Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Digest Number 1778

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Ryan
    On Aug 1, 2004, at 10:01 AM, evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com ... I find it fascinating that anthropologists make such sweeping claims for marriage
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2004
      On Aug 1, 2004, at 10:01 AM, evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      wrote:

      > But you must be referring to the "first marriage" ON RECORD in the
      > Western
      > tradition. Because some form of marriage (including the concept of
      > social
      > marriage and some simple ritual, even if it is only moving into the
      > girl's
      > settlement and giving food to her mother) is recognized in every
      > society I
      > have ever read about. Human marriage is very old. In fact, I would
      > speculate the marriage was one of humanity's oldest social
      > traditions, as
      > it is a good device for defining mating privileges.
      >
      I find it fascinating that anthropologists make such sweeping claims
      for "marriage" without ever really defining what is meant by the term.
      it's easy to claim something to be universal if our definition is
      sufficiently vague. "some form of marriage" appears to refer to
      everything from the contractual form george bush recently called "the
      most sacred institution in civilization" to a very casual re-hanging of
      the hammock. as helen fisher writes, some form is recognized in every
      society she's read about. but who wrote those monographs? is "marriage"
      considered to include sexual monogamy, property rights, child custody
      issues and other essential components of what we call marriage?
      doubtful. but we still insist in calling it "marriage." is this
      science?

      C. Ryan, Ph.D.
      earlofbilgewater@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.