One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems

The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think

"And now, polygamy," sighs Charles Krauthammer, in a recent Washington Post column. It's true. As if they didn't already have enough on their minds, Americans are going to have to debate polygamy. And not a moment too soon.

For generations, taboo kept polygamy out of sight and out of mind in America. But the taboo is crumbling. An HBO television series called "Big Love," which benignly portrays a one-husband, three-wife family in Utah, set off the latest round of polygamy talk. Even so, a federal lawsuit (now on appeal), the American Civil Liberties Union's stand for polygamy rights, and the rising voices of pro-polygamy groups such as TruthBearer.org (an evangelical Christian group) and Principle Voices (which Newsweek describes as "a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages") were already making the subject hard to duck.

So far, libertarians and lifestyle liberals approach polygamy as an individual-choice issue, while cultural conservatives use it as a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate. The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy.

If the coming debate changes that, it will have done everyone a favor. For reasons that have everything to do with its own social dynamics and nothing to do with gay marriage, polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy.

To understand why, begin with two crucial words. The first is "marriage." Group love (sometimes called polyamory) is already legal, and some people freely practice it. Polygamy asserts not a right to love several others but a right to marry them all. Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference.

The second crucial word is "polygyny." Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a "huge majority" of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives. Polyandry (one wife, many husbands) is vanishingly rare. The real-world practice of polygamy seems to flow from men's desire to marry all the women they can have children with.

Moreover, in America today the main constituents for polygamous marriage are Mormons* and, as Newsweek reports, "a growing number of evangelical Christian and Muslim polygamists." These religious groups practice polygyny, not polyandry. Thus, in light of current American politics as well as copious anthropological experience, any responsible planner must assume that if polygamy were legalized, polygynous marriages would outnumber polyandrous ones — probably vastly.

Here is something else to consider: As far as I've been able to determine, no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy, in anything like the modern sense. As societies move away from hierarchy and toward equal opportunity, they leave polygamy behind. They monogamize as they modernize. That may be a coincidence, but it seems more likely to be a logical outgrowth of the arithmetic of polygamy.

Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.

For the individuals affected, losing the opportunity to marry is a grave, even devastating, deprivation. (Just ask a gay American.) But the effects are still worse at the social level. Sexual imbalance in the marriage market has no good social consequences and many grim ones.

Two political scientists, Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, ponder those consequences in their 2004 book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population. Summarizing their findings in a Washington Post article, they write: "Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages — money, skills, education — will marry, but men without such advantages — poor, unskilled, illiterate — will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population."

The problem in China and India is sex-selective abortion (and sometimes infanticide), not polygamy; where the marriage market is concerned, however, the two are functional equivalents. In their book, Hudson and den Boer note that "bare branches are more likely than other males to turn to vice and violence." To get ahead, they "may turn to appropriation of resources, using force if necessary." Such men are ripe for recruitment by gangs, and in groups they "exhibit even more exaggerated risky and violent behavior." The result is "a significant increase in societal, and possibly intersocietal, violence."

Crime rates, according to the authors, tend to be higher in polygynous societies. Worse, "high-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonization or war." In medieval Portugal, "the regime would send bare branches on foreign adventures of conquest and colonization." (An equivalent today may be jihad.) In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, "these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia," which nearly toppled the government. In what is now Taiwan, unattached males fomented regular revolts and became "entrepreneurs of violence."

Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives — numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while. In particular communities — inner cities, for example — polygamy could take a toll much more quickly. Even a handful of "Solomons" (high-status men taking multiple wives) could create brigades of new recruits for street gangs and drug lords, the last thing those communities need.

Such problems are not merely theoretical. In northern Arizona, a polygamous Mormon sect has managed its surplus males by dumping them on the street --
literally. The sect, reports The Arizona Republic, "has orphaned more than 400 teenagers ... in order to leave young women for marriage to the older men." The paper goes on to say that the boys "are dropped off in neighboring towns, facing hunger, homelessness, and homesickness, and most cripplingly, a belief in a future of suffering and darkness."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarecrow||

    Anyone familiar with statistics even on a High School level will shake their heads over this pathetic attempt to use numbers to sway the ignorant...so sad to see this continue...get some real facts...

  • ||

    This is completely unrealistic.
    There are a few difficult legal issues with polygamy,mostly involving child custody and health insurance but the dubious claims listed here aren't among them. Additionally, the benefits of legalizing multiple marriage help to alleviate exactly the issues raised.
    The young girls forced into polygynous 'marriages' currently have no protection of law. The insularity of the religious communities that isolate these girls is justified from within by the lack of legality of their marriages. Should polygamy be legalized, these cults would have no excuse to hide the tangle of their relationships - and young girls would have the opportunity to become young women before marriage. These girls believe that they must lie, knowing that they are not married in the eyes of the law. Should the law change, they will have equal rights and protection, and their communities must become more open. It could not be prevented. Further, the author makes only vague reference to polyamory, yet this is a large and ever growing population who largely do practice equality of relationship. Discounting hundreds of thousands for the sake of demonizing a few thousand who would , in any case, benefit from the change of law seems more than a bit disingenuous. And those unmarried young men? They already, as the author points out, exist! It is the very legal isolation of their communities that permits this abuse and child abandonment to take place - often , the mothers of these young boys (who are usually in their early teens when kicked out) have no recourse to the law or to help their sons because they fear losing their other children should they complain!

  • ||

    I need to comment o the problems of polygamy and the solutons.Im from a polygamy home and have been having problem always.How can i overcome the problems in general.Thanks.

  • Russell Tanner||

    I wrote an article on Mormons and polygamy. You might want to check it out: http://www.mormonmisconception.....-polygamy.

  • دردشة عراقية||

    asfasf

  • ||

    I agree 100% with your article. Research has shown that married men have lower testosterone levels than single men, and are therefore less violent and less prone to engage in risk-seeking behaviors. Men with children are especially "docile", or rather civilized. Being around one's own offspring seems to drastically lower the testosterone levels of a father.

    However, the Western World no longer has any advantage over the polygamous or male-heavy East, considering that many men live as singles nowadays. Women have no economic incentive to get married; not only can they easily provide for themselves, they can even raise their children on their own. And if women get married, they exclusively marry up (which is known as hypergamy). Much unlike men, who are willing to marry far below their own social, economical or educational class.

    So naturally, there is a large number of males who will never find a partner, and if they do, chances are that they'll soon find themselves divorced (about two thirds of all divorces are filed by women). I'm willing to bet that there are nowadays more unattached males in Western countries such as the USA than in any Asian country, with the exception of Japan. In addition, Western nations show alarmingly low and in many cases negative birth rates.

    But of course it's utterly impossible to suggest the obvious solutions for this problem, which will eventually led to us being outbred and replaced by cultures with more traditional socio-cultural norms and values. We have managed to maneuver ourselves into a tiny corner surrounded by insurmountable walls of political correctness, and there is no ethically acceptable escape for us. We will simply have to accept the fact that we are doomed. We might as well legalize polygamy and wild orgies in the streets and go out with a bang like the Roman Empire.

  • شات عراقنا||

    thank you

  • صبايا العراق||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement