Seclusion, Defloration and Male First Right - Term Paper Example

?Marriage Meaning: Seclusion, Defloration and Male First Right All around the world, weddings are intended to be happy, interactive occasions. They are also symbolic occasions. Some of the classic symbols for weddings in the US include wedding rings and a ring bearer, a tossed bridal bouquet and a tossed garter, bells, flowers and a flower girl, bridesmaids and a best man, processional music, a bridal gown and veil, the vows, the kiss, the cake, the dance. Preceding the wedding is a proposal and engagement ring, purchasing the trousseau and registering for wedding gifts, having a bachelor party, a bridal shower, a rehearsal dinner. Following the wedding is the honeymoon, and the alleged “happily-ever-after, the home purchase, the children, anniversary parties, and sometimes divorce or death of a spouse. Marriage is a popular rite of passage and ritual drives the process, although the forms of ritual vary in different cultures and across different time periods. In spite of variance, it is possible to consider the symbolic meaning of marriage because, while specific details may vary, symbolic meaning is more similar than not. Nowhere is it more visible and explicit than in the ritual surrounding weddings. This paper intends to consider the symbolic meaning of marriage through the application of symbolic interaction theory to selected ritual elements, taken from various cultures and time periods. The aim of this paper is to distill the universal or near universal core meaning, if any, from various marriage practices, specifically those related to seclusion, defloration, and the right of the first night. Symbolic interaction theory describes a theoretical perspective that looks at how meaning (or reality) is socially negotiated and constructed through interaction with others and the environment, based on shared understanding of symbols. We are part of the social environment and, as such, are social objects which reflect social influence. Even something as personal as our self-image and self-identity are, in fact, socially negotiated with others. We exist in the interactive space, where we are defined. The props and social scripts we use enable us to be defined and redefined, constructed and reconstructed, in a variety of social contexts. Marriage is a social context. A bride and groom, and later the husband and wife, enact social roles, using scripts which are based on cultural norms and family norms, which the couple were separately socialized into, while growing up. Although the couple may choose to get married while parachuting down to earth or bouncing from bungee cords; may write their own vows or leave out the parts they don’t agree with; get married in a designer gown or a mini skirt; honeymoon in Maui or Las Vegas; buy a condominium or an RV, still their props and scripts and picture of marriage reflect their social reference groups. They are connected to society through the vocabulary of symbols they have acquired. A basic symbol of marriage is gender separation. In South Asia, this is termed “perdah” and is a system of secluding women and rigidly enforcing modesty in women. Among Muslims, purdah seclusion begins when a girl reaches puberty, and her restrictions do not apply to her interactions with male family members but only to non-relatives. Hindu women have restrictions on their interactions with male friends and seclusion begins when she marries (Papanek, 1973). This idea of female seclusion is visible, symbolically, in US wedding customs, as well. Instead of a combined prenuptial party, generally the guys, including the groom, have a bachelor party, with no known girls invited, in which they engage in an exaggerated caricature of male interests (mischief, drunkenness, and maybe a striptease dancer or two). Girls, including the bride, have a bridal shower with slightly scandalous gifts and games, emphasizing the boundaries of modesty (negligees, lingerie, perfume, massage accoutrements), and of course there are no males allowed (unless the girls invite a male stripper, in a more modern evolution of the custom). The bride is secluded from the groom, the day of the wedding, and it is considered bad luck for her to interact with him directly, before the ceremony. Messages are carried back and forth but direct contact is laughingly precluded. They arrive in different vehicles, escorted by same-sex attendants, have different dressing areas, and walk down the aisle separately, the girl escorted by her father or whatever responsible male will ceremonially give her to the groom. The bride is further secluded from the groom and other males by a veil. Modern brides may elect to have a veil that is symbolic only, decorative and covers nothing, or may choose to wear a full veil, covering the face and hair and shoulders. Traditionally the groom ceremonially lifts the veil as the preliminary step in the ceremonial kiss. Many brides today lift their own veil, to symbolize their independence and freedom of choice. The veil is a symbol of seclusion, of her separation from males. In fact, the word purdah means curtain (Papanek, 1973). The veil and a white wedding gown are traditionally reserved for virgins or at least first marriages. This symbolizes the success of her previous seclusion, in that it is a