Love & Marriage
by Jason GodeskyThere aren’t very many cultural universals. All societies have taboos against incest, though they differ wildly on what constitutes “related,” and thus, what constitutes “incest.” All societies divide labor by gender, but they differ wildly on what work is appropriate to which gender. They all have religions–but those religions are all across the board. And they all have some kind of marriage. Whatever Christian fundamentalists might say, it is most certainly not always between one man and one woman. Not only do you find same sex marriages with some frequency, but every other combination imaginable. In fact, monogamy is in the minority. Of the 1,231 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, only 186–15.1%–were monogamous. And that’s after the spread of Christianity. The most frequent option was polygyny (one many with multiple wives, of which there were 1,041, or 84.6%), but there was also polyandry (one wife with multiple husbands; 4 societies, for 0.3%).
The Tribe of Anthropik exists to create a new, sustainable culture that can survive the end of civilization. Part of that means re-evaluating ritual and symbolism. Every culture has some kind of marriage; it’s just a matter of defining what “marriage” means in each community. The Wikipedia entry does about as good a job of summing the matter up as one could hope for (emphasis mine):
Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry “out” far enough to strengthen the ties, but “close” enough so that the in-laws are “one of us” or “our kind”. One exception to this rule is found in the marriage of royalty, who strengthen their aid through concentration of wealth rather than through affinal ties. Even in this case, the individual was often encouraged to marry “within” close family limits.
Marriage remains important as the socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. … Historically, most societies have allowed some form of polygamy. The West is a major exception. Europe and the United States have defined themselves as monogamous cultures. This was in part a Germanic cultural tradition, a requirement of Christianity (after the sixth century CE), and a mandate of Roman Law. However, Roman Law supported prostitution, concubinage, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, and sexual access to slaves. The Christian West formally banned these practices.
This, I think, points to two main purposes for marriage:
- The basic building block of the family. Not in the sense used by religious conservatives who think that a child would somehow be scarred by being brought up by two loving adults if they happen to both have the same plumbing; no, rather, marriage exists as a unit of diplomacy. It is a basic building block of the family, but it has less to do with reproduction than it does with affinal ties. In other words, marriage isn’t for kids: it’s for in-laws.
- Socially-sanctioned sexual relationship. Marriage presents a couple to the community as a couple. It lets everyone know the level of commitment involved. Reproduction and food are the two essential activities for which humans require a society. Marriage provides the social context of reproduction, and delineates the reproductive and sexual access rights of each. The issue of adultery is an important one in all cultures. In more pacific cultures, the occassional act of adultery is the most conflict one usually sees. While you can always be relatively sure of your mother, your father is always an open question. A cuckold who spends his life supporting another man’s child will be quickly weeded out: while his rival is having more children, he is seeing to the survival of his rival’s offspring. This is why we react so strongly, so emotionally, and so violently to the idea of being “cheated on.” However we might choose to rationalize our reaction, its power comes from evolution. Marriage legitimizes that emotion by delineating the boundaries of sexual behavior, and thus putting rivals on notice that if they violate those boundaries, they may need to deal with a justifiably angry, aggrieved male. This is why polygyny is so common, and polyandry so rare.
Recently, Europeans have come upon the idea that one should marry for romantic love. This is held up as a high ideal in our art, and has been since the medieval troubadours began singing about “courtly love.” From this cultural mythology, we’ve come up with an idea of romantic love that has far more to do with our cultural history than we would generally care to admit:
- It must take you by surprise (the result of a random encounter).
- It cannot be easily controlled.
- It is not overtly (initially at least) predicated on a desire for sex as a physical act.
- If requited it may be the basis for a lifelong commitment.
- It is the highest form of self-fulfillment.
This idea is not shared by all cultures–in fact, most cultures. Romantic love is generally seen as a pathology, a kind of temporary insanity that afflicts the young. What’s more, because these cultures don’t expect it, they experience it much more rarely, suggesting that our experience of “romantic love” may have less to do with its power as a fundamental force of human nature, and more to do with our culturally conditioned expectations.
When our notions of romantic love come into contact with more traditional ideas, the result is rarely pretty. In “Romantic love: reality or insanity?,” Glenda Simms writes for the Jamaica Gleaner about the high suicide rates among the young Inuit of Nunuvut caught between their newly-conditioned, Western concepts of love, and the social expectations of their parents regarding arranged marriages. The concept of “romantic love” has proven to be one of the most potent arrows in our quiver of cultural imperialism.
The more traditional view of romantic love has been supported by biology. It overwhelms our capacity for rational thought, forming something that very much is a kind of temporary insanity. The endorphin high is as addictive as any drug. Writes Olga Silverstein, a family therapist from New York:
Of course love exists, even if it’s only in our minds. I think romantic love as we know it is a sort of obsession and state in which you’re obsessed with an object. But that goes away and slowly becomes a composite of friendship, a lasting commitment between adults, when you say I’ve got to put up with the person.
