Hi there, I’m Mrs scott62, I’m currently studying medical anthropology and have been given the essay title - Is marriage universal? I have read several enthographies on the subject but thought it might be interesting to get other peoples views on the issue.
Anything discussed obviously won’t be included in my essay as unfortunately, for all I believe some goods points could be raised, my lecturers are only wanting primary sources cited in the text.
Any ideas would be greatly received 
Give this a listen and maybe the author’s books will be a help to you.
As far as I’ve been able to find, marriage (as in, some arrangement that provides for inheritance of property and/or care of children) is universal. However, the definition of what qualifies as a marriage changes drastically from culture to culture, and from era to era in the same culture.
I would posit that it’s one of the universal requirements in order for a viable society to form.
Similarly, murder is always taboo in any society - but the definition of what is considered murder may be dramatically different.
Donald Brown’s Human Universals does list Marriage. My copy of the list is in my Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer, but here’s one for you.
http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm
I was an Anthro major in college, and that was what I was taught. Everything else is up for grabs in a human society, but there was always some sort of marriage.
I’ve read the Stephanie Coontz book (ok, I only got halfway through it before I set it down, its still got its bookmark though, and I’ll go back).
There is one tribe, I believe in Tibet, that does not have marriage. Other than that, some form of marriage is universal. However, it takes such different forms that it is very difficult to pin down a definition of “marriage.” It is not always one man and one woman (obviously), polygamy is not uncommon, and even same sex marriage is not unknown. It is not always for life. A husband does not always bear responsibility for children (sometimes that is the woman’s brother or her family). It does not necessitate living together. Love matches are uncommon and recent, most marriage is to create economic or political ties.
Thanks for your replies, redtail23 you’re very right the definition of marriage changes depending on the culture. I think that is going to be the ongoing theme throughout my essay. It all depends on the definition of marriage as to whether it’s universal or not!
Thanks again
Dangerosa is correct, there is tribe that do not practice marriage. They are the Nayar of southern India. The girls remain with the mothers and take lovers of her caste or higher. Her lovers were not allowed to move into her household or remain with her for the day. A lover could claim perternity for a child by paying the midwife for the child’s birth, but he had absolutely no say in the child’s upbringing. All children produced by the girl are considered to be of her line and live in her household.
Marriage is defined as “a publically recognized social contract that establishes an economic contract, sexual rights, social identity of offspring, and an alliance between kin groups.” What it implies and entails vary widely from culture to culture.
I would say that no, marriage is not universal. The definition of it varies widely and not all cultures practice it. The Nayar are the only ones we have detailed records for, so there were probably others.
OK, this is coming from my memories from a Kinship and Marriage survey class I took as an anthropology undergrad, so someone with more expertise please feel free to educate me. There seem to be very few universals in human culture, but two are incest taboos (although this has widely varying definitions) and marriage. One interesting this though, is even though there are many marriage customs that seem exotic to me (I loved reading about the ghost marriages of the Nuer, for instance), I can’t recall a single instance of same-sex marriage. This helps me appreciate the scope of the radical shift in marriage norms in the last few years.
Sorry, posted too soon. Even though a Nuer women who participates in a ghost marriage is technically marriaged to another woman, she is legitimately marriaged to the “ghost” of her dead husband. By the Nuers’ eyes, she is married to a man.
Sorry for the high jack, just thought it was cool.
Coontz has the Na of Yunnan in Central China as the people who don’t practice marriage. The anthropoligist would be Cai Hua.