Understanding The Cultural Practices of Widows in Varanasi

The Varanasi Widows

Widows’ practices surrounding their husbands’ deaths have historically been very extreme in southern Asia. A hundred years ago it was common to practice Sati, or widow burning, where the widow would throw herself upon the funeral pyre of her husband. Society dictated that she could not live without him, and thus, this practice was enforced through many complex societal rules. Sati was outlawed in the 1920s, and has since slowly evolved to the practice that exists today. With Sati, the problem is that the individual has an extreme lack of individual identity, or as Durkheim terms it, altruism, and thus, literally cannot exist without her husband or her marriage. The current problem the widows face is both similar and different; widows are shunned after their husbands die, and therefore, are forced into extreme egoism where they know their identity, but this identity does not fit into a pre-existing societal structure. While the laws that ban Sati are certainly more equitable, this extreme transition from Durkheim’s idea of altruism to his concept of egoism is extremely damaging.

The root of this strong altruism comes from a dependency on the men within the family unit. In this sense, the dichotomy of gender is parallel to Marx’s class structure. The women function as the proletariat of the household. They do all of the physical work, such as cleaning and cooking, and both society and the patriarchy dictate that they must do these things. Without this work in their household, they would lose their “job” and their place in society, which would lead to struggles with egoism, or even egoistic suicide. This coincides with Marx’s and Wright’s theories of why the lower class is so dependent on wages; however, in this microcosmic society, wages can be both literal provisions from the men as well as sexual or familial love. The mode of production consists of the woman’s ability to reproduce and care, both physically and emotionally, for the men in her life. Therefore, this proletariat class made up of women, who are deemed irrelevant when their husbands die and their sons marry, no longer have a purpose for their mode of production. When women are the “laborers” their “products” are the men, and when the men leave the women are alienated from both their work and their product.

Both of these aspects come together to alienate these women from their “organic nature,” and their “species life.” Marx suggests that because the individual is so reliant on this alienating system of wages, they become disconnected from their organic, individual self, and replace this with an inorganic self. This determines “species life,” which is how our inorganic selves interact with others to create an inorganic culture. The widows allow themselves to be consumed by this inorganic nature, which is incredibly easy to do when their mode of production is so intrinsically linked with strong, positive emotions.

Therefore, when these women lose their husbands, they are really losing everything—not only their family, but also their role in society. Their whole microcosmic society ceases to exist. This creates an intense egoism that society reinforces by viewing these widows as objects, and therefore, allowing the widows to be dehumanized and exploited. The combination of these things makes the widow’s pilgrimage to Varanasi a necessity. In Varanasi there is a promise of a community of individuals who are struggling with similar situations. When society forces these widows to become egoistic, they make this pilgrimage in order to find a more altruistic community where they can find meaning again.

However, this whole practice is much more complicated, and while the theory makes Varanasi seem like an amazing place or community, society’s blind privilege negates most of the positive nature of this community, and completely destroys its powerful, beneficial potential.