What is the accepted definition of marriage when dealing with other cultures?

Question

I see on TV shows anthropoligists studying different cultures around the world in places like the amazon rain forest and south pacific islands, africa etc. Often they refer to people as husband and wife. How do you make the distinction between a husband and wife without legal records and so forth? what about polgamy and other forms of multiple partners? Is there sometimes higher and lower classes of wives? If you brought a polygamous tribesman to new York and gave him a job on wall street would his benefits cover all of his wives?

Answer 1

marriage is an agreement (contract) between two individuals.

religion organized marriages when it organized all form of legal dealings (example in Islam, Judaism, Christianity)

each society and for different reasons, had his own conditions on marriages according to each patriarchal or matriarchal systems, and others..

Answer 2

Whatever definition each culture has. You can't unify the definition of marriage simply because we dont the same customs. We might think polygamous is not appropriate but to other culture it's acceptable. We have to consider other culture. Doesn't mean other culture dont follow your own culture, is wrong or your culture is right the rest of the other culture is wrong. So to answer your question every definition of marriage is accepted (in terms of human relationship) no other things.

Answer 3

Look at culture for what it is; the parameter of evolved human behavior. We, as a species are generally monogamous, with a strong, depending on status and resource, tendency towards polygamy. Polyandry is a very, very rare arrangement among humans. The rise of polygamy was after the onset of agriculture, where status and resources arose from people who had been hunter-gatherer egalitarians.

PS Institutions can trump evolution. Polygamy is illegal in the USA, though some get away with it.

Answer 4

It varies by different cultures. There are written histories of a culture and there is an oral history. Both are valid

Answer 5

culures differ and that means values and principles differ too. so what is ok and acceptable in the US is not on the other part of the world.and this is true for what we know as "marriage".polygamy may sound strange and weird in the US but is totally normal in other societies.and not all men can marry more than one woman. it are only the rich who can do that.......i think thats logical

Answer 6

I disagree with the highly relativistic stance of previous answers. A general definition of marriage can be set in order to compare similar institutions in different cultures. Thus it is enough to consider marriage as a long lasting bond between two people for mutual protection and, traditionally, for the raising of children. Polygamy does not affect this definition since the bond is still established between two people. If polygamy is socially accepted, there is an implicit or explicit clause that the bond stands "regardless of previous or future compromises".

This kind of compromise does not require a legal or religious document, since it is basically a social arrangement. That is why the bond must be established openly, so others recognize it. To construe it as legal or religious only makes it harder to undo, but it's nature does not change much.

Answer 7

Ask the little white piece of tape in the middle of your glasses........it might know

Answer 8

The definition of marriage is unique to each culture, so only within that culture would you know how it is distinguished. There are countries which have laws for urban citizens but still have much undeveloped land where local oral or locally written customs rule undisturbed.  (Big government turns a "blind-eye" .)

If government official insists, an agreement is made to satisfy the government paper.  Number one wife may be the only one recorded.   Legal records may read "living together as husband and wife".  I think that's done here in the US. (not the polygamy - the living together legalese).  

If you took anyone out of his own culture and made him a citizen of New York, his marriage benefits would be determined by the culture of New York, not of "back home".