polygamy

A recent article in Forbes compares Mormon polygamy to modern promiscuity.

"If Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather were Hugh Hefner, rather than Miles Park Romney, he’d have an easier time winning the Republican nomination and the White House. That’s something for voters to ponder, especially given the marital history of Romney’s chief rival, Newt Gingrich.

Hugh would be a more politically convenient forebear because Miles, unlike Hefner, was a Mormon who practiced polygamy (he had four wives). He fled to Mexico in 1885 after Utah acceded to the federal government’s demands and banned the practice.

Hefner, however, has only married his “bunnies” one at a time.  Sure, the playboy lives with up to half a dozen at a time, but mere promiscuity is easier for the public to forgive and isn’t a criminal offense in most states."

Then the columnist talks about who is harmed in society by polygamy and promiscuity.

"Polygamy is understood to often be harmful to women and children: Women, for example, are in many cases treated unequally, and children suffer from distant fathers. But the same is true in promiscuous relationships with several partners. In those cases the women and children are likely to be worse off than in polygamy, as the bond between the mother and father is weaker."

Did you see what just happened?  Just like the Canadian Supreme Court justice who recently ruled against polygamy, he neglects to mention that men are also harmed by polygamy: the "lost boys", i.e., low status men who can't find wives and are driven out of polygamist societies.  Here's what I wrote previously:

Says Chief Justice Robert Bauman:

“I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver.

“More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

...

I feel compelled to point out a glaring omission in the Chief Justice's statement of who gets harmed: men.  According to his own 335-page decision, there's quite a bit of evidence on how polygyny (one male, multiple females) creates "lost boys" who get driven out of polygynous societies because they can't find a wife and thus are a source of social instability.  So the Chief Justice really should have said: "This includes harm to women, to children, to men, to society, and to the institution of monogamous marriage."

Isn't it amazing how commentators, even well-informed ones, neglect the fact that many men are also harmed by this arrangement?

Now, let's go back to the Forbes piece, looking at the second half of the quote:

"Polygamy is understood to often be harmful to women and children: Women, for example, are in many cases treated unequally, and children suffer from distant fathers. But the same is true in promiscuous relationships with several partners. In those cases the women and children are likely to be worse off than in polygamy, as the bond between the mother and father is weaker."

Again, in the modern context, the focus is on women and children being harmed.  I don't disagree that modern promiscuity harms some women and some children.  But are there no men who are also harmed?

Let's continue to use Hugh Hefner as the example of modern promiscuity.

Most of the Playboy Bunnies are perfectly happy using Hef for his wealth, status, and connections.  Hef is perfectly happy using them for sex.  The high status male and attractive/promiscuous females seem fine with the arrangement (plus, they don't seem to be having many kids).  The people who are really harmed by a promiscuous sexual marketplace aren't invited to parties at the Playboy Mansion.

Good Girls

These are relatively chaste women who are undercut by promiscuous women.  Think of Good Girls as akin to the subset of women who chafe under polygamy and don't like what it has to offer, but are stuck living there.

Low Status Males

These are guys who don't have a source of status (confidence, money, intelligence, humor, skill, athleticism, health, etc.).  Low Status Males are akin to the lost boys in polygamous cultures -- demographically doomed to celibacy, adrift, dead to their own society.

So follow this logic:

• Hef monopolizes multiple women
• Fewer women in the sexual marketplace
• Men on the bottom of the totem pole get bumped, go celibate
• More celibate men buy Playboy
• Sales of Playboy go up
• Hef gets even richer
• Hef monopolizes more women

Rinse and repeat.  Continue ignoring low status men.  Hope the problem goes away.

For the econ majors out there, what is the optimal size of Hugh Hefner's harem to maximize sales of Playboy?  Assume that Hef has an infinite supply of time and Viagra.

I've been reading the 335-page legal decision upholding Canada's laws against polygamy, and boy is it juicy.

