Chapter 27 Exercises: Culture, Religion, and Courtship Norms

Exercise 1: Assumption Inventory (Individual Reflection)

Before this chapter, you may have held certain assumptions about courtship — about what is "normal," what is "traditional," what is "coercive," and what is "free." This exercise asks you to excavate those assumptions.

Part A: Write a brief (150-word) description of what "normal" courtship looks like from the perspective you grew up with. Be specific: who initiates? How do families get involved (or not)? What is the role of romantic love vs. practical compatibility? What markers signal that a relationship is "serious"?

Part B: Now identify two assumptions embedded in your Part A description that this chapter has challenged or complicated. For each assumption, write 2–3 sentences explaining: (1) what the assumption is, (2) what specific evidence or perspective from the chapter complicates it, and (3) whether you have revised your view.

Part C: One sentence: What is one thing you now understand about a non-Western courtship tradition that you did not understand before reading this chapter?

Exercise 2: Case Comparison — Two Courtship Systems (Analytical Essay)

Choose two courtship contexts from the chapter (e.g., South Asian semi-arranged marriage and East Asian konkatsu, or halal dating and evangelical Christian purity culture, or lobola and familismo-shaped Latin American courtship).

Write a 400–500 word comparative analysis addressing:

  1. What does each system assume about the proper role of family/community in partner selection?
  2. What does each system assume about the relationship between romantic feeling and partnership commitment?
  3. What does each system do well (what needs does it serve for individuals and communities)?
  4. What does each system constrain or cost (whose preferences are least accommodated)?

Your analysis should be comparative throughout — not two separate descriptions, but a genuine comparison. Avoid essentialism: note that variation within each system exists, and that neither system is monolithic.

Exercise 3: The WEIRD Bias Audit (Critical Methods Exercise)

Choose a published study on attraction, dating, or mate preferences. (Your instructor may provide options, or you may use a study you've encountered in previous chapters.)

Read the methods section and answer:

  1. Where was the study conducted? What was the participant sample (nationality, age range, student status, if disclosed)?
  2. Does the study make claims that generalize beyond its sample (e.g., "people prefer X" rather than "American college students prefer X")? If so, quote the specific language.
  3. Using the WEIRD bias framework from this chapter, identify two specific ways the findings might not generalize to non-WEIRD populations.
  4. How would you redesign the study to test whether the findings hold cross-culturally? What would you need to change about recruitment, measurement, or framing?

Target length: 350–450 words.

Exercise 4: Diaspora Courtship Narrative Analysis (Creative Analytical Exercise)

Find a work of fiction, film, memoir, or journalism that depicts diaspora courtship — the experience of navigating two cultural frameworks simultaneously in finding a partner. (Options might include the films Bend It Like Beckham, The Big Sick, Monsoon Wedding, Always Be My Maybe, or The Proposal; novels like The Namesake (Lahiri) or Americanah (Adichie); or a memoir or journalism piece.)

Write a 350–450 word analysis addressing:

  1. What two cultural frameworks are the protagonist(s) navigating?
  2. What is the central tension — and how is it resolved (or not resolved)?
  3. Does the work treat the non-Western framework as an obstacle to be overcome, or as a genuinely valued system with its own logic? Support your answer with specific examples.
  4. What does the work get right about diaspora courtship based on what you've read in this chapter? What might it oversimplify?

Exercise 5: Religious Courtship — Inside vs. Outside Views (Short Response)

The chapter describes how Islamic, Christian, and Jewish courtship norms function. For this exercise, consider the tension between "inside" and "outside" evaluations of religious courtship practices.

Read the following two positions:

Position A (from within): "My faith's courtship guidelines are not restrictions on my freedom — they are a framework that protects me from casual exploitation, connects my romantic choices to my deepest values, and situates me in a community of people who share what matters most to me. The 'freedom' of secular courtship looks, from the inside, like aimlessness."

Position B (from outside): "Religious courtship norms, however meaningful to participants, often rest on patriarchal foundations that place disproportionate constraints on women. The 'protection' offered often involves policing women's sexuality and mobility in ways that male participants do not equally face."

Write a 300-word response that: - Takes both positions seriously - Identifies what each position gets right - Explains how you would study this empirically (what would you need to measure to evaluate these claims?) - Avoids both dismissing religious frameworks and romanticizing them