ANT3KAM © Caroline Seawright 2014
For polyandry discuss: i) why this practice occurs ii) the impact of this practice on gender relations ANT3KAM © Caroline Seawright 2014 http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/ANT3KAM.html © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Polyandry, deriving from the Greek, poly (“many”) and andros (“men”), refers to a simultaneous pair bond between one female with multiple males. In humans, this pair bond specifically refers to a culturally endorsed, normative marriage practice (Cassidy & Lee 1989, p. 1-2; Starkweather 2010, p. 3). Starkweather adds that, in this rare marriage type, “the simultaneous bond of one woman to more than one man in which all parties involved have sexual rights and economic responsibilities towards each other and towards any children that may result from the union” (2010, p. 12). There is no known society which practices polyandry as its only form of marriage (Trevithick 1997, p. 156). Anthropologists suggest different theories to explain polyandry, including: • an imbalanced sex ratio; • large male contribution to subsistence and economy due to poor resources and harsh environs; and • a high male mortality or absence frequency. Unfortunately, whilst one or more of these theories apply to most cases, there is no overarching theory that applies to every occurrence of polyandry globally. Despite a lack of detailed data on many cultures, the most robust theory is that of a high maleto-female ratio. Different cultures respond to these difficulties as a psychological expression of adaption, unique to their specific needs. Polyandrous cultures show that in all cases, the woman is central to the family unit, which is structured around her. Despite this, there is a general trend amongst nonegalitarian groups to view female work as inferior to that of the male, resulting in low female status within that group. Because of this imbalance, polyandrous husbands are typically required to provide for their wives and children, to provide them with a secure future. Women, in turn, can use this situation, and the inter-personal issues 2 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry which result, to achieve autonomy and power within the family unit. In many cases, wives have as much power and control over themselves and the family as their husbands. Since the 1800s, anthropologists have recognised that polyandry occurs globally, if rarely (Ellis 1891, pp. 803, 805, 809; McLennan 1865, pp. 178-180, 208; Table 1; Figure 1). Modern anthropologists have determined that it is found in over eighty different societies with differing levels of social stratification and ecological conditions, but is most commonly practiced by slash-and-burn horticulturalists or hunter-gatherers belonging to “small, egalitarian, band-level societies” (Starkweather 2010, p. 1). The largest concentration of polyandrous groups are agricultural societies of the Himalayas (Starkweather & Hames 2012, p. 154). Polyandry itself can be divided into different types: • Fraternal polyandry is the most common and cohesive as the husbands are brothers or closely related kin; • Non-fraternal polyandry is characterised by unrelated husbands (Levine and Silk 1997, p. 378; Starkweather 2010, p. 4; Tiwari 2008, p. 123; Trevithick 1997, pp. 156-157, 163); • Formal polyandry involves a formal marriage; and • Informal polyandry does not, but the woman’s partners are socially recognised as being responsible for the care of her and her children (Starkweather 2010, p. 6). All these forms will be included when investigating polyandrous marriage. 3 © Caroline Seawright Region/Culture Africa !Kung Bahuma Canarians Irigwe Lele Maasai Asia Gilyaks Himalayas & subHimalays Mongolians Mosuo Nayar Paliyans Todas Australia Dieri North America Aleut Alutiiq Blackfoot Cherokee Copper Eskimo Iglulik Innu Iñupiaq Mackenzie River Eskimo Netsilik Eskimo Paviotso Pawnee Point Hope Eskimo Polar Eskimo Pomo Shoshoni Tikerarmiut The Practice of Polyandry Notes Region/Culture Tlingit Utes Yokuts Oceania Chuuk Hawaiians Lamotrek Atoll Malekula Marquesas Islands South America Ache Aymara Barí Canela Cashinahua Cubeo Guaja Kaingang Kulina Mehinaku Formal polyandry Formal polyandry Non-fraternal, formal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Fraternal & non-fraternal, informal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal polyandry (Kinnaur, Kyirong, Nyinba, Pahari , Sherpa, etc) Fraternal, formal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Fraternal & non-fraternal, informal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Fraternal polyandry Fraternal, informal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Formal polyandry Formal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Non-fraternal, informal polyandry Informal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Formal