Before I dive into it, I want readers to understand why I am covering this topic: this evolutionary perspective doesn't just inform how we eat, how we run, or how we sleep.  It informs things as fundamental as how we date, how we marry, and how we organize society.  Now back to the case at hand.

Here is the evolutionary portion of the decision, which is well worth reading in full.  Two evolutionary psychologists testified in the proceedings, describing typical outcomes that can be expected from polygynous mating arrangements. Recall that polygyny means one male and multiple females (and is vastly, vastly more common in human history than polandry, which means one woman and multiple men).

Dr. Henrich explains the cold mathematics of polygyny:

This illustration reveals the underlying arithmetic that can result in a pool of low-status unmarried men. Imagine a society of 40 adults, 20 males and 20 females … Suppose those 20 males vary from the unemployed high-school drop outs to CEOs, or billionaires … Let’s assume that the twelve men with the highest status marry 12 of the 20 women in monogamous marriages. Then, the top five men (25% of the population) all take a second wife, and the top two (10%) take a third wife. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth wife. This means that of all marriages, 58% are monogamous. Only men in the to 10% of status or wealth married more than two women. The most wives anyone has is four.

The degree of polygynous marriage is not extreme in cross-cultural perspective … but it creates a pool of unmarried men equal to 40% of the male population who are incentivized to take substantial risks so they can eventually participate in the mating and marriage market. This pattern is consistent with what we would expect from an evolutionary approach to humans, and with what is known empirically about male strategies. The evidence outlined below shows that the creation of this pool will likely have a number of outcomes. 

(Readers may remember my post on increasing (sexual) inequality.)

Why does this matter?  Here are the four sections of his testimony, focusing on polygyny's effects on men, children, women, and society (admittedly speculative).

One more note before going into this testimony: I don't know Dr. Henrich, I haven't read his other work, and I don't know his reputation.  He is in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia.  Here's his academic homepage.  Judge for yourself.

1. Polygyny's Creation of a Pool of Unmarried Low-Status Men

Marriage civilizes men:

Dr. Henrich begins with an ample body of research that shows marriage makes men much less likely to commit crimes such as murder, robbery and rape. One such study showed that marriage reduced a man’s likelihood of committing a crime by 35%. This study was particularly compelling as it did not simply compare the criminality of married and unmarried men, but used longitudinal data to track boys from a reform school from age 17 to 70. In this study, crime rates not only decreased when those men were married, but increased when they divorced or were widowed. Other studies are consistent in showing the association between monogamous marriage and decreased male criminality.

He cites studies (not listed in the decision) that examine the relationship between crime and 1) the degree of polygyny across countries, 2) the percentage of unmarried males, and 3) sex ratio of males to females in countries like China, as a result of their one-child policy and a desire to have sons and abort / kill daughters.

2. Polygyny's Effects on Male Parental Investment

Men in polygynous societies aren't very good fathers:

Another major predicted consequence of widespread polygyny is decreased male parental investment. The underlying theory is that since married men would remain perennially in the marriage market, high-status men could choose to invest their resources in acquiring more wives rather than investing in their children. Similarly, the pool of unmarried men would be forced to invest their resources in attempting to improve their status so as to improve their chances of finding a bride.

As support for this proposition, Dr. Henrich relied on findings from 19th century census data from Mormon polygynous communities and from contemporary studies of African societies.

The study of historical Mormon polygynous communities showed that the children of poorer men (from the bottom 16% of wealth in that community) had higher survival rates than those of the richest men in the community (from the top 2%). The poor men had an average of 6.9 children survive until age 15. For the rich men, despite having more total offspring than the poor men and having over 10 times the wealth, only 5.5 children survived until age 15 on average. Dr. Henrich concludes that this data supports the idea “that in polygynous systems poor, but married, men will have no choice but to invest in their offspring while rich, high-status men will invest in getting more wives” (at 47).

