Love, Marriage and Intimacy among Gujarati Indians

A Suitable Match

Katherine Twamley

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137294296
• eBook ISBN: 9781137294302
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Cultural & Social Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book compares understandings and experiences of love and intimacy of one distinct cultural group – Gujarati Indians – born and brought up in two different countries. In a rapidly globalizing world, this comparative ethnographic study explores how the context in which we are brought up shapes our most intimate attachments and family lives.

1

Introduction

In this book I examine how marriage, intimacy and love are shaped by the cultural, socio-economic and political context in which individuals live. In researching these topics I conducted 18 months of ethnographic fieldwork, nine months in Baroda, Gujarat, and nine months in London, UK. I repeatedly interviewed 30 Gujarati married and unmarried heterosexual men and women, held group discussions and conducted participant and non-participant observation. I compare the stories and experiences of those in Baroda with those in London, attempting to unpick the influence of these cities on my participants’ lives. Before I begin my tale though, let me first discuss what others have found when examining these topics.

Research conducted in the last twenty years in various different settings around the globe has suggested that processes of globalisation, transnational migration and modernisation have contributed to changing understandings of marriage and the role of love and intimacy within it (Hirsch and Wardlow 2006; Reddy 2006; Padilla, Hirsch et al. 2007). These researchers argue that there has been an ‘affective turn’ in relationships and marriage, a shift in ideologies from ‘traditional’ to ‘companionate’ (Rebhun 1999; Hirsch and Wardlow 2006; Padilla, Hirsch et al. 2007). ‘Companionate marriage’ is based on more emotional than economic or reproductive motives, with less emphasis on family and kin relationships. For example, in Nepal, Ahearn (2001) found that young people use love letters in their complicated courtship rituals, attempting to form marriages based on these intimate exchanges. In China, Yan (2003) has described how young girls seek boyfriends with whom they can ‘talk intimately’. And in Mexico, Hirsch (2003) has observed a generational shift from marriages of ‘respect’ to companionate marriages of ‘affect’. It is not, as Jankowiak (1995) has forcefully argued, that love is ‘new’, but rather that the place and meaning of love within marriage has shifted.

A common thread across many of these studies is that love has become ‘an ideal for which to strive and as the means through which they [individuals] constitute their families’ (Padilla, Hirsch et al. 2007: xv).

That is, not only do young people place more emphasis on conjugality when choosing a spouse than their parents before them, but that this kind of marriage represents for them a break from the past, a self-consciously ‘modern’ marriage which is linked with ideals of progress and development. For example, in Ahearn’s (2001) study of love letter exchanges, she found that young people in Nepal use love as a means to connect to a ‘development discourse’ of progress, and that a ‘love relationship’ was associated with ‘life success’.

India has not been immune to these processes. A growing body of work is arguing that young, mostly middle class, men and women are forming relationships based on love (Parry 2001; Donner 2002; Pache Huber 2004; Fuller and Narasimhan 2008; Twamley 2013). Jonathan Parry has illustrated this transition through comparing the marriage of a Dalit illiterate man and that of his educated middle class daughter. He describes how the father, now with his fourth wife, speaks ‘indifferently’ about how he came to lose his previous wives: for him marriage is ‘an institutional arrangement for the bearing and raising of children’ (2001: 815). For his well-educated daughter, marriage should arise from conjugal bonding, as Parry describes here:

A new companionate ideology makes the conjugal bond the object of much greater emotional investment. No longer merely a matter of the satisfactory discharge of marital duties, it is increasingly seen as a union between two intimate selves and carries a much heavier emotional freight. (Parry 2001: 812)

Parry argues that the younger generation are less pragmatic, caring less about their spouse’s education and occupation and caring more about the intimate bond that they share.

Yet, while love is increasingly a goal in forming relationships, this is not to say that there emerges a global ‘homogenisation’ of intimate relationships. Research points to the development of particular relationship forms in different contexts – reflecting the different cultural, economic and gender-role contexts in which this ‘companionate marriage’ ethic is interpreted (Hirsch and Wardlow 2006; Padilla, Hirsch et al. 2007).

