Evolution of marriage

According to social anthropologists, sociologists and historians the institution of marriage in human society gradually evolved to its present stage starting from promiscuous relationships between male and female.

In this stage of promiscuity the male-female relationships were unrestrained and without control. According to the anthropologists Lewis Morgan, one finds exchange of wives, giving wives on loan and other such customs in very ancient primitive tribes which has no institution of marriage.

Since there was no restriction upon sex-relationships, the father was not much important in the family and most of the progeny was known by the mother. These findings of Morgan are more logical than historical. Morgan has pointed out that the institution of marriage evolved through several stages. Of these the most important stages are as follows:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. Consanguineous marriage

This was the first stage in the marriage institution. In this stage there was the prevalence of endogamy among blood-relationships.

2. Group marriages

The next stage in the evolution of marriage was known as that of group-marriage. As is clear by the name, in this system several brothers married several women as a group among whom the sexual relationships were not defined. However, there restriction upon sex- relationships with persons of other group.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. Syndesmian marriage

The third stage in the evolution of marriage was the paring of the male and female which however was only temporary and not controlled by any rules and regulations. This paring could be broken by mere desire of anyone.

4. Patriarchal marriage

In this stage a male could marry several females who would live separately form each other. The custom of hypergamy and polygamy which will be described later in this chapter belong to this stage. Polyandry can also be said to belong to this stage in Matriarchal societies.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

5. Monogamy

In 19th century the institution of marriage in most of civilized human societies reached the stage of present monogamous marriage usually one male married one female at a time and lived with-her until legal or religious separation. In monogamy sex-relationships among male and female are confined within the limits of marital bound and extramarital relationships are considered a sufficient basis of dissolution of marriage.

The above mentioned stages in the evolution of marriage have been challenged by the famous anthropologist Westermarck. According to Westermarck the tradition of monogamy in human society is not a matter of evolution.

It has been borrowed from animals and birds. The present form of marriage is not the result of gradual evolution in this institution but a change in the moral principles accepted by the males and females.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The theory of Westermarck is criticised by the anthropologist Briffalt. According to Briffalt the scheme suggested by Morgan was more reasonable. Contemporary anthropologists do not accept either of the above mentioned views. According to D. N. Majumdar the customs of promiscuity and the pre­marital and extra martial sex-relationships can not lead us to a conclusion that in the primitive societies promiscuity was the rule.

Some thinkers have defined permissiveness with reference to other reasons. In India no examples of promiscuity can be found in so many primitive tribes. Most of the Indian tribes believe in the custom of monogamy, though one finds a vast variety of premarital and extra-marital sex-relationships.

According to Lowie, promiscuity cannot be found in contemporary primitive tribes. According to D. N. Majumdar the custom of monogamy is not natural to them. It is generally prevalent due to social, economic reasons and not moral or psychological reasons.

The attempt to trace different stages in the evolution of marriage and its origin in promiscuity is worthless and cannot lead us to any valuable conclusion. The historical researches can only show as to why and how a certain form of marriage originated in a particular society.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

On the basis of such historical material confined to particular human societies, it is not fair to deduce a general scheme of evolution in the institution of marriage has been now generally accepted by sociologists and social anthropologists.