Varying Societal Responses to Polygyny, Research Paper Example

We are constantly exposed to the concept of polygyny, which people immediately claim, is an improper lifestyle to follow. The most modern concept of polygyny is defined under Mormon practices, in which one man is allowed to have many wives. While many governments claim that these marriage practices cannot be done legally, law does not prohibit groups with several women and one man from living with one another, so it is impossible to deter these acts. However, it is important to understand that polygyny is rooted in human history, which includes evolutionary motifs that explain the ability of humanity to thrive. Ultimately, societies embrace polygyny when there is a clear need to do so. Acts of polygyny are more prevalent in historical periods in which death of human populations are rapid and there is a need to reproduce exponentially to avoid extinction and they are prohibited when this need no longer exists. Acceptance of polygyny depends on the status of humanity, and is impacted by social, biological, and ecological factors.

Polygyny and Social Factors

The first instance of polygyny that many individuals are faced with is within the context of biblical studies. The Judeo-Christian religions put a strong emphasis on polygyny in biblical tales because there was a clear need for humanity to grow and thrive from small numbers to large ones. It was therefore common for many biblical characters to have more than one wife. Interestingly however, early bible passages promote polygyny while later passages blaspheme this act. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that early men had a reason for polygyny, which was to increase their numbers and therefore their likelihood of survival. At the point in the bible when man had already expanded and proved that their numbers were large enough to confer survival, there was no longer a need to polygyny, which was then thought of as an act of indecency and selfishness.

A specific example of early religious belief concerning polygyny is found in Samuel 12:8 and reads “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things” (Samuel 12:8, New International Version). In this passage, God is telling David that he has sinned for committing adultery, but does not condemn him for taking an additional wife. Furthermore, at this point David had acquired seven wives, which had been given to him as a gift by God, and God would have given him more if he had wished. Assuming that the bible is a reflection of the lifestyle of early man, this passage demonstrates that polygny was perfectly acceptable when the Book of Samuel was written, which was circa 630–540 BCE (Coogan, 2009). This statement is contradicted in I Corinthians 7:2, which reads “Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” This section of scripture was dated circa 53 to 57 AD (Muddiman & Barton, 2001). The Book of Samuel, which stated that polygyny is allowed, is a component of the Old Testament followed by the Jewish people, while the First Epistle to the Corinthians is a component of the New Testament, which is followed by Christians. The Old Testament discusses events that happened prior to 1 AD, which reflected early human life, while the New Testament discusses events that happened following 1 AD, indicating that these events are meant to be relevant to more recent human social behavior. Therefore, we can conclude that there was a need for polygyny when humanity first formed because it allowed our numbers to grow more rapidly, which is why it was permitted by early social doctrine. In contrast, after humanity was more established, there was no longer a need for humanity to grow to the same extent, and this regular growth would be sufficiently accomplished by singular male/female pairs. Thus, human thought transitioned from the allowance of polygyny to its prohibition.

Polygyny and Biological Factors

As mentioned above, early humans had a need to grow in order to conserve their species and survive. While the need for humans to grow and survive is still relevant under the belief that God made two humans who needed to procreate to survive, biology contributes more greatly to the understanding of why procreation is a necessary component of survival. Creationists believe that human life on Earth began approximately 10,000 years ago, while evolutionary biologists believe that early human relatives have existed for millions of years (Biello, 2013). In fact, one of humanity’s earliest human relatives, known as Australopithecus afarensis is thought to have lived approximately 3.2 million years ago (Rak et al., 2007). It is thought that these early humans needed to live in large groups to survive, and the roles of all males were as hunters and protectors and the roles of all females were as mothers and home keepers. In this way, individual paternity and maternity was not important; all children belonged to the group, emphasizing an acceptance of polygyny. While this concept is theoretical because it is impossible to define how ancient humans lived, anthropological clues concerning the lifestyles of other early human groups support this belief.

Firstly, it is expected that humans who lived before the emergence of agricultural societies behave similarly to modern societies who have not been exposed concepts we typically consider to be hallmarks of civilization. According to an article entitled Sex at Dawn, pre-agricultural societies are similar to modern day hunter-gatherers and these individuals are likely to be more patrilocal, resulting in “increased hierarchies, greater male control over women’s sexual choices, and more competition among men compared to matrilocal societies” (Ryan, 2010). In many cases, patrilocal societies are polygynous. Hunter-gatherers typically live in groups in which each member of the group has certain jobs that are expected of them. In order to survive, it is important for them to generate a quantity of food that is large enough to support the whole group. To do so, these groups aim to maximize the number of hunters they have available, which requires growing their numbers. The Ashanti people in central Ghana in western Africa are an excellent example of a group that takes advantages of polygyny for their survival (Obeng, 1996).

