It is true that there are not many animals that are as strictly monogamous as humans. This fact is often cited by philanderers (and people who imagine themselves to be philanderers) as some sort of excuse for their behaviour. As is common for people attempting to defend morally reprehensible positions, facts are hand picked from a whole field of data as it is required.
This behaviour is proven by the fact that the above statistic is much more a part of pop knowledge than any that may undermine this point of view. It has been repeated as nauseam by lazy commentators who wish to explain away the breakdown of the family, relationships, the rise in single parenthood and as a way of excusing their own behaviour.
It all seems very vogue at the moment to blame faults (and occasionally virtues) on the modern day Holy Ghost that pervades all living things: DNA. I am not a geneticist so I do not know how much of our behaviour can be attributed to our genes. However, it is a practice I don’t find particularly healthy as it seems to concentrate on finding excuses for our behaviour that have little or nothing to do with the choices we consciously make and also perpetuates certain prejudices.
Maybe it is part of the human cycle of thought when things cannot be easily explained that we revisit old ideas. In 1890, Jacques Bertillon delivered a speech to the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland explaining how the French were now identifying criminals by the size and shape of their head. This line of thought went further by measuring numerous dimensions of the heads of convicted criminals and comparing them to suspects. The closer the similarity, the more likely the defendant was a villain.
In a sense, what the French were doing then, we are doing now. The dimensions of one’s head are clearly dependent on one’s genes. They did not understand the sub-cellular intricacies of what they were doing in 1890, but the principle is the same: that some people are more likely to be X than others. This has nothing to do with their upbringing, social status, options or even free-will. It is simply as much a part of them as their eyes are blue.
Nowadays this way of thinking has seen a revival among the lay people for a number of reasons. First, the science behind it fits neatly into the middle of a spectrum where one end is ‘things we can easily understand’ and the other is ‘things only a specialist would understand’. Genes, DNA and hereditary are words we are taught at school, but very few of us understand, though the concept is appealing to us. Humans have always enjoyed labelling and explaining behaviour based upon appearance – red heads are short tempered, boys are boisterous, black people are athletic, Asians are mathematical. To have actual scientists tell us that that way of thinking is actually correct all along is a wonderful affirmation of our common sense. Except, with genes, we can’t see them so the label of ‘prejudice’ or ‘superficiality’ cannot be attached easily. Out of Sight, Out of Mind. I don’t dislike that chav because of the choices he makes, I dislike him because he has genes that are unpleasant.
So if we could get off this idea that things are the way they are because they just… are, I think it would be more progressive. Society is not going to be improved by selective breeding but a better understanding of diversity. Playing the blame game with genetics is pathetically weak and it goes against other modern modes of thought.
The reason someone doesn’t want to be monogamous is a product of their personality, not a hereditary trait.
Before talking about the reasons that humans are monogamous (for those people who don’t think it’s kinda obvious) allow me to dispel some myths. Religion or the oppression of women is not the reason that monogamy has been the mode of marital relationships for the majority of people for the majority of the time. Humans have reached this way of thinking purely out of the practicalities that the environment dictates – that is, it is natural.
In societies where polygamy was common or accepted, that too was natural, although it is naïve to think that anyone could become polygamous. As far as I am aware it was only certain members of society for whom this privilege was bestowed. Where there existed a shortage, either of males or resources, the richest among the society would take on more wives. It was he who could afford to provide for all the females and the resultant offspring. It was he who the women went to when all the other males were unavailable (either too poor or simply dead because of war, famine or disease). Far be it from oppressing women, polygamy was a refuge for women who under normal circumstances would have died. Take a look at well-known polygamist groups.
Muslims (in certain areas) advocated polygamy only under certain circumstances and was generally seen as a charitable act – what man, after all, would wish to divide his wealth among more than one other woman (in a society where men provided wealth and women provided offspring). What man would want to divide his wealth among the many sons that would result from all this begetting? The history of Islam (and indeed Christianity and Judaism) is peppered with rival siblings fighting for inheritance.
Mormons, the famous modern day polygamists (again, not a prevalent as is often portrayed in the media) clearly came about in response to their being a group unlikely to survive. Mormons were heavily persecuted in their early years – polygamy ensured that from small numbers could come an exponential increase over a short amount of time. Where there were not many men (and inevitably it was the men who were killed), polygamy meant that one male Mormon could produce twenty more.
Other modern day polygamists are found in remote, primitive communities in the rainforests and jungles of Africa and South America. Here, like lions, the men must learn to dominate if they are to earn the privilege to provide. For them, polygamy is a burden that only the strongest can bear. No father of the bride is going to marry off his daughter in this unforgiving environment if there is not some certainty that he can provide for them all.
