More on Kyrgyz bride kidnapping

At Obsidian Wings, Edward writes:

It seems totally barbaric to me, and the Frontline piece on it has moments that are incredibly difficult to watch (including the story of one young woman who either hanged herself or was murdered by her "husband's" family), but the practice of kidnapping brides in Kyrgyzstan is a very complex cultural institution that stunningly often ends in very happy marriages.

I've asked "Bambino" (aka my partner) about it, and his response is similar to that of many of the Kyrgyz people interviewed in the Front Line segment: a knowing smile, a blush, and a heartfelt insistence that to most Kyrgyz people it's not as bad as it must appear to outsiders. It's simply "cultural."

As I've argued previously, bride kidnapping doesn't just seem barbaric, it really is morally reprehensible. The fact that an entire culture embraces a travesty doesn't make it right.

"Ala kachuu" refers to a family of abduction-related marriage customs. What we call "bride kidnaping" is actually encompasses a continuum of behavior that ranges from the benign to the heinous. At its most benign, ala kachuu is a form of consensual elopement. In that case, the term "bride kidnapping" is a misnomer--the couple has agreed to get married and the "kidnapping" just a performance.

However, in many cases, women are forcibly abducted by total strangers or mere acquaintances. One of the girls interviewed by Frontline put it this way, "Only one Kyrgyz girl in a hundred marries for love."

Edward describes acquaintance abduction:

Other times, however, a shy young man decides to kidnap a woman he doesn't actually know and is too busy working on the farm or simply too self-conscious to get to know. The number of these women who eventually concede (or are simply worn down by the nagging of the "groom's" family and give in) to marry is amazing to me.

It's not amazing to me. As the documentary explains, the entire community shames a kidnapped woman into staying with her abductor. The kidnapping victim brings disgrace on herself and her family if she refuses.

As in most traditional societies, marriage is not optional for women in rural Kyrgyzstan. For a woman facing "spinsterhood," kidnapping can function like a randomized system of arranged marriage. Women who happen to get kidnapped by a relatively desirable husband may prefer to cast their lot in with him. Of course, a kidnapped woman can't make this choice freely because her community is blackmailing her into staying with whoever plucked her off the street.

Sometimes, a woman's own family will sell her out, either by conspiring with the kidnappers, or by pressuring her to stay. One Frontline segment shows a 25-year-old woman who has been kidnapped by a stranger. She's already an old maid by regional standards, so her parents are keen to marry her off. Her family didn't arrange her kidnapping, but they are just as happy to let their daughter's kidnapper keep her.

Edward continues:

Even more amazing though, as the Front Line segment shows, is how many of them months and years later seem really, truly happy in their marriages, suggesting that the "resistance" they put up while being coerced into the marriage is a bit of cultural theater as well. Perhaps, if one is expecting to be kidnapped, it's rather exciting to be coy, I don't know. It's totally foreign to me.

The fact that women seem happy after the fact doesn't necessarily mean anything.* I don't discount the possibility that kidnapped brides sometimes have happy marriages, but I'm not prepared to take their protestations of contentment at face value. Given the extreme subordination of women Kyrgyz society, I doubt that most women feel free to speak their minds, especially to outsiders. Furthermore, the practice of kidnapping is so widespread that virtually everyone is implicated somehow, including women. Yesterday's kidnapped bride is tomorrow's scheming mother-in-law, browbeating some new girl into marrying her son because he's too poor to raise a proper dowry. The fact that women end up being happy in the system is no comment on the morality of the system itself.

The resistance that girls put up to kidnapping is real. They are terrified. Once they are picked up, anything can happen, including gang rapes and beatings. The fact that some women eventually resign themselves to their fate says nothing about how painful and humiliating their kidnappings were.

Some African slaves probably enjoyed periods of happiness despite their servitude. It's human nature to make the best of a terrible situation, especially once you've resigned yourself to your fate. It would be outrageous to cite a slave's apparent contentment as evidence that slaves are generally happy in their role, or that the institution slavery isn't painful, humiliating, and morally reprehensible.

*Edit: I added the word "necessarily" in response to Edward's comment, see below.

Comments

[Amanda]

Well put. Many women continue in marriages where they are being raped by their husband and they often would claim to be happy as well. And that's in America. It doesn't make being raped fun.

