Miya Akiyama - 995496191
DTS403H1-S: Diasporic Lives of Objects
Put a Ring on It: The Wedding Ring as a Diasporic Object
Prof. Ken MacDonald
April. 11th, 2011
When thinking about what a diasporic object is, my mind initially takes me to images of objects which are culturally symbolic or that have traveled from a homeland to a host nation. In this way, looking at my great-grandmothers wedding ring as a diasporic object was a bit of a challenge. This ring was acquired in Canada, and thus its diasporic meaning has only been generated as it has been passed down through the generations. As its meaning has transformed from one of marriage to that of a familial connection, it has come to be a symbol of my heritage. Recognizing the way in which meaning is able to transform whether an object can be framed as diapsoric or not, I was eager to find out what people saw their wedding rings to “mean”, and how they would imagine, or wish to see that meaning evolve and change. In contemporary Western society, wedding rings are often exchanged at weddings, regardless of religion, culture, sexuality etc. The wedding ring has become so customary, that its purpose is rarely questioned. It is commonly understood to be a symbol of union, commitment, and in some cases love. As Carrier addresses, objects embody a wealth of meanings, and the wedding ring is no different. This object reflects a certain status, is highly symbolic, and carries strong meaning within the private structure of the marriage. For the purpose of this study, I intended to focus largely on the symbolic nature of the ring, but found that it was the private/personal meaning that resonated with people most readily. While my connection to my ring is one of matriarchal lineage, I wanted to examine the relationships that exist between people and wedding rings when this object still remains a symbol of one’s marital ties. I found that, for the most part, the interviewees saw their marriages as either as a means of generating and acquiring family, or differently as being an extremely personal experience. In accordance, they either felt the desire to pass down their rings as a form of legacy (as an heirloom), or to end its exchange by taking it with them to the grave. In this way, I was led to conclude that, while wedding rings are not inherently diasporic objects, they are inclined to become so if passed down, but also have great potential to be eliminated from being such, as they are often removed from circulation upon their first exchange.
Today, we commonly assume a wedding ring to be made of metal, and be worn by both bride and groom. This has not always been the case, and the meaning behind the wedding ring has changed a great deal. Some sources date this tradition of ring gifting back to ancient Egyptian civilizations. The circular shape of the ring was meant to symbolize eternity, with no end and no beginning. It is said that when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, the tradition of the wedding ring was passed along, and from there made its way to into Roman culture. Rather than express a symbol of affection or adoration, the wedding ring became a mark that a woman was bound to a man. The acceptance of a wedding ring was seen as legally binding, and meant that the woman was the property of the man who had given it. Over time, both people in the relationship were given wedding rings, and these rings were exchanged rather than bestowed. This not only changed the object from being gender specific, but also changed as the object was acquired and the players involved.
In today's society, wedding rings are typically made out of gold or other precious metals. Out of the five people I interviewed four of them wore golden bands. Typically wedding rings are not all that intricate, especially in comparison with engagement rings. While engagement rings are meant to be lavish, and often adorned with jewels and gems, wedding bands usually avoid these embellishments. Originally, rings had been made of grasses and fibers, but the modification in the rings meaning meant that the ring would need to be strengthened to last longer. Metals began to be used, and over time gold became the standard for a wedding ring. While a gold ring is most common, these rings were initially not meant for daily use, but instead to be worn in public as a symbol of a man’s trust in his woman, as he bestowed her with such a valuable item. Obviously, in today’s society, this is not the case any longer. Instead, couples now chose rings that are similar to each other as a means to indicate the equality in their union. While ring designs vary, my research has indicated that the rings are not so much chosen on the basis of their aesthetic, but more for reasons of practicality, mutual agreement, and private stories. One couple explained that their rings were meant to look the same, and that they wanted something that would appear understated. They shared that their rings both had small diamonds, but that were put on the inside. This had stemmed from a similar set up in the woman’s engagement ring, and for them was placed there as a secret between them.
