The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (38 page)

SO WHAT?
191

and bedeviled, energized and agonized, by monogamy and by departures from it. On balance, perhaps monogamy is like Winston Churchill's description of democracy: the worst possible system, except when you consider the alternatives.

Maybe living things--or, at least, the lucky ones--are somehow destined to achieve perfect one-to-one relationships; that is, perhaps everyone has a true soul-mate out there somewhere. The only question is whether these two halves of a potentially perfect whole will succeed in finding each other, a la Plato's tongue-in-cheek version. Don't bet on it.

This is not to say that monogamy--even happy, fulfilled monogamy--is impossible, because, in fact, it is altogether within the realm of human possibility. But since it is not natural, it is not easy. Similarly, this is not to say that monogamy isn't desirable, because there is very little connection, if any, between what is natural or easy and what is good.

But let us imagine, just for argument's sake, that Plato was factually correct: that for each of us, there exists the perfect mate, the ideal counterpart, the hand-in-glove Siamese twin with whom we would be perfectly in love and eternally happy. There are 6 billion people on our planet, of whom we meet probably fewer than several thousand in a lifetime. This works out to about one in a million. Accordingly, for every person we meet, there are about 999,999 we never do. And of those few we actually do meet, only a small proportion of those encounters occur for us at ages and in circumstances in which love and/or marriage--never mind sex--are even feasible. In short, the chances are pretty slim that we will ever meet our perfect other half, even if he or she exists.

But don't despair! The future is not necessarily bleak, neither for personal happiness nor even for monogamy itself (assuming, of course, that one is sufficiently committed, at least to the latter). Even though there may be no perfect other half ideally crafted for each person--just waiting to be thrown together by fate, some enchanted evening--in the course of a loving marriage, two people have the opportunity to hone and shape their shared experiences such that one's partner does in fact become a rather precisely fitting key, uniquely adapted to the other's lock, and vice versa. The perfect fit of a good monogamous marriage is made, not born. And despite the fact that much of our biology seems to tug in the opposite direction, such marriages can in fact be made. It is an everyday miracle.

The miracle of monogamy comes in all forms; it is not a one-size-fits-all garment. Just as its details are unique to each couple, there is something unique and wonderful about human monogamy, a lifelong marriage, as it

192
THE MYTH OF MONOGAMY

were, between love and intellect (two qualities by which human beings are also extraordinary among animals). Thus, people have the capacity to plan ahead, to project their imagination--no less than their genes--into the future. The fruits of shared imagination may be beautiful. Monogamy resulted in scientific achievements like Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of radium; and literary achievements, such as Will and Ariel Durant's
The Story of Civilization.
Monogamous love inspired James Joyce, who saw his beloved Nora in every beautiful woman on the beaches of Ireland. Furthermore, it is impossible to account for the lives destroyed and human potential wasted by adulterous rage; think of Sylvia Plath. A marriage that works, that provides comfort and support for a couple, may be the most felicitous arrangement for creative productivity.

Homo sapiens
is a rather long-lived species, and thus, along with monogamy's contribution to child-rearing, gene-assuring, resource-sharing, and predator-protecting, it is possible to glimpse yet another benefit of this peculiar mating system: By establishing a durable, long-term relationship with someone who not only cares, but also shares an expanding history, who understands one's strengths, weaknesses, joys, and despairs, the successful monogamist assures himself and herself a companion for life, long after the children (if any) have grown, when work is no longer an option, when even sex may be mostly a memory, at just the time when two devoted people can keep track of the doctor appointments, change each other's senior diapers, and sit together, watching the sun set. Living long and well is not "natural" either, as Thomas Hobbes pointed out. The natural condition may be nasty, brutish, and short, in which case quick flings with multiple available partners to obtain maximally opportune genetic pairings may be the best way to live. However, in a modern society, in which people may live decades after they are capable or interested in reproduction, the opportunity to pair with a soul mate who hangs in there lovingly after the breasts sag, the prostate weakens, and dentures become mandatory is very sweet.

We close with a vision of one of the authors' octogenarian parents, playing bridge with their buddies, pouring a little good scotch for a toast to ripe old age. His heart is bad, and his knee should be replaced. She has a little seizure disorder, and a neurogenic bladder. They have been together monogamously for almost 60 years, and so they know all of each other's bad jokes and bridge strategies. The old man pinches the old lady on the butt as they head in for the night, and asks, "Shall we?"

SO WHAT?
189

Adultery is hot stuff, emotionally charged to a degree that must seem remarkable to anyone not bringing a biological perspective to the human condition. During the famous Kinsey sex studies, for example, the single largest cause of people's refusing to participate was a question about extramarital sex.

In
Civilization and Its Discontents,
Freud suggested that civilization is built on the repression of the instincts. And we now know that one of these instincts apparently leans toward multiple matings. Civilization is presumably facilitated by controlling antisocial tendencies such as murder, rape, or robbery. Is there anything antisocial about multiple matings? Yes--if society forbids such behavior and if monogamy is contracted for and, hencej expected by the other spouse. There is much to be said for plain old-fashioned honesty and integrity; a creature so cerebral as to be able to establish elaborate rules and expectations for domestic life (not to mention the pursuit of science, literature, art, and so forth) should also be capable of keeping his or her word.