This book contributes further to this literature on love, intimacy and marriage by exploring the case of Gujarati Indians born and brought up in India, and those born and brought up in the UK. The comparative approach was chosen to facilitate an exploration of how cultural and material conditions shape ‘certain kinds of subjects and enable particular kinds of relationships’ (Thomas and Cole 2009: 4). As Padilla et al assert, ‘Cross-cultural examinations of love permit the analyst a privileged position from which to consider the power and function of cultural, economic, and social forces in shaping love’ (Padilla, Hirsch et al. 2007: ix). The focus on Gujaratis in two different settings acts as a case study which elucidates the factors shaping love and marriage.

Key concepts

In researching marriage amongst Indian participants, expressions such as ‘love’ and ‘arranged’ marriage frequently occur. The book as a whole explores these terms in-depth, but here I give the reader a basic outline of how they are generally understood by the people who took part in my research. ‘Love marriage’ refers to a marriage where the couple have chosen their spouse without the participation of parents or family. Generally a love marriage implies a clandestine courtship and a marriage which was ultimately against the wishes of parents. ‘Arranged marriage’ refers to a marriage where the couple’s first meetings are facilitated by parents or family. Typically the parents select a pool of potential spouse from whom their son or daughter can choose to marry. These first meetings in India are conducted in conjunction with the family, usually in the young woman’s home. The couple will normally decide whether to go forward for marriage within a few meetings. There are geographical, caste and class differences in the exact understandings and processes, but these are broadly how these terms are understood.

In using the term ‘intimacy’, I refer to the ‘quality of close connection between people and the process of building this quality’ ( Jamieson 2011: 1.1), while ‘practices of intimacy’ refers to ‘practices which enable, generate and sustain a subjective sense of closeness’ ( Jamieson 2011: 1.2). The term ‘intimacy’ includes sexuality, but it is not limited to sexuality or sexual acts. Love, on the other hand, refers more to the emotion which may or may not underlie practices of intimacy. For example, a nurse may perform intimate acts in taking care of her patients, but these acts do not usually have any ‘love’ basis. Equally, one can love someone without having any intimate contact; unrequited love would be an example of this. My interest in this book is in the overlap between these terms of love and intimacy, examining how love ‘ought’ to feel and how it should be expressed.

I explore sexuality as a ‘practice of intimacy’ ( Jamieson 2005). It can be studied quite apart from affect; indeed it has primarily been studied in that way, but I am interested in how understandings of love and intimacy are interconnected with sexual behaviour and desire. As de Munck noted:

The relationship between romantic love and sexual practices is problematic and variable both within and between cultures. What is not problematic is that there is a relationship between the two, even if that relationship is one that prohibits sexual contact between lovers or love between sexual partners. (de Munck 1998b: viii)

Scholars have noted how the inter-relationship between ideologies of love and sexuality can shape relationship and sexual practices (Sobo 1998; Hirsch, Meneses et al. 2007; Wardlow 2007). For example, Sobo (1998) showed in her study of young American women that an attachment to ideals of romantic love can encourage sexual risk-taking, as participants ‘prove’ their love and trust to one another through the avoidance of condoms.

Together the above terms cover beliefs, ideals, forms of expression and the kinds of relationships which these understandings shape.

Development of theorising on love

In their 1992 study, Jankowiak and Fisher argue that romantic love is a human universal or near-universal, because it is found in most societies across the globe. Typically, however, romantic love, defined as the idealisation of another within a strong erotic context (Lindholm 1988), has been assumed to be limited to, or a product of, Western culture ( Jankowiak and Fischer 1992; Jankowiak 1995). In part this reflects the development of theory around the social construction of love in historical studies of the family in Europe. Much of this literature has been concerned with when and how love emerged as an important part of family life. Most historians pinpoint the industrial revolution as a pivotal moment in the ‘history of love’. Variously it has been argued that falling mortality rates and better health in the 18th century meant that people had longer to form attachments with their partners and children (Aries 1962; Shorter 1975), or that as young people became more economically independent of their parents, they were freer to choose their own spouse (Engels 1972). These authors have been critiqued for assuming that love did not exist before the 18th century, despite previous evidence of ‘love marriages’ (Rebhun 1999). Furthermore, their theories seem to rest on a naturalistic model of love, as if love was hiding, waiting to be freed by the ‘right’ conditions.

