Yesterday, I attended a debate about arranged marriage vs. "love" marriage. It was a classroom exercise for some of my students from last semester. I was so proud of them as I watched them explain their points of view so passionately and articulately.
The subject of the debate, arranged marriage vs. love marriage, isn't the hypothetical, irrelevant debate prompt it might be in the US. Here in the UAE (and in the Gulf, and in parts of the wider Arab world), arranged marriage is still very much a thing. Even in countries/subcultures that have rejected the strict practice of arranged marriages, the process of courtship is very different from what we experience in the US. In Syria, my teenaged students used to tell me that they expected to have an engagement arranged by their family and the fiancee's family. It was only after the engagement that they'd be able to date that person. If things didn't work out, then the engagement could be cancelled. So you see how a so-called "love match" could still fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, toward arranged marriage. Maybe it should be called "arranged engagement"?
I really haven't thought about this subject for a long time. As I sat and listened to their debate, I considered my own opinion and how it might have changed over the years. I imagine there was a time when I was horrified by the idea of arranged marriage, and thought of it as an outdated, cruel, medieval practice. I don't think so anymore (assuming I ever did). I realize this statement could apply to a lot of controversial cultural practices, but I think if arranged marriage is dealt with properly, in a spirit of love and concern for all involved, and if it is appropriate for the cultural context, then there's no reason it can't turn out splendidly. Didn't our (the Mormons') own Spencer W. Kimball say that "soul mates are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price"? (He did, at a 1976 talk at the BYU.) (And I know he was talking about Saturday's Warrior, not arranged marriage, but I think his point still applies.)
So as much as Americans might like to trumpet their love marriages in the face of more traditional arranged marriages, I think there is a touch of the arranged marriage alive and well in the West. Just a touch. Plus, I think if we looked closely, those of us with American or European mutt ancestry could find arranged-ish marriages in the not too far distant past.
Of course, what takes the fun out of debates is the realization that it's not all one way or all the other. The consensus, by definition, is that in some cultural contexts and with some individuals, arranged marriage is the best way to go. In others, love marriages are what is needed. It just depends. Most boring conclusion ever, but there it is.
My favorite part of the debate was the fun video they showed at the end. The team in charge of arguing in favor of love marriages made fun of arranged marriages, and vice versa. I asked if I could post it and they said yes. Take five minutes and watch it, if you want. The dialogue is hard to hear but you should be able to get the general idea of it. Enjoy seeing how these young Arabs treat this issue that hits very close to home.
The subject of the debate, arranged marriage vs. love marriage, isn't the hypothetical, irrelevant debate prompt it might be in the US. Here in the UAE (and in the Gulf, and in parts of the wider Arab world), arranged marriage is still very much a thing. Even in countries/subcultures that have rejected the strict practice of arranged marriages, the process of courtship is very different from what we experience in the US. In Syria, my teenaged students used to tell me that they expected to have an engagement arranged by their family and the fiancee's family. It was only after the engagement that they'd be able to date that person. If things didn't work out, then the engagement could be cancelled. So you see how a so-called "love match" could still fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, toward arranged marriage. Maybe it should be called "arranged engagement"?
I really haven't thought about this subject for a long time. As I sat and listened to their debate, I considered my own opinion and how it might have changed over the years. I imagine there was a time when I was horrified by the idea of arranged marriage, and thought of it as an outdated, cruel, medieval practice. I don't think so anymore (assuming I ever did). I realize this statement could apply to a lot of controversial cultural practices, but I think if arranged marriage is dealt with properly, in a spirit of love and concern for all involved, and if it is appropriate for the cultural context, then there's no reason it can't turn out splendidly. Didn't our (the Mormons') own Spencer W. Kimball say that "soul mates are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price"? (He did, at a 1976 talk at the BYU.) (And I know he was talking about Saturday's Warrior, not arranged marriage, but I think his point still applies.)
So as much as Americans might like to trumpet their love marriages in the face of more traditional arranged marriages, I think there is a touch of the arranged marriage alive and well in the West. Just a touch. Plus, I think if we looked closely, those of us with American or European mutt ancestry could find arranged-ish marriages in the not too far distant past.
Of course, what takes the fun out of debates is the realization that it's not all one way or all the other. The consensus, by definition, is that in some cultural contexts and with some individuals, arranged marriage is the best way to go. In others, love marriages are what is needed. It just depends. Most boring conclusion ever, but there it is.
My favorite part of the debate was the fun video they showed at the end. The team in charge of arguing in favor of love marriages made fun of arranged marriages, and vice versa. I asked if I could post it and they said yes. Take five minutes and watch it, if you want. The dialogue is hard to hear but you should be able to get the general idea of it. Enjoy seeing how these young Arabs treat this issue that hits very close to home.