Gautam Kalani

11th March 2009

The Socio-Economic Impact of Bridewealth and Dowry Customs – a Comparative Analysis

To some, marriage may seem nothing more than the coming together of two people

in love. However, the institution of marriage also has a deeper impact on the socio-

economic structure of society. Marriage alliances, social values and the rituals and

exchanges of wealth associated with matrimony grant it a central role in

communities, and endow the institution of marriage with the ability to impact the

very fabric of society. The impact of the institution of marriage on society cannot be

understated, and is enhanced in societies with strong traditions of bridewealth or

dowry. Moreover, the nature of this impact markedly differs between bridewealth

and dowry societies. In this paper, I will analyze these two deep-rooted matrimonial

rituals and attempt to shed light on the paths through which they mold society, as

well as the extent of their influence. I will focus on Africa, where bridewealth is

predominant, and India, where the dowry system is prevalent, in order to show how

these traditions are, at least partly, responsible for the contrasting treatment of

women in these societies, as well as the vastly differing extent of stratification of the

these societies.

The custom of bridewealth involves the transfer of wealth from the family of the

groom to the male kin of the bride. It usually consists of movable property such as

livestock (cows and goats), iron rods, shells (cowries), hoes and palm wine (Goody

and Tambiah, 1973). Recently, with the permeation of capitalism in these societies,

cash has increasingly become a component of bridewealth payments. However,

most of the African societies that practice bridewealth customs are pastoral or

agricultural, and depend heavily on livestock for subsistence – livestock, therefore,

still represent the nucleus of bridewealth payments (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). A

family’s wealth is inextricably tied to the number of cows and goats it owns, lending

to the importance of livestock as a component of bridewealth transfers. Bridewealth

is generally paid gradually over time, and not as a singular payment at the time of

marriage. Moreover, in most West African societies, bridewealth amounts are

usually fixed, though there is some variation that is dependent on the status of the

families involved in the marriage (Goody and Tambiah, 1973).

Bridewealth does not become property of the bride or the newly formed couple;

rather, bridewealth payments are made to the kin of the bride, and fall under the

control of the lineage head or the head of the bride’s kin group. The bridewealth

payments received by a kin group form a collective fund for the group, which is then

drawn upon to bring in women from other lineages into the group as wives for its

male members. In this way, the bridewealth payments received by a kin group

during the marriage of its women, therefore, form the crux of the bridewealth paid

out during the marriage of its men. Thus, bridewealth forms a circulating ‘societal

fund’ – it flows between lineage groups in a community through marriage alliances,

and its movement is opposite to that of women between lineage groups (Goody and

Tambiah, 1973). Despite its movement within lineages, this fund mostly circulates

within the community. Since lineage heads, or seniors, control marriage alliances in

most African communities (Meillassoux, 1978), they effectively control the flow of

bridewealth in the society.

As a citizen and resident of India, where dowry customs are prevalent, I am well

aware of the nuances of the dowry system. The rituals involved in the dowry

tradition are often in stark contrast with those of bridwealth system. Dowry

customs entail the transfer of wealth (‘dahej’) from the kin of the bride to the

conjugal couple and family of the groom. Dowry payments vary greatly in content,

much more so than bridewealth payments. Dowry can consist of practically any

form of moveable or immovable property – cash, cars, jewelry, gold, home

appliances and property are all important components of dowry payments in urban

India. Though this might seem excessive, it is exorbitant dowries are commonplace

in India. To give an example from personal experience, in the recent wedding of my

uncle’s daughter, the family of my uncle gave the couple a car, a flat in suburban

Mumbai and a substantial amount of wedding jewelry as part of the dowry payment.

In rural India, dowry payments are constituted mostly of land, livestock and

agricultural produce. Cash is becoming an increasingly popular form of dowry, and

this reflects the rise of capitalism, paralleling the escalating importance of cash in

African bridewealth payments. The dowry tradition also requires the family of the

bride to pay for the numerous wedding ceremonies, which are often extravagant in

both size and cost. Unlike bridewealth, dowry is payable in full at the time of

marriage itself. Also, in contrast to bridewealth, the size of dowry payments varies

greatly, primarily in correspondence with the social status and economic position of

the families involved in the marriage.