polyandry Non-fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Formal polyandry Formal polyandry Formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry Panoan Matis Suruí Yanomamö Zo’e Southeast Asia Bang Chan Punans Sakai Semang Subanu Notes Fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Informal polyandry Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Fraternal, formal polyandry Non-fraternal, formal polyandry Non-fraternal polyandry Non-fraternal, formal polyandry, partible paternity Fraternal, formal polyandry Informal polyandry, partible paternity Informal polyandry, partible paternity Fraternal, informal polyandry, partible paternity Fraternal, formal polyandry Non-fraternal polyandry Non-fraternal polyandry Fraternal, informal polyandry, partible paternity Non-fraternal, informal polyandry, partible paternity Fraternal, informal polyandry, partible paternity Informal polyandry, partible paternity Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry, partible paternity Non-fraternal, formal polyandry Formal polyandry Non-fraternal, formal polyandry Formal polyandry Formal polyandry Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry Table 1: Cultures that have practiced polyandry (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 5; Childs 2012; Levine 1981; Smith 1998, pp. 255-256; Starkweather 2010, pp. 98, 126; Starkweather & Hames 2012, pp. 157-158; Tiwari 2008) 4 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Figure 1: Map showing approximate locations of anthropologically studied cultures that have practiced polyandry, marked in red (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 5; Childs 2012; Levine 1981; Smith 1998, pp. 255-256; Starkweather 2010, pp. 98, 126; Starkweather & Hames 2012, pp. 157-158; Tiwari 2008; VectorTemplates.com 2014); Historical cultures that practiced polyandry, while outside the scope of this essay, are marked in blue (Ellis 1891, p. 804; McLennan 1865, pp. 181-182). 5 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Anthropologists propose a variety of different theories as to why polyandry exists. Despite recognition of polyandry around the globe, the Tibetans, Sherpa, Toda, and Marquesans were classified as being the only polyandrous groups in George P. Murdock’s 1967 Ethnographic Atlas (Starkweather 2010, p. 1). As such, theories over the last few decades have largely been confined to these peoples, although scholars are once more beginning to explore other polyandrous groups. Due to a general androcentric bias, there are few articles about women and their roles in such unions (Cassidy and Lee 1989, pp. 1-2; Eckart Voland in Levine and Silk 1997, p. 394; Luintel 2004, p. 74; Tiwari 2008). Future research could focus on women in less wellknown polyandrous societies. One of the earliest theories about polyandry is an imbalanced sex ratio. Early anthropologists studying polyandry argued that polyandry is a necessity brought on by an artificially disturbed balance of the sexes, caused by war or female infanticide (Ellis 1891, p. 802; McLennan 1865, pp. 138-139). The hunter-gathering Shoshone of Nevada reveal that polyandry can occur where the gender ratio is equal (Steward 1936, p. 561), but sex imbalance continues to be a contributing factor (Berreman 1962; Levine and Silk 1997, p. 375; Tiwari 2008, p. 123). Starkweather and Hames noted that they “found that an imbalanced operational sex ratio in favor of males is the only variable robustly associated with polyandry” (2012, p. 166). Whilst this cannot explain all occurrences of polyandry, this consistent theory is one reason why it may occur. Another theory suggests that polyandry occurs in locations of limited resources with harsh ecological conditions, where men contribute more to the subsistence economy than women. In general, women perform necessary domestic tasks while men dominate subsistence activities in the public domain (Cassidy and Lee 1989, pp. 6-7; 6 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Luintel 2004, p. 46). However, in egalitarian societies in areas of limited resources, like the Shoshone, women contribute equally to subsistence activities (Berreman 1962, p. 64; Levine and Silk 1997, p. 385; Starkweather 2010, p. 113; Steward 1936, pp. 561-562). In restrained climates, maximising manpower provides additional labour for economic success. Polyandrous marriage does this through multiple husbands, as shown by the agriculturalist Nyinba of Nepal (Johnson and Zhang 1991, p. 503; Levine and Silk 1997, p. 376; Tiwari 2008, pp. 144-145). This illustrates the correlation between the male economic production hypothesis and polyandry, allowing polyandrous families to thrive, despite difficult environmental conditions and limited resources (Starkweather 2010, pp. 113-114; Luintel 2004, p. 50). Polyandry is also a response to male absence and mortality. In a