I think you should never marry the person you’re romantically in love with. There should be a fantasy that stays with you but it’s generally not a good basis for a lasting relationship, though in this culture we often think it is.
According to Jung, every one of us has either an anima or an animus, a psychological expression of the minority gender that balances the gender we outwardly evince. Romantic love is what we feel, says Jung, when we meet an individual onto whom we can project our anima/us. Says John Merson:
But another important characteristic of narcissism is the tendency to project our internal world onto others. The most obvious example of this is romantic love, where the individual does not relate to the real person they claim to be in love with, but to their own fantasy image. When both partners are engaged in such a narcissistic relationship, the consequences can be disastrous - but this doesn’t just apply to romance.
Eventually, this illusion crumbles. We begin to notice the ways in which our projection is imperfect. We notice the mis-match between our own fantasy and the real person. The euphoria of romantic love fades.
What comes next varies. Endorphin junkies break off the relationship and pursue another “fix” of the neurochemical high of romantic love. This is how most relationships end. Often, the lovers have married at this point, based on their shared cultural expectation that romantic love is some kind of eternal cosmic principle that would see them through all difficulties. As they “fall out of love,” they chafe under the restrictions they had so hastily accepted. Such marriages usually end in divorce, though some suffer on for years, decades, or the rest of their lives, out of commitment to the vows they made. The divorce rate in the West reflects how easily a divorce can now be had, and how divorce has cheapened the value of marriage; the fact that so many people want a divorce is testimony to how divorced from reality our concepts of “romantic love” really are. When our unrealistic expectations inevitably crumble, we’re left wondering what went wrong, and why we didn’t get the fairy tale we were promised. I’m reminded of a line given to Tyler Durden in Fight Club, about other unrealistic expectations that go unfulfilled:
We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.
Before I seem too misanthropic here, let me hasten to point out that it is not the notion of love, or marriage, or even monogamy, much less the notion of sharing one’s life, and one’s self, with another person that is unrealistic. It is the magical expectations of romantic love. Romantic love fades. Illusions and projections fade. Euphoria fades. Endorphins return to normal, the high passes. The question of marriage–the question of love itself–is what we do then.
Not everyone goes on to the next fix. Some continue on, and are rewarded with something else. As the projection of the anima/us fades, the lover is faced with–another human being, and the possibility for a real connection once the illusions have long since faded away. In the place of euphoria, one finds contentment. In the place of passion, quiet intimacy, acceptance and tenderness. In the place of romantic love, one finds a home.
Passion and euphoria aren’t gone forever. They’ll come back to visit from time to time–especially on weekends and special occasions. But these are the spice of married life, not the main course. The meat of it is a real connection with another human being, beyond the projections and illusions and pretense of romance.
When I wake up in the morning, it takes me a few seconds to remember what’s going on, things like who I am, and where I am. It’s in that moment that I make a decision. Do I decide that Giuli’s just the girl in my bed? Do I decide she’s the person who didn’t do the dishes yesterday like she said she would? Or do I decide that Giuli’s the love of my life, whatever else may come? If that’s what I decide, anything and everything else that comes that day is a passing and trivial concern.
Marriage, as far as I’m concerned, is about what happens when the fireworks are gone. It’s commitment, a vow that every day forevermore, I will make the same decision every morning that I made today.
Then again, I’m just 24, and I’ve never been married before, so maybe the pup knows not whereof he yips.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 March 2006 @ 6:39 PM
Heh. Nope. You know. I’m 38 and it’s very much the ongoing commitment. Very, very, very much that.
And that’s the beauty of it!
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 21 March 2006 @ 11:02 PM
For all my imperfections, insecurities and various other insanities she’s still with me. She loves me in spite of it all. (Or, she was too young to know any better.)
I keep learning more about myself every time I fall in love with her all over again. Which seems to happen every couple of months, now.
Age 39, married 17 years in June.
One last thing. The fireworks do not have to go away. They can be around for a lot more than special occasions. At least that’s what we’ve discovered. Probably fodder for a whole other blog site, though
Comment by Eric — 22 March 2006 @ 1:33 AM
Great article! I think you’ve pretty much nailed it, Jason.
BTW, I’m 40 (my wife is 50) and we’ll be celebrating our 21st wedding anniversary in June.
~Jim
Comment by Jim — 22 March 2006 @ 9:21 AM
Good to know I’m not too far off, what with my wealth of experience and all.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 10:07 AM
Fireworks by their very nature loose their dramatic effect if held daily. In most longterm relationships the key is the relationship first, the synergy of the partnership.
