! ':J alliance. It indicates that a review of ceremonial gifts must begin& t ~V with marriage.

Marriage gifts

,~

What isthemost salient feature of the marriage ceremonies amongthe groups referred to'! Sacramental acts like uniting hands or.circumambulating the fire are not found. The tying of a string,~,O\ with or without the well-known marriage badge or tali, round the./~ . bride's neck has certainlY a sacramental value. especially for the

./ bride. But it is not witnessed by all relatives, because the cere-nwnies take place partly in the bride's and partly in the bride-groom's house, and only a few people go from one to the other.This explains why the tying of the tiili was sometimes repeated(Pramalai Kallar), A common meeting of the relatives of bothsides is conspicuously absent. As a sign of union between the twofamilies, I think wemay say that it isreplaced by the long series ofalternate shiftings of the couple from one place to the other andback and again, which takes place from the marriage onwards andis accompanied by gifts in one direction and increased gifts inreturn. This chain of gifts. or 'prest~Ji,g.!!.s.:..and.':coJJ.llter~presta-tions '2 symboli~lliance tie and is the most importantfeature of marriage ceremonies from thepoint __of.Yi~ the1 1 : 1 a f i o n ''[ ; t ; o o n tJ i e i w o f a ~ i l i e s . . _ . . _ . . . .The Pramalai Kallar state wjth particular eID1l.l::\as~sent to the bride's house return increased twofold or threefold'.Among them, the man's family (which I shall designate as M)gives first a sum of money, paricam, to the woman's family(designated as F)which has to spend at least twice as much for thebride's jewels. Then with the ceremony proper begins the series ofvisitsto and stays with F, the couple being every time accompaniedby a number of baskets (fir), containing foodstuffs and other2. Prestation the action of paying, in money or service, what is due by

law or custom, or feudally; a payment or the performance of a service soimposed or exacted, also, the performance of something promised' tShorterOxford Dictionary).

192 Marriage and Alliance

articles for consumption, from M to F and, increased, back fromF to M. Prestations from Fdominate more and moreil_stime_~o~on until finally - it may be two or three years after the marriageC;:emony - the young couple establish a separate household nearM, and receive the necessary pots and pans from Fwithout anyreturn gift. This is the 'c;ir of going apart '.Such are the main prestations, which I call external prestationsin order to distinguish them from the following. During themarriage ceremony, in both houses, money i_s.ollec~d among thethe bridegroom's relatWe&-Gti the onelUiild and the bride's relatives..~u"the other. This is called mor; its effect is to make the relatives,contribute to the expenses ofthe family; itmay becalled an~prestation. These two kinds of prestations are found in mostother groups, internal prestations being likewise called moy,whereas there is no general term for external prestations, some-times called cum] if they consist of gifts in money and fir if inkind. Linguistically, whilemoy indicates a mere collection (' crowd','multitude'), cum] connotes a circular movement, a rolling up,perhaps a circular accumulation. Among the Nangudi all pres-tations are external, and people say that the moy has been replacedby collections where the two groups of relatives are mixed (iNiim,a solemn word for 'gift '). The moy is not found in connectionwith marriage in Mudukkulattur, where it is known on otherceremonial occasions, i.e. girl's puberty and funerals. InPaganeri,internal prestations comprise a contribution in rice brought byall taking part in the feast (which may well be more widespread)and also a collection of money similar to the moy, bearing thename of revel or regei, 'list', and accompanied by small gifts ~fthanks in return. Among the Arupangu, the two moy are associ-ated with a series of small external gi~ts. .. . ~\In considering the external prestatlOns. It ISnecessary to smgle .. ~out the matrilineal and matrilocal NangudLwho do not make~Vreciprocal g!fts. The pattern is definitely different: M's prestations x~e very slight on a ceremonial level; there is no paricam, nogift of tali or sari; the idea of competition is absent; the cost of thefeast is shared afterwards between the two families. The parentsof the bride make a point of providing everything except a food-stuff allowance, the same in all cases, which has to be regularlydelivered by M to the new household. Moreover, the emphasis isT-K-O L Dumont 193