The ring that I have I received on my sixteenth birthday. My mother, who had been given the ring by my grandmother, gave me this ring as part of a family tradition. It had originally
belonged to my great grandmother, and she had received it on her wedding day (January 7th, 1922). While it is inscribed with the initials of Margaret Irene Young and Emile Lavieille it is no longer a symbol of their marriage. My great-grandmother had passed away on Sept 19th 1932 giving birth to my grandmother, and in her passing the ring was passed on. The ring is a platinum band that has a simple design, with thin hammered lines on its outer borders, but these aren’t noticed unless carefully examined. By touch, there appear to have been triangular etchings, but they are pin sized and mostly worn away. Rings are commonly set out as circular unfinished bands which are later adjusted in size and design. By heating the metal they are molded on tubes (which set their size). The details would have been hand hammered and etched using carbon steel tools.
Rather than signify a marital tie, the ring became linked to a memory of a deceased family member. As Thomas speaks about the wedding ring in this weeks reading, and his notion that it may sustain an intergenerational female link is very much true in this case. My great-grandmother had passed away on Sept 19th 1932 giving birth to my grandmother, and in her passing the ring was passed on. My mother received it on her 16th birthday, and I was given it in much the same manner. This ring has come to reinforce ones female familial ties, not in weakened moments (such as being wed off and losing ones last name), but instead in a moments of strength (such as turning 16 and becoming a “woman").
My great-grandmothers passing remain a secret to many in my family, and thus this ring, its associations, and its passage through time have been kept secretive. Only a few member of my family know that the great grandmother who has raised us is in fact not our biological relative. What this means for our Irish roots is a diminished sense of Irish heritage as she is not Irish and her husband passed away a while back (I never met him). In turn, I feel that this object, and its history have increased my awareness of my Irish heritage in comparison to other members who do not know about it. The fact that it is now in my possession has instilled a strong desire to continue its legacy. It is as though I have inherited more than just a ring, but rather been exposed to a private history or secret memory. For as long as the ring has been around it has been worn on the hand of a family member. Since receiving it I have never taken it off. Despite being on “display” its history has also been masked (from members of my extended family), and even those who have helped in its passage have not always known what it represents.
The ceremony involved in wedding ring exchange typically happens on the couples wedding day, and is usually done after vows are exchanged. While there are a wide range of wedding customs, attire is usually a central focus for most weddings. “ Perhaps the most striking characteristics of wedding ceremonies in many traditional societies is the abundance of jewelry and ornaments” (Richter 94). As much as there is emphasis placed on what is worn at the wedding, the wedding ring is an object that comes out of that ceremony, and is worn consistently from that point on. This acquisition is of key concern, as it is extremely important when evaluating the value of these objects. In part, the ring becomes the visible change between pre and post marriage. Although many females in today’s Western society wear their engagement rings on their ring fingers, this finger is often left unadorned until the wedding day. It was not until 860-870 that the wedding ring was introduced into Christian wedding ceremonies. I am not sure at how it has been introduced into other religious practices, however the people that I interviewed practiced and followed a spectrum of different religions, proving that this practice of ring exchange is not limited to any one religion.
Although I have always known the wedding ring to be worn on the left ring finger, in my research, I have come to find that this varies across cultures. Nevertheless, the tradition of wearing the wedding ring on the “ring” finger is said to date back to Early Egypt where the vein in this finger was thought to lead directly to the heart. In Western societies we now assume that wearing a ring on the left ring finger is an indication that you are part of a marriage. One interviewee jokingly stated, “This ring keeps me tied down only so long as I wear it”. Not only is the wearing of the ring a symbol for those who are involved in the marriage but too, those who observe from the outside. I have always worn my ring on my left middle finger because it fits best there. When I received it I was too young to realize that this was my “wedding finger”, and did not think twice about what this would mean to others. However, as I have aged the positioning of my ring has come into question, both for my self and by others. I wear it in combination with another diamond band that was given to me, and many assume that this is my engagement ring. While sporting a ring that looks like a wedding band, and a ring that looks like an engagement ring both on my left middle finger has been a good tool for deterring pick ups at the bar, it highlights the way in which objects take on meanings depending on how they are displayed. This seems allegorical to the way in which an objects meaning is determined by how it is framed, and brings me back to the idea of how objects can transform to become diasporic.
