![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article explores the concept of endogamy from the viewpoint of boundary construction in social anthropology. The author summarizes scholarly accounts of endogamy that conceptualize endogamy in terms of ethnicity, race, locality, or language. She argues that to determine an endogamous group, we should proceed from the actors´ point of view and ask what criteria the actors themselves consider as culturally meaningful. On the example of marriages of Czech- and Slovak-speaking Protestants in the Bulgarian village of Voyvodovo in 1900–1950 the author shows what these marriages and the actors´ perspective reveal about the character of the us/them boundary. The data are based on a long-term anthropological fieldwork using mainly participant observation, interviews and the genealogical method, along with the analysis of the local parish registers for the period 1900–1950. The inhabitants of the village that has been habitually represented a ‘compatriot village’ in the scholarly literature are depicted as constituting their identity more on religion than on shared ethnicity. The results of the research suggest that the villagers preferred people of the same religion as marriage partners, without any regard to their ethnicity or language. The author argues that the study of marriage rules should follow the same principles anthropologists have widely applied to the study of ethnicity: i.e. to focus on the differences people consider to be significant in constructing the boundaries between groups rather than to assume objective criteria delimiting endogamous groups.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. I have conducted my research together with my husband, Marek Jakoubek, and later with our two daughters, Barbora and Šárka.
2. I am very grateful to Marek Jakoubek and Bořivoj Kňourek, who put their efforts into making copies of Voyvodovo parish registers in the troubled period of the United Kingdom EU membership referendum in June 2016. Thanks are due also to the kind assistance of the officers from the municipality of the town Mizia.
3. Female informant Gena H., born 1924; Drnholec, 19. 3. 2008.
4. Female informant Tinka H., born 1932; Dolní Dunajovice, 29. 5. 2009.
5. Female informant Gena H., born 1924; Drnholec, 19. 3. 2008.
6. Female informant Barbora Č., born 1921; Mikulov, 19. 3. 2008.
7. Female informant Lída F., born 1930; Nový Přerov, 20. 1. 2007.
8. Age at marriage for girls was, according to parish registers and the genealogy, 17–20. My informants confirm this view by stating that, „by the age of 20, a girl was considered “too old to marry“. Boys usually married in their age of 22–24, after they finished their military service, so grooms were normally few years older than their brides. I found to differences in age at marriage (at first marriage) in different ethnic or religious groups in Voyvodovo.
9. Female informant Barbora Č., born 1921; Mikulov, 26. 4. 2008.
10. I do not use significance test in my analysis, because I believe this would add anything important into my line of argumentation. The numbers I use in the text are very small, and the strength of my contribution – I believe – lies not in numbers, but in ethnographic detail and the aspect of the self-definition of the people studied. The numbers I use should only support the validity of my main thesis, but they are not the basis of it.
11. There was one illegible record in the parish registers, so the total number of analysed marriages is 76.
12. In 1904 there were 39 Paulikians (Catholics) in the village (Michalko, Citation1936, p. 67).
13. This category includes 15 Russians, 1 German, 1 Hungarian family (Heroldová, Citation1996, p. 96). Two years later (in 1930) there were 10 Russians, 1 German from Lusatia (The Methodist pastor), and 1 Hungarian family (Findeis, Citation1930a, p. 2).
14. Including 12 Russians (Heroldová, Citation1996, p. 96; Michalko, Citation1936, p. 66–68, 120).