If you remain mentally & emotionally close, your marriage will have fireworks, they just may only go off a few times month, every day isn’t 4th of july… but maybe for a few luck souls? who knows?
Just be wary that “fun” is one of the first things to go when a relationship starts to pull apart typically, fortunately it is one of the easiest things to repair if both are willing.
Comment by bubba — 22 March 2006 @ 2:05 PM
True enough. My taste in/tolerance for fireworks may be changing as I age. Might explain the ongoing perceived excitement.
One of the most valuable tools we were shown at one point was doing “Love Lists”. I don’t recall who the source is or the real name, but it works like this:
1. Each of you write down anything that makes you feel loved. Anything. Mundane to exotic. Don’t peek at each others list. Don’t share them with anybody. Write down things that may or may not happen in the relationship, currently.
2. Exchange lists.
3. Marvel at how often a person does something for another thinking of it as a loving act. Only, it’s not, from the point of view of the receiver. (Appreciated maybe, but that’s something different.)
Now, having each others lists you can choose to do things on that list, if you wish. Knowing that what you are doing is something the makes the other feel loved.
Powerful stuff. Very highly recommended. Just remember to not judge each others lists. Or, be defensive about what’s on either of them.
Comment by Eric — 22 March 2006 @ 2:35 PM
Impressive essay as usual Jason.
Interesting observation that “[t]he concept of ‘romantic love’ has proven to be one of the most potent arrows in our quiver of cultural imperialism.” I remember reading recently in CNN.com, how adultery makes good profit for businesses, including hotels/motels, restaurants, travel agents, et cetera. They talked about it as if it were a good thing. As time goes on, the more I become aware just how much the culture is driven by base greed and economic conquest. ‘Dumbing down’ is not accidental, it’s a wealth-transfer mechanism.
Thank you very much for the good work. Don’t doubt that you’re contributing to a new post-peak culture in a positive way. Years from now, someone will remember something they read here, and will use it to benefit their community; like negotiate a peace, forgive a friend, campaign against centralist plans, or simply appreciate the freedom, fresh air, and natural beauty that will remain after this civilization collapses.
In lieu of money, I offer these assurances as payment for your efforts. It’s all I can afford at the moment.
Comment by Leon — 22 March 2006 @ 2:52 PM
Wow–thanks Leon. You just quite eloquently expressed my most profound ambition.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 3:02 PM
So, now that you are getting married, how are the in-laws feeling about each other?
Comment by _Gi — 22 March 2006 @ 8:51 PM
They’ve met all of once, but so far, there hasn’t been any blood feuds.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 9:28 PM
Jason,
With our cultural ideas and traditions that exist pre-collapse, what do you anticipate the likely patterns of love/commitment/marriage to look like post-collapse?
I am trying to prepare ways to communicate to my tribe about various areas that would be good shared values when we are more on our own.
I like your basic approach, and my thinking is in the direction of a tribe being somewhat harsh to people who have promised commitment and monogamy, then violated it, but also being accepting of those honestly choosing a different arrangement.
Peace,
Ryvr
Comment by Ryvr — 24 March 2006 @ 5:16 PM
I have no idea which way it will go. I’m expecting a great deal more diversity. Marriage and locality patterns correlate with subsistence patterns. Foragers tend to be monogamous, but horticulturalists tend to be polygamous. The Tribe of Anthropik is beginning with a monogamist bias to be sure, and a definite idea that whatever vows you make, you’d damn well better keep them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 March 2006 @ 5:46 PM
My personal rule of conduct has been. If it’s between consenting adults and all concerned parties (participants and their significant others) know and ACCEPT, then it’s ok. If someone objects, then some renegotiation is in order before moving forward. I personally find myself drawn toward group marriage with multiple spice of both sexes within the marriage. Thus the sexual fidelity is to the group rather than a single individual. And it also helps create more ties of support (in-laws) if the system is accepted rather than hidden.
This is the system I’m going to support in the society I help to create.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 28 March 2006 @ 2:20 PM
Best of luck to you–that’s a mighty rare arrangement. In fact, the only examples I know of are all from the various 19th century “utopian” communities in the United States. In each case, it ended up being precisely what tore the community apart. I’m not sure if it will work out for you or not, but if that’s where you are, it’s worth a shot. If you do, I think you certainly have your work cut out for you. Best of luck to you; you may well need it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 March 2006 @ 3:25 PM
The arrangement existed in England before it was Christinaized. and I saw a documentary of a Central or South American tribe that practiced it. Seems to work in a closed society decently.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 29 March 2006 @ 11:40 PM
Are you talking about the Britons of the LPRIA, or the Anglo-Saxons in Late Antiquity? Neither case exhibits polyamory. In fact, both were monogamous cultures–the introduction of Christianity to the Britons under the Roman Empire, and its later re-introduction to the Anglo-Saxons with Augustine of Canterbury, changed a lot of things, but not marriage patterns.
