Introduction
One of the peculiarities of post-industrial living is the fact that, as time goes on; the ongoing socio-cultural discourses in Western countries become increasingly affiliated with the practices of polygamy, polyandry and polyamory. In its turn, this causes many Western social sciences to come up with the idea that this is being indicative of the concept of monogamy growing discursively outdated, “A key reason for the opposition to polyamory is, somewhat paradoxically, the pervasive or potential failure of monogamy” (Emens 5). Nevertheless, this point of view cannot be regarded as such that represents an undeniable truth-value. The reason why the overwhelming majority of people on this Earth prefer to pursue monogamous marital relations is that biologically speaking, they are nothing but primates (Kimball 125). And, as biologists are being well aware, monogamy (pair-mating) is the dialectically predetermined form of inter-gender relationships among primates – pure and simple (Kanazawa & Still 26). What it means is that, despite the pretentious sophisticate sounding of such terms as polygamy, polyandry and polyamory, these terms are essentially mind-constructs that have very little to do with the actual ways of nature. In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this thesis at length.
Analytical part
Before we proceed further with discussing the discursive relevance of polygamy, polyandry and polyamory, we will need to reveal what accounts for the conceptual fallaciousness of monogamy’s classical definitions. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that the overwhelming majority of monogamy’s supporters tend to refer to this practice as the societal legalization of love. For example, according to Girgis, George and Anderson, “Monogamous marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life” (246). Therefore, formally speaking, the line of argumentation, deployed by monogamy’s critics, does make a perfectly logical sense – there are simply no good reasons to believe that one can only go about pursuing a loving relationship with the representative of the opposite sex (or same-sex) solely within the framework of monogamous marriage.
Moreover, there are also no objective reasons to believe that the monogamous marital relationship presupposes its participants’ sexual loyalty towards each other, “The National Health and Social Life Survey, released in 1994, claims that approximately twenty percent of married women and thirty-five percent of married men have had adulterous sex, and there is reason to think that levels of adultery among those studied are even higher” (Emens 18). Thus, when accessed from a sociological perspective, the fact that monogamy is being socially enforced does appear to be of an essentially phenomenological nature.
Nevertheless, once we assess monogamy’s discursive relevance from a biological perspective, we will come to the qualitatively opposite conclusion. The reason for this is quite apparent – monogamy serves the dual purpose of ensuring offspring’s physical survival, on the one hand, and providing the representatives of Homo Sapiens species with an opportunity to indulge in pursuits that guarantee their continued dominance over the representatives of other species (Fielder & King 111). It is important to understand that, as it was mentioned earlier, people are essentially primates. In the societies of primates, males enjoy an undisputed dominance, simply because they are physically stronger (Snowdon et al. 2080). Yet; whereas, males’ foremost existential agenda is spreading their ‘seed’, females’ main existential agenda is being concerned with ensuring children’s survival and with providing them with a high-quality upbringing. The female objectives, in this respect, can only be achieved by the mean of women securing men’s support. Hence, the phenomenon of ‘love’, which is nothing but the process of men’s bodies being injected with the doses of naturally produced amphetamine, which causes them to cease acting rationally, while exposed to the subjects of their affection (Fisher, Aron & Brown 2178). Given the fact that ‘love’ is an essentially quasi-cognitive process, it means that, just as it is being the case with people indulging in other cognitive activities, a particular man can love only one (single) woman. The reason for this is simple – the very nature of one brain’s functioning makes it quite impossible for him to be able to simultaneously address a few cognitive tasks.
This is the actual reason why the close analysis of polygamist practices reveals them as being essentially monogamous, which makes it quite appropriate to discuss polygamy in terms of ‘serial monogamy’ (Emens 18). The validity of this statement can be best illustrated in regards to Muslim polygamy. For example, it represents a fully legitimate practice for Muslim men to acquire ‘new wives’, as time goes by. Yet, just as is being the case with secularized Western men, Muslim men do ‘love’ their wives on a one-at-the-time basis. In fact, Muslim polygamy is being even more monogamous than Western ‘serial monogamy’, because unlike what is being the case with Western men, Muslim men do not simply ‘dump’ their ‘second-halfs’, but continue on with providing them with food and quarters, well after they lose interest in these women (Murray 39; Ali 81).