Second, it is essential to consider the advantage of polygyny to the exponential growth of populations (Meadows et al, 1972). A major advantage of studies of evolutionary biology is how populations grow; by gaining this understanding, we can determine many of the actions that ancient and early people performed in order to increase their likelihood of survival (Snider, 2013). Since women are able to become pregnant approximately every nine months, early human populations grew quickly and stably by taking advantage of this. Assuming that some males in a population are fertile while others are not, the act of polygyny ensures that fertile males have the maximum opportunity to engage in sexual activity that will result in the continuous production of offspring. After many years, the number of both males and females will grow, which means that the availability of more people will enable the continuous production of more humans (Tsirel, 2004).  In mathematical terms, the exponential growth function is x_t = x₀(1+r)^t, in which x_t represents the final population, x₀represents the initial population, r is the rate of growth, and t is the time in which the growth has occurred. While population growth is expected to occur to some extent over time, provided that environmental conditions are favorable, the rate should be considered as well. In early human populations, it was essential to ensure that the rate of growth remained positive; this is, the rate of birth exceeded the rate of death. To ensure that this was always the case, polygyny was essential because death was common.

Principles of evolutionary biology state that populations are not able to be in a state of exponential growth indefinitely (Thomson, 2005). These trends typically occur when a population is beginning and can be enhanced by availability of food, shelter, and other factors that assist survival. However, once a population grows too much, it is limited by its environment and must cease growth (Porritt, 2005). This is essentially what has occurred in the modern era. Humans successfully grew to the point that the planet can no longer support its exponential growth, and now our birth and death rates are approximately equal. Since there is no need to enhance our growth rate, there is no need for polygyny. It is essential to consider that if our population continues to increase as a consequence of this practice, there will need to be deaths to stabilize the population (Swirski, 2006). Therefore, one can argue that the modern practice of polygyny is disadvantageous because continuing to increase the population is depleting our resources, which will result in death and sickness elsewhere in the population.

Polygyny and Ecological Factors

As mentioned in the above discussion, it is essential for early human populations to practice polygyny because to survive, they must reproduce faster than their death rate (McGovern, 1981). Throughout history, humans have needed to deal with this death rate in different ways. The primary purpose for this is that early humans had considerably less protection from death than modern humans. Essentially, the ecology of early Earth is significantly different from that of today. In today’s world, one can argue that humans can control ecology; we can create medicine to cure natural disease, protect ourselves against attacks from wild animals, program machines to do work for us, and shelter ourselves from potential harmful weather (Deevey, 1964). Early humans did not have this luxury, and their individual survival was therefore irrelevant. Rather, they needed to function as a unit to beat the odds and continue their genetic lineage in whatever way possible.

Therefore, it is not surprising that early men relied upon polygyny to confer survival. If they had not, it is possible that humanity would not have survived until today. Furthermore, our changed ecology demonstrates why we no longer have a biological need for this practice. We have been able to eliminate a vast majority of ecological threats from existence. While viral and bacterial illness was a primary concern for early humans, our medical advances have shifted a need for focus on cures of these illnesses to age-related disorders. Ultimately, our existence is no longer hindered similarly to other populations so we don’t need to continue to grow in great amounts to ensure that humans will survive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, human acceptance of polygyny depends on the status of humanity, which is impacted by social, biological, and ecological factors. Polygyny is ultimately deemed as acceptable when it is necessary for survival of the human species, while it is considered to be unacceptable when this need does not need to be met. Ancient and early humans considered polygyny to be absolutely necessary because it allowed them to produce many offspring to compensate for the deaths that would regularly occur. As a consequence, they lived in large groups that would enhance this population growth. Over time, their numbers were able to grow to the point regular death was no longer a concern. At this point in time, focus shifted away from group life and humans were able to become monogamous in order to focus on each child to focus on increasing their individual chance for survival. In this manner, the need for polygyny was erased; humans were now able to advance their lifestyle to the point that their growth became independent of ecological factors. Since polygyny is no longer necessary to aid survival and may indirectly cause the deaths of others members in the population, modern thought considers it to be socially unacceptable.

References

Biello D. (2013). How Long Have Humans Dominated the Planet? Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/length-of-human-domination/

Coogan, Michael D. (2009). A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: the Hebrew Bible in its Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Deevey, E. S. (1964). General and historical ecology. BioScience, 14(7):33-35.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York: University Books.

McGovern, T. (1981). The economics of extinction in Norse Greenland. In Climate and history: studies in past climates and their impact on man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mudiman J, Barton J. (2001). The Oxford Bible Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.

New International Version. (1986). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Obeng, J. Pashington: Asante Catholicism: Religious and Cultural Reproduction Among the Akan of Ghana. (1996). BRILL.

Porritt, J. (2005). Capitalism as if the world matters. Central Milton Keynes: Earthscan.

Rak, Y.; Ginzburg, A.; Geffen, E. (2007). Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. Afarensis link to robust australopiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (16): 6568

Ryan C. (2010). Sex at Dawn. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201010/sex-evolution-and-the-case-the-missing-polygamists

Snider, S. B. & Brimlow, J. N. (2013) An Introduction to Population Growth. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):3.

Swirski, Peter. (2006). Of Literature and Knowledge: Explorations in Narrative Thought Experiments, Evolution, and Game Theory. New York: Routledge.

Thomson, David G. (2005). Blueprint to a Billion: 7 Essentials to Achieve Exponential Growth. Wiley.

Tsirel, S. V. (2004). On the Possible Reasons for the Hyperexponential Growth of the Earth Population. Mathematical Modeling of Social and Economic Dynamics. Moscow: Russian State Social University.