Traditionally, anthropologists have argued that dowry is a form of ‘pre-mortem

inheritance’ given to bride by her family (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). It is also

popular belief that dowry forms part of the conjugal for the married couple, which

they can use to set up their household (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). While this is

true to some degree, Tambiah (1989) points out that only a fraction of the entire

dowry amount becomes property of the couple. Traditionally, the bride only retains

the clothing and jewelry (‘gehna’) she receives as her personal property (Tambiah,

1989). A substantial portion of the dowry, which consists of cooking vessels,

household furnishings and prestige goods, becomes the property of the groom’s

joint or extended family. These items are thus under the control of the head of the

groom’s joint family, who is usually its eldest male member (Tambiah, 1989). Thus,

this sizable portion of the dowry becomes part of the joint family fund, which is

drawn upon during the marriage of the women of the family. A considerable portion

of what is received by a joint family as dowry during the marriage of its men is given

out as dowry during the marriage of its women. Therefore, while the entire dowry

amount does not become part of the family fund, a notable portion of does serve as a

circulating fund for family of the groom (Tambiah, 1989). Hershman (1981)

observes that in Jat and Punjabi Brahman households of North India, dowry consists

of two distinct elements – household items that form the core of the newly married

couple’s household, and gifts given to the family of the groom, which become part of

the joint family’s circulating fund. My experience in India supports the observations

of Hershman (1981) and Tambiah (1989) – in most cases of marriage that I am

aware of, a majority of the dowry has actually been retained by the groom’s kin and

extended family, rather than by the newly formed couple itself.

It is important to point out that while some similarities exist between bridewealth

and dowry practices, there are crucial differences between the societies of Africa

and India, which manifest in certain disparate characteristics of the two practices.

Africa is a vast continent with a relatively low population density. Land is plentiful

but people are relatively scarce – therefore, control over people, and their

productive and reproductive capacities in particular, is the primary source of status

and power, rather than control over land or any other form of material wealth

(Goody and Tambiah, 1973). Men, to a great extent, are not distinguished by their

ownership of property (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). Most African communities

practice hoe agriculture, where women are the primary producers. Additionally,

polygyny is prevalent, and most men have multiple wives – the number of wives a

man has, in fact, is a symbol of status in African communities. These communities

are generally self-sustaining, and rarely produce surplus agricultural product that

can be appropriated by other groups (Meillassoux, 1978).

Owing to the significance of control over people in African societies, the allocation

rights over the offspring of a marriage play a crucial role in the structure of

bridewealth customs. A key component of the institution of marriage in these

communities is that domestic and sexual rights (rights in uxorem) in women are

distinct from the rights over the offspring of the couple (rights in genetricem)

(Goody and Tambiah, 1973). These rights are also acquired separately – while the

husband almost always automatically acquires uxorial rights at the time of

marriage, rights over the children are only obtained with the payment of sufficient

bridewealth over the course of the marriage. Since the wealth of a lineage is

measured in its control over the productive and reproductive labor of people

(Goody and Tambiah, 1973), the rights to attach children to the lineage is of

paramount importance. The groom generally has to pay additional bridewealth over

the course of the marriage in order to obtain the right to attach the child to his

lineage; if he is unable to pay this additional bridewealth, the child is attached to the

bride’s lineage group. This is one of the primary reasons why many African

societies are characterized by out-marriage or exogamy – there are often marriages

between people from different social strata. It is sometimes preferable for a woman

to marry someone of lower social status – since the husband is unlikely to possess

the resources to pay the additional bridewealth required to obtain the rights in

genetricem, the offspring of the couple are usually attached to the bride’s lineage

group, thereby increasing its social wealth (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). For this

reason, it was not unusual for chiefs to marry their daughters to slaves – as slaves

had no lineage, the chief could assign his lineage name to the children born.

Moreover, exogamy in marriage creates strong links between different social

groups, through marriage ties. Additionally, the ownership and accumulation of

material wealth is not of prime importance. These factors, combined with the fact

that marriage alliances are not chosen on the basis of social status, lead to the

formation of a society that is not divided or stratified to a great extent on the basis

of class or wealth.

The practice of group exogamy in marriage is in striking contrast with the strict

endogamy that takes place in marriages in Indian society (Tambiah, 1989). India

has a massive population of 1.2 billion people, and this large population has always

translated into an abundant labor force. Since labor can be easily obtained, land is

relatively scarce – therefore, wealth is determined by the ownership and

accumulation of land and other material goods, rather than control over people.

Thus, Indian society is already strongly stratified on the basis of material wealth and

caste. People usually marry within religious communities and social strata, leading

to the strengthening of horizontal ties within a class, rather than vertical ties

between classes (as is observed in Africa). This endogamy in marriage leads to

further and stronger divisions within society on the basis of class, which is in turn

determined by caste and the ownership of land. Even if marriages occur between

different classes, they do so between classes within a narrow social stratum. In such

cases, women are generally married into a higher social class, rather than a lower

one. Dowry payments vary greatly on the basis of social class – the family of a man

in a higher social class can demand a greater amount of dowry. Thus, only families

that can afford to pay this higher dowry can offer their daughter in marriage. In this

way, the dowry system matches people within social classes, and deepens the rift

between different social strata. Strong links are mostly formed within classes, rather

than between them. Additionally, the rights in uxorem and genetricem are merged,

and the husband obtains them both at the time of marriage (Tambiah, 1989). In

India, unlike in Africa, men are the primary producers in the agricultural sector, and

monogamy is the norm.