7/9

here on the dowry. strictly the wife's property. In Paganeri alsothe reciprocity in gifts is weaker, but there a part of the usualprestations from M isfound.Otherwise the comparison shows that, while there are all possiblevariations for each element in particular, the whole is more uni-form than its parts, and still more so is the form of small cycle~

\ inside the whole cycle. Leaving aside once for all the ~!li) r ; ~ - : J . YeIlalar, we see that the.fE_liis ev~he~e paid by M. The gift ~f 0 - one or two saris to the bride by M IS lacking among the Pram.ala~,so isthe parieam in Paganeri and among the Arupangu, while It

is present in Mudukkulattur, and present but smaIl among theAmbalakkarar. As a counterpart, the importance of jewels anddowry varie. Land is given among the Ambalakkarar and inPaganeri. Jewels are important in those two groups, but on thecontrary their value is hardly mentioned at all in Mudukkulattur.This isobviously related to the economic situation, for the Maravarof Mudukkulattur are very poor and the Arupangu occupy anintermediary position between them and Paganeri or the Nangudi.The masculine fir brought for the ceremony isfound everywher~,Nangudi excepted. Among the Arupangu, it is like that of thePramalai, with one sari added. In Mudukkulattur, where it ispreceded by another one for the betrothal, it includes rice. TWsalso isseen, with more rice, in Paganeri and among the Ambalak-karar. In return the gift is multiplied thrice in Mudukkulattur,while in Paganeri the increase ismarked in a different way, by theadditions of pots and pans. The return gift is lacking among theAmbalakkarar and the Arupangu. In the latter group, it is prob-ably only delayed on the one hand (sir of the first visit to F) and,on the other, there is another form of reciprocity, that of ~urul,as will be seen below.Regarding subsequent c:ir gifts, the difference between thegroups bears on the choice of the most important dates. Thehousehold equipment wiII be offered, here on the Pongal festival(inJanuary), there on the first visit to F; the gifts of the month ofi i r J i wiIIbe more or less important, etc. The c:urulor external giftsin money are found among the Arupangu (1) from F to M as areturn for clothes, (2)from F to M and back (individualized, as inPaganeri, where the ~uru!is a smaIl gift from the wife's father tothe husband and from the husband's mother to the wife).194 Marriage and Alliance

3G~~The common mechanism of the gifts appears clearly if one iso- !lates srllilIT-cyCles-l:)asedn reciprocity. There are three types. Inthe first of these, there is an exact reciprocity, as in Paganeri (/)when clothes are given by M toF and then equivalent clothes byF to M; among the Arupangu the clothes presented by M to Fare compensated for by a reverse gift in money (suruf) which must

be at least equal to their value. In a second type, the initial gift is (~)not only reciprocated, but multiplied in return, as among theP'?ainalaI.A third type has a reduced reciprocity , marked sometimes C 'bby a mere symbolical counter-gift. TWsis true among the Pramalaiand inPaganeri for the moy; among the Arupangu the ~uru!whichhas just been mentioned is in its turn foIlowed by a symbolicalreturn. It can also be shown how one given object receives aparticular ceremonial value from its situation in the whole. Thisis so with rice among the Pramalai, where it does not occur ininternal prestations nor in the masculine, but only in the feminine~ir as a sign of their substantial importance, i.e. of the' increase'which characterizes them. On the contrary, rice is to be foundeverywhere in Paganeri and, to express th~ pre-eminence of thefeminine cir, one resorts to another element, namely the pots andpans which elsewhere appear only later.The foregoing comparison wiII have shown how much stress islaid on the chain of prestations in all its details, and also in whatsense it may be said to be common in spite of an Yaria:iiQiiijt is \iD \clearly impossible to single out one of the marriage 'payments ',I;)(~~~I:.C.thepari~am, and to calI it 'bride-price'.3 It represents, at least in " fthe examples cited here, the contribution of the husband's family

to the buying ofjewels which will be worn by the wife but normallybecome the property of the household, as can be ascertained fromtheir treatment in case of divorce. That terms like 'bride-price'are inaccurate here is also obvious if one considers that, on thewhole, and to varying degrees, it is the wife's family that givesmore. The paricam appears rather as a kind of earnest-moneyW h T c l i is destined to come back increased. It would be almost

- \,

3.For a contrary view see Srinivas (1942, ch. 2), but the prestations arenot analysed. Mousset and Dupuis (1928) wisely translate paricam by theFrench arrhes. An exchange of gifts similar to those found here, but withmercantile features, has been described among the Nattukkottai Chettiar(Thurston and Rangachari, 1909, vol. 5, pp. 265 ff.).