It goes without saying, of course, that, as it was mentioned earlier, many men and women that go on with pursuing a monogamous marital relationship, are indeed being known to enjoy romantic affairs on a side. This, however, does not mean that this is nothing but the side-effect of their formal marriage’s deterioration. After all, as practice indicates, even after having been caught cheating on each other, the majority of spouses in Western countries nevertheless do not apply for divorce. Moreover, as the religion of Christianity continues to lose its appeal to the intellectually advanced Westerners, they grow progressively distanced from the idea that it is specifically the sheer extent of a spousal loyalty between married men and women, which should be looked upon as the foremost indication of their marital compatibility (Lovibond 625). This explains the phenomenon of ‘swingers’ (married couples that are being absolutely open to the idea of husbands and wives’ ‘swapping’). As practice indicates, the very nature of swingers’ swapping practices does not result in the extent of these people’s marital commitment suffering any damage, whatsoever (Hetherington 321). Apparently, the amphetamine-induced passion is only being capable of ‘fueling’ monogamous love for duration of 3-4 years, following the actual wedding. However, once this period is over, another bodily-produced chemical kicks in, as the mean of providing married couples with an incentive to remain committed to each other – endorphin (Holden 82). What this chemical does is strengthen the extent of spouses’ emotional comfortableness with each other. In other words, even though, after having been married for 3-4 years, most men and women do lose their romantic passion, they nevertheless acquire a new psychological stimulus to remain married – the dramatically increased measure of their familiarity with each other. And, just as is being the case with amphetamine-driven love, endorphin-driven love can be well conceptualized in terms of a quasi-cognitive process, which in turn presupposes its unidirectional subtleties (Bringsjord & Zenzen 291). That is, just as the objective laws of nature make it quite impossible for a particular individual to experience a true love towards more than one representative of the opposite gender (or same gender), the same laws of nature make it highly unlikely for people to practice polygamy, polyandry and polyamory, without facing the prospect of sustaining mental damage.
In fact, as practice indicates, one of the foremost preconditions for people to consider becoming the part of a polyamorous relationship, for example, is their psychological inadequacy, reflected by these people’s sexual inadequateness. As it was noted by Sheff, “The emergence of self-consciously polyamorous families follows the rise in lesbigay families… Most of the women in my sample of mainstream polyamorous community members are bisexual” (488). It is understood, of course, that due to the considerations of political correctness, on their part, most people try to refrain from referring to bisexualism/lesbianism/homosexuality as a form of sexual deviation. This, however, does not make the earlier mentioned sexual practices less sexually deviant. After all, even as recently as in 1994, the American Psychological Association was listing homosexuality and lesbianism among ‘sexual-identity disorders’ (Mendelson 682). Therefore, it does not come as a particular surprise that, contrary to their officially proclaimed agenda, the supporters of polyamory are not being concerned about defending their right to explore their sexual/marital freedoms, as much as they are being concerned with achieving a number of clearly feminist/neo-Marxian objectives, “A number of prominent poly writers describe their embrace of polyamory as fueled by their insights about power and possessiveness… polyamory builds in part on the feminist understanding of monogamy as a historical mechanism for the control of women’s reproductive and other labor” (Emens 41). This, of course, means that despite ‘polies’’ tendency to claim themselves being particularly progressive individuals, who simply strive to free people of the ‘oppression of monogamy’, they will never be able to succeed in such their undertaking (Levine & Silk 395). The reason for this is quite apparent – as it was illustrated earlier, the very conceptual premise of polyamory is being thoroughly inconsistent with the fundamental laws of biology. Apparently, these people have a hard time of understanding a simple fact that; whereas, sex can be well discussed in terms of the one among many recreational activities, love can never be talked of as ‘thing in itself’. The reason people are being endowed with an ability to love so that they may not only be able to conceive children but also to provide them with an adequate upbringing, which can only be possible within the framework of a monogamous marriage (Houston 318). Essentially the same suggestion applies to the advocates of polyandry – the very fact that these people seriously believe that it is possible for women to dominate in relationships with men, is being reflective of their perceptual arrogance. Apparently, those who promote polyandry are being unaware of biology’s basics.
