Introductory Research: Hindu Practice, Sati

A friend of mine, Joseph, recently told me about an Indian tradition called Sati, in which a recent widow would co-cremate herself alongside her dead husband--per cultural expectation--unable to bear life without him. Of course, I had to investigate:

The term, which now means 'chaste woman,' or 'virtuous woman' derived from the origional name of Gauri or Dakshayani, Goddess of marital longevity and contentment, whom Hindi women pray to in pursuit of long lives for their husbands. According to Hindu mythology, she was the wife of Dakhsha, and was so overcome at his death that she immolated herself on his funeral pyre.

The act, in many instances, had culturally been considered as a required act for a pious woman, and was not considered as suicide in her case, but an act of righteousness, purging the couple of their shared sins to guarantee their salvation and eternal union beyond death.

The Greeks believed the practiced emerged as a means of discouraging wives from poisoning their husbands.

Speculation suggests the possibility that the ritual carried the sense of culminating the marriage, as in a related act husbands and wives dressed in their wedding clothes and re-enact the ritual before parting to die.

Hero-stones commemorating the occurrences claim wives committed Sati out of love so great for their husbands that they wanted to be together after death, but history indicates otherwise. In Rajasthan, the woman seems to die to protect their honor from invading enemies after their husbands died in battle. (Kamat)

One source credits the 'halo of honour' associated with Sati, with its perpetuation--mainly among the Rajput marital caste who committed collective suicide after a battle in which male members had died at an enemy's hand. The act, more formally known as Jouhar in this case, was even committed before husbands actually died at times of certain defeat. Indians keep the memory of these women alive by songs glorifying their act. (Vivaaha)

Women committing the act came to be believed to go directly to heaven, redeeming any forefathers that rot in hell. (Kamat)

Another argument from some Hindu scholars is that the practice was never related to any doctrine, but emerged as a way for Hindu women to escape the stigma associated with rape during the Islamic invasion of India, to protect their honor in the midst of numerous acts of mass rape of easily captured city women. With the choice between glorification and honor or the lonely shunning and potential abuse of widowhood, it seems clear why women may have preferred the former option.

One source notes that sati was nearly absent among other castes and aboriginal tribes, and more prevalent among the priestly and martial castes of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, in which a bride was looked upon as a burden draining the family's income while contributing nothing to it. Thus, it seems inevitable that her presence would be even more indicative of deadweight among the in-laws after the husband's death. They considered the touch, voice, and appearance of a widow as unholy, impure, and abhorrable, thus making her presence intolerable. Remarriage was nearly impossible due to the sanctity of a bride's virginity. Furthermore, a woman was literally considered as part of her husband, almost completely lacking individuality--without him, she became no one. (Vivaaha)

Most instances of sati occurred voluntarily, on the day of the husband's death--and thus without much time to reconsider, yet possibly as a result of cultural, or at least, community expectations since the widow had little to expect out of life following the husband's death, particularly if she has yet to bear children.

Apparently, there were some instances of measures being taken to prevent the widow from committing the act, on specific occasions.

One version of sati is merely symbolic, and lacks the actual death of the widow, in which the woman lies next to her dead husband in enactments of the marriage and funeral ceremonies, but leaves unharmed.

There were also instances, however, of widows being physically forced to commit sati, even beyond the cultural pressures that existed. Now, in modern India, the practice is illegal to attempt, promote, or watch. It was banned in 1829 by the British government, then needed to be banned again in 1956 after a resurgence--and again after another revival in 1981. (Indianchild)

The most recent account took place in 2002, when a 65-year old woman burned to death on her husband's funeral pyre. According to reports, her two adult sons made no attempt to stop her, and 4000 onlooking villagers pelted police officers with stone to keep them from interfering with the ceremony. After the event, local witnesses declared that they wanted to worship the woman as their new goddess. Prior to this occurrence of sati, the most recent had been in Rajasthan in 1987, when 18-year old Roop Kanwar burned to death. (BBC)

In 1996, the Indian Court freed the relatives who assisted Roop Kanwar (...), upholding the suicide as a social tradition. (Kamat's Potpourri- tradition thru the centuries)
However, the case attracted widespread media attention that led to legislation that called for the death penalty of anyone (abetting) sati... Nevertheless, mentions of the act still tends to evoke sentiments of deep respect among villagers. (BBC)

As remarriage for widows remain uncommon, they still feel shunned or forced into poverty and a life alone by in-laws who blame them for their husbands' death and instill a fear of potential abuse (e.g. sexual, or starvation) if they stick around.

