I was watching a MAS*H episode the other day wherein Hawkeye lends cash to a Korean so that he can buy a wedding ring, which got my buddies and I to wondering how widespread the wedding ring is cross-culturally. Was the guy on the show only buying a ring because he’d been exposed to American culture, or is there a long-standing Korean tradition of exchanging rings? Or is what I think of as a Western tradition actually an Eastern import?
My supposition is that rings are merely the modern symbolic equivalent of the land or whatnot that was the “bride price” not so long off in Western culture. In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised to learn that they’ve only become purely symbolic rather recently, given the nicely portable form of concentrated wealth that they can represent.
But, as far as I’m aware, the notion of marriage is universal, though not necessarily in the Jerry Falwell sense of the word. And all the National Geographics that I’ve read point towards some manner of phsyical exchange being incorporated into the matter, whether mutual or more unidirectional. So it seems perfectly plausible to me that the notion of wedding rings could have evolved separately in mulitple cultures.
So what’s the Straight Dope? What’s the derivation of the modern wedding ring? What culture started it? How widespread is it today? When did guys start getting in on the action?
Thanks in advance
-ellis
For the record, the only past thread on the subject that I could dig up, here seems to point towards rings as a moderately widespread but solely Western phenomenon.
And hey, as long as I’m vaguely on the topic, is my belief that modern diamond engagement rings are mainly the responsibility of DeBeers valid? If so, were they around beforehand but just not diamond?
From a feminist perspective, the wedding ring symbolised women as being owned by a man and therefore not available - before the days of men wearing wedding rings that is. The wedding ceremony was all about the father giving his property to the new owner.
The Japanese definitely do not for the most part wear wedding rings. Some Japanese christians do and a few younger people do as a modern western influence thing. I would guess that the idea has come from the Middle East, not the Far East, but I’m not sure - where wearing gold is an indication of your wealth.
Engagement rings have been around since before DeBeers but DeBeers certainly pushed the idea of diamonds being a girl’s best friend. There is a good book called: ‘Diamond’ but I can’t recall the author, have it at home but now at work - which explores the history of diamonds and how DeBeers cartel have developed.
Feminists…BAH! Always ready to fight, even if they gotta make something up! Hogwash, I say! Unless of course, you know, reputable cite and all. In which case I shall flagellate Inigo’s Humble Self with great enthusiasm to show my penitence.
Inigo - sorry, I assumed this was common knowledge and there are cites are too numerous to mention.
See this essay for enlightenment on feminist theory of marriage - it’s good because it covers many areas of feminism: http://www.zetetics.com/sexcor/marr.html
An interesting piece of reading. But it seems to deal primarily with industrialized times which I’ll grant were unkind to women. It’d make a great start for what I’m sure would be the first-ever GD thread about whether or not 1970’s feminists were crackpots.
But I was interested in a cite for your references to property:
Not that I doubt at all the veracity of your statement, but I was unable to locate information stating the wedding ring was anything other than a symbol of love with Ancient Egyptian origins. Also the notion that would-be brides, in some cultures, require(d) a dowry to make them more appealing to potential suitors would seem to indicate that, while still property-like, women needed no ring to mark them as taken–nobody *wanted *them!
As for the OP (kinda forgot about that!), looks like the wedding ring as it pertains to Korea would be a Christian thing. How long Christians have been doing their thing in Korea … I have no clue.
Inigo - Much of Feminist theory, (that for the most part started with the industrialization of the West), is dealing with making social theory for the treatment of women in an industrialized age. I should have made clear that the idea of ring wearing for feminism is looking at the modern construct of ring wearing, not an ancient one. If marriage ring wearing has only become common place since industrialization, how could they have written about something that wasn’t an everyday thing.
The evidence that rings symbolise ownership is implied in this particular essay: woman are chattels and all married woman must wear rings.
“Gender feminists consider marriage to be an involuntary state, in which women have the status of chattel. To them, marriage and the family are inextricably bound up with private property, the class structure, and the mode of production.”
"…or to accept the ‘trappings’ of marriage such as the husband’s last name, a shared tax return, a wedding ring… "
Sure, sure…leave an innocent little question lying around and watch it turn into some crazy feminist debate. You really can’t trust GQ these days.
