Is Polygamy Really So Awful?
A new study shows that despite what you see on reality TV,
plural marriage isn't very good for society.
By Libby Copeland Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM ET
These are boom times for memoirs about growing up in, marrying into or escaping from
polygamous families. Sister wives appear as minor celebrities in the pages of People,
piggybacking on their popular reality TV show. And oh yes, we have a presidential
candidate whose great-grandfather was an actual bona fide polygamist.
Americans are fixated these days on polygamy, and it’s fair to say we don’t know how to
feel about it. Polygamy evokes both fascination and revulsion—the former when Chloe
Sevigny is involved, and the latter when it is practiced by patently evil men like Osama Bin
Laden and Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist Mormon leader who had a thing for underage
wives. At the same time, the practice of plural marriage is so outside mainstream
American culture, so far in the past for many Westerners, that it has come to be regarded
as almost quaint. What’s so wrong with it, if it works for some people? In counterculture
circles, the practice of polyamory, or open partnerships, is supposed to be having some
sort of moment. All of which explains why, in response to the argument by conservatives
like Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia that gay marriage could be a slippery slope leading
to polygamy, some feminists, lefties, and libertarians have wondered aloud whether plural
marriage is really so bad.
History suggests that it is. A new study out of the University of British Columbia
documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of
the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny,
which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common
expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of
polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the
institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older,
wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for
everybody.
“Monogamous marriage reduces crime,” Henrich and colleagues write, pulling together
studies showing that polygynous societies create large numbers of unmarried men, whose
presence is correlated with increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse.
According to Henrich, the problem with unmarried men appears to come primarily from their
lack of investment in family life and in children. Young men without futures tend to engage
in riskier behaviors because they have less to lose. And, too, they may engage in certain
crimes to get wives—stealing to amass enough wealth to attract women, or kidnapping
other men’s wives.
As marriage historian Stephanie Coontz has pointed out, polygyny is less about sex than it is
about power. Rich old guys with lots of wives win twice: They have more women to bear them
babies and do household work, and they also gain an advantage over other men. After all, in
such societies a young man in want of a wife cannot simply woo her. There is too much
competition, and he probably has too little to offer. So he winds up having to do work for a
more powerful, polygynous man, bringing him gifts and tributes, in hopes of someday being
rewarded with one of that man’s many daughters. “Often the subordination of women is in
fact also a way of controlling men,” says Coontz, who was not involved in the study out of the
University of B.C.
That polygyny is bad for women is not necessarily intuitive. As economist Robert H. Frank has
pointed out women in polygynist marriages should have more power because they’re in
greater demand, and men should wind up changing more diapers. But historically, polygamy
has proved to be yet another setup that screws the XX set. Because there are never enough
of them to go around, they wind up being married off younger. Brothers and fathers, realizing
how valuable their female relations are, tend to control them more. And, as one would expect,
polygynous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Ethnographic surveys of
69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as
harmonious,” Henrich writes, with what must be a good dose of understatement.
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing
19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple
wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that
the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15.
Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa
showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from
polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny
may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,
and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of
using it on their existing families.
Must polygamy always bring these social ills? Is it possible to be polygamous in a way that’s
good for you and everyone else? Maybe. Historically, problems have cropped up when
polygamy is widespread in a culture with great disparities in wealth, and a few men hoard all
the women. But it has worked in small cultures where there aren’t a lot of differences in
wealth and status. Coontz points to past Native American societies that occasionally engaged
in what’s known as sororal polygyny, in which a man married to one woman might also marry
her sister, perhaps after the sister’s husband died.
It’s possible that even in a large, deeply stratified society like ours, rare instances of
polygamy wouldn’t foster gender inequity and roving bands of unhappy single men, provided
those instances were spread out among a largely monogamous population. But it’s hard to
imagine that, because it isn’t how it has played out here. Instead, American polygamy occurs
in close-knit fundamentalist Mormon communities, in which young women often do appear to
be subordinated and from which young men--the so-called “lost boys”—are exiled to reduce
the competition for wives. Has fundamentalist Mormon culture shaped the expression of
polygamy, or has widespread polygamy shaped fundamentalist Mormon culture? It’s hard to
separate the two.
And this is exactly Henrich’s point: Polygamy may actually exacerbate inequities in wealth and
gender that hurt societies, even if the institution itself appears neutral. Crime and chaos are
threatening. Christianity may have brought monogamy to Europe and many other places, but
those cultures succeeded because monogamy happened to suit them. In other words, as far
as social evolution is concerned, the best form of marriage for a given society isn’t really about
what’s moral, but what works.