[Edward]

I'm not in favor of the practice and I'm certainly not arguing that it's "right", and although you deconstruct the objections I make in the post quite effectively, you're still spinning them to suggest I do support it. That's an unfair oversimplification of my post. There are two points in the FL segment that argue it's much more complicated than you're suggesting here (and while I understand the moral absolutism you're promoting, I don't think that it, in and of itself, does the topic justice).

First is the woman who within 45 minutes not only stopped cold what had been a rather violent-looking protest but also then genuinely looked happy to be getting married (I wasn't there, I can't say for sure she wasn't still terrified, but it did smack of theater in the end...and as a commenter on the ObWi thread noted, there are cultural expectations at play here that we can agree are mysogynistic from our POV, but which explain why Kyrgyz men and women who support this ritual aren't necessarily vile heathens or unsophisticated dupes or whatever).

Second (and countering your rather odd blanket assertion that "The fact that women seem happy after the fact doesn't mean anything.") is the Kyrgyz woman tagging along with the reporter who was strongly against the practice but who, in the end, admitted to feeling torn because the last couple intereviewed did seem genuinely happy. That feeling of being torn on her part reflects a bond between her and the kidnapped bride that you or I will never have, being nonKyrgyz, and again suggests we're not all-seeing in our response to the practice.

In the comments of my post I suggest ways the Krygyz people can begin to change acceptance of this practice, without having to resort to the ham-fisted self-condemnation you appear to advocate, including creating situations where men and women can safely meet, having public campaigns to highlight the unhappy marriages resulting from the practice, and very public campaigns to spread the notion that marrying one's true love is a right, etc. By not including that in your post and for some incomprehensible reason not also including the fact that my partner's mother had been consensually kidnapped and that obviously colors his overall impression of the practice, you are again, unfairly mischaracterizing my post.

[Josh Umar]

Edward: I'd be curious to know how you feel about "female circumcision."

[gayle]

Josh, I was thinking the same exact thing. After all, women perform the "surgery" and are rewarded handsomely for it. And it's primarily women who browbeat other women to have the procedure done to their girls.

I bet a TV show producer could find lots and lots of women who would say they are happy they were "circumcised." Does that mean I, as a person from another culture can't criticize the practice, can't take a firm stand against it?

Can't we at least agree that some human rights are (or should be) universal rights? Shouldn't the fundamental right to control one's own body and destiny be included?

[Quentin Crain]

Being the consequentialists that I am I have to ask. First, you say:

The fact that women seem happy after the fact doesn't mean
anything.
. . .
The fact that women end up being happy in the system is no
comment on the morality of the system itself.

Pretty much a non-consequentialist position it seems to me.

Then you say:

It would be outrageous to cite a slave's *apparent* contentment
as evidence that slaves are generally happy in their role, or
that the institution slavery isn't painful, humiliating, and
morally reprehensible.

The emphasis makes me wonder a bit if you are not a strict non-consequentialist -- as gayle seems to be:
[gayle]
Can't we at least agree that some human rights are (or should be)
universal rights? Shouldn't the fundamental right to control
one's own body and destiny be included?

So, my question is: Are you against the practise *per se*? Is it wrong in Kyrgyzstan now? Or stronger: Is it wrong everywhere/anytime? [My belief is that the consequences make it nearly certain to be wrong anywhere at any time.]

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Edward, I don't feel that I've misrepresented your post. I acknowledged the complexity of ala kachuu--not every abduction-themed custom is actually coercive, and the coercive abductions also exist along a continuum.

Some consensual elopements fall into the Kyrgyz category of ala kachuu. Those I don't criticize at all. In fact, it sounds like it could be a fun custom if it were purely ceremonial.

When kidnapping functions as randomized arranged marriage, it's morally comparable to arranged marriages. Not as bad as violent kidnapping by total strangers, but still reprehensible to the extent that it undermines a woman's right to self-determination, and the extent to which the abduction itself is physically and mentally traumatic.

In ordinary arranged marriages, a women is expected to marry whoever her family picks out. It seems as if in rural Kyrgyzstan, women are generally expected to stay with any man who picks them out. Even an "arranged" kidnapping is traumatic for the victim--no matter how much she supports the practice in the abstract.