It appears that, despite all the well-meaning rhetoric, on the part of those who actively oppose the ‘oppression of monogamy’, their stance on the issue can be well discussed as yet another extrapolation of these people’s existential decadence. In its turn, this explains why the overwhelming majority of men who enter into a polyandric relationship with women are Caucasian (Levine & Silk 382). Given the fact that, during the course of recent decades, Whites in Western countries never ceased being exponentially deprived of their biological vitality, which explains why they will soon become the representatives of a racial minority in their own countries, there is nothing utterly surprising about the earlier mentioned phenomenon – it is being indicative of the process of Western men growing increasingly feminine, on the one hand, and women growing increasingly masculine, on the other (Marx 13). As a result, more and more Westerners tend to access the very notion of ‘love’ from an essentially hedonistic prospective, while becoming increasingly unaware of the fact that true love can only be experienced within the spatial context of its functionality.
Conclusion
I believe that the line of argumentation, deployed throughout this paper’s Analytical part, is being fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, the concepts of polygamy, polyandry and polyamory may be well compared to the concept of Marxism – just as it is being the case with Marxism, these concepts can only be appealing in theory, but never in practice. Being mammals, and being endowed with just about all the behavioral traits of primates, it is in our very nature to seek monogamous relationships. This will continue to be the case, for as long as the very functioning of a human psyche will remain essentially ‘biologically-driven’. Therefore, just as it was implied in the Introduction, polygamy, polyandry and polyamory should indeed be referred to as mental byproducts of people’s lessened awareness of the very laws of nature, to which the representatives of Homo Sapiens species are being subjected as much and plants and animals are.
Bibliography
Ali, Wijdan. “Muslim Women: Between Cliché and Reality.” Diogenes 50.3 (2003): 77-87. Print.
Bringsjord, Selmer & Michael, Zenzen. “Cognition is not Computation: The Argument from Irreversibility.” Synthese 113.2 (1997): 285-320. Print.
Emens, Elizabeth. “Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence.” Chicago: Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper 58 (2003): 1-82. Print.
Fielder, Christine & Chris, King. Sexual Paradox: Complementarity, Reproductive Conflict and Human Emergence, Raleigh: Lulu Press, 2006. Print.
Fisher, Helen; Arthur, Aron & Lucy, Brown. “Romantic Love: A Mammalian Brain System for Mate Choice.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 361.1476 (2006): 2173-2186. Print.
Girgis, Sherif; Robert, George & Rayan, Anderson. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34.1 (2011): 245-287. Print.
Hetherington, Mavis. “Intimate Pathways: Changing Patterns in Close Personal Relationships across Time.” Family Relations 52.4 (2003): 318-331. Print.
Holden, Michael. “Recent Endorphine Research and the System of Pain Regulation.” Journal of Primal Therapy 5.2 (1978): 81-87. Print.
Houston, Ted. “The Social Ecology of Marriage and other Intimate Unions.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62.2 (2000): 298-320. Print.
Kanazawa, Satoshi & Mary, Still. “Why Monogamy?” Social Forces 78.1 (1999): 25-50. Print.
Kimball, Solon. “Community and Hominid Emergence.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 13.2 (1982): 125-131. Print.
Levine, Nancy & Joan, Silk. “Why Polyandry Fails: Sources of Instability in Polyandrous Marriages.” Current Anthropology 38.3 (1997): 375-398. Print.
Lovibond, Sabina. “Religion and Modernity: Living in the Hypercontext.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 33.4 (2005): 617-631. Print.
Marx, John. “The Feminization of Globalization.” Cultural Critique 63 (2006): 1-32. Print.
Mendelson, George. “Homosexuality and Psychiatric Nosology.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 37.6 (2003): 678-683. Print.
Murray, Christina. “Legal Eye: Is Polygamy Wrong?” Agenda 22, (1994): 37-41. Print.
Sheff, Elisabeth. “Polyamorous Families, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Slippery Slope.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40.5 (2011): 487-520. Print.
Snowdon, Charles et al. “Social Odours, Sexual Arousal and Pairbonding in Primates.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 361.1476 (2006): 2079-2089. Print.