[I’d insert a smiley here if I believed in the use of them]
Thanks for the link, Inigo. I’m not sure why I was unable to rustle that up on my via Google. Gross incompetence, I reckon. I like my own hypothesis so much that I now feel driven to go find me something with a little more authority and depth than that web article. I’ll report back if I come up with anything.
-ellis
On a side note, AMC was showing TPB last night. Much to my delight and my gf’s consternation.
This site points towards “puzzle rings” being used in Asia around the mythical 0 CE/BCE mark, while this one states that modern subcontinental usage is due to Western influence.
All the sites that I’m turning up are pretty much spouting the article, by one Matt Jacks, that Inigo linked, whether or not they actually cite him. The fact that he didn’t cite any sources himself, plus his acknowledged commercial slant, leaves me desiring a bit more scholastic source, though. Snob, ain’t I?
On rechecking the thread, I realized that I never thanked you for your contributions, Mel. So please accept this belated thanks, along with my apologies should my previous post, unprefaced as it was by any sign of my appreciation, have caused any offense.
-ellis
who has been fighting the good fight with the hamsters to get this damn thing to post
I’m glad word is getting out. It really bugs me that De Beers has gotten away with their propaganda regarding the “tradition” of diamond wedding rings. I try to bring it up as often as possible because the Straight Dope should be giving us the straight dope on this one. Unfortunately, the SDSAB repeated the propaganda inthis answer.
No offense was taken at all. Just thought that my second link was a particularly good essay for your ring question.
Was a bit perplexed at Inigo’s reactions as both cites are well balanced, scholarly essays, both coming from an outsider’s perspective, including overviews of feminist theory, neither being a feminist perspective in itself. Perhaps some people over-react when they see the word ‘feminist’?
I believe that any discussion on marriage/marriage ring wearing should include this notion of ownership, whether you are coming from a feminist perspective or not - this is basic social theory really.
Both myself and my husband decided to wear marriage rings.
I interpreted it as a satirical knee-jerk reaction, myself, but I suppose the man can speak for himself. Glad to see I didn’t piss you off.
I don’t know as songbird really missed the boat in that mailbag answer, chula; I am a bit surprised that there was no mention whatsoever of DeBeer’s influence on the modern phenomenon, but I’m willing to believe that the Duke fired it up and DeBeer’s is simply responsible for getting the hoi poloi in on the action.
The real question now is how I possibly missed the thread that you linked to when I ran my search. Not like “wedding rings” was in the title or anything. Sheesh.
Mel Just cogitating on your links, my replies & thoughts and stuff in general. See you about it in GD someday.
If I appeared to gratuitously bash your perspective, I offer my sincerest apologies–I am by no means an authority on wedding bands, history of matrimony nor of Feminism and am therefore not qualified to dismiss the opinions of others. Such was not my intent. My rough posts to you were in jest, but the questions were honest. I’ve contributed all I think I should to this particular post.
Hmm. The notion that fetters and chains contracted to a ring as a symbol of subjugation of the female is interesting, but seems a bit stretched.
The Talmud (say around 100 BC to 100 AD) describes that in a wedding ceremony, the man must give the bride some possession of value that belongs to her. The idea is that this is something that she can sell for money if she needs money – like, say, if he divorces her, or if he dies, or whatever. The ring has symbolized that for Jewish weddings for centuries. Far from subjugation, it’s a symbol of the bride’s being given something of value that is her own.
If I have a chance I will look at your cites and come back, but my initial reaction to this, and your first statement is to ask whether rings don’t also perform a communicative function. For a single man, it’s helpful to know whether a woman is in a commited relationship, and it must be the same for single women vis-a-vis men. It’s good to have a symbol that says, “This person is married. Move along, find somebody else.”
Absolutely - many cultures have similar visual indicators eg. Pacific Islanders wearing the flower on one ear for single, one for taken, Japanese kimono sleeves being long for single, short for married, Dutch national dress having different headcovers for single and married etc etc.
However, if you deconstruct the marriage ceremony, the language used, the taking of the male family name and the use of the ring, there are compelling signs that it’s all about ownership of women.
