The essays “I’m Happy with an Arranged Marriage” by Gitangeli Sapra and “Grant and Lee: A study in Contrasts” by Bruce Catton clearly have extremely different subject matters. In his article, Catton discusses the American Generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, looking for contrasts in the men’s character and how they approached life. Sapra, in contrast, argues in favor of arranged marriage by comparing it to so-called “free marriage” or free choice in marriage. Yet despite these clearly different subject matters, both articles show us clear techniques of how comparisons are used to make an argument or advance a thesis. But ultimately these techniques depend on the validity of the argument advanced. In this regard, Catton’s essay could be considered to be more effective, to the extent that his comparison is based on an analysis of Grant and Lee within the singular context of American history, while Sapra’s argument is based on a preconceived notion of what we expect from marriage.
Starting with Sapra’s essay, she argues that arranged marriage is superior to free choice marriages because statistically arranged marriages partners have a greater chance of remaining together than free choice marriages. Therefore, her comparison is based on the assumption that the point of marriage is that the marriage should remain intact. This comparison can be said to be true, but only to the extent that we accept Sapra’s definition of what the goal of marriage is. Certainly, when a couple decides to marry they are making a commitment to each other. However, when these commitments fall apart, is inevitably better to stay with one’s partner? Sapra states that arranged marriages are superior, but perhaps they are superior not because they take away our choice of who we want to marry, but rather because the traditional family structures are stronger and there is a greater opposition to possible divorce. In other words, a free choice marriage system would also have the same statistical rates of success if they were surrounded by a family and community network that discouraged divorce. Accordingly, there are greater social elements at work here than mere arranged marriage vs. free choice marriage that makes Sapra’s comparison on the grounds of longer lasting marriages dubious.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Compare and Contrast: Essay Comparison".
Catton’s comparison is more compelling because he minimizes the assumptions at stake in his argument, and also looks more in depth at the greater context where his comparison occurs. For example, he puts Lee and Grant on the same footing by examining their differences in terms of a greater American historical context of their time period. For Catton, Grant represents change in the American consciousness. Grant, for Catton, is a “modern American”, who questions some of the preconceptions of traditional American life, and sees the possibilities for growth and change, with, as Catton mentions, the industrial revolution. Lee, therefore, is representative of traditional American life, suspicious to change, and instead wanting to maintain the status quo. This is reflected in the respective political positions of Grant and Lee in the Civil War, or, in other words, the sides they took. This comparison is therefore more effective because both Grant and Lee are compared in the shared context of a single historical time period and the currents of thought that shaped these periods.
In summary, Catton’s essay is more effective because his comparative techniques between his objects of study are based on the same context: his particular interpretation of American history. Sapra, in contrast, fails to look at the greater social context that may explain why arranged marriages are more successful than free choice marriages. For example, if divorce became a social taboo such as in arranged marriage cultures, there would also be less divorce in free marriages. Accordingly, both authors’ texts demonstrate the importance of placing things to be compared in a context that treats the comparison fairly.
