7.4 The Palliative Effects of System Justification Theory
7.4.4 The Bride being walked down the Aisle
gender inequality and as such the brides are able to alleviate discomfort that may arise from such insinuations (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). To alleviate any psychological distress from this clearly unequal arrangement these brides, as noted above, would justify that the existing arrangements are natural, fair and necessary (Carvallo & Pelham, 2006).
Previous research suggests that by justifying the status quo women are not only alleviating discomfort for themselves, but such justifications also improve life satisfaction in the short-term (Napier et al., 2010). Therefore the benefits of justifying unequal social arrangements that are resistant to change are high and may consequently be fuelled by a strong motivation to experience these benefits, rather than the backlash that may be a possible response to women who oppose the status quo (Rudman & Glick, 2001). If, as Jost and Hunyady (2002) propose about system- justifying ideologies, these brides are able to “reduce anxiety, guilt, dissonance, discomfort and uncertainty” (p. 111) by justifying and rationalising why they engaged in a greater proportion of the wedding planning, then the comforting effects of supporting the status quo are even greater and thus more desirable for women.
1040 Interviewer: Why did you do that?
1041 Bride: Tradition. Also because I wanted to.
In the brief extract above the bride explains that she walked down the aisle because of tradition. In this instance the framework of tradition is a response that justifies why the bride engaged in a particular practice. It is a simple and straightforward answer that is intended to be self-explanatory. Within the framework of the white wedding it is an accepted common practice for the bride to be walked down the aisle by her father to be given to the groom (Geller, 2001). Because this practice is so widely accepted, what is, perhaps, the most unusual in the extract above is that the bride is even asked by the interviewer why she walked down the aisle. A taken-for-granted practice is questioned and the response implies that the practice is taken-for-granted. Therefore it does not make sense for the interviewer to question this. The interviewer’s questioning (lines 1038 & 1040) challenges an accepted practice and may therefore be perceived as critique. Through this system-justifying answer the bride relieves herself of all responsibility with regards to why she engaged in this particular practice. It is also understood that due to the bride’s compliance in this patriarchal tradition she is encouraging her subordinate role through paternalism and benevolent sexism (Rudman
& Glick, 2001). As mentioned earlier, this paternalistic treatment has favourable consequences for women who are compliant with complementary gender roles (Viki et al., 2003).
The bride then shifts her position and adds that she also wanted to walk down the aisle.
By introducing the claim that the bride also wanted to walk down the aisle she creates the perception that she was in control and that she had a choice in whether or not she performed this particular tradition. The introduction of the bride’s agency serves to illustrate that, although the bride complied with taken-for-granted expectations, she also chose to do so. By mentioning “also because I wanted to” (line 1041), the bride constructs herself as agentic. She indicates that she holds traditions in high regard, but
is not at the mercy of these traditions. In this extract both the mention of complying with existing social arrangements and the mention of choice serve a comforting function for the bride, because by justifying the practice from two angles her behaviour is spared of critique (Jost & Kay, 2005).
Similarly the bride in extract 27 also mentions the influence of tradition, but gives a more elaborate explanation of why her father walked her down the aisle. The groom shows his support by adding his thoughts about this tradition as well.
Extract 27, Interview 7, Lines 614-627
614 Interviewer: [to the bride] OK, um, did you get walked down the aisle?
615 Bride: Yes, my dad walked me down the aisle 616 Interviewer: Why did you do that?
617 Bride: Um, because I’ve got a very, very strong bond with my dad and then 618 I’m the only girl, I know everybody else’s dad’s do it as well. I think it’s a 619 dad’s privilege of walking his daughter down the aisle to pass his
620 authority over to the husband
621 Groom: Yes, I think there’s a beautiful, what do you call it, symbolic gesture of 622 the dad saying “listen, she was under my wing up to now, I trust you 623 enough to give my daughter up to you now” so that’s the one thing at 624 every wedding that I actually enjoy, is watching firstly the bride walking 625 down with her dad and then the husband to be…
626 Bride: …taking over
627 Groom: Standing in front with anticipation of actually getting his wife
In extract 27 the interviewer again asks why the bride walked down the aisle. The question itself requires an explanation. In response the bride’s answer introduces the concept of a social hierarchy as an explanation. She first mentions that she has a “strong bond” (line 617) with her father and that she is her father’s only daughter. She
acknowledges that despite being the only daughter and having a strong bond with her father, other fathers would also do this. The bride then mentions that the father walks
“his daughter down the aisle to pass his authority over to the husband” (lines 619-620).
She positions herself as subordinate and her father and groom as dominant. The gender inequality and the benevolent sexism in this explanation are blatant; yet, the bride and groom are not perturbed by this. The groom reinforces this when he describes this tradition as a “beautiful […] symbolic gesture” (line 621). Despite the notion that this tradition, of the bride being walked down the aisle by her father and being given to the groom, reinforces a gender hierarchy, the bride and groom frame it in such a way as to appear meaningful and positive (Sengupta & Sibley, 2013). This meaningful account and the paternalism and chivalry expressed towards the bride serve a system-justifying function by reinforcing complementary gender roles and minimising ideological dissonance for the couple (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos López, 2007). By depending and relying on positively framed traditions the bride avoids “potentially negative information” (Shepherd, 2012, p. 9) about this gender unequal practice, which would ultimately be disadvantageous to the bride. The mention of the father passing “his authority over to the husband” (lines 619-620) suggests a biblical discourse and as such the bride is able to experience relief that she conformed to her religious beliefs (Froschauer, 2014). Earlier on in the interview the groom mentions “we are both very religious” (line 600). Thus the various justifications by the bride and groom, which include references to biblical discourses, reduce ideological dissonance and alleviate potential psychological distress (Jost & Hunyady, 2002; Willer, 2009).