Exogamy and Endogamy

The subject of exogamy has enjoyed a prominent place in the history of ethnological theory. We have had books and articles almost without end dealing with “the problem of exogamy.” With regard to endogamy, however, the situation is different; interest in endogamy appears to be slight, and the literature meager. And we find little discussion of the relationship between exogamy and endogamy. Many authors never take note of any relationship at all between them—except, perhaps, to state that in the one case you marry out, in the other you marry in. Still fewer appreciate the fact that exogamy and endogamy are inseparable; that they always go together. Lowie, for example, observes that “exogamy and endogamy are not mutually exclusive except with regard to the same unit.” ¹ This means that a clan, or any other kind of social unit, cannot be both exogamous and endogamous at the same time, which is self-evident, but that a people may have an exogamous rule with reference to one kind of unit and an endogamous rule for another type of unit. For example, a caste might be endogamous but at the same time be composed of exogamous clans. Another anthropologist, Camilla H. Wedgwood, remarks that “exogamy and endogamy are by no means mutually exclusive … [they] are often found together. …” ² All this is, of course, true. But to say that endogamy and exogamy are not mutually exclusive, that they are “often found together,” is confusing and misleading. It implies that if a tribe has exogamy, it is not likely to have endogamy also, although it could have both. This view is unwarranted: every society has both exogamous and endogamous characteristics. Exogamy and endogamy are complementary aspects of the same social phenomenon; they are, like the poles of a magnet, opposite but inseparable.