The patterns observed in recent studies of polygamous African societies are similar. The seven studies of this nature cited by Dr. Henrich reported that “children of polygynous families are at increased risk of diminished nutritional status, poor health outcomes, and mortality” (at 47). One study found that amongst the Dogon of Mali, even though per capita resources were equivalent between monogamous and polygamous households, children under age 10 in polygynous households were 7 to 11 times more likely to die.

3. Polygyny, Age of marriage, the Age Gap, and Gender Equality

Allegedly, when the competition for brides go up, men try to secure brides at younger ages.  Male kin learn the value of their female relatives, start treating them like an economic resource, and exert control of women's reproductive lives.

Competition drives men to use whatever connections, advantages, and alliances they have in order to obtain wives, including striking financial and reciprocal bargains with the fathers of daughters (this is the very common practice of brideprice). Once girls and young women become wives, older husbands (and brothers) will strive to “protect” their young wives from other males (to guarantee paternity of any offspring), and in the process dampen women’s freedoms and exacerbate inequality.

4. More Speculative Predictions

Did monogamy lead to long term economic growth and greater democracy?

Dr. Henrich also predicted additional consequences of polygyny that he acknowledged were more speculative and could not be as thoroughly supported by empirical evidence.

One such prediction is that imposing monogamy may have the effect of increasing per capita GDP. Studies applying a theoretical economic model to the data from highly polygynous states showed that when monogamy is imposed “the fertility rate goes down, the age gap goes down, saving rates go up, bride prices disappear, and GDP per capita goes way up” (at 32). This model was based on the assumptions that men and women care about both having children and “consuming”, that men are capable of reproducing during much more of their life than women, and that men tend to prefer younger women. In this model, when a ban on polygyny prevents men from investing in obtaining further wives, they instead save and invest in production and consumption.

As noted earlier in the historical review of monogamy and polygamy, Dr. Henrich also speculates that the spread of monogamy may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality. Anthropological research demonstrates a strong statistical linkage between democratic institutions and monogamy. The theory is that imposed monogamy may eventually lead to democracy by dissipating the pool of unmarried men that rulers harness in wars of aggression, and by imposing a basic principle of equality among men; the king and the peasant become alike in only being able to have one wife.

Fascinating stuff.  There seem to be some good reasons why polgamy is a bad idea.  I'm convinced.

Why is this important?

Well, in some circles, marriage is viewed as antiquated or quaint or tainted with religion or staid or defended irrationally.  But we would be wise to examine long-standing traditions and see if there might not have been some reason for their continued existence.  We are entering a brave new world of sexual dynamics, which will inevitably be a mixed bag of outcomes -- some good, some bad.  And the most important social dynamic will not be what happens to gay marriage, but what happens to monogamy under the onslaught of modernity.

I realize I'm not making any friends with controversial posts, but I'm open on my blog about the issues I think about.  You know you're getting the real deal.  If you can't engage in a rational way, then you don't have to read my blog.

There's a link going around called "How to Explain Gay Rights to an Idiot".  In a very sarcastic and condescending tone, it explains why gay marriage will not lead to people marrying children, toasters, or dogs.  Unfortunately, it ignores a more historically relevant and philosophically-challenging issue: polygamy.

There is a great historical irony between polygamy and gay marriage.  Utah wasn't allowed to become a state until the Mormon Church agreed that polygamy would become illegal, and it is now the Mormon Church which has been one of the most ardent defenders of the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Funny how history works.

Discussing polygamy may seem like a pointless exercise, but explicit polygamy is fairly common throughout Africa and the Middle East, as are other forms of marriage, like first-cousin marriage, which are either illegal in the US or uncommon where legal.  And off the top of my head, besides the rare royal family trying to consolidate power, I don't know of any marriage traditions between individuals more closely related than cousins. (It's rare in other species too, because of the genetic defects from in-breeding.  The moral aversion to incest is something we share with sexually reproducing species -- it's a very widely-held aversion throughout nature.)