More recently, the couple relationship has been theorised by some scholars as taking a role of central importance in modern ‘individualistic’ society. Anthony Giddens views the ‘pure relationship’ as emblematic of what he views as this ‘transformation of intimacy’ (Giddens 1991: 58). For Giddens, the pure relationship develops between a couple after a dialogue of mutual self-disclosure, as each person reveals their inner-most individual self to the other, resulting in greater equality between the couple. This relationship is based on ‘confluent love’ – a love that exists solely for whatever rewards that relationship can ‘deliver’ – and will cease to exist when the couple are no longer satisfied by it (1991: 6).

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995; 2002) argue an increased ‘hunger for love’ has been prompted in modern society by uncertainty, individualisation and risk. They argue that the increasing numbers of women in paid employment has led to the breakdown of traditional roles of the sexes and an increased concentration on individual fulfilment and self-progression. While this leads to more confrontation between men and women, they contend that it also paradoxically leads the couple to find comfort from their partner in times of uncertainty and risk.

The emphasis on individualisation as a key factor in recent changes in personal life has been comprehensively and persistently challenged ( Jamieson 1998; Hirsch 2003; Smart 2007; Jamieson 2011). Critics note the disregard of evidence which repeatedly shows the coexistence of intimacy and the interdependence of kin and other forms of collectivism (Yan 2003; Jamieson 2011). Yunxiang Yan’s (2003) work in rural China, for example, showed that romantic love flourished under the conditions of early communism. And a recent article by Lynn Jamieson (2011) reviewed evidence of intimate attachments in a variety of societies and cultures around the world.

Despite the criticisms and the arguable Euro/western centrism of such theories as Anthony Giddens’s, they have had a substantial influence on the literature on love and intimacy around the globe. Jonathan Parry (2001), for example, interprets the contrasting marriage goals and experiences of the father and daughter mentioned above as proof that ‘Professor Giddens is right’ (2001: 816). Parry suggests there is a ‘global’ transformation of intimacy, though he also notes that in India ‘companionate marriage’ is associated with greater marital stability rather than relationship dissolubility.¹

Others scholars of Indian studies are more sceptical about such a transformation of intimacy in India. Based on their research in Kerala, South India, Osella and Osella (2006) highlight those marriages which go against the trend of companionate marriage and which embrace a more gender-segregated set of relationships amongst kin and friends. These more ‘traditional’ relationships, they argue, do not necessarily entail less equality or less intimacy. On the contrary they argue that ‘modern intimacy’ signifies a ‘more strictured and rigidly policed self living within the confines of a family structured by a neo-patriarchal hegemony’ (Osella and Osella 2006: 3). They critique the idea that ‘modern’ or ‘western’ marriages are necessarily freer and question the ‘naturalness’ of love marriage.

While increasing numbers of studies articulate an ‘affective’ turn in the marriage of middle class Indians (Parry 2001; Donner 2008; Fuller and Narasimhan 2008; Grover 2009), I attempt to unpack in more detail how this love is understood and realised by individuals. I have drawn on Hochschild’s concept of ‘feeling rules’ (Hochschild 1983) because it allows for the exploration of the cultural ‘norms’ of love and desire, while also recognising the agency of individuals who negotiate their relationships in relation to these norms. ‘Feeling rules’ refer to the way in which individuals not only experience emotion differently but also apply cultural and ideological standards to gauge the suitability of emotions occurring during social interactions. That is, individuals shape their own practices of intimacy, according to the cultural feeling rules that predominate. Not everyone will draw on these feeling rules in the same way, however, and some will feel more able to deviate from them than others. By applying this concept to participants’ narratives,

I explore both their perceptions of the ‘norms’ of love and how they have managed them in their relations with others.

