Of Love and Marriages...

One of the most significant developments in my life lately has been the numerous weddings of friends. In the last two years 9 of my friends and 6 of my colleagues got married. and I am expecting atleast 4 more weddings before the year ends (thats a conservative estimate based on the ones which are planned, then there are those spur-of-the-moment ones too!). I thought, therefore, that "weddings" would be a pertinent concept to write about... Lets go back to the origin of the word. The Anglo-Saxon word wedd referred to the grooms pledge to marry, but also to purchase money or its equivalent in horses, cattle, or other property that he paid to the bride's father. So a "wedding" was literally the purchase of a woman for breeding purposes, involving an element of risk. The first marriages were by capture. When a man saw a woman he desired, he took her by force. To kidnap a bride, a groom enlisted the aid of a warrior friend, his "best man". Capture marriages dominated the prehistoric world. However, marriage by purchase became the preferred tradition, and even when it wasn't an overt sale of the bride for cash, everyone understood that she was being bartered for land, holdings, political alliance, or social advancement. A girl was a useful pair of hands in the father's household, but she was invaluable to the groom's, where she could work equally hard and also bear offspring. Closer home, the Laws of Manu that prescribe social conduct for Hindus, describe eight different types of weddings - when a man adorns his daughter and gives her as 'gift' to a man that he has summoned; when the man adorns his daughter and gives her as a as a gift to a priest in the course of a sacrifice; giving the daughter away after receiving cattle from the groom in return; when a man takes a girl away because he wants her, and gives wealth to her and her family in return; when a man and a woman join in sexual union out of desire; when a man forcibly carries a girl from her home after killing, breaking ang wounding; when a man secretly has sex with a girl who is intoxicated, asleep or out of her mind. The expression "to tie the knot" dates back to the Romans, when the bride wore a girdle secured by a knot, which the groom then had the fun of untying. Rituals of binding have also been popular throughout the world. In ancient Carthage, the couple's thumbs were laced together with a strip of leather. In Hindu weddings, the end of the bride's saree is tied to the groom's stole. Besides knots, rings, or other forms of jewellery, headgear and vermillion all signify marriage and bind the bride to the groom (usually all these symbols are borne by the women).

This is of course, a completely historical-sociological description of the concept, bordering on a feministic interpretation. There are a multitude of connotations of this multifaceted concept, ranging from romantic (as in marrying as a result of falling in love, to spend the rest of their lives together, as a declaration of their love to the world, etc.), to socio-economic (organisation of society for optimal division of labour), to socio-political (marriage to perpetuate and maintain patriarchal societal structures, as well as caste, religion, class, etc.).

Do note that "love" has no mention in any of these weddings, either as a reason, or as signified by any of the symbols associated with the process. Do note also, that Manu accepts rape and abduction as marriage. I assume it is needless to point out the status and role of the woman/bride in this whole matter as has been prescribed by the various weddings, and therefore, various societies.

Despite this, (or perhaps because of this) weddings have started to symbolise and signify everything, except the union of the two people concerned (but it was never meant to anyway!!)The wedding, its rituals and the significance, the scale and the grandeur never fail to amaze me. From Mr. Mittal to the landless labourer, everyone would exceed what is 'affordable spending' on a wedding by atleast double! Status has started getting determined by the scale and grandiosity of a wedding, entire films get made on this concept, industries run on the business of weddings, and of course, how can I overlook the weddings that happen because of the wedding (weddings are a prime ocassion for all matrimonial purposes: with all the dolled up girls and the eligible bachelors, one is definite to strike some metal, if not gold!!). The wedding often far exceeds the marriage in significance and relevance, despite both being embedded in the same fabric, no matter whatever interpretation one chooses. The concept has definitely stopped being just a ritual to signify the commencement of an institution (that of marriage), and has become an organising principle - a superstructure, almost. The power and universality that it represents is probably only next to that of sex !! (and of course, the latter wins due to its sheer unfair advantage of the absence of all associated baggage, and its place in the esteemed list of 'basic needs'!).

