Marriage+in+the+Caribbean

The Malinowski’s principle of legitimacy (Goode, 1960) is a prime example of how ethnocentric views and lens can shape and inform the research that social scientist perform. In this principle as discussed in Goode (1960) marriage is framed as a prerequisite for possessing a “legitimate” connection to one’s offspring. It was argued during the in-class presentation that this (marriage) just “may not be a black person’s thing”. This statement may seem brash and impetuous but is in fact and in experience supported by the research (Goodwin, Mosher & Chandra, 2002; The Growing Racial and Ethnic Divide in U.S. Marriage Patterns, 2015). media type="custom" key="28123153"

But more on the Goode (1960) treatment of marriage in the Caribbean setting. Goode (1960) goes on to assert that “legal monogomic marriage is ideal” (p. 27). This statement is rich with the smell of ethnocentrism. However, ethnocentrism can also be viewed of as a purposeful and impactful method of keeping a certain (most likely the person who embodies this world view, the agent corporeal) (Storti, 2012). This is not to mislead one to think that the views espoused in Goode (1960) were not simply racist publications, informed by racist methodology and racist-informed lived experiences. The following statement from Goode (1960) is so rich with inherent value judgments and racism-informed world views: “Illegitimacy rates can be expected to be higher among the lower strata in all societies” (Goode, 1960, p.27). The language and the insinuations/academic assertions made by Goode (1960) are rife with the lack of ethnorelativity as extrapolated on by Bennett (1993) and empathy.

Der Mark (2003) probably viewed the marriage and the Caribbean relationship the most appropriately in that marriage was framed as a custom borne out of enslavement and capitalists’ exploitative pursuits not out of love or desire. This view more appropriately frames marriage as Petrella, (2009) also frames it as a mechanism of social control and surveillance. The advances made by LGBT populations in the realm of marriage equality really brings into focus and under scrutiny a marginal segment of the population that otherwise would be allowed to exist without much relative data or information and this can be viewed as a good, bad or indifferent aspect of the advances of the LGBT political machine.

Much is also made in the ethnocentric literature about Caribbean domicile arrangements (see Allman, 1985). However, these assertions are again based on very myopic worldviews, not informed by the wider array of possible human relational experiences and existences. “Placage” specifically speaks to the Caribbean practice of setting “up a household” (Allman, 1985, p.31). Rubenstein (1983) explains how “placage” may not be as valued or ideal as traditional marriage however, the sheer magnitude of these social set-ups (placage) renders them more useful than ideal due to the economic realities of post plantation life in the Caribbean (Der Mark, 2003).

One observation made by Goode (1960) that stands to reason and experience not only in the Caribbean but also in the US is that marriage will be less and less a common occurrence among the lower strata in any society really speaks to the financial and economic implications of marriage (Der Mark, 2003). The reality is that in comparing European based marriage practices such as those practiced in the US and those practiced in the Caribbean we are comparing apples to oranges. The lived experiences of the people living in Haiti, one of the Nations with the highest rates of unmarried parents to the people living in the United States of America doesn’t really take into consideration the vastly diverse cultural histories of these to disparate nations serves to minimize the importance of these divergences of lived experience.

Then the relative paucity of married persons in the US also speaks to a reality that may have already been realized by those living in the Caribbean? The reality is that there exist mechanisms of social control of incredible impact (i.e. institutional racism) that continue to affect the discourse and understanding around what marriage signifies to whom?

References • Allman, J. (1985). Conjugal Unions in Rural and Urban Haiti. Social and Economic Studies, 34 (1)pp. 27-57.

• Der Mark, E. A. (2003). Continuity and change in the Afro-Caribbean family in Curaçao in the twentieth century. Community, Work & Family, 6(1), 77. doi:1080/1366880032000063914

• Goode, W. J. (1960). Illegitimacy in the Caribbean social structure. American Sociological Review, 2521-30. doi:10.2307/2088944

• Goodwin, P.Y., Mosher, W.D., and Chandra, A. (2002). Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait based on Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth. Division of Vital Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf

•Petrella, S. (2009). Erotic Civility: Normative monogamy as a technology of governance and self-governance in North America, 1850s to the present. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 69, 4515

• Rubenstein, H. (1983). Caribbean Family and Household Organization : Some Conceptual Clarifications. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 14(3), 283-298.