More recently, many widowed women have run away voluntarily, by the thousands, often to Vrindavan--so many and so often, in fact, that the city has come to be known in India as the "city of widows," where they know they will at least be provided with daily rations of a cup of rice and 7 cents. The city's ashrams are controversial among women's rights groups, who clam that they have turned these women's misery into an enterprise, as they raise tens of thousands per year but choose to leave the women there in poverty. (CNN)

Two Zotero Annotations

Burnham, T.C., et al. “Men in Committed, Romantic Relationships have Lower Testosterone.” Hormones and Behavior. (2003). 19 February 2007 .

Context:

Based on the compilation and summaries of the results of 45 human studies, a consistent, positive correlation exists between aggression and testosterone, which seems to foster success in competitions over dominance.

While testosterone also facilitates libido--and thus possibly encourages mate-seeking behavior--long term romantic relationships and fatherhood would seem to reduce such behavior, and thus lower testosterone levels. However, prior to this study, there had been little exploration of this tendency in academic research.

Main Idea:

Whether married or not, men in committed, romantic relationships tend to have lower levels of testosterone than those who are single or unfaithful.

Methodology:

Researchers collected questionnaires and saliva samples (from which to test testosterone levels) from 122 male Harvard Business School Students between the ages of 23-24. The subjects varied in status, including married with children; paired, committed, and unmarried; and unpaired.

To control the experiment's conditions, the researchers collected all samples between 10 and 10:20 am over a 9 day period during Sprin 2002, from the students, who were all on the same schedule of classes and in the same seating scheme over the time period and gave each a stick of sugarless gum to stimulate saliva production.

During the collection, each student also filled out a short questionnaire regarding relationship background and other demographic data.

Major Findings:

Testosterone in the fathers, all married, had 28% lower levels than did married, childless men in the sample; but the researchers point out that their small sample size for that group (9 married with children) did not yield enough statistically significant weight, although the results were still consistent with results of previous studies exploring that particular question.

The data, researchers note, does not address the question of causation--whether partaking in such relationships is responsible for lowering testosterone levels, or whether naturally lower testosterone levels indicate a heightened tendency to engage in committed relationships.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pawelski, James G., et al. “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. (2006). 19 February 2007 .

Context:

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an analysis in 2005, based on their core philosophy of family as the principle caregiver and center of strength and support for children. They recognized and explored, in their analysis, the complex challenges that are unique to same-sex couples with children that result from public policy excluding them from civil marriage.

Civil unions emerged as a legal mechanism intended to grant same sex couple legal status somewhat similar to civil marriage; but they have only been established in Vermont and Connecticut, and are only recognized there. Outside of those states, the same couples are denied the same rights, benefits mad protections as heterosexual couples. The rights are state based and the U.S. federal government does not recognize civil unions. As a result, over 1000 federal rights, benefits and protections are unavailable to same-gender couples joined by civil unions.

Opponents of same-gender civil marriages often suggest that the legal recognitions afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust, (358).

Main Idea:

Public policy in America aiming to promote stable and secure families disregard families headed by same-sex couples, thus placing them at a significant disadvantage. This is also the case in regard to unmarried heterosexual parents, single parents, and extended familial guardians. Therefore, children of these groups--of particular focus in this study, or same-sex parents--often face insecurity in the economic, legal, and familial realms.

