| Relative to a set of analytical conceptions of wealth and consumption goods and relative to an understanding of
the cross-culturally recognizable differences among payments, gifts, bequests and inheritances, this paper is a constructive
critique of the well-known book by Jack Goody and Stanley Tambiah (1973), Bridewealth and Dowry. This book is use-
ful as a framework for advancing new theoretical concepts that are fundamental to the analysis of marriage and related so-
cio-economic processes. We know that payments are a method of transferring rights to resources, gifts are a method for se-
curing and strengthening alliances, and inheritance is the instrument for defining wealth-holding groups and establishing
demographic power. These variables are non-overlapping and their characteristics have cross-cultural validity. If marriage
related resource transfers are placed into disjoint categories, one is able to make certain analytical generalizations. Hence,
for cross-cultural analysis it is important that these dimensions of social process be clearly delineated, in spite of confusion
that arises at the level of common discourse. In addition to discussing the characteristics of bridewealth and dowry, we
show that Goody 's characterization of these transfers fails to advance our understanding. For example, we show that in-
heritance at the time of marriage should never be classified as a dowry, gift or payment. Moreover, his concept of "indi-
rect dowry" is ethnographically misleading, because it involves a conflation of gifts from one party with payments from the
other and a conflation of wealth-assets from one party with consumption goods from the other. |
