Same-Caste Arranged Marriages: Beyond the ‘Regressive’ Paradigm
The institution of marriage in India is undergoing significant transformation, driven by factors such as accelerated economic shifts, enhanced geographical mobility, greater female participation in higher education and the labor force, and the pervasive influence of digital media. While companionate and self-selected marriages, including those across caste lines, are increasingly visible, the traditional model of same-caste arranged marriage persists, often attracting critique in popular discourse as a “regressive” practice incompatible with modernity. This post seeks to offer a nuanced sociological perspective on same-caste arranged marriages, arguing against an uncritical dismissal of the practice.
Marital Assortment: Comparing Class and Caste Homogamy
Assortative mating—the non-random pairing of individuals based on shared characteristics—is a fundamental principle observed across human societies. In contemporary Western societies, and increasingly in India, socioeconomic status (or ‘class’) often serves as a primary axis of homogamy. Evidence suggests a high propensity for individuals to select partners who possess similar educational attainment, professional standing, or income levels. For instance, the marriage of two software engineers or two civil servants illustrates this class-based homogamy. The underlying rationale is that shared economic standing and professional background facilitate mutual understanding of lifestyles, goals, and resource management.
In the Indian context, the traditional system of caste, unlike the Western concept of class which is primarily economic, represents a complex, historically entrenched socio-cultural and ritual hierarchy. When viewed through the lens of assortative mating, same-caste marriage can be seen as an instance of caste homogamy.
The critical difference lies in the range of characteristics prioritized for similarity. While class-based assortment focuses predominantly on economic and occupational parameters, caste-based assortment traditionally encompasses a broader spectrum:
Cultural and Ritual Consistency: Sharing a caste often signifies commonality in dialect, regional customs, specific religious rituals, dietary practices, and kinship norms.
Shared Social Capital: Marrying within the same caste integrates the couple into familiar and established social networks, providing a pre-existing scaffolding of support from the immediate and extended family.
Predictability of Socialization: Partners from the same caste often share similar foundational upbringings regarding gender roles, family obligations, and community expectations, potentially reducing major post-marital conflicts arising from disparate socializations.
From this perspective, the choice for a same-caste partner in an arranged setting can be interpreted not as an adherence to a restrictive dogma, but as an attempt to maximize the range of socio-cultural compatibility factors a priori. Proponents argue that by establishing a broad base of shared cultural capital, the risk of fundamental lifestyle mismatches may be mitigated, potentially creating a more stable foundation for the marriage than one based on economic similarity alone.
Marriage Stability and Compatibility Metrics
Discussions around marital systems often invoke stability metrics, such as divorce rates. Data from various global studies often indicate that arranged marriages, of which same-caste arrangements form a significant subset in India, frequently exhibit lower formal divorce rates compared to self-selected marriages. While this phenomenon is multi-factorial (involving social stigma, economic interdependency, and family pressure), one contributing hypothesis relates to the intentional filtering mechanism inherent in the arranged process.
The arrangement process, often involving multiple family units and emphasizing community reputation and family values, is arguably a stringent screening method designed to ensure high degrees of familial and social compatibility, alongside individual compatibility. The focus shifts from the possibly ephemeral criterion of romantic attraction to a more holistic assessment of long-term viability within the existing social structure. Thus, the lower divorce rate in arranged marriages might be partially attributed to a selection bias for stability, facilitated by the deep congruence of socio-cultural expectations signaled by the caste framework.
Conclusion
The assertion that same-caste arranged marriages are intrinsically “regressive” is an oversimplification. While acknowledging the historical and ongoing criticisms of the caste system as a whole—particularly its association with social stratification and discrimination—it is crucial to analytically separate the system’s macro-social inequities from the specific micro-dynamics of marital assortment.
When viewed as a form of highly encompassing socio-cultural homogamy, the practice can be understood as a risk-averse strategy aimed at maximizing post-marital adjustment by ensuring a broad alignment across cultural, social, and often, educational and economic parameters. In a modern context where individuals are actively involved in the selection process within the caste boundary (often termed ‘arranged-cum-choice’), same-caste marriage continues to function as a mechanism for generating profound similarity, a universal metric for mate selection, albeit through a distinctly Indian socio-cultural filter. This perspective suggests that the choice is not merely an archaic compliance, but often a pragmatic decision leveraging existing social structures to optimize for marital stability and social integration.