Gender, love and intimacy

Sexuality and intimacy, involving relationships between gendered bodies, are difficult to study without reference to gender. Gender stereotypes and expectations shape sexual behaviour and intimate relationships (Holland, Ramazanoglu et al. 1998; Marston and King 2006), perhaps especially heterosexual relationships. In studies on sexuality and gender, much research has centred on the gendered cultural scripts which men and women draw on when entering relationships (Gagnon 1990; Holland, Ramazonoglu et al. 1992; Holland, Ramazanoglu et al. 1998; Banaji 2006). Janet Holland and colleagues (Holland 1993; Holland, Ramazanoglu et al. 1998), for example, explored the sexuality and sexual behaviour of young people in Britain in the early 1990s. She concluded that there was a basic ‘male oriented definition’ of heterosexual sex, with a concomitant passive definition of female sexuality, resulting in the subordinate position of women within sexual encounters and relationships. This model is thought to be particularly prevalent in South Asian cultures (Holland 1993; Abraham 2001; Banaji 2006; Santhya, Jejeebhoy et al. 2008), where women’s virginity before marriage is still highly prized and gender socialisation encourages passivity in women (Das 1988; Dube 1988; Abraham 2002).

For some researchers, gender inequality is inherent in all heterosexual relationships due to the manifest inequality of men and women, for example, in penetrative sex (see Thompson 1993). Thompson herself suggests that women create lesbian relationships to escape such inevitable inequalities (Thompson 1993). In the 1970s, second-wave feminists were equally pessimistic, arguing that love subjugated women by trapping them into exploitative heterosexual relationships (De Beauvoir 1972; Firestone 1972; Comer 1974). Lee Comer, for example, wrote:

Any glance around society reveals that the sexes are placed on opposite poles, with an enormous chasm of oppression, degradation and misunderstanding generated to keep them apart. Out of this, marriage plucks one woman and one man, ties them together with ‘love’ and asserts that they shall, for the rest of their lives, bridge that chasm with a mixture of betrayal, sex, affection, deceit and illusion. (Comer 1974: 227)

In contrast, Anthony Giddens (1991; 1992) and Jeffrey Weeks (1995) assert that intimacy between couples acts as a force for equality. Giddens argues this has been facilitated by the weakening of societal rules and kin obligations (Giddens 1992), while Weeks optimistically proposes that attempts to realise the ideal of love could provide the basis for a society ‘which respects diversity and the maximisation of individual choice while affirming at the same time the importance of the human bond’ (1995: 42). However, he also suggests that equality in couple relationships is more easily achievable in same sex relationships (Weeks, Heapy et al. 2001; Weeks 2007).

Jane Collier, however, critiques the idea that ‘modern’ societies entail more freedom for individuals. Based on research on family and intimate relationships in rural Spain between the 1960s and 1980s, Collier (1997) argues that a discourse of social convention is simply being replaced by one of choice, but the underlying choices available to people remain largely the same. While, before, individuals could draw on social convention to explain their behaviour, they now must show how they have chosen and desire to act in specific ways (Collier 1997). This, she argues, may hinder gender equality, since women, who do the bulk of ‘emotion work’, take on gendered caring roles to demonstrate their affection for their husband or partner.

Furthermore, Lynn Jamieson shows that there is little empirical evidence supporting the idea of an equal relationship of intimates ( Jamieson 1998). More recently, Jamieson has argued that ‘practices of intimacy can be transposable’ ( Jamieson 2012: 2.7) so that some women may temporarily accept loving acts in place of egalitarian relations as sufficient demonstrations of a ‘good relationship’ – for example around the birth of a child.

For Osella and Osella, associations of ‘love’ with more equality are rooted in ‘contemporary neoliberal visions of perso...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Editors’ Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Note on Translation and Transcription
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Interactions in the ‘Field’
• 3 Parental Authority, Youth Autonomy and Marital Decisions
• 4 Pathways to Marriage
• 5 Love
• 6 Gender
• 7 Conclusions
• Appendix 1: Participants’ Characteristics
• Appendix 2: Data Analysis Procedures
• Appendix 3: Participants’ Ranking
• Appendix 4: Matrimonial and Dating Agency Materials
• Notes
• References
• Index