Patterns and Predictability

Our lives are full of patterns and predictability. As much as we may complain about them - on the basis of their consequent monotony - its a fact that we seek them out, we crave for them, we create them when there are none... Human beings seek patterns and predicatability. In studying perception (as a part of psychology) one understands the importance of closure in a perceived figure vis-a-vis the background, even in learning and memory, it is by creating associations, mnemonics, conditioning and patterns that we learn and memorise - even completely unrelated concepts (for instance, food and the bell in Pavlov's dog!!) Coming to think of it, memories of our life's incidents are always in patterns, in relations and associations. A song playing at the roadside tea stall, or a particular smell can transport us to a romantic dinner date, or our high school farewell, or a friend's birthday party where we all got completely wasted!! Its however, the same pattern...and it brings about the same predictability... Its actually amazing how much we seek these patterns. People can listen to the same song repeatedly only to revisit those fond memories over and over again, or they wear the same perfume for years. I even know of people who wear the same colour (in different shades, of course!). These patterns then cease being merely associations for memories. They start defining our identity. Our habits, our jobs, our everyday routine are all examples of this. They define who we are. The comfort that one gets by knowing what to expect (predicatbility) in our lives is almost immeasurable. You know what to do every morning, you go to the same place to work everyday and meet the same people, you know your family/friends will be there when you need them...The importance of this predictability can only be realised when the pattern is broken. The trauma that one goes through following a broken relationship, a death, losing a job, an illness - are extreme cases when one mourns the absence of this stability and predictability in one's life...Some people can handle this instability better than others, but people generally go through the same sequence (or rather pattern) of emotions and feelings. Of course, the intensity of the instability, the dependency that was there on that pattern, and the length of time that predictability existed are all determinants of how much the change affects the person. The adage - "time heals" - supports this. The "healing properties" of time are nothing but due to the predictability that it creates after a certain duration. Its not that one forgets, or that the pain becomes less - its just that one gets used to it, one expects it to be there, one can predict it...and therefore, a new way of life gets created with new patterns and new predictabilities!

Love : An attempt at demystification

Love is perhaps the most mystified concept in this world. Children often believe in magic and miracles and when they grow up they naturally extend this mystique to love. Yet it is apparently also the most common concept. From literature to entertainment, from social institutions to evolution - its this one single concept thats overriding. To Plato, lovers are incomplete halves of a single puzzle, searching for each other in order to become one entity. By giving up their autonomy, they find their true selves. 3000 years later, Freud talks about the same phenomenon using words like sublimation and resistance. But why should the idea of oneness - thats the core of love - be so compelling? Love changes all the physics in the known universe of one's emotions and redraws what is real and what is possible. Perhaps that is where the source of this mysticism lies... It is this mysticism, however, that drives a rationalist to an attempt at theorization, demystification and deconstruction of the concept of love (is it blasphemy, well, maybe!!). What would a taxonomical analysis of this sacred concept look like? First, one admires. The essence of love is fantasy. We fall in love with gods and goddesses of our own devising. We never see them clearly, we never see the forces that drove us to them, but we are predisposed to love them! The next characteristic is, what can be called 'crystallization' - the tendency for someone in love to idealize the subject, imagining him or her to be finer and nobler than any other human being. It is a mental process that draws on everything that happens to form new proofs of the perfection of the loved one. Then one hopes that the feeling will be returned. The paralysing shyness one feels in the presence of the subject of love (in more romantic terms - the beloved!); how important it is to act naturally - but also how difficult; the way the subject's/beloved's kind words can render one speechless; how the alternating current of hope and despair can fry one's nerves; the way the most trivial gesture can devastate a lover one moment and cause bliss the next; how music can convey the wordless depths of love; love's power to whitewash the true nature of the 'beloved'; and the pitilessness of self-doubt and self consciousness that savage one's heart... When This hope and the earlier admiration combine, 'love' is born! After this doubt creeps in with dreadful misgiving, as the love demands proof after proof of affection. When doubt is overcome, the second crystallization occurs, with the mind imagining every act as a proof of love. At this stage the opposite of love is death. If the idealized person should leave the mournful lover assumes it was his/her fault, and that happiness is lost forever! There is no consolation. the mind can no longer attach the idea of pleasure to any pleasurable activity. Love here is the optical illusion which leads to the fatal pistol shot! Certainty, familiarity, complacency - they all lead to pleasant relationships of companionship and good will, but not to the feverish adventure of being in love!! Love is a solitary feeling which exists whether its returned or not, and not the emotional event that takes place between two people. The loves of two people in love with each are seldom the same. Perhaps this is where it draws its mystique from...and perhaps this is why even in an attemot to demystify it, the rationalist cannot help but acknowledge the magic...