society where males need to travel for long periods, as in pre-westernised, horticultural Hawaii, or where adult male death is common, such as amongst Inuit groups, polyandry can provide security for the family unit by having one husband nearby (Berreman 1962, p. 65; Levine 1981, p. 113; Luintel 2004, pp. 43, 70; Starkweather 2010, pp. 34-35, 6976, 83-84; Starkweather & Hames 2012, p. 167). Additional security comes through collective patrilineal inheritance, as practiced by the agricultural Pahari, whereby resources and land remains in the family (Berreman 1962, p. 62; Levine and Silk 1997, p. 386; Luintel 2004, p. 59; McLennan 1865, p. 199; Smith 1998, p. 252; Starkweather 2010, p. 31). Although women do not generally inherit, except for the agricultural matriarchs of Mosuo (Johnson and Zhang 1991, p. 501), they are provisioned by their husbands (Luintel 2004, p. 51; Starkweather 2010, pp. 10-11; Tiwari 2008, p. 144). Provisioning for economic security in the face of male absence or death may also explain why polyandry exists. 7 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Polyandry occurs around the globe for various reasons. Without specific, detailed data on each culture, determining why polyandry became an appropriate marriage arrangement is difficult. The above theories are exemplified in the Alutiiq, Copper Eskimo, and Iñupiaq Inuit hunter-gatherer groups, the hunter-gatherer Gilyaks of Russia, and the pastoral Maasai of Kenya. However, the polyandrous huntergatherer !Kung of the Kalahari Desert have a higher female birth rate, equal contribution by both sexes, few male absences, and low adult male mortality. All other cultural groups vary between the two extremes (Table 2). Generally, polyandry is a cultural and psychological expression of adaption in response to an imbalanced male-to-female ratio, a high male absence and mortality rate by grouping males with females, and limited resources, which necessitates greater male economic contributions (Levine and Silk 1997, p. 375; Smith 1998, p. 244; Trevithick 1997, p. 158; Starkweather 2010, pp. 1, 99). Further research on cultures practicing polyandry is required before a reliable hypothesis can be determined (Levine and Silk 1997, p. 375). 8 © Caroline Seawright Region/Culture Africa !Kung Bahuma Canarians Irigwe Lele Maasai Asia Gilyaks Himalayas & sub-Himalays Mongolians Mosuo Nayar Paliyans Todas Australia Dieri North America Aleut Alutiiq Blackfoot Cherokee Copper Eskimo Iglulik Innu Iñupiaq Mackenzie River Eskimo Netsilik Eskimo Paviotso Pawnee Point Hope Eskimo Polar Eskimo Pomo The Practice of Polyandry Sex Ratio Male Contribution Male Absence Male Mortality Both genders contribute equally Not common Low Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Males contribute greatly Common Not common Common Low High High More males More males More males Males contribute more Males contribute more Males contribute greatly Females contribute more Females contribute more Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Common Common Common - High High - - Both genders contribute equally - - More females More males More females More males More males More males More males More males - Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Both genders contribute equally Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Not common Common Common Common - High High High High High High High High High High High High More females at birth, but more males at adulthood More males 9 © Caroline Seawright Region/Culture Shoshoni Tikerarmiut Tlingit Utes Yokuts Oceania Chuuk Hawaiians Lamotrek Atoll Malekula Marquesas Islands South America Ache Aymara Barí Canela Cashinahua Cubeo Guaja Kaingang Kulina Mehinaku Panoan Matis Suruí Yanomamö Zo’e Southeast Asia Bang Chan Punans Sakai Semang Subanu The Practice of Polyandry Sex Ratio Equal More males - Male Contribution Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Both genders contribute equally Both genders contribute equally Male Absence Common Common Common Common - Male Mortality High High High High More males More females More males Males contribute more Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Males contribute more - Not common Common Common - Low High - More males More males More males More males More males More males More males - Males contribute greatly Both genders contribute equally Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute more Males contribute more Both genders contribute equally Males contribute greatly Males contribute greatly Not common Common Not common Not common Common Not common Not common High High High High Low High - - Males contribute more Males contribute more Both genders contribute equally Both genders contribute equally Both genders contribute equally Common Not common Not common Not common Low Low Low Low Table 2: Sex ratio, male contribution level, and male