Culture shapes our experience in powerful and mysterious ways, but you can't tell me that anyone is prepared to be snatched off the street by a stranger. Even if these girls could be confident that no harm would come to them, which they can't be, it would still be terrifying to be dragged into a car and presented to a new family.

Second (and countering your rather odd blanket assertion that "The fact that women seem happy after the fact doesn't mean anything.")

I'm going to add the word "necessarily" to that sentence for clarity. It's pretty simple, the fact that people say they're happy doesn't necessarily mean they are happy--especially if they're not in a position to speak freely. As I said in the next sentence of my post, I don't discount the possibility that kidnappings sometimes blossom into happy marriages. Even so, the fact that some people end up being happy doesn't mean that the experience itself wasn't excruciating.

Edward, I took issue with your assertion that the fact that these girls act happy is evidence that they aren't traumatized.

The Frontline footage speaks for itself. The kidnapped girls in the video are terrified and putting up a fierce fight. Then they are held captive and browbeaten for hours. It's a mistake to discount their suffering just because they ultimately cheer up. Some don't of course, like the girl who hanged herself or the 17-year-old who chooses to walk, knowing the dire social consequences.

[Edward]

Edward: I'd be curious to know how you feel about "female circumcision."

I'm as opposed to it as I am kidnapping, why?

Let me ask you something in return. How do you think the West will affect a change in attitude about female circumcision? By denouncing it, or by understanding why it's important to those who practice it first in order to best lead them to see why it's not good for them on their own?

On the ObWi post, a commenter made a very good observation about how kidnapping stalls modernization in Krygyzstan (less modernizaion, fewer new jobs, less opportunity to rise out of poverty, etc. etc.). This strikes me as a much more productive avenue toward getting Kyrgyz men (and women) to change their cultural views on a practice that's ages older than our Western indignation.

In other words, denounce the practice in one hand and pee in the other and see which one fills up faster. If the oppression of the Soviet Union didn't stop the practice, perhaps mere disapproval's not the best means toward that end.

I'm suggesting a better understanding is step one.

I took issue with your assertion that the fact that these girls act happy is evidence that they aren't traumatized.

In a vaccuum, I'd agree with that totally. I think, however, that if as a young girl living in the Kyrgyz countryside you grow up expecting to one day be kidnapped, then it's more likely you actually are not traumatized when the day comes. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that all the other players in that drama are sick and twisted. What I'm looking for here is an explanation of why those other players otherwise seem quite normal.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

As a consequentialist, I'm looking at the overall effect of the practice on the community. I find it very hard to believe that non-consensual kidnapping is a net plus for anyone. It's very easy to believe that this rut could persist among rational people even if it was harmful overall. Why work hard and accumulate a dowry or play the dating game when you can just snatch any woman you like off the street? Guys who won't abduct women are at a disadvantage. I'm not talking ev psych, here. I'm just talking practically. If you have your eye on someone, and you know that someone else might snatch her any minute, maybe it makes sense to take preemptive action.

Marriages that begin with violent abductions by strangers http://faculty.philau.edu/kleinbachr/why_women_stay.htm>may be less likely to endure than more consensual arrangements. The foregoing is a very small study, but the claim is highly plausible at face value. You'd expect random marriages to be less successful than arranged marriages or consensual marriages, even leaving out the violent beginnings.

If you choose your mate at random, you have no idea whether you're going to be happy together. I'm prepared to accept that the Western ideal of romantic fulfillment isn't the only standard for happiness in marriage--but whatever you're looking for in your marriage, you're less likely to get it by grabbing whoever you can get off the street.

A consequentialist will ask whether the practice results in greater utility than the alternatives. The obvious alternative is consensual marriage with ceremonial abduction, or even an arranged marriage with input from both parties and a ceremonial abduction. If you think about the practice, it seems clear that there are huge downsides to it, relative to the alternatives, even with the most optimistic assumptions about cultural programming.

We have to consider all the ways that the institution goes wrong in the real world. Women and their families live in fear of being kidnapped. The threat of kidnapping reduces the opportunities for young people to interact and form consensual attachments. Marrying for love seems to be a compelling ideal for Kyrgyz girls. Their disappointment and that of the girls' real boyfriends must be taken into account in the overall utility calculus.