statement of her purity, her status of being as yet unclaimed and not taken by another man. Someone who is not a virgin (or is not pretending to be) might wear off-white color or another color. These days, however, this tradition is more loosely interpreted. Having her father, or other significant male in her life, walk her down the aisle and ceremonially hand her over to the groom, is a symbolic statement of approval for her seclusion, shelter and protection to now be in the hands of the groom, rather than in the hands of family and friends. In a Christian wedding, the priest or minister asks who is giving this woman in marriage, and the responsible male replies, “Her mother and I” or “I do”. This statement of the bride’s transfer, from family seclusion to the groom’s discretion is affirmed by a question to the witnesses. They are asked whether anyone present knows any reason why the bride and groom should not be joined. This question is followed by a ceremonial pause before the script resumes. Considering the symbols of seclusion and the ceremonial transfer of the bride from seclusion, purity, and family responsibility to the groom, there is meaning that emerges. This symbolism suggests that the bride’s value lies, at least partially, in her previous successful seclusion, which affirms her sexual purity and value to the groom. The community is expected to affirm that value, or at least to refrain from disaffirming it, at which point the union process can proceed. Seclusion, and all its symbols, lead through the wedding, as symbolic transition, to the sexual act and the woman’s new role as sexual and reproductive partner to the man. To understand the symbolism of this new social role, there are two events, whether actual or symbolic, that occur. One is the right of the first night: who gets the woman on the first night of her official reproductive womanhood. Who is the man with the power to assert dominance over the woman and over any other man? The other is defloration of the woman, or the breaking of the hymen. In mainstream American culture, both actual events are no longer necessarily consequent to, but are symbolized by, the honeymoon. It is not unusual for the hymen to be broken in sports, accidents, molestation, heavy petting, premarital sex, or even surgically and, barring rape, religious or sub-cultural restrictions, it is frequently the young woman who chooses her first lover. The first lover, the one who takes a girl’s virginity, is usually well-remembered, whether she marries him or not. There is a psychological bond that lasts. But it is the honeymoon that is the official defloration and official first. Great care is taken about assembling a trousseau for social presentation, and bedroom attire for modest (or sometimes not so modest) seduction. The right of the first night is a theme seen in Eurasian Middle Ages, in which powerful men claimed the right to sleep with the new bride on the first night, before her less powerful husband could do so. In the later medieval period, European manor lords held this claim to the first night right over peasant families. Although it is not clear how common sexual intercourse was, in this regard, it certainly happened and was symbolically very present. One practice was for the manor lord to pass his body over the bride’s body, in bed. Another practice was for the lord to place a naked leg onto the bed where the bride lay. In any case, whether actual or symbolically enacted, the assertion of superior status and superior male ownership rights over females, their sexual and reproductive functioning, were obvious meanings (Wettlaufer, 2000). On the one hand, we can conclude that these are evolutionary primate power displays. On the other hand, we can look at the shared symbolism, in these acts, and understand the statements being made, the social reality being constructed and sustained. Goffman (Goffman, 1959) likens social interaction to a performance, with props, a script, and role enactment. In this sense, the woman is an object, one of the props, like the bed. The woman object is used to enact a male performance of power to keep all rivals in a submissive position. This cements the meanings of social stratification. It re-affirms patriarchy as a core principle of social organization. There is interesting research on ceremonial defloration among the Amhara people of Ethiopia. Basically, the findings are that ceremonial defloration symbolically reiterates the core principles of their social organization and culture, which is the dominance of masculinity and patriarchal authority (Reminick, 1976). Anthropological evidence from South America and India indicates that defloration is usually done manually, by the mother or ritually by an idol, and is generally performed by chiefs, priests or spiritual leaders, either on girls or on brides (Wettlaufer, 2000). In the royal courts of ancient Hawaii, when a family under the shelter of the royal court (because they are royal relatives) had a daughter who would soon be married, the girl would be taken to the Chief. He would spend the night with her, having sexual intercourse with her. In this way she was prepared to become a bride. Any child born from the Chief was well-loved and treasured as a special, lucky child (Craighill Handy & Kawena Pukui 1972). In these cultures, there was a