People who know me know that I'm very invested in cultural relativism around here - so I'm actually going to write an entire self-answering question over why cultures are different.
@Passerby The police isn't perfect. But they are necessary.
Anthropologists are human too, but one of the tenants they try to hold to is evaluating a culture using its own terms, not some external source of "values" including the anthropologist's own.
Todo list: 1. Write super long meta post on why your Indian answer may not apply to Bangladesh. 2. Write mod nomination (if I still think I can do it) 3. Think of culture questions you can answer yourself
And that's it for me. I'm sleepy. See y'all later :)
@Zizouz212 studying and judging/ analysing a culture based on internal decisions is moral relativism. It ignores universal/majority beliefs. Like studying a culture where canabilism is okay. And saying it's okay because the culture believes that. Pardon the extremist fallacy.
The idea that every culture has a set of standard "values" and that certain cultures can be superior to others in terms of practices, beliefs and thoughts
The idea that your parents are there to find your partner, or to seek parents permission for marriage is a common and very valid viewpoint, especially in south asia
@Zizouz212 Yes, that is. But there's a difference between your parents legitimately trying to find the best match for you and, say, as was common in England in the middle ages, marrying you to someone because they were rich and don't care about your feelings at all.
@Passerby The publicly acceptable dress codes are enforced through peer and social pressure, that refusing results in social stigma, means it is forced
Marriage here is viewed as something where two people come together and that is it. In many south asian traditions, it's about joining families, traditions... It's much more entrenched in society.
@GypsySpellweaver yes. I agree. Office dress codes are forced. Not that they are dumb, in general, some go farther than rational but any dress code is forced. Like any arranged marriage is forced, regardless of how reasonable they may be.
Here is the murky part. Are successful arranged marriages successful because they work or because the participants feel they need to make it work even through it is not in their best individual interest?
@Passerby There's the catch. They are not forced. You agree to them when you choose to stay within that society. You could, instead, join some other society with views closer to your own, or even choose to live outside of all societies and become a "society of one."
Lets put it in a different context. Would a poor person unhappy with their job really have a choice to leave it? Are they not forced by circumstance to stay? Quiting would not be a realistic choice for them.
For what it's worth, arranged marriages are also consensual. If couples who seek to have a divorce don't have the financial means to do so, then the marriage isn't the reason for that, but rather their economic conditions
A non-arranged marriage is also expected from the society at large. That is also forced, in a sense, then. And surely, there are people who discard the whole idea of marriage itself
Generally speaking, parents will find a partner for their son or daughter. Or, they may get a "proposal" asking the parents for their son or daughter to marry their child. The two have the ability to accept the proposal as well. It's consensual for the couple, as well as the parents of the families.
@Passerby What you have been saying, throughout, is a classic example of ethical imperialism. It's applying your definitions to a cultural group which has different definitions.
While this link may theoretically answer the question, it would be better to provide the essential information here and provide the link for reference...
Like I said, whether something being forced is okay, is separate from whether it is forced or not. Society requires food workers to use hair nets. Under penalty of law.
Absolutely not. The concept of being 'forced' is not objective at all. Most (or rather all) things related to human sociology are highly complex, subjective and evolving with time and place. There is no objective definition of morality/righteous
This conversation is starting to get a little heated; I'd just like to remind people to think about what you say and make sure it comes under Be Nice before it becomes a problem.
@Passerby If "forced marriage" as you call it is bad, why is not "forced dress" bad? If both are bad, why are you not up in arms to get both changed, or recognized as "wrong"?
@Passerby If two parents were to suggest partners for their children in the US, it would be viewed as an invasion of their privacy, since American society is very individualistic. But it's near opposite for many south asian cultures.
The definition of marriage also changes to an extent between the two
@Mithrandir You worry too much :)
If anything, discussion on sensitive topics is good. It's quite civilized here. And the discussion of social institutions for a site about interpersonal skills is also quite relevant.
@GypsySpellweaver I don't know where I said that. I said arranged = forced in most situations. I never said forced = bad. I stated that most place a with forced marriages have better success rates than "free" marriage areas
@Zizouz212 let's take it to the extreme. I put a gun to your head to do x. You have free will to say no, resulting in your death. The question is, did I force you to do x? Undeniably, universally, that's a yes.
Nor, for that matter is refusal of a proposed marriage.
If I marry Liz, I cannot marry Jasmine. That is a consequence. If I marry Jasmine I am honor-bound to provide for her children. That is a consequence. If I don't marry anyone, I have to provide my own meals (cook myself or buy pre-made). That is a consequence.