Other Source Words: 100
polygamous families. Sister wives appear as minor celebrities in the pages of People,
piggybacking on their popular reality TV show. And oh yes, we have a presidential
candidate whose great-grandfather was an actual bona fide polygamist.
Americans are fixated these days on polygamy, and it’s fair to say we don’t know how to
feel about it. Polygamy evokes both fascination and revulsion—the former when Chloe
Sevigny is involved, and the latter when it is practiced by patently evil men like Osama Bin
Laden and Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist Mormon leader who had a thing for underage
wives. At the same time, the practice of plural marriage is so outside mainstream
American culture, so far in the past for many Westerners, that it has come to be regarded
as almost quaint. What’s so wrong with it, if it works for some people? In counterculture
circles, the practice of polyamory, or open partnerships, is supposed to be having some
sort of moment. All of which explains why, in response to the argument by conservatives
like Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia that gay marriage could be a slippery slope leading
to polygamy, some feminists, lefties, and libertarians have wondered aloud whether plural
marriage is really so bad.
History suggests that it is. A new study out of the University of British Columbia
documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of
the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny,
which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common
expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of
polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the
institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older,
wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for
everybody.
“Monogamous marriage reduces crime,” Henrich and colleagues write, pulling together
studies showing that polygynous societies create large numbers of unmarried men, whose
presence is correlated with increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse.
According to Henrich, the problem with unmarried men appears to come primarily from their
lack of investment in family life and in children. Young men without futures tend to engage
in riskier behaviors because they have less to lose. And, too, they may engage in certain
crimes to get wives—stealing to amass enough wealth to attract women, or kidnapping
other men’s wives.
As marriage historian Stephanie Coontz has pointed out, polygyny is less about sex than it is
about power. Rich old guys with lots of wives win twice: They have more women to bear them
babies and do household work, and they also gain an advantage over other men. After all, in
such societies a young man in want of a wife cannot simply woo her. There is too much
competition, and he probably has too little to offer. So he winds up having to do work for a
more powerful, polygynous man, bringing him gifts and tributes, in hopes of someday being
rewarded with one of that man’s many daughters. “Often the subordination of women is in
fact also a way of controlling men,” says Coontz, who was not involved in the study out of the
University of B.C.
That polygyny is bad for women is not necessarily intuitive. As economist Robert H. Frank has
pointed out women in polygynist marriages should have more power because they’re in
greater demand, and men should wind up changing more diapers. But historically, polygamy
has proved to be yet another setup that screws the XX set. Because there are never enough
of them to go around, they wind up being married off younger. Brothers and fathers, realizing
how valuable their female relations are, tend to control them more. And, as one would expect,
polygynous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Ethnographic surveys of
69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as
harmonious,” Henrich writes, with what must be a good dose of understatement.
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing
19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple
wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that
the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15.
Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa
showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from
polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny
may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,
and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of
using it on their existing families.
Must polygamy always bring these social ills? Is it possible to be polygamous in a way that’s
good for you and everyone else? Maybe. Historically, problems have cropped up when
polygamy is widespread in a culture with great disparities in wealth, and a few men hoard all
the women. But it has worked in small cultures where there aren’t a lot of differences in
wealth and status. Coontz points to past Native American societies that occasionally engaged
in what’s known as sororal polygyny, in which a man married to one woman might also marry
her sister, perhaps after the sister’s husband died.
It’s possible that even in a large, deeply stratified society like ours, rare instances of
polygamy wouldn’t foster gender inequity and roving bands of unhappy single men, provided
those instances were spread out among a largely monogamous population. But it’s hard to
imagine that, because it isn’t how it has played out here. Instead, American polygamy occurs
in close-knit fundamentalist Mormon communities, in which young women often do appear to
be subordinated and from which young men--the so-called “lost boys”—are exiled to reduce
the competition for wives. Has fundamentalist Mormon culture shaped the expression of
polygamy, or has widespread polygamy shaped fundamentalist Mormon culture? It’s hard to
separate the two.
And this is exactly Henrich’s point: Polygamy may actually exacerbate inequities in wealth and
gender that hurt societies, even if the institution itself appears neutral. Crime and chaos are
threatening. Christianity may have brought monogamy to Europe and many other places, but
those cultures succeeded because monogamy happened to suit them. In other words, as far
as social evolution is concerned, the best form of marriage for a given society isn’t really about
what’s moral, but what works.
Other Source Words: 100