As I have stated, I view this ring as being a diasporic object. It is a reminder of my lineage and roots, and is very important in sustaining memories of my family members, both past and present. In this way, the ring also plays a strong role in my personal identity, as it has become a visual reminder of my Irish roots. Although this object originated in Buckingham Quebec it has come to be associated with Ireland. This transformation has come about in part because it is one of the few objects that has come from the Irish side of my family. A lack of diasporic objects has created a wake that has resulted in this ring assuming a role, which it might not otherwise have. The rings authenticity as a “Irish” object is highly questionable, but I would argue that this does not negate the object from being diasporic. In its ability to sustain a connection to a homeland, this object has been framed as a diasporic object
In interviewing my grandmother, she shared that the ring allowed for her to carry on a strong connection with her mother. Although she had never met her, this object became symbolic of their relationship. In this way, the attachment felt for this object is allegorical to the longing or memory-based attachment that one feels for a homeland. This diasporic sensibility can be seen in this instance as somewhat interchangeable with that of my grandmother’s mother figure. In talking about whether this object brought a sense of her Irish roots about, she explained that it did in that it asked her “to remember where she had come from”. While her relationship with my surrogate gramdmother was far from troubled, she explains that she never felt entirely akin to her. In turn, she felt obligated to find out more about her biological mother and keep her stories alive.
This may seem somewhat backwards as the truth about Margaret Irene Young is not known by many that her stories are thought of as resilient. However I think that by turning her wedding band into an heirloom displays both the desire to remember her, and more so is representative of the uncertainty that remained in her passing. Because she was not there to pass on our family history, much work has been done to unearth it through other means. In fact, the topic of her biological mother was rather taboo during her upbringing, and thus it was not until later in life that she learnt that her mother was in fact Irish. I think that this discovery might be partially responsible for her marriage to an Irish man, and the strong sense of Irish pride that was instilled in my mother.
In many ways, the French roots that were so predominate in my grandmother’s upbringing have been undercut by her sense of Irish heritage. Perhaps this has been done in a sense of defiance, or perhaps to honor her mother. Regardless, it is undeniable that this ring has been integral in sustaining the memory. While it has never been fully explained, I wonder how it is that this ring came into my grandmother’s possession considering its strong impact on her sense of identity.
For my mother, when she received this ring, it symbolized a right of passage. She was told the story about her families’ true history, and in turn, I think she too had a similar experience to mine, wherein she felt responsible to carry on the legacy of the ring. For her, she states that this was “less about a specific family member, and more about her Irish heritage”. Although her father was Irish, it was generally believed in her family that her mother’s side was French, and thus they were equally French and Irish. This ring, to my mother, held the real truth, and to this day my mother Irish pride supersedes that of any other family member (she is currently looking to buy land in Ireland). This transition from the ring symbolizing person to becoming a symbol of ones lineage is an important turning point in recognizing this object as a diasporic object. For me, I have only just begun to learn stories about who my great-grandmother really was, but nevertheless I have always been aware of her Irish roots. The ring has always been understood to be a “wedding ring” (particularly because of the engravings and simple style), but it has come to represent so much more.
Thomas states “It would be unusual for a ring to be given away to a friend or a woman related affinally, and it would be strange to lend such an article in any context – not because it is valuable and unique, since it may not be valuable – but because of its particular character and association with one’s personal history” (20). When I first read this quote I thought to myself how wrong Thomas had been. An affinal holder of my families ring, it appeared odd to imagine the ring any place else but on my hand. Nevertheless, my research has shown me that this familial exchange of rings is atypical of wedding rings, and that in fact, in most cases; people foresee themselves as the last owner of their ring.
Two of my interviewees stated that they would like to be buried in their wedding rings. This action would bring the rings sphere of exchange to an end, and remove it from existence completely. In keeping with Appadurai, this too would bring an end to its value, as its exchange would be terminated. However, it would appear that the reason that these individuals wished to keep their rings was because its very value would not be appreciated by anyone else. This to me seems somewhat ironic, but nevertheless appropriate to the way Simmel places value on objects based on the “judgment made about them by subjects” (Appadurai 3). For these individuals, their wedding rings are symbolic of a union between partners, and that value could not be matched or recreated. After explaining to one individual that Appadurai believed that through exchange an object acquires value, she retorted that for her, “When these rings were exchanged in holy matrimony they acquired more value than could ever be evaluated. They are more than just gold bands, they are a symbol of out external love”. In this singular exchange, the symbolism embodied within this object accounts for a high degree of value. In affect, these objects have not garnered the kind of value that Appadurai would attribute, because they have only been exchanged between husband and wife (or partners at large). Nevertheless, I would argue, that this value would not necessarily increase by being further exchanged.
