Marriage: An Attempt at Understanding

In our society (and most societies, to be honest), there are three general attitudes on everything -

• What is is the way things always have, and always should be.
• What was is the proper way of things, and we should return to it.
• What was and what is are both broken, and we need something new.

Yet it seems like, no matter which attitude, on which subject, a person lands on; they never stop to discuss why things are they way they are, or were, or should be. (I'm sorry but that does include most religiously based reasoning. 'Because God said so' loses it's power when you look at the history of a religion - any religion - and recognize that what God is believed to have decreed, has been changing since the religion was founded.)

Anyway, the current state of marriage (with the recent court battles, Vermont's landmark vote, etc.) got me thinking about why marriage is the way it is. So, here is a collection of thoughts, historical examples, speculations, and theories. I don't have any college degrees in history, sociology, anthropology, or any relevant subject, so most of this is just speculation and theory. Please, add your own two cents, and we'll get the discussion moving.

Speaking generally, there have three common (or relatively common) types of marriage throughout history.

Monogamy- in Western Culture, Monogamy is considered the 'norm' for marriage. Only two people in the marriage (normally 1 man, 1 woman). This is because some time between 1500-2000 years ago, the 'new' Christian religion decided that monogamy was the only 'proper' form of marriage. This is probably related to the general disfavor polygyny was in throughout Greco, Roman, and Jewish cultures at the time (the three biggest formative cultures in Christian history). World wide, and historically, monogamy and polygamy have run neck and neck for most popular form of marriage.

Polygyny- one man, two or more women. Still practiced in India, some parts of the middle east and Utah; polygamy has been considered the 'norm' of marriage in many parts of the world for much of history.

Polyandry- one woman, two or more men. This has been the rarest of the 'common' forms of marriage. For obvious reasons, polyandry could only be frequently practiced in cultures that don't trace lineage through the male line.

Alright, to the best of my knowledge, except for certain indigenous people, and a weird legal oddity in Elizbethan England, homosexual marriages have pretty much not existed.

Now, this doesn't mean that homosexual relationships did not exist, or were not fully excepted -in Ancient Greece homosexual relationships between men were more acceptable then heterosexual ones! Men pretty much only married for children. But, falling inline with Heinlein's thinking (above), homosexual relationships couldn't have children-ergo, no point in there being a legally binding contract. Just make sure you have an air tight will.






Buy at AllPosters.com

According to hearsay (if anyone has any references I'd love to see them), several Native American tribes, or other indiginous cultures, had a tradition that I have seen referred to as a 'man-hearted woman' or 'woman-hearted man.' They are described having the soul of a man in a woman's body, or vise versa. Kind of like transvestites taken to the nth degree- they took on the opposite genders roles, mannerisms, clothing, etc. Supposedly, in some cases, they were permitted to marry members of their own sex.

Pauline Kiernan, in her book Filthy Shakespeare discusses lesbianism in Elizabethan England, and tells her readers that, for a variety of reasons, it was not uncommon for two women to marry (generally 'old maids' and not likely to achieve a 'proper' marriage). They would go before what ever official was necessary, one dressed as a man, get married as 'man and wife', and be legally married. Everyone knew that it was two woman, but the truth was deliberately ignored. In addition to allowing women to engage in homosexual relationships, this made it possible for the women to own property, start businesses, and live as they wished with out a male 'guardian' to make all the decisions for them, because one of them was, legally, a man.

I mentioned above the three most common types of marriage. Didn't really get into why one type of marriage, or another, would dominate a culture. As far as I can tell, it is all about the money.

Well, for a great deal of history, it wasn't about money, per se. but it was certainly about wealth. The resource wealth of a culture.

Raising kids is expensive, and while their is more stuff to spend money on now, the expense has always been their. Doctors, or midwives, are expensive, always have been. ditto keeping kids in clothes. Ditto keeping them fed. Sure, when they get old enough, they can start helping to feed themselves - but for at least the first 3-4, it's all on the parents, which historically meant - you guessed it - Dad!

The more wives a man had, the more wealth he had to have - so he could support them, and his children. A man with two wives could have twice the children of a man with one, and that could get expensive pretty quickly. That's why, in many cultures that have polygyny, for a man to have multiple wives was a major status symbol - it meant he was rich.

Polyandry, on the other hand, is far more common in resource poor areas - if one man, without help, cannot bring in enough food to keep his wife fed and healthy through a pregnancy, and keep the children fed and clothed afterwards, it is far more likely that two men will get together and say - neither of us together alone can support a wife, but together, both of us can. If it happens often enough, it becomes the cultural norm. And again, this will almost never happen in a society that traces decent through the father's line is important. ("King Henry, your wife had a son! We think he looks like you, but he also looks a bit like your co-husband. Will you name him your heir?" . . . Nah, just can't see it.)

Monogamy is the middle ground - there is enough food to get by, but not a great deal of surplus, a man can support a single woman, and her children, until the children are old enough to start supporting themselves. Almost every society that has polygyny, has also had monogamy - a man starts out with 1 wife - and if he ever manages to get wealthy enough, gets a second. Pearl S. Buck tells the story of one family that grew that way in The Good Earth.

Whether we like it or not, culture starts out as necessity. A mix of polygyny and monogamy seems to have been the norm for most of human history, with polyandry coming in on the fringes of survival. I suspect that monogamy became the norm in Ancient Greece because, for the most part, those men didn't want more then 1 wife - they had to take one for children, but for the sake of Zeus, give then a good clean young man the rest of the time. Grecian culture shaped Roman culture, and when the Christian church condemned homosexual relationships (based on ancient Jewish laws), they kept the monogamy. I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish culture got caught in the economics trap - after all, Abraham had a wife and a concubine and Jacob had two wives, so the whole 'decree of God' idea doesn't work to well in Jewish culture, and changing from herding (Abraham and Jacob) to agricultural (time of Jesus) was bound to change the economic picture. What was a sensible practice of economic survival, became culture, became law, became the will of God.

Of course, all this is just speculation.

Let's face the truth, for a large chunk of European history (say from the time of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance), and most of the history of the rest of the world (as soon as the local culture reached the level of kingdoms) marriage wasn't about love. It wasn't about a sacred union of two people.

It was about the economic (or political) union of two families. Alright, in the cultures where polygyny was common, a man wealthy enough to have multiple wives probably chose at least some of them on sheer looks. But, for the most part, and especially in the upper and middle classes, marriages were complicated economic mergers, with as much discussion and wrangling over concessions and points of agreement as any corporate merger today.

Lady such and such is given in marriage to Lord so-and so, her father Lord thus and thus will gift the couple with X amount of land to support them. In return his father, Prince whatsisname (who now no longer needs to support his wastrel son), pledges to provide timber rights to Lord thus and thus, and support in court against his rival. The families of the couple are now political allies, and by the way, cousin nooneremembers is waving the debt that Lord so-and so accrued in return for a position for his son at court.

Middle class families, once a middle class arose in Europe, were similar, with guild or city politics taking the place of court politics.

One of the rules of courtly love in Europe was to never choose as your heart's desire a woman you might possibly end up married to (the wife of a more powerful lord was generally a safe choice). This was probably partly because, the young men of the court knew they would have to marry who ever would give their family the best advantage. So, better not to fall in love with someone it was possible to marry - you might get your hopes up.

Buy at AllPosters.com