fear of female blood from the breaking of the hymen. This blood was considered to be powerful, dangerous, and contaminated. It required a Chief, a priest, the mother (already female, so the blood will have no effect on her), or a stone or wooden image of a deity to deal with this blood. Power must be met with power (Wettlaufer, 2000). It might seem like there is some confusion here as to whether the woman is a helpless object without rights over her own body or whether she is so powerful that a drop of her young blood can cause so much trouble and require a very powerful person to disinfect her power. This apparent confusion has its roots in very ancient history. Woman’s blood, specifically her menstrual blood and hymen blood, has always been part of her value, as priestess (representing the goddess and as consort of the gods) and giver of life (babies). The cessation of her blood, specifically the ending of her menstrual cycles, was confirmation that she has the power to withhold life, as well as to give it (Janine, 2012). This is a reason to fear her and to try to exercise control over her. Furthermore, while man became associated with war and ideas, woman was associated with the body, fertility, and the earth (Starbird, 2003). The earth association was due to agricultural concerns about fertility of the land, which paralleled fertility of the woman. The body association was probably due to her physical softness and desirability, her child-bearing function, and her menstruation, as well as the symbolism about a man working the earth to bring food being similar to entering the woman and “working her” to bring children. Men felt a need to exert their control over the precocious land they worked, and woman became a symbol for doing so (or at least believing that they were doing so). Blumer has three premises when looking at symbolic interaction: 1) human beings act toward things on the basis of meanings that the things have for them, 2) the meaning of such things are derived from the social interactions that one has with one's fellows 3) these meanings are handled in an interpretative process used by the person (Blumer 1969:84). The rituals of marriage, seen in weddings and pre and post wedding events, clearly show men acting toward women on the basis of the meanings of the duality of need/attraction and fear/danger that women hold for them. Women are shown to cooperate with and even seek out the rituals of marriage, responding to men and male-reinforcing rituals on the basis of the meanings of the duality of their power (to love men and give life and endure) and their weakness (less physical strength, less aggression orientation, and the need for protection and stability while they raise children). These meanings emerge from the social interactions men and women have within their social and cultural context. Men interpret these meanings to affirm their superior male identity, their love of the wife, and their natural responsibilities in a patriarchal society. Women interpret these meanings either romantically, like in a fairytale, believing in the dream of living happily ever after, or they interpret the meaning to believe something is wrong with them, since they are unhappy. In the latter case, psychological and physical pathology may result, as symbolic performance, responsive to the projected definition, as Erving Goffman (Goffman 1959:222) describes impression management. This paper has considered the symbolism of selected elements in the wedding and pre and post wedding events, in order to understand the meaning and significance of marriage. These elements were considered cross-culturally. Seclusion, defloration, and the right of the first night were unifying themes of the elements considered. The conclusion drawn in this paper is that the significance of marriage, based on the symbolic associations examined, is the affirmation of male privilege and power, and the sustenance of patriarchal social organization. Whatever the romantic pretense, that is the raw principle underlying social meaning, social projection, and social interpretation around this social institution. References Blumer, H. (1969). The nature of symbolic interactionism . In R. Trammell, Intersections: Readings in sociology (pp. 84-89). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Craighill Handy, E., & Kawena Pukui, M. (1972). The Polynesian family system in Ka'u, Hawai'i. Tokyo: Rutland. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. In R. Trammell, Intersections: Readings in Sociology (pp. 215-226). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Janine. (2012, January 9). Sexuality and the dark moon. Retrieved from Temple Priestess: http://www.templepriestess.com.au/articles.php Papanek, H. (1973). Purdah: Separate Worlds and Symbolic Shelter. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15: 289-325. Reminick, R. A. (1976). The symbolic significance of ceremonial defloration among the Amhara of Ethiopia. American Ethnologist, 3(4):751-763. Starbird, M. (2003). Magdalene's lost legacy: Sumbolic numbers and the sacred union in Christianity. Rochester: Inner Traditions. Wettlaufer, J. (2000). The jus primae noctis as a male power display" A review of historic sources with evolutionary interpretation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2):111-123. Read More