Polygamy is also relevant simply because I hear a lot of people mock someone like Presidential candidate Rick Santorum for saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.  But we as a society are in the midst of a debate over various forms of state-supported marriage, and there are a variety of permutations that have existed throughout history, polygamy being one of them, first cousin marriage being another.  Some countries have natalist policies that use the state to advocate having kids (Australia) or restrict having kids (China's one-child policy).

I've been doing some reading, and I've come across essentially two types of arguments for or against polygamy.

1. Rights / Morality / a priori - These types of arguments say that it's a fundamental question morals or rights.  For example, most people in the United States believe that polygamy is immoral.  Or some may take a rights-based approach and argue that peaceful and consenting adults should be able to form any kinds of contracts they choose and get the legal benefits associated with that.  Either way, I group these together because they are pretty much all or nothing, black and white arguments often based on a priori reasoning and that don't pay a lot of attention to actual outcomes.

2. Consequentialist / a posteriori - These arguments consider the types of individual or social costs or benefits that a given law imposes, not based on some universal notion of rights or morality, but on outcomes.  Will it be prevalent, what are the social and individual harms, what are the social and individual benefits?  On the political right, these are often arguments about the direction of civilization - for example, whether polygamy creates a large pool of young (high-testosterone) single men who aren't vested in the existing social structure and have a tendency towards violence, and thus is undesirable.

(This is something, incidentally, which I believe to be true based, in part, on what happens in a wide variety of other species where a small number of males monopolize a harem of females, like elephant seals.  These species are characterized by sexual dimorphism -- where the males get bigger and meaner in an evolutionary arms race -- and usually results in a lot of violence between the men and crazy, unproductive risk-taking.)

So here's how this is salient to the gay marriage debate.

Arguments about rights and morality (#1) are clearly important on both sides of the debate, but I can't see how any rights-based argument for gay marriage doesn't also open the door to polygamy.  I just don't see how any purely rights-based argument draws a line between a contract between two people and three or more people without resorting to arguments that aren't rights-based.

Consequentialist arguments (#2) are real and relevant -- for example, reasons why explicit polygamy won't become prevalent even if it were legal -- but by using these arguments at all against polygamy, it opens the door to accepting consequentialist arguments against gay marriage.

That is the philosophical quandary for people who think about these issues seriously.  (Many people don't, on either side.)

I think people should be rightfully disgusted at the way homosexuals have been mistreated throughout history.  It's really just awful.  I had a gay roommate in college who was assaulted and beaten up late one night right in the middle of Cambridge, right around Harvard's campus.  I have gay friends, co-workers, teachers, relatives, and blog readers.  They aren't evil or sinful people for being gay.

But Rick Santorum isn't crazy for mentioning the word "polygamy" in a debate over the definition of marriage, and an honest conversation about the definition of marriage can't ignore questions of polygamy, first cousin marriage, or hell, any restriction we have on the books that limit consenting adults.  And if the gay marriage movement wants to argue that extending the marriage franchise is actually a way to strengthen the institution of marriage, to strengthen civilization -- which is an argument I hear a lot -- then I think it is incumbent on those who use that type of reasoning to show where the line gets drawn and articulate reasons why polygamy, first-cousin marriage, or other forms of marriage are undesirable or morally wrong.  (Or not.)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push an agenda here and please don't try to infer what my view are.  The purpose of this post is to move past the same old debates and provoke some critical-thinking about the issues at hand.  Both sides of this debate are dripping with contempt for the other side.  And this concerns me, because in marriages between individuals, contempt is the emotion that best predicts divorce.

-----------

Note: I'm going to turn off comments on this post.  If you feel strongly about something I've written -- positive, negative, both, or neither -- please send me an email at john [at] hunter-gatherer.com.  I actually would like to hear what you think, but I know the comments will be a shit show.  I will reply to all emails that use appropriate language and refrain from ad hominem attacks.