absence and mortality levels in polyandrous societies (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 6; Ellis 1891, p. 802; Johnson and Zhang 1991, p. 500; Starkweather 2010, pp. 126-128; Steward 1936, p. 561). Note that a dash indicates a lack of data. 10 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry As polyandry often coincides with low female-to-male sex ratios, greater male contribution to subsistence, and a high male absence or death frequency, this raises gender relation implications. In polyandry, there is no central male figure (Luintel 2004, p. 50). Fraternal polyandry is generally co-residential and patrilineal. However, the matrilineal hunter-gathering Dieri of South Australia practice non-residential fraternal polyandry. Although a Dieri woman marries one man, his unmarried brothers can treat her and her family as their own (Starkweather & Hames 2012, p. 155). Nonfraternal polyandry is generally non-residential and matrilineal, as with the slash-andburn horticultural Canarians of the Canary Islands, where husbands visit the wife in turn (McLennan 1865, p. 172; Starkweather 2010, p. 59). Although each culture has its own family pattern, polyandrous families could not exist without the wife at its centre. There are also differing degrees of gender inequality found in polyandrous groups (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 7), division of labour being the main reason. Women’s work tends to be more time consuming, and “unpleasant or polluting” (Luintel 2004, p. 56), which typically results in low status (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 5). Men’s jobs, often glamorised, are important to subsistence (Luintel 2004, p. 58). However, the Shoshoni are an example of a polyandrous society where both sexes are equal, and women’s food gathering is highly valued (Steward 1936, pp. 561-562). In Hawaii, high ranking females could have plural husbands (Ellis 1891, p. 803). Even lesser status women have pragmatic power to influence important household decisions (Luintel 2004, p. 51). Nyinba male-heads rarely risks making decisions without consulting the wife, while Mosuo women control family labour (Johnson and Zhang 1991, p. 500; Luintel 2004, p. 53). Despite lower status in most societies, women find ways to be “active agents in exercising power and agency with their male counterparts” (Luintel 2004, p. 70). 11 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Men dominate subsistence activities so are expected to provide for their wife and children. Since kinship networks are more important than paternity in most polyandrous societies, all husbands have an investment in their wife’s children (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 3; Luintel 2004, p. 71). Some polyandrous cultures, such as the slash-and-burn horticulturalist Barí of Colombia and Venezuela, believe in partible paternity, where a baby is thought to have more than one biological father, thus ensuring paternal investment (Starkweather 2010, p. 10; Table 1). Men provide for the family through protection, labour, food, resources and economic security, which can be carried on by another husband should one die (Johnson and Zhang 1991, p. 500; Levine 1981, p. 113; McLennan 1865, p. 199; Starkweather 2010, p. 10-11). Polyandrous husbands of the Nyinba and Kinnaur of India accumulate more family wealth than those of other marriages, whilst those of the Nayar of India do not provision for their family beyond high prestige gifts on special occasions (Luintel 2004, p. 70; Starkweather 2010, pp. 65-66; Tiwari 2008, pp. 123, 144-145). While each polyandrous husband is valuable, having multiple husbands provides layers of security otherwise not achieved due to high mortality, absence, or low ecological productivity. These gender relations reveal that wives tend to be of low status, but are irreplaceable. Husbands, although of higher status, are easily replaced. The woman keeps the household together and retains security for herself and her children through love and interpersonal relationships with her husbands, her impartiality towards them, and her ability to smooth over tensions and jealousies between them (Levine 1981, pp. 110, 113, 120-121; Luintel 2004, p. 62; Starkweather 2010, pp. 24, 27; Tiwari 2008, pp. 124, 128-131). Although there is a cultural absence of male jealousy in polyandrous societies, especially in fraternal ones, it is still an issue (Cassidy and Lee 1989, p. 4; Levine and Silk 1997, p. 396; Luintel 2004, p. 72). One 12 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Kinnauri woman said that the “role of a polyandrous wife is the most crucial and the most difficult, yet it is the cohusbands that fight and leave'” (Tiwari 2008, p. 131). Although cultural practices determine the stability of polyandrous unions, if a wife is unable to keep her husbands content, the family