Here's the short reading above, the "Marriage and Monogamy" radio show listening notes. Two philosophers on the "Philosophy Talk" Radio show interview anthropologist Helen Fisher. You can also listen to the original 50-minute long broadcast (listen online for free or download the mp3 file for about $3), at www.philosophytalk.org/pastSh...my.html

---------------------------

Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage?

Most creatures on this earth are polygamous, why then are modern humans for the most part monogamous? Is monogamy useful in society? Does monogamy or polygamy have a basis in biology? Is there some normative fact about monogamy/polygamy? How come so many relationships are monogamous in name only? Ken introduces Helen Fisher, Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies at Rutgers University.

John mentions that many people want committed monogamous relationships while still having adventurous sexual lives, is there a biological basis for this tension? Fisher identifies three different brain systems that humans have evolved for mating purposes: the sex drive, romantic love, and the sense of attachment. Fisher goes on to claim that these distinct systems can interact or act separately from one another.

John asks about the seemingly vague notion of "romantic love" and Helen Fisher responds with a categorization of romantic love as a universal phenomenon across cultures that begins with the loved-one taking on special meaning and focus; an intense increase in energy; mood swings and dependence on the loved one; and more than any other characteristic--obsession. From this universal categorization Helen Fisher concludes that romantic love originates in specific brain circuitry.

Ken wonders why we would ever evolve to be so conflicted, Fisher responds that we didn't evolve to be happy, we evolved to reproduce! Ken and Helen discuss whether men and women are wired differently in this regard. John pushes for a definition of monogamy and Helen Fisher discusses monogamy around the world. Ken wonders why our culture and our biology seem so conflicted, Helen uses our anthropological history to explain this dichotomy. John and Ken discuss monogamy in pop and high cultures, and Helen Fisher discusses society's reasons for imposing rules of sexuality. Fisher explains the societal and philosophical justifications for our disapproval of adultery. Helen Fisher's primary argument for the evolution of monogamy is that when species have young which are susceptible to harm they need a pair of parents to protect them through infancy: humans, wolves, most birds. Ken and John seem to agree that the three-part definition of relationships is a very powerful intellectual tool for thinking about marriage and other concepts.

---------------------

About the Guest

Dr. Helen E. Fisher is a Visiting Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University. From 1984 to 1994 she was a Research Associate in the Department of Anthropology at The American Museum of Natural History. She received her PhD in Physical Anthropology at the University of Colorado with a dissertation on the evolution of human female sexuality and the origin of the nuclear family.

Dr. Fisher has been on the national lecture circuit since l983 discussing the evolution of human sexuality, marriage and divorce, gender differences in the brain and behavior, and the future of men, women, business, sex and family life. Her lectures include speeches at the American Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Michigan, the C.G. Jung Institute of Chicago, Planned Parenthood of NYC, the U.S Department of Agriculture, and many other venues.

For your reading pleasure, here's the opening section to another of the optional readings listed above, "Monogamy, Nonmonogamy, and Identity," an article (about 14 pgs) on the pain of jealousy and possessiveness, especially for women, from the academic journal Hypatia, at www.iupress.indiana.edu/journa...-4.html

ABSTRACT

After a brief discussion of the terms ''monogamy'' and ''nonmonogamy,'' I evaluate explanations offered by different theorists for the pain that nonmonogamy can cause to the partner (especially a female partner) of a nonmonogamous person (of either sex). My suggestion is that the self, especially the female self, is conventionally defined in terms of sexual partners. I present and reply to a possible objection to this explanation, and then discuss my theory's normative implications.

------------------------------------------

from Hypatia Volume 13, Number 4

Monogamy, Nonmonogamy, and Identity
CHRISTINE OVERALL


There are some persons for whom monogamous practices, and others for whom nonmonogamous practices, are in no way problematic. I, however, am interested in attempting to understand why both monogamy and nonmonogamy continue to be, and be seen as, problematic for many of their participants, especially for women. My aim here is to try to account for the persistence of the issues--even, or especially, for feminists--and their associated ideologies, structures, and feelings, in particular the phenomena of jealousy and possessiveness.

While nonmonogamy has sometimes appeared to be more ''liberated'' and liberating than monogamy, for some, perhaps many, of those affected by non monogamous practices, it can also occasion tremendous distress (e.g., Eskapa 1984, 34). The person who is ''cheated on'' can feel profound jealousy, desperation, and hopelessness, and even women cast in the role of ''other woman'' may suffer grief and pain over sharing their lover (Richardson 1985, 95-97, 117-21). Here, I want to consider possible explanations and interpretations of the situation where a person, especially a woman, who may well have no objections to nonmonogamous behavior on an intellectual level, nevertheless feels deeply hurt when she learns that her partner has not been monogamous.

The existence of a powerful heterosexist ideology promoting monogamy is insufficient to account for these feelings. It is not enough to claim that monogamy, with its accompanying jealousy and possessiveness, ''stem[s] from patriarchal notions of men's property rights over women'' (Betsy Kassoff in ''Non? Monogamy?'' 1985, 102). Many women who are self-identified feminists have told me that although they understand, in theory, the patriarchal origins of the practice of monogamy, they are nonetheless unable to free themselves of their socialization to the extent of being able to countenance nonmonogamous relationships for their lovers or even for themselves, even after a deliberate agreement to such an arrangement (Hamilton 1990, 85). Yet such women have successfully disencumbered themselves from many other aspects of patriarchal ideology, including those that govern women's work, reproduction, and motherhood. For heterosexual feminists as for lesbians, merely being told that one should not be concerned about monogamy is not enough to prevent its being a live issue in their lives. Why does nonmonogamy continue to pose such problems for these women? How can the profound possessiveness and jealousy often associated with sexual relationships be understood in feminist terms?

I attempt to answer the aforementioned questions within the following structure: First, I provide brief discussions and definitions of the terms ''monogamy'' and ''nonmonogamy.'' I present and evaluate some explanations offered by different theorists for the pain that nonmonogamy can cause to the partner of the nonmonogamous person. Because these explanations prove to be inadequate, I propose my own interpretation, which involves a claim about the cultural construction of women's identity. I then present and reply to a possible objection to this proposal, and I conclude by discussing the proposal's normative implications.