Civilization is founded not only on the repression of the instincts but also on the ascendancy of law. (In some ways, the two are synonymous.) Therefore, once a law or social expectation exists, unless it is grossly unfair there is a presumption that decency and social order are furthered by obedience to it. Once a monogamous code exists, therefore, perhaps violating that code is antithetical to higher levels of civilization and of personal development. Notably, however, anthropologists have found no correlation between extramarital restrictiveness and a society's level of social complexity. (Premarital restrictiveness, on the other hand, tends to be greater in more complex, although not necessarily "better," societies.)

Many "advanced" civilizations were polygynous, and some simple, non-technological ones, strictly monogamous. Even if monogamy isn't necessary for civilization, however, it is clear that public adherence to monogamous ideals is necessary for success and survival in
current
Western civilization, if only because that is the way we have defined ourselves. It is hard for a public bigamist or adulterer to "get ahead." Ask former presidential candidate Gary Hart. And even those at the pinnacle of power can be toppled or severely tarnished. Ask Bill Clinton, or even Newt Gingrich.

As to the procrustean nature of monogamy inhibiting some of our deeper inclinations, isn't that what growing up is all about? After all, as we get older, we are all expected to do what is permitted and inhibit what is forbidden: we learn toilet training, not to hit or bite, to say
please
and
thank you,
and generally to rein ourselves in. Many things are natural but unpleasant: trichinosis, warts, hurricanes. So even if enforced monogamy is in

190
THE MYTH OF MONOGAMY

some sense "unnatural," this doesn't necessarily mean that it is undesirable. (It also doesn't have to be unpleasant... but that is another story, and perhaps another book!) Those animal species that are reliably monogamous-- a declining list--are sexually faithful because they have no real choice. But people do. In this regard, our biology is neither overweening nor even a worthwhile guide. Certainly it is no excuse.

Whatever our natural inclinations, there is no doubt that human beings are biologically and psychologically capable of having sex with more than one person, often in fairly rapid succession. The evidence is also overwhelming that many people are capable not only of "making love to" but also of loving more than one person at the same time. But we are socially prohibited from doing either. This social prohibition is a powerful one, and in the long run, it generally wins, although usually not without a struggle and often with some short-term defeats. And that struggle--experienced as occasional brief flings for a night or a weekend, long extramarital relationships over months or years, or just fantasized encounters--may be the source of some of the most complex, intense, and confusing emotions that human beings experience.

It has been suggested that the mental health profession often serves as a social Band-Aid, simply helping people adjust to a sick society and often siphoning energy and attention from where it is most needed: the reformation of social ills. Perhaps the effort expended in adjusting to monogamy is like this. Perhaps we should instead adjust our ideals of monogamous matrimony to accord with human inclinations. Maybe instead of taking monogamy as the norm, and thus being "shocked, shocked" by adultery-- like the notorious police captain in the movie
Casablanca
--we should see infidelity as the baseline condition, whereupon we might be free to examine monogamy, dispassionately, for the rarity that it is.

This assumes, however, that there is a better alternative, for example, that open, unstructured, and nonrestrictive sexual relationships would make people happier. There is no reason to believe that this is true. Indeed, many "utopian" social experiments have failed precisely because feelings of interpersonal possessiveness got in the way of the idealized dream of social and sexual sharing.

Society, with its expectation of monogamy, establishes the boundaries of who is and who is not an acceptable sexual partner. Marriage, it is assumed, narrows this field considerably: to just one individual. Some may find this stultifying, others reassuring, since it generates a haven of surety and confidence, a womb with a view, ideally free of the brawls of sexual competition.

No other marital pattern--polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, "open" marriage--has been shown to work better. Nonetheless, monogamy does not work perfectly, and throughout history people have been delighted

SO WHAT?
187

De Rougemont maintains that there are two moralities: one of marriage, and the other of passion, and that every married person must choose. The adulterer seeks to have both, but with different partners. In the great French novel of infidelity,
Madame Bovary,
Flaubert's heroine became unfaithful when life with her dull doctor husband became tedious and she found herself wondering if there wasn't more to life than "this."

If marriage is in a sense the cradle of adultery, is it therefore also the grave of love? Not at all, or, at least, not necessarily. As philosopher Benedetto Croce puts it (and de Rougemont would doubtless agree), marriage is rather "the grave of
savage
love." Others, seeking a constantly rekindled savage love, periodically go outside their marriage looking for the tinder of renewed savagery.

As Freud pointed out in
An Outline of Psychoanalysis,
erotic dreams rarely involve one's spouse; conscious extramarital sexual imaginings are pretty much universal. (Recall that even straight-laced presidential candidate Jimmy Carter admitted in a controversial interview with
Playboy
magazine that he had occasionally committed "lust" in his heart.) But perhaps it is precisely when--and because--the flesh is weak that the spirit ought to rise to the occasion. Thus, in
Beyond the Pleasure Principle,
Freud also suggested that we all experience an ongoing struggle between the "pleasure principle," which includes sexual activity in particular and which constantly seeks gratification, and the "reality principle," expressed by the superego or, in simple terms, the conscience.

Moreover, although "what comes naturally" is--almost by definition-- easy to do, this doesn't mean that it is right. The crowning glory of
Homo sapiens
is its huge brain. This remarkable organ gives people the ability, perhaps unique in the living world, to reflect on their inclinations and decide, if they choose, to act contrary to them. In Mozart's opera
The Marriage of Figaro,
we are advised, "Drink when you are not thirsty, make love when you don't want to--this is what distinguishes us from the beasts." What about
not
making love when we
do
want to? There may be no way to affirm one's humanity as effectively as by saying "no" to sortie deeply held predispositions, especially when that wonderful brain of ours advises that such predispositions may be troublesome, for ourselves or others.