As a result of group exogamy in African marriages, bridewealth flows between

different lineages and different social classes. It forms a societal fund that circulates

wealth between different social strata within a community. Thus, bridewealth has a

leveling function in African society, as it spreads wealth between different social

classes (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). This economic homogenization further unifies

African communities, practically eliminating classification of people based on

material wealth. The practice of bridewealth thus leads to the creation of a society

that is, to a great extent, egalitarian. Polygyny also lends to this leveling effect of

bridewealth (Goody and Tambiah, 1973). A relatively wealthy person can afford to

pay bridewealth to bring in a greater number of wives. This allows him to attach

more children to his lineage and increase his social status. But at the same time,

bridewealth flows from a wealthier person to those less wealthy, thus homogenizing

economic wealth between families. On the other hand, since marriages in India

occur mostly within social strata, dowry wealth circulates within social classes

rather than between them. If marriages do occur between different classes, the

bride is usually of lower social class than the groom, leading to dowry flows upward

to wealthier classes. Therefore, dowry creates further divisions in society on the

basis of economic wealth. It has an effect almost exactly opposite to that of

bridewealth – while bridewealth disburses economic wealth between classes and

unifies society, dowry maintains, and often exacerbates, the stratification of society.

According to Goody and Tambiah (1973), the dowry system also leads to the

phenomenon of “diverging devolution,” where the children of both sexes inherit

wealth, which is transferred through narrowly lineal paths within the nuclear

family. This amplifies the economic divisions within dowry societies (Goody and

Tambiah, 1973). Nuclear families obtain dowry wealth either directly during

marriage (dowry as ‘pre-mortem inheritance’), or indirectly when the joint family is

split up and the dowry fund is divided amongst the nuclear families (Tambiah,

1989)

In addition to differences in the extent of the socio-economic stratification of

society, there is also a marked difference in the treatment of women in African and

Indian societies. On the whole, women in Africa, in comparison with their Indian

counterparts, possess a much higher status and position in society, and are treated

better during the course of their lives. These differences are due to both disparat

social values and the bridewealth and dowry rituals. In African society, unlike in

India, women are the primary producers – they have a greater degree of

independence, since they do not rely on their husbands for sustenance.

Furthermore, wealth is placed in people – since women are the bearers of children,

they play a central role in African society. Therefore, due to their authority over

both production and reproduction, women are given great importance in African

society. Control over women, and marriage alliances, is a critical measure of status,

as this ensures control over both the means of production and reproduction.

Women in Africa, as compared to those in India, are thus treated much better by

their biological family and their in-laws, as well as by society in general. Moreover,

women are seen as an asset to their families, as they bring in bridewealth when they

get married – having a girl child is seen as highly auspicious in African society. The

importance of women is reflected in the fact that a chief does not announce the birth

of any of his children until the birth of his first daughter.

In contrast, Indian society is inundated with cases of abuse and mistreatment of

women. Female infanticide is, unfortunately, a common practice, especially in rural

India. Additionally, the girl child is often neglected, sometimes fatally. In general,

women occupy a much lower position in society than their African counterparts,

and are seen as subordinate to men. There is a “cultural devaluation of girls”, which

is the consequence of female “self-depreciation” in Indian society (Tambiah, 1989).

While these practices are on the fall in urban India, they still exist; furthermore, they

are omnipresent in rural India, which constitutes a large portion of the nation. The

mistreatment of women stems partly from the fact that in India, men, rather than

women are the primary producers. The woman is, more often than not, completely

dependent on her husband for sustenance. Moreover, wealth is placed in property,

rather than in people – thus, women, as bearers of children, are not given as much

importance as their African counterparts. Women, both as means of production and

reproduction, are not given as much respect in Indian society as they are afforded in

African society. A girl child in India is often viewed, and treated, as a burden to her

family, since the family will have to bear substantial dowry costs on the occasion of

her marriage; the birth of a male child, on the other hand, is lavishly celebrated.

Once again, it is important to point out that this is not the case in all of India, but

only in some, mostly rural, regions. However, simply the existence of these

horrendous practices on a significant scale warrants further study into their causes.