L Dumont 195


8/9

equally misleading to reduce the whole to 'dowry', in cases whensomething of the kind actually appears. These are rather extremecases among the rich and when patrilateral marriage promises areturn in the next generation. The transfer of meaning of theclassical word for dowry (Sanskrit stridhana, 'wife's property')among the Pramalai Kallar is characteristic, since they callrridaNam, ridaNam all gifts due by the wife's family, includingthe future gifts of her brother to his sister's children. Obviouslythe meaning of the protracted exchange of gifts with which we aredealing, if it includes the final result in terms of plus and minus,goes far beyond this. Qn the whole, the final result is a gift whicb.accompanies the gift of the & ! ! I . A .relevant question here wouldbe to ask why a transaction whic~~ounts !!La,gi{tJlruUoEUcethe form of an exchange. I would say that it corresponds tothe individual marnage's (Le. gift 's) being conceived of as a partofthe whole nexus ofintermarriages and their consequences asseen /from the point of view of a single family (i.e, exchange). When thePramalai Kallar state that 'gifts sent to the bride's house returnincreased', this is roughly true of one individual present, but it isstill truer of the whole series, or rather it is true in the sense that itaccounts for each exchange as seen in the light of the whole. Thereiscertainty about increase, because increase is the law of the wholecycle. One knows very well that masculine gifts will decrease astime goes on, while feminine gifts will increase; the latter aresubstantial, the former initiatory and provocative. Generosity~es on the ~l's side, but it has to be set in motion; a pledge toprotracted;- manifold, and mainlL1!!!U~eral gifts isobtaiiied byaf011l_lalx~a.!lge. -----------Indeed, this may be taken as a formula of K!!:lIarmarriage ifoneaccepts the view that these prestations -'and not the 'ritual'elements on which attention has beenmainly focused - constitute

l;llemain part of marriage ceremonies. In favour of this view, thefirst argument is that prestations in fact do not stop_at the pointwe have somewhat arbitrarily chosen. ~lQKmay be~lIed 'alliance prestations ' and I shall trace them in all ceremonialcircumstances of the individual's life. Marriage does not consist0n!Y}J:1P:e.,S


9/9

counterpart. This had nothing to do with the common girls'puberty ceremony, although the two have been sometimes con-fused (Francis, 1914,p. 94). An informant states that this ceremonyoriginated because parents who had no sons but only daughterswished to celebrate it as well as the others.ReferencesAIYAPPAN, A. (1944), 'Iravas and culture change', Bull. Madras

Govt. Mus., General Section, vol. 5, no. 1.BRIFFAULT, R. (1927), The Mothers, vol. 1, Allen & Unwin.DUMONT, L. (1953a), 'The Dravidian kinship terminology as anexpression of marriage', Man, vol. 53, art. 54.DUMONT, L. (1953b), 'Dravidian kinship terminology', Man, vol. 53',art. 224. \

FRANCIS, W. (1914), 'Madura', Madras District Gazetteers, vol. 1,Madras Government Press.

JOLLY, J. (1896), 'Recht und Sitte (einschliessllch der einheimischenLiteratur)', Grundriss Indo-Arischen Philo log. Altertumskunde, vol. 11,no. 8.

MAYNE, J. D. (1938), A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, 10th edn.,Higginbotham, Madras.

MOUSSET, A., and DUPUIS, B. (1928), Dictionnaire tamoul-francais,Pondichery, Societe des Missions Etrangeres,

RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1953j, 'Dravidian kinship terminology',Man, vol. 53, art. 169.

SRINIVAS, M. N. (1942), Marriage and Family ill Mysore, BombayNew Book Co.

THURSTON, E., and RANGACHARI, K. (1909), Castes and Tribes ofSouthern India, Madras Government Press.

198 Marriage and Alliance

the marriage alliance

Documents