I do know of a number of Central and South American cultures, but none that practice polyamory. I don’t suppose you know the name of the culture? Your assertion concerning Britain is one I know to be blatantly incorrect, so I’m inclined to not believe you on the second, either, without at least a specific culture to look up.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 March 2006 @ 11:52 PM
I read of a fictional culture in which a marriage consisted of two men and two women. You were allowed to have sex with the same sex person and one of the opposite sex people. The other opposite sex person was off limits. Sounds interesting, but I think I prefer monogamy, personally :).
Comment by Vicky — 30 March 2006 @ 2:41 PM
There have been attempts, and plenty of fictional accounts, but none that have worked out in reality. We’ve decided that “jealousy” is “bad,” and therefore, something for us to “transcend.” But such dreams of transcendance are always folly, and jealousy has a place in society. Every experiment with polyamory I know of occurs either in someone’s imagination (where they can pretend that people will not be affected by things like jealousy), or ends in the painful implosion of said society, with incredible hostility, regret and pain for all parties involved.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 March 2006 @ 3:16 PM
I found where your reference comes from, Chandra. Friedrich Engels asserted that the “English” (by which he must mean the Anglo-Saxons) practiced “group marriage.” There is no evidence for this. I found a number of unsubstantiated claims like it. It seems that the Genesis story’s use of “clothing” and the introduction of modesty conditioned Europeans to expect group marriage as evidence of their primitive lack of sexual modesty.
From “The Anthropologist and the Lady’s Maid.”
See also, “The Savage Mirror,” Giuli’s review of Gustav Jahoda’s Images of Savages.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 March 2006 @ 4:09 PM
“Every experiment with polyamory I know of occurs either in someone’s imagination (where they can pretend that people will not be affected by things like jealousy)”
But doesn’t jealoousy occur in polygamous marriages?
Comment by Vicky — 1 April 2006 @ 12:22 PM
Male jealousy is much different from female jealousy.
Comment by _Gi — 1 April 2006 @ 4:17 PM
I’m very sorry, unfortunately I cannot provide specific group names. I saw the documentary on the History Channel, I believe a year or two ago, but I don’t recall the tribe’s name. They showed what had been filmed some 20 years ago when the ethnographer first visited the group and then how things had changed after 20 years of contact with westerners. I cannot say how long the situation had been stable before then, but they did have interventions to deal with a jealous husband shown.
As for the England reference. I got that in a Royal University class in the SCA. Perhaps the man teaching the class was using poor sources. If I can find my class notes I may be able to give you the name of the specific group he cited, but I’m not sure. It is likely to be June before I see him again to ask about his sources.
While I admire your scholarship, I am not as careful and thorough in documenting my learning as you are.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 1 April 2006 @ 5:23 PM
Yeah. With female jealousy, there tends to be fewer deaths.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 1 April 2006 @ 9:43 PM
It’s my understanding that wives in a polygamous marriage tend to form a coalition. Polygamy has fewer relationships involved than polyamory, and is more ideally suited to the differing reproductive drives of humans, which is probably why it implodes less often. Actually, such female coalitions remind me of bonobo matriarchy….
Ah, OK. Given Engels’ citation, it’s perfectly understandable. Do you mean SCA, as in the Society for Creative Anachronism? I was briefly involved with them, but I was terribly disappointed to find that accuracy and scholarship were not their strong suits.
Believe me, it’s a learned skill–only after a few years of getting beat up for not remembering where you got it do you start to learn to remember where you heard everything you know. It’s no problem, but I don’t think we can go much farther without a real example, with a name we can all look up and whatnot.
Jealous men beat the ever-loving shit out of each other.
Jealous women slowly poison you over a period of years, until you’re left at death’s door thinking you’ve simply become chronically ill. Then, once you’ve lost the power of speech or movement, they whisper it in your ear so that in those long, last grueling days before you finally expire, you can know exactly what was done to you and why….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 April 2006 @ 11:35 AM
Jason said: “It’s my understanding that wives in a polygamous marriage tend to form a coalition.”
Yeah sometimes, other times they lie, emotionally torture, withold food and even physically attack each other. Little surprise since it goes against their biological interest to share a male’s resources with other females and their children. They will be vying against each other for scarce resources. If the male has a preferred favourite then there will be even more conflict within the group. Hell, Mohammed had to use divine sanction to keep his harem under control when he got jiggy with his new jewish wife. I also read somewhere that child mortality rates rise significantly with polygamy.
Comment by RoxyUK — 6 April 2006 @ 4:57 AM