There have also been numerous cases of dowry-related deaths, dowry burnings and

dowry suicides in India (Tambiah, 1989). The kin of the groom place immense

pressure, which borders on extortion, on the bride and her family, in order to obtain

greater dowry payments. After marriage, the bride lives with the groom, generally in

a house with the groom’s joint family; the groom’s family often demands a high

dowry on the grounds that it is taking a burden off the bride’s family, and must be

compensated for bringing the bride into their home. If the bride’s family is unable to

meet these, often extravagant, dowry demands, the family of the groom frequently

mistreats the bride, both physically and mentally. This, in some cases, leads to the

murder or suicide of the bride. The difficulty that new brides face in adapting to

their new surroundings is highlighted by the multitude of Indian soap operas

centered on the tense relations between the bride and the groom’s family. Also, it is

not uncommon to hear of families that are financially ruined while attempting to

satisfy exorbitant dowry demands.

In the context of dowry pressures, it is interesting to ask the following question:

why do similar bridewealth pressures not exist in Africa? That is, in African society,

why is there not an inordinate amount of pressure on the groom’s family to pay

extravagant amounts of bridewealth? I believe there are three reasons for this

disparity. Firstly, bridewealth payments are relatively fixed within an African

society. While there may be some room for negotiation, the socially acceptable

bridewealth amount for all marriages is common knowledge. On the other hand, in

India, the high variability in dowry payments provides the groom’s family with the

opportunity to demand larger dowry amounts, which the bride’s family often

struggles to pay. Secondly, in India, the bride generally marries someone of higher

social status; therefore, the larger dowry requirements associated with this higher

social status might be difficult for the bride’s family to meet. Finally, in African

society, unlike in India, rights in genetricem and rights in uxorem are obtained

separately by the husband. Therefore, if the husband is unable to fulfill the

bridewealth requirements before the birth of a child, he simply does not obtain the

uxorial rights and the child is attached to the lineage of the bride’s family. Tambiah

(1989) also believes that the separation of these rights affords African women more

economic and sexual autonomy than their Indian counterparts.

Colonists and early anthropologists often misinterpreted the concept of

bridewealth. They condemned the practice, believing that it was essentially the

‘purchase’ or women; they termed the amount paid in bridewealth as ‘bride-price’,

deducing it to simply represent the price paid for the bride. This would imply that

the bride is like a commodity. If this was the case, however, we might see the

prevalence of wife mistreatment, since if the bride is a commodity, she is ‘owned’

buy the husband after he pays the bridewealth. However, in general, women in

bridewealth societies are treated much better than those in dowry societies. The

bridewealth paid by the groom is like a surety that ensures the groom will take good

care of the wife during the course of the marriage. If the wife is mistreated, she can

leave her husband by returning the bridewealth. The returnable nature of

bridewealth gives the bride a way out of a bad marriage. Since dowry is not

returnable, it is very difficult for women in dowry societies to leave an inimical

marriage. Furthermore, Hindu culture considers marriage to be an “indissoluble

bond between husband and wife,” rendering divorce and widow remarriage

culturally, religiously and socially unacceptable in most parts of India, and especially

in rural regions (Tambiah, 1989). Divorce is therefore far less prevalent in Indian

than in African societies. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that marriage, in

Indian culture, requires the bride to severe most ties with her own family, and

become completely immersed in the groom’s family. This weakens her support

system in the case of a detrimental marriage; an African woman, on the other hand,

usually maintains strong ties with her family and kin group throughout her married

life.

Since the groom pays bridewealth, it is an indication of how much he values his

bride – in general, the practice of bridewealth highlights the importance and worth

of women, giving them a higher status in society. As mentioned earlier, the family of

the groom retains a large fraction of the dowry payments. In a way, through the

dowry process, the bride’s family is ‘thanking’ the groom’s family for taking her in.

In this case, the bride is perceived to be a burden on the groom’s family. Therefore,

the value of women is sometimes inherently lower in these societies than in

bridewealth societies. The direction of the wealth transfer thus lowers the status of

women in the society, at least to a certain extent.

Marriage, on the surface, is simply the coming together of two people in matrimony.

However, it is also an institution that has extensive socio-economic implications.

The practices that are associated with the institution of marriage both determine

and are determined by the values, ideologies and structure of society. As I have

illustrated, dowry and bridewealth payments are not simply transfers of wealth

during marriage alliances. They are deep-rooted traditions that have a significant

impact on society, and in particular on the stratification of society and the treatment

and position of women, both of which play a pivotal role in the functioning of any

community.

References

Goody, Jack and S.J. Tambiah, Bridewealth and Dowry, 1973, New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Tambiah, Stanley, Bridewealth and Dowry Revisited, 1989, Current Anthropology

Volume 30, Number 4, August-October, pp. 413-435.

Hershman, Paul, Punjabi Kinship and Marriage, 1981, Delhi: Hindustan Publishing.

Meillassoux, Claude, The Social Organisation of the Peasantry: The Economic Basis

of Kinship, 1978, NJ: Frank Cass and Company Ltd., pp. 159-169.