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.