Where did monogamy come from, and will it disappear? (Reprinted)

Editor's Note: Does cultural change resemble Darwinian evolution? Scientists have argued against this, claiming that cultural evolution doesn't exist because culture doesn't originate from scattered particles, nor does it faithfully replicate or randomly mutate like DNA. Matt Ridley, however, believes that in any information transmission system, as long as the transmitted information exhibits a certain degree of fragmentation, fidelity, randomness, or innovative trial-and-error, Darwinian change is inevitable. Cultural "evolution" is not a metaphor, but a tangible reality.
Take marriage as an example. When discussing marriage, we readily mention "monogamy," but throughout human history, various types of marriage systems have emerged. Why has monogamy replaced other systems as the mainstream? Matt Ridley argues that the spread of monogamy in the modern world is due to its beneficial social impact, resulting in a Darwinian cultural evolution, rather than a policy devised by a group of intelligent people around a table for peace and unity.
The following excerpt is from *Bottom-Up*, by Matt Ridley, published by Machinery Industry Press.
One characteristic of evolution is that it produces patterns of change that seem meaningful in retrospect, but which initially showed no signs of conscious design. The rise, fall, resurgence, and re-fall of marriage over the past millennia is a prime example of this. I'm not talking about the evolution of mating instincts, but rather the history of marriage customs within cultures.
Instincts undoubtedly exist. Human mating patterns largely still reflect deeply ingrained genetic predispositions honed over millions of years on the African savanna. Judging by the slight differences in physique and strength between men and women, we were clearly not designed for the purely polygamous system of gorillas, where larger males compete for ownership of a group of females, killing the previous male's offspring once they have one. On the other hand, the moderate size of human testes also makes us unsuitable for the purely sexual freedom of chimpanzees and bonobos, where female interbreeding (perhaps driven by an instinctive bidding war to avoid infanticide) means that competition among most males takes place at the sperm level, rather than individual struggles, thus blurring the lines of patriarchy.
We are unlike either of these relatives. According to research beginning in the 1920s, hunter-gatherer societies primarily practiced monogamy. Men and women formed specific partnerships, and if either party desired a more diverse lifestyle, it was generally done secretly. This monogamous pairing, with the father's close involvement in raising offspring, appears to have been a unique pattern for human men and women for millions of years. This is unusual among mammals, but more common in birds. However, 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture, powerful men were able to accumulate resources, bribe and intimidate other men, and attract women of lower status to become their wives or concubines. From ancient Egypt
to
the Inca Empire, from the agricultural cultures of West Africa to the nomadic societies of Central Asia, polygamy became the norm, independent of instinct. This suited powerful men and women of lower status (they could become the ninth wife of a wealthy man and live a life of luxury, rather than endure hunger as the sole wife of a poor man), but it wasn't a worthwhile trade for men of lower status (they were forced to remain single), nor was it suitable for women of higher status (they had to share their partners with other women).
In societies where polygamy was allowed to be widespread to satisfy men of lower status, neighborly violence was often rampant. This was especially true in nomadic societies that relied on sheep, goats, or cattle, where wealth was mobile and economies of scale existed: tending 1,000 sheep was not much more difficult than tending 500. Thus, nomadic peoples from Asia to the Arab world not only experienced periodic violence but also constantly raided Europe, India, China, and Africa, killing men and abducting women. Their custom was to conquer a country, kill men, children, and the elderly, and take young women as concubines.
The key point is that the polygamous system that arose naturally among nomadic peoples, in retrospect, was economically and ecologically sound, but this doesn't mean it was intentionally designed by some clever inventor. The reason never comes from the clever mind that invented it—this is what Daniel Dennett calls the “floating reason.” It is an adaptive evolutionary consequence of a set of selection conditions.
Ancient Egyptian agricultural murals
depict polygamy in different forms in agricultural societies such as Egypt, West Africa, Mexico, and China. Higher-ranking men had more wives than lower-ranking men (except for emperors), but not as extreme as in nomadic societies. Often, wealthy men were like parasites, living off the hard work of a group of women they called wives (as was the case in West Africa). Women, in exchange for protection (from being preyed upon by other men), had to live on their husbands' lands and cultivate the land.
However, in some settled civilizations, the development of trading cities brought a new selection pressure toward faithful monogamous marriage. You can see this shift in the difference between the Iliad (a story of struggles between polygamous men) and the Odyssey (the story of good Penelope waiting for the essentially faithful Odysseus).
The tradition of noble and chaste women upholding proper marriage and refusing to submit to their husbands taking concubines seems to have also appeared in Rome, as evidenced by the tragedy of Lucretia's rape (the prince raped the noblewoman Lucretia, who then told her family of his depravity and committed suicide in despair). This story is closely linked to the establishment of the Roman Republic and the overthrow of its kings. It suggests that the fall of kings was due to their arrogant tendency to forcibly possess other men's wives, incurring the resentment of other men and women.
