Montana wrote:That does surprise me CI.
Often all depends on what you expect from a marriage, I guess.
If you pass by on the notion of romantic love (or consider it a dangerous, foolish temptation), as is the tradition in many cultures, then an arranged marriage could well fulfill many of the expectations that
are invested in marriage: securing your safety vs. other men, securing your social status and the reputation of your family, allowing you to start a family, finding a secure provider, etc (that's talking about the woman).
If thats what you go in it for, a "romantic" marriage would seem fraught with risks, instable and unpredictable ...
Looking at it that way, arranged marriages stand for entrenched traditions that safeguard family, village and community stability, and the notion of "romantic love" is one of those Western export products that comes with a wholly different notion of society, as well, in which individual freedom supercedes family and community obligations, and instability is considered the price for ambition, which in turn is the ticket to personal and society's progress.
I'm just playing advocate of the devil here, obviously (the
downsides of arranged marriages are poignantly obvious). Plus I'm generalising the West/non-West distinction, of course (I dont think they have arranged marriages in, say, Latin America, right?).
What strikes me is that the notion of romantic love - and, more precisely, the Hollywood visualisation of it - has penetrated as far as Kabul to such an overwhelming extent.