So polygamy on the face of it can seem masculinist. As has probably occurred to you, it is the males in a society that are polygamous, not the females and on the face of it, that seems unequal.
But can females afford to be polygamous? What are the benefits of female polygamy under the constraints that the human species places upon her (i.e. a mother).
I would argue that monogamy is the optimum state of affairs (in terms of survival of themselves and their offspring) for a human female.
Firstly, let us look at the burden of childhood that a female human must endure. Compared to other mammals, a human child has the longest transition to maturity of any of them. From a purely biological point of view, a female child only becomes an adult after at least ten to eleven years. For males it is around fifteen – and that only gives them the ability to produce offspring, let alone provide for them. Unlike other mammals, human infants are helpless against threats for the first five years of their life and only gain a small amount of independence after another five. Humans are essentially under the constant protection and nurture of their parents until at the very least the age of ten (and I am being very generous here). Nowadays, (in developed societies) coming of age takes place at various times, from age sixteen, eighteen and even as old as twenty-one.
Taking the conservative age of ten for a child to reach independence, this means that until then, a mother must be able to provide food, shelter and protection for her child. When we think about how ill-equipped human bodies are for survival (hairless, tall, slow paced, warm-blooded) this task is made even more daunting – the child can never be left alone.
It is clear therefore that in order for the child and the mother to both survive, that somebody else must be present to help.
But if the father is only there to help out with his child (emphasis on ‘his’, the survival of his child (not anyone else’s) is also a genetic imperative), this still allows for the possibility for serial monogamy. It is quite possible, that once a child reaches independence that the need for both parents is no longer necessary. The mother can find another strong male (or whatever fits her needs at the time) and the father can go and find another nubile female to impregnate NB. the father sticks to one female at a time as the likelihood of his children surviving is severely diminished if they are with two different women – he would then be providing for four rather than two.
So why life-long partnerships?
The first, and easiest explanation is that, during the time that the parents spend together raising a child, they probably continue having intercourse, thus producing more children and more reasons to stay together.
Secondly, the chances of finding another, younger, healthier partner are reduced with each year that passes. This is especially true for the female of the species who quite literally has a biological countdown towards her menopause. The male has a better chance of procreating with his current partner than he has with a younger one (both because he is less appealing to her, and there is a newer generation of virile young men to contend with).
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly there is the problem of inbreeding. It takes only a few instances of inbreeding within humans for the effects to become pervasive within a community and damaging. Polygamy is a last resort for survival.
Humans keep close ties with one another. We came into being and for the majority of the time spent on Earth have been pastoralists, nomadic hunter-gatherers. This lifestyle can support only a small population, growth (if any) is slow.
Under normal circumstances, if a male spreads his seed too arbitrarily the tribe becomes ‘infected’ by the genes. The effects are accumulative, so that even with just one instance of inbreeding between cousins, the homogenous genes can become more concentrated. Inbreeding in humans leads to weak hearts, brain under development and significantly – infertility. In this light, polygamy can actually lead to the death of a community.
No, I haven’t forgotten. Last but by no means least, is the existence of those pesky human emotions. Floating above the instincts listed above are our emotional needs. Out of these needs, according to Maslow are what he calls Love and Belonging. This includes friendship, family and sexual intimacy. In this case, quality takes precedent over quantity. The apex of sexual intimacy, friendship and family can only be achieved by one person to another, what might be called Love in a mutually exclusive relationship.
What I have described above are the instincts and behaviours of humans living in a hostile, survival-based environment. It is clear that in days gone by that monogamy was essential to survival. But what role does it play nowadays, in the modern Western world where food is abundant, shelter is provided and speed, strength, agility and self-reliance are no longer as important?
“Neither male nor female need to be monogamous, it is only those tertiary emotions that keep us that way.”
I think not. Our instinct to survive and to be survived by our children has not dwindled. In this modern world, this still requires two entities to raise the child. Fathers may be absent, but they are leaving a hole. The hole they leave is filled by others. In the past when fathers died, their wife and offspring would be cared for by their remaining family. At other times they were replaced by charities and poorhouses. Nowadays the support offered to replace an absent father has many other forms, most obviously in the form of welfare. Yes, it has become easier to be a single mother in the modern world, but the needs of a mother and child have not changed.
And all of this just so I can tell people who claim that we are not monogamous that it is not true. Those who seek to explain affects in their personality by rummaging into their genes are misguided.
Genes can explain a lot of things, but once someone starts making allowances in their personality because of genes, they’ve gone too far.
.jpg/215px-Humphrey_Bogart_by_Karsh_(Library_and_Archives_Canada).jpg)