Besides, violent kidnapping is dangerous in and of itself. A significant number of women commit suicide. Any society that gives gangs of young men permission to get drunk and snatch girls is inviting gang rape and other violence.

[Edward]

If you have your eye on someone, and you know that someone else might snatch her any minute, maybe it makes sense to take preemptive action.

This presumes some men are not also interested in marrying their true loves, no?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't know how Kyrgyz guys feel about marrying for love. Maybe a lot of men would prefer to marry for love, too. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. If so, the practice is all the more oppressive.

Bride kidnapping has a macho cachet. I'm sure there are a lot of people in every culture who would prefer to drop the macho act, but who keep up traditional gender roles because they don't want others to question their manhood.

In Kyrgyz bride kidnapping is so widespread that it's easy for guys who would prefer to avoid the ritual to rationalize a kidnapping by telling themselves that it's better to kidnap a girl themselves than to let some other guy get her. Maybe it's even true in some cases.

I think one of the commenters on this blog had a Kyrgyz friend who kidnapped his wife because he liked her and he knew a real asshole was planning to abduct her. He would have preferred to keep dating her, but he felt compelled to act.

[Edward]

It's certainly a screwed up system. The first man the FrontLine segment interviewed stated that he had actually asked a few different women to marry him (but was turned down) before he opted to kidnap a wife. That makes me wonder about the courtship practices. Are there extended dating periods? It seems there are not.

I've also wondered by single women don't just wear wedding rings when in public. Not that they should have to, mind you, but is there a down side to that? (i.e., scaring away potential suitable prospects).

I've asked my partner how he would feel if his 19-year-old sister were kidnapped. Because his parents consented on his mother's kidnapping, and because they live in the capital, where kidnapping by complete strangers is much less common, he's not so worried about it he says. Of course, knowing his mother, I also know that if once she heard her daughter had been kidnapped and she didn't approve of the groom, she'd have an army of male relatives storm the place and get her back.

[Edward]

I've also wondered by single women

should have been

"I've also wondered why single women" ...otherwise it's one letter away from making me sound like a stalker.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Apparently, a lot of single women http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/international/asia/30brides.html?ex=1272513600&en=71b93317d2545173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>do pretend to be married:

The threat of abduction begins to haunt women once they reach their teenage years. Some women attending universities wear wedding bands or head scarves to fool men into thinking they are already married. [NYT]

It's a problem though. A lot of these girls would like to date and eventually marry. I'm sure the disguise also deters men who are interested in consensual relationships.

The ironic thing about the Kyrgyz situation is couples can and do marry for love--and in those cases, the kidnapping trope is a convenient way of sidestepping parental disapproval. But the threat of real kidnapping hangs over everything.

[Andrew C.]

The first link ("Edward") goes to the frontline page instead of the ObWi post.

[Andy]

You might be interested to read this piece on Kyrgyz bride kidnapping, by a blogger who is (I think) a Peace Corps volunteer in Kyrgyzstan.

His observations on bride kidnapping start about half-way down the entry.

[Andy]

You might be interested to read this piece on Kyrgyz bride kidnapping, by a blogger who is (I think) a Peace Corps volunteer in Kyrgyzstan.

His observations on bride kidnapping start about half-way down the entry.

[ACW]

Her observations. Some NGO, not clear if it's Peace Corps.

I've been reading JJ's Travels for quite a while. Strange and riveting stuff.

[KLK]

Ala-kachuu as forced bride stealing is not ancient tradition. Freedom after collapse of soviet system turned into neocolonial slavery from IMF. That's the root cause.

[Nazgul]

I wish Americans mind their own business, and let other people live their life. There is a war at the moment because Americans like to tell people how to live. "Ala kachuu" does not have the same idea as kidnapping. However, there are some people for their own interest (money for school) will say anything that Americans want to hear. And you all are discussing how horrible the kyrgyz culture is but there is nothing that you all understand about it. Please, mind your own business.

[Nazgul]

I wish Americans mind their own business, and let other people live their life. There is a war at the moment because Americans like to tell people how to live. "Ala kachuu" does not have the same idea as kidnapping. However, there are some people for their own interest (money for school) will say anything that Americans want to hear. And you all are discussing how horrible the kyrgyz culture is but there is nothing that you all understand about it. Please, mind your own business.