Endogamy was a new concept to me before I delve into the complexities of ethnocentrism. Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific group – class, social group, or ethnic group. One of the most interested thing I discovered about endogamy is the vast viewpoints which use ethnocentrism as a way to both encourage/support endogamy and to denounce/oppose it.
I recently came across a blog by Scott Goldrink, a Jewish man in an interracial and interfaith marriage, that highlighted this perfectly. He took a post about he benefits of Jews marrying within the religion instead of marrying “gentiles.” Goldrink replaced “Jews” with “white” and gentiles with “mixed-race.” The obvious racist overtone was clearly evident. “We’ve always known that individuals are atoms, but only when we are part of a molecule can the Jewish family confer that sense of shared history and destiny,” sound a lot different than “We’ve always known that individuals are atoms, but only when we are part of a molecule can the White family confer that sense of shared history and destiny.”
In a nutshell, there are two main viewpoints about endogamy; both are very strong in their views. Those supporting endogamy argue that it preserves the culture of the group and makes it easier to pass down traditions and important customs. They site ethnocentrism as a reason why those oppose it; saying that others cannot comprehend that their culture is vital to preserve. Those opposing the practice argue that it inhibits cross cultural relationship in a negative manner. They site ethnocentrism as a reason why people are not open to having relationships outside of their group. They believe cultures can be preserved within intercultural marriages.
It is hard to ignore the contrasting opinions. Reading through the entirety of Goldrink’s article, with the replaced words, made it clear that in our society it is deemed more okay to exclude people from your intimate community based on certain factors. It is completely based on privilege. Society tells us blacks can choose to only marry blacks because it preserves their culture. Jews can maybe choose to only marry Jews, because while it preserves their culture Jews are kind of privileged. But an Italian American cannot rightfully choose to only marry another Italian American. Yes, it might preserve the Italian culture. But they are in power. That is ethnocentric – right?
The idea of endogamy creates an oppression hierarchy of sorts – saying if you are ‘x’ level of oppressed it is okay to marry solely within your group but, as Goldrink states, Jews have been oppressors much in history. Or – does it matter the intentions behind choosing to marry? It is more acceptable if you are simply attracted to one group than if you will only exclusively look within that group?
It is important to note that the initial article written about marrying within Judaism was written by a Rabbi. A final concept I would like to consider is the notion of “pure-bred.” The Rabbi suggests that Jews must marry “pure-bred” Jews. This is a notion that tends to not jive with the notion of endogamy in terms of race.
It has become incredibly obvious to me that endogamy is about a balancing act more than anything. I believe in the rights of preserving culture, yet I believe that can be done in a way that embraces others as well. The knowledge, growth, and dynamic experiences that comes from mixed cultures is astounding. I have experienced firsthand in my upbringing how cultures can be distinct but still be harmonious. Yet, on the other hand fully preserving a culture, especially an extremely oppressed culture, is immensely important. It’s truly a balancing act.
Note: on a scientific level, endogamy is often discouraged due to health concerns. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the government is leading a campaign opposing edogamy due to the tremendous increase in genetic defects that exists within small groups. Over the past decade endogamy has increased by over ten percent, to 67 percent of the total Saui Arabia population.
Ethnocentrism 