“My story of the ring also reveals the discrepancy which often separates personal estimation from systemic value. An object can acquire singular meaning for a person because it was given by a particular relative or friend, r because of a connection with an event (a tree planted on the day of someone’s death). The particular relation with such a thing is not necessarily an individual or idiosyncratic matter – a meaning may be restricted to a neighborhood community or a sub cultural group but may nevertheless entail something tantamount to inalienability and in that respect differ from the configuration of value in broader social terms”(Thomas 21).
While most of my research showed that these individuals wished to be buried with their rings, upon sharing my ring story, one interviewee expressed a new outlook about what he wished to do with his. In my family the tradition of passing down wedding rings has been carried on, as my mothers fathers ring is now being kept to be passed down to my brother when he turns 21. I think that holding onto this ring has been triggered by my mother and my grandmothers experiences with the ring that now belongs to me, and they wish to begin a new tradition so that my grandfathers history and his stories will carry on. This is not to say that without his ring they would not, but rather, that by having an object as a reminder, there is a stronger connection to what has passed.
This idea of memory embedded in an object is definitely in keeping with the idea of diasporic objects, and I think that with increasing awareness about our changing cultural identities, there will be even greater emphasis placed on passing down objects for this very purpose. I think that marriages are central in this idea of changing cultural identities, as they can meld together the cultures of two people. If a family is to emerge from a marriage, the marriage then can also provide as a means of hybridize cultures. In this way, I think that wedding rings are a very interesting diasporic object to look at, because they have the potential to symbolize the binding of identities.
Especially for those who thought of their marriages as extending or creating families, the wedding ring was a symbol of change. These were the individuals who wished to pass down their rings because they understood them as representative of a point in time when a part of their identity was lost and something else was gained. Perhaps it can be seen as a hyphenated state wherein the newly acquired family, culture and traditions brought in by the new partner increased the need to remember ones “roots”. For this reason, the need to have these roots remembered in future generation is carried out by passing down ones ring.
I believe that there are definitely objects that are probably able to carry out the role of “diasporic object” much more directly than the wedding ring. I imagine that these are objects that are undeniably representative of ones culture of roots. Nevertheless, I think that by inheriting a wedding ring from ones ancestors, the individual is inclined to have a stronger association with that object. I imagine this because when looking at my ring, I am able to see how the union brought about in its exchange has led to me being here today. The wedding ring, while not inherently diasporic, does ask us to question what paths were united in order to bring us to where we are today. This reflection of our history (in many cases), leads us to recognize how we are (or are not) a part of the diaspora and our diasporic roots.
Through this course I have gained a sense of how objects are able to sway and create a sense of identity. This realization has led me to question the sorts of diasporic objects that surround me, and how I foresee those objects moving down through future generations. One of the objects that I had thought about doing my project on was a Japanese doll collection that was burned during the internment of the Japanese in Canada. Although I never saw this object (the doll collection), it is very much an important part of how I understand my Japanese heritage. Unfortunately, I think that without a physical object, there is a greater likelihood that these stories will get lost, whereas this ring (and other diasporic objects), provides a physical reminder of what we has been lost. Even if the stories themselves are altered and changed; diasporic objects encourage us to return to, and to reexamine what we have come to know, or what we wish to/need to learn more about.
Works Cited:
Appadurai, A. (1986) Introduction : Commodities and the Politics of Value in A.
Appadurai (ed) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 3-63.
Carrier, J. (1995) Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism
Since 1700. London: Routledge. (Chapt. 1 Introduction: Approaching Objects (pp.
1-10 only))
Richter, Paula Bradstreet. (2008) Wedded Bliss: The Marriage of Art and Ceremony. Massachusetts: Peabody Essex Museum.
Thomas, N (1991) Entangled Objects: Exchange, material culture and
Colonialism in the Pacific (Chapt. 1 – Objects, Exchange, Anthropology)
