There has been a shift from the previously dominant polyandrous marital arrangements to monogamous arrangements, upon exile, among the Tibetan refugees in India. This article attempts to examine the autonomy of Tibetan women in exile across polyandrous and monogamous marital arrangements through the lens of modernisation and feminist theoretical frameworks. A thematic narrative analysis of 30 Tibetan participants in both marital arrangements has helped in comparing women’s autonomy in the domains of inheritance and division of property, household decision-making and with respect to children’s education and occupation. Even though modernising forces partially explain the shift from polyandry to monogamy, the narratives of women belonging to both the monogamous and polyandrous families lend support to the feminist framework suggesting the role of internalisation of social norms and self-abnegation as negatively affecting their autonomy.
AbramsK. (1998). From autonomy to agency: Feminist perspectives on self-direction. William and Mary Law Review, 40(3), 805.
2.
AgarwalB. (1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersonS., & EswaranM. (2009). What determines female autonomy? Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Development Economics, 90(2), 179–191.
4.
AroraS. (2016). Autonomy and marriage: Impact on mental health. A study on local Indian women in India and Indian immigrant women in Norway Oslo (Master’s thesis, Oslo and Akershus University College of AppliedSciences).
5.
BanerjiM., & DeshpandeA. S. (2020). Does ‘love’ make a difference? Marriage choice and post-marriage decision-making power in India. Asian Population Studies, 1–20.
6.
BarbieriM., HertrichV., & MadeleineG. (2005). Age difference between spouses and contraceptive practice in sub-Saharan Africa. Population (English Edition), 60(5/6), 617–654.
7.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
8.
DevineC. (1993). Determination: Tibetan women and the struggle for an independent Tibet. Vauve Press.
9.
EswaranM. (2014). Why gender matters in economics. Princeton University Press.
10.
FieldE., & AmbrusA. (2008). Early marriage, age of menarche, and female schooling attainment in Bangladesh. Journal of Political Economy, 116(5), 881–930.
11.
FrankfurtH. G. (1988). The importance of what we care about: Philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press.
12.
FrostN. (2021). Qualitative research methods in psychology: Combining core approaches (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
13.
GoldsteinM. C. (1971). Stratification, polyandry, and family structure in central Tibet. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 27(1), 64–74.
14.
HeadleyB. A. (2007). Feminist theories of autonomy and their implications for rape law reform. Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 437. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/437
15.
HermannsM. (1953). The status of woman in Tibet. Anthropological Quarterly, 26(3), 67–78.
16.
JejeebhoyS. J., & SatharZ. A. (2001). Women’s autonomy in India and Pakistan: The influence of religion and region. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 687–712.
17.
JensenR., & ThorntonR. (2003). Early female marriage in the developing world. Gender & Development, 11(2), 9–19.
18.
KishorS. (1995). Autonomy and Egyptian women: Findings from the 1988 Egypt demographic and health survey (Vol. 2). Macro International, Incorporated.
19.
KuznetsS. (1973). Modern economic growth: Findings and reflections. The American Economic Review, 63(3), 247–258.
20.
Lee-RifeS. M. (2010). Women’s empowerment and reproductive experiences over the life course. Social Science & Medicine, 71(3), 634–642.
21.
LernerD. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. Free Press.
22.
LevineN. E. (1988). The dynamics of polyandry: kinship, domesticity, and population on the Tibetan border. University of Chicago Press.
23.
LuintelY. R. (2004). Agency, autonomy and the shared sexuality: gender relations in polyandry in Nepal Himalaya. Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 31(1), 43–83.
24.
MacKinnonC. A. (1983). Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(4), 635–658.
25.
MakleyC. (1997). The meaning of liberation: Representations of Tibetan women. The Tibet Journal, 22(2), 4–29.
26.
McAfeeN. (2018). Feminist philosophy. In ZaltaE. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/feminist-philosophy/
27.
MooreW. E. (1979). World modernization: The limits of convergence. Elsevier.
28.
OsamorP. E., & GradyC. (2018). Autonomy and couples’ joint decision-making in healthcare. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), 1–8.
29.
RammohanA., & JoharM. (2009). The determinants of married women’s autonomy in Indonesia. Feminist Economics, 15(4), 31–55.
30.
RiessmanC. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publications.
31.
RoteringP., & BrasH. (2019). The age difference between spouses and reproduction in 19th-century Sweden. Demographic Research, 41(37), 1059–1090.
32.
TsekyiT., & ThimmaiahN. (2014). Demographic status of Tibetan settlements in Karnataka. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 3(10), 21–30.
33.
WestB. S. (2006). Does employment empower women?An analysis of employment and women’s empowerment in India.
34.
YenorS. (2016). Why autonomy cannot explain marriage and family life. Public Discourse. http://works.bepress.com/scott_yenor/29/
