Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human

[Bubba_Switzler]

I came across this book recently but haven’t read it yet, has anyone here? It’s an interesting theory. Essentially the author claims that monogamy is nothing short of the foundation of civilization, something that dates back to hunter-gatherer society, but that there was occassional backsliding on it with bad consequences.

amazon.com/Marriage-Civilization-Monogamy-Made-Human/dp/1621572013

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/book-review-marriage-and-civilization/?page=all

spectator.org/articles/59196/till-death-%E2%80%A8us-do-part

nationalreview.com/article/370159/monogamy-made-us-human-william-tucker

 

[JimG]

I haven’t read it, but it sounds as though it might be a good read. It’s thesis sounds obvious. I did read a much older book, “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman, which traces the ups and downs of civilization resulting from the stability of families comprising it. When families disintegrate, so does civilization. Marriage was a natural institution, arising from human nature, long before religion and law took an interest in it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I haven’t read it, but it sounds as though it might be a good read. It’s thesis sounds obvious. I did read a much older book, “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman, which traces the ups and downs of civilization resulting from the stability of families making it up. When families disintegrate, so does civilization. Marriage was a natural institution, arising from human nature, long before religion and law took an interest in it.

Family stability is certainly a similar topic but this book is much more narrowly focused on marriage, itself. You could have a stable polygomous family, for example, but that still creates problems that may be more far-reaching than we appreciate.

I’m not sure how this will relate to the debate about the definition of marriage but it sure gives a boost to the idea that the “traditional” definition has a valid social basis that alternatives lack.

 

[JimG]

Family stability is certainly a similar topic but this book is much more narrowly focused on marriage, itself. You could have a stable polygomous family, for example, but that still creates problems that may be more far-reaching than we appreciate.

I’m not sure how this will relate to the debate about the definition of marriage but it sure gives a boost to the idea that the “traditional” definition has a valid social basis that alternatives lack.

Yes, I agree that marriage is basic and based on the facts of human beings being made as man and woman.

Polygamy, which is still a heterosexual institution, often flourished at times when central governments were weak, the patriarchal family structure taking the place of law. The most stable is the domestic family: husband, wife, children. When family structures disintegrate, as they are now doing, government becomes more controlling, taking over many functions of the domestic family. The emphasis goes to individuals rather than families in a process that can be called atomization.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I agree that marriage is basic and based on the facts of human beings being made as man and woman.

Polygamy, which is still a heterosexual institution, often flourished at times when central governments were weak, the patriarchal family structure taking the place of law. The most stable is the domestic family: husband, wife, children. When family structures disintegrate, as they are now doing, government becomes more controlling, taking over many functions of the domestic family. The emphasis goes to individuals rather than families in a process that can be called atomization.

Not defending polygamy here, but I believe there were also times when male mortality was so tremendous that there just weren’t enough men to go around. I recall reading, for instance, that after the 30 years war, the Lutheran Church allowed polygyny for a time in Germany because so many men were killed in the war. Up to ten, I think was the limit on the number of wives a man could have. But I don’t think that lasted very long, and knowing the German women (my wife included) I know, I don’t see how it could have.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Not defending polygamy here, but I believe there were also times when male mortality was so tremendous that there just weren’t enough men to go around. I recall reading, for instance, that after the 30 years war, the Lutheran Church allowed polygyny for a time in Germany because so many men were killed in the war. Up to ten, I think was the limit on the number of wives a man could have. But I don’t think that lasted very long, and knowing the German women (my wife included) I know, I don’t see how it could have.

This undoubtedly happened, but far probably more often it was, as the author said, an exercise in indulging wealth, e.g. China and was still practiced as recent as a generation ago among overseas Chinese in Asia (and is still practiced informally there). Whatever the sacramental implications, polygamy in the case of women outnumbering men would not cause the social problems that he discusses.