Since there is more than 25 years of ample evidence documenting that children raised by same-gender parents develop as well as those raised by heterosexuals, then public policy should not deny the parents of their children the rights, benefits and protections that civil marriage offers other parents. Rights, benefits, and protections that civil marriage offers would only serve to further strengthen those families.

Methodology:

The researchers summarized Census 2000 findings to conduct an in-depth exploration of individual state treatment and perspectives of trends, advancements, and their basis in regard to recognition, bans, declarations, attempts, reasoning, arguments, and respective effects from state to state, regarding both same-sex marriage/unions and adoptions.

Major Findings:

About 1/4 of all same-sex couples are raising children. 41.1% of same-sex couples raising children have been together 5 years or longer compared to only 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together that long.

Comparisons of children raised by heterosexual and homosexual parents fail to document any differences between them on personality measures, peer-group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships.

Children raised by homosexuals may offer some advantages, as one study described them as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children of heterosexual parents. These children did, however, face more teasing from their peers than children of heterosexual parents.

Parents who raised children alone reported greater stress, more severe parent-child conflicts, and less warmth, parental satisfaction and imaginative play than did coupled parents, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Profile: Two Diigo Members' Bookmarks

Egnarorm, on Diigo, tags five of his social bookmarks with the label "marriage", all of which could be useful to me and my marriage research:

1) Concerned Women for America - Top 10 reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment

2) Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage

3) Education on Same-Sex Marriages

4) Marriage Equality USA

5) U.S. Divorce Rates for Various Faith Groups, Age Groups and Geographical Areas

One downfall of this list is that it doesn't let a reader know immediately what source a given article is from. Furthermore, beyond the link itself, egnororm does not venture into any details, comments, or responses of his own about the piece..

I take this as indication that his primary goal on Diigo is not necessarily to network, but simply to store these articles for himself and his own future use.

His interest in the subject of marriage seems to have emerged, peaked and declined within the same period of October 2006, as all of his articles on the subject appear during that time.

His overall interest seems to lie consistently within the realm of social justice, as indicative by his first few tags in the alphabetically ordered list at the side of his page: "2005, abortion, academia, academic, activism. . . argument. . .big ideas. . . civil rights. . . conservative. . . conspiracy. . . divorce. . . drugs. . ." and so on.

I don't detect much else from his page, about him or his interest, as his profile (like mine) is empty, offering only the default Diigo image for my viewing pleasure.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another member of the Diigo community, Mounirra, also hosts a fair amount of bookmarks that could be helpful in my own research:

She has tagged eleven of bookmarks under "marriage," although there are only five different articles on the list, predominately from Psychology Today:

1) Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying - New York Times

2) Psychology Today: The Reinvention of Marriage

3) Joey Adams Quotes

4) Psychology Today: Til Debt Do Us Part

5) Psychology Today: Love Lessons

There doesn't seem to be a terribly consistent form to her listings, but for the most part she does at least provide the title and source of the work, along with some comments of her own.

Only one of her bookmarked articles, "Questions Couples Should Ask...", received comment from another Diigo member.

Of particular interest to me, of any article on the list, is "The Reinvention of Marriage"; and I suspect, from her many comments and four-time bookmarking of this particular article, that it was of particular interest to her as well, among the others she posted.

She, too, provides only her name in her profile, with no picture or additional information about herself or her particular interest(s); but her primary interests, based on her most frequent tags, seem to relate to love and relationships. Her top twenty include "love", "relationship", "psychology", and "marriage".

A few of her thirty links on love are also of interest to me in relation to my own subject, such as:

1) How Love Works

2) The Science of Love

3) The Truth About Compatibility

4) How to Overcome the Fear of Marriage

Comment Repost: The History and Superstition of Marriage

Comment on Gillian Markson's "The History and Superstition of Marriage", reposted below:






There's really something to be said for the "hand fast" tradition:

This marriage lasted a year and a day, after which time the couple could 're-up' together forever, or leave the relationship, taking everything that each one had brought into it.