This shift towards monogamy was a major theme in Christianity and a top priority for the early missionary fathers—although not all early saints advocated monogamy. Through the teachings of Jesus, they discovered this mission: to insist that a man marry only one wife, to be devoted to her for life, for better or for worse. According to Christian teachings, marriage is a sacred state: two people become one, forming "one body." The resurgence of monogamy in the late Middle Ages was a victory for women of noble birth (who gained monopoly over their husbands) and for a large number of men of lower social standing (who could finally enjoy sexual relations). Therefore, it was extremely attractive to these men of lower social standing: early Christians saw it as a treasure trove of the Gospel.
Polygamy did not completely disappear. Throughout the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and modern history, polygamous nobles (attractive to women of poor birth, a way to avoid starvation) and their noble, chaste wives and their followers, the yeoman farmers, were constantly at war. Sometimes one side prevailed, sometimes the other. In early 17th-century England, under Oliver Cromwell, monogamy prevailed. Under Charles II, polygamy informally returned.
The biography of the famous warrior, Prince Maurice de Saxe, Count of Saxony, begins as follows: "Elector of Saxony, King of Poland, Count of Saxony, Frederick August, eldest of the 354 illegitimate sons of the esteemed Grand Marshal, born on October 28, 1696..." Maurice himself was equally unrestrained in exercising his sexual rights. At the Battle of Tournai, at the age of 15, he became the father of his first child, and thereafter maintained "his army of horses and mistresses" by squandering his wife's wealth.
It's easy to imagine the resentment this behavior provokes, as towns were relatively exempt from feudal obligations, and the children of the petty bourgeoisie could not tolerate it. It is no coincidence that one of the common themes in 18th-century popular literature was a man of modest means rebelling against the lordship of the nobility (France has *The Marriage of Figaro*, and England has Samuel Richardson's novel *Pamela*).
Queen Victoria
With the rise of the merchant class, monogamy eventually conquered the aristocracy. By the 19th century, Queen Victoria had tamed the desires of the nobility, and every man would at least outwardly feign loyalty, care, and lifelong devotion to his wife. William Tucker, in his masterpiece *Marriage and Civilization*, argues that the subsequent general peace in Europe was no accident. Monogamy brought peace except in societies that continued to practice polygamy (such as most Muslim countries) and in places where it was suddenly reinvented (such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Mormon polygamy, however, sparked immense resentment among neighbors and created tension among the saints, with a terrible cycle of violence following them on their journey to Utah. This reached its peak in the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857: a Mormon took a married woman into his harem, and the enraged husband went on a killing spree in retaliation. The violence only gradually subsided after polygamy was abolished in 1890. (Even today, polygamy still exists in private within a few Mormon fundamentalist communities.)
In their influential paper, "The Mystery of Monogamous Marriage," prominent anthropologists Joe Henrich, Rob Boyd, and Peter Richardson of the cultural evolution camp argue that the spread of monogamy in the modern world can be best explained by its beneficial social effects. That is to say, monogamy was not a policy devised by a group of intelligent people sitting around a table to bring peace and unity; rather, it is likely the result of Darwinian cultural evolution.
Societies that have adopted "normative monogamy" (or insist that sexual activity occur only within an exclusive marital relationship) tend to have more docile young men, increased social cohesion, balanced gender ratios, reduced crime rates, and encouraged men to work rather than fight. As a result, such societies are more productive, less destructive, and easier to expand. These three anthropologists believe this explains the ultimate triumph of monogamy, perfectly embodied in the small family structure of 1950s America: the father went to work, and the mother stayed home to clean, cook, and care for the children.
Tucker also briefly mentioned a fascinating anecdote in the history of wage negotiations. A highly successful movement emerged in the early 20th century, forcing employers to pay men higher wages so that their wives wouldn't have to work—this was the "family wage" movement. Social reformers not only didn't want women to join the workforce, but they also supported the exact opposite: keeping women out of the job market, spending time with their children, and being supported by their higher-earning husbands. Their reasoning was that if employers could pay higher wages, working-class women could rise to the middle class and no longer need to work.
Later, with the rise of the welfare state, monogamy gradually disintegrated by the end of the 20th century. When welfare payments replaced men's role as breadwinners, many women began to see monogamy as a contractual bond of slavery, something they could live without—and empirically, this was indeed the case. Some sectors of society have abandoned marriage and adopted the practice of single motherhood, sustained by a constant flow of men (who can simultaneously have multiple women).
Perhaps this is because more and more women believe that uniting feminist sisters to provide social support for young mothers is a more sustainable and progressive approach. Alternatively, it could be that men feel they no longer need to be by their children's side, caring for them until they reach adulthood. Or perhaps it's a combination of both. Whichever explanation you choose for the recent breakdown of marriage, there is no doubt that this human institution is evolving before our very eyes, and by the end of this century, its form will certainly be very different. Marriage hasn't been redesigned; it's evolving. We only notice it happening in hindsight. Of course, this change is not random.

URL 1:https://www.sexlove5.com/htmlBlog/115491.html

URL 2:/Blog.aspx?id=115491&aspx=1

Previous Page : Seeking a long-term single man in Jiangsu province

Next Page : Classic Collection

增加

comment Open a new window to view comments

Contact Information

Where did monogamy come from, and will it disappear? (Reprinted)

comment Open a new window to view comments