Whenever did we lose that part of the process? It seems incredibly valuable, and certainly seems to make the whole prospect of eternal union a bit less daunting, with the inclusion of an understood trial period. I wonder who decided to eliminate that aspect of the tradition, and when... and why. That kind of trial aspect seems so necessary and reasonable and realistic and... smart. Such a granted period would probably be greatly beneficial to the dwindling state of the institution today. Perhaps cohabitation has replaced that trial period as the more modern version of the hand fast's first year?

Also interesting is that origin of the wedding cake you note:

...Bring Your Own Biscuits. The biscuits were then piled high and the higher the stack, the more wealthy and happy the couple would be. After the couple kissed over the top of the hill of cakes, the pieces were handed out among the poor.

There's a certan tragedy to the evolution and updating of these traditions that I'm noticing, because they lose their meaning the more removed they become from their origins. It's like reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance": we do it at moments deemed and understood as appropriate, facing the flag with our right hands over our hearts as we "should." But typically, there's little to no meaning in the words when we say them anymore--it's recitation simply because it's what we've been told we should do, and not necessarily because we understand, care, believe, or even register the words we speak.

It's the same with these traditions--the wedding cake emerged with such a specific and profound, heartfelt purpose but that purpose goes unnoted today in the quest for the prettiest, most grandiose x-tiered wedding cake that no reception is complete without. The actions are repeated without so much as acknowledgement of their original meaning--recitation with no regard, just as with The Pledge.

It all ties in very well to the lost idea and understanding of the institution of marriage itself in our society. The disregard and lack of understanding seems to carry over--again, the motions are repeated without sincere understanding of what they're all about, how it all began, and what it really means and requires. We've seen it and want it--that everlasting union that marriage supposedly represents--but now with no sincere understanding of it, and thus inadequate knowledge to understand how to handle or maintain it anymore, as we've lost touch with the roots of the institution.

Annotation of Two Sources

Cook, Elaine. “Commitment in Polyamory.” Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. (2005). 12 February 2007 .

Context:

In the context of a society that traditionally considers monogamy the standard for relationships, Cook explores the value of ployamory as an alternative in which polyamorous couples engage in mutual agreement to allow for multiple lovers without betrayal to the connection and commitment to their original partners. It seems clear, to her, that our society's laws and pressures that aim to keep married couples together in spite of their differences has been decreasingly productive and successful in more recent years.

A member of a polyamorous relationship herself, Cook's study furthermore emerges in the context that not much academic research has been conducted on the subject thus far.


Main Idea:

Our society should not necessarily consider monogamy as the standard for relationships, but should instead understand and acknowledge it as a choice among many alternatives.

Methodology:

Cook interviewed each individual primary member of seven long-term polyamorous couples—together and actively polyamorous for at least 5 years, ages 29-72, living within 2 hours of Cook's northern San Francisco home--to determine trends in what factors, values, and approaches provide cohesion for long term polyamorous couples.

Her interview style utilized unstructured, open mode, general questioning, not necessarily phrased a particular way or asked in a particular order, like a survey.

Cook noted that the study does not even pretend to intend to explore views or perspectives of typical polyamorous relationships, but only on aspects that are successful. Cook's focus is intentionally on what works for such couples, and not at all on exploring any who've been unsuccessful at polyamorous engagements.

Major Findings:

No participants had the same level of intimacy with any secondary partners as with primary partners; but all did express desire for more intimacy, closeness, or emotional bond with their secondary partners.

Secondary encounters might be one-time events, short-term, and others were years-old. In one case, the primary and secondary partners became good friends and considered one another as like brothers.

Though each couple emphasized their own values in their respective means of maintaining their relationships, the common thread from couple to couple was that all were together because they wanted to be and because they gain joy and pleasure from the circumstances of their relationships despite occasional difficulties, and are thus willing to work hard to maintain these relationships.

Such a concept as "veto power" exists, to varying extents, in these relationships, allowing one primary partner to veto the other's relationship with a secondary partner, for a variation of reasons deemed acceptable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Larson, Jeffrey H., PhD. “Overcoming Myths About Marriage.” Marriage and Families. (2006). 12 February 2007 .

Context:

This article is motivated by the author's realization that many people embark upon their marriages with a drastic lack of education about the institution, and are thus completely unaware that the relationship they'd been in up until "I do," is about to change--but in quite predictable ways. Even in cases where a couple has previously lived together, spouses' expectations of one another change with the new status of their union.

Main Idea:

Marriages have an inevitable tendency to evolve from romantic love to companionate love, or friendship. All marriages undergo three stages: 1) Romantic love; 2) Disillusionment and distraction; and 3) Dissolution or adjustment with resignation or contentment.

Methodology:

The author broke down these three stages to explore further and offer advice regarding what to expect of a marriage. Then he proceeded to compile a list of common myths about the institution and debunk each. His findings seem to have basis in his own general observations in addition to some exploration of literature on the subject.

Major Findings:

The word "ecstasy" derived from a Greek word that means "deranged," and it is in this state that people get married, with romantic notions. they tend to base both their attractions and their marriages primarily on sexual, passionate, irrational, and physical attraction, which in turn yields unrealistic expectations of one another.

Among things partners must understand to foster a relationship are:

A partner will not automatically understand what his spouse wants without effective communication. Nagging is counterproductive in seeking to change a spouse's undesired behavior, but they can learn more effective ways, the better they know one another.

The more lovingly a spouse behaves, the more the loving behavior is reciprocated. Sometimes partners must do things for the sake of one another’s' happiness that they'd rather not, but in the name of compromise and reciprocation it's all worth it. The "50-50 rule" is counterproductive, and spouses should instead focus individually on doing as much for one another as they can, without keeping a tally.

Compassionate and altruistic love are just as important as romantic love in the preservation of a marriage. Marriage does not complete the two people it joins together. It can fulfill many of their needs, but other needs will still require other means and other sources of satisfaction. Partners should not depend on marriage for happiness in every aspect of life.

It is not always best for couples to keep their problems to themselves; it is perfectly okay and sometimes necessary to consult trusted outside parties for help.

Comment: IMAPP's 2/6/07 "Customs" Post

Read the original Customs article, for full context of the comment below:

It strikes me as profoundly interesting that love is considered such a strong factor in the marriages within this culture, and when there's so little choice involved for the man in his engagement. That love is understood to leap from the woman's heart into the chosen man's is such an oddly romantic concept--and it seems to remove a significant amount of conflict if this is the belief with no question and no uprising from the males, even in the duration of the union.

I just can't imagine such a custom in our own country: there would be a mad scramble for million dollar athletes and CEOs, and to remove choice from the realm of their possibility seems absurd... Does it thus become a matter of whomever gets to them first? Does this custom work in their culture because there's significantly less class variation, or no? If not, what would be the way of dealing with superficially driven engagements that had nothing, in fact, to do with love...?
It's amazing to me how difficult it is to wrap my American mind around such a concept as is their custom, as feasible. It sounds so grand, utopian, in a sense, with me being a woman and all--(well, if only I could actually prepare fish, it might be)--yet just so doggone impractical. I'm deeply intrigued.

It's so beautiful that in this institution love does play such a significant role, but actually serves the contruction rather than ultimately interfere with it in counterproductive ways as it seems to do with the understanding of marriage in our own culture.

It's even more intriguing that their divorce problem seems opposite that which arose in our own country's history--the more control a woman had in the institution, the more our divorce rate seemed to increase; but with this group, the men's increasing say seems responsible for the divorce increase.

And this also makes me wonder to what extent the women are actually considered as providers in their culture beyond building the house that their living in will make the marriage official, and whether men's understood lack of option puts him in a position to be subjective to any level of "abuse," if that makes sense, or whether they do live more or less "happily ever after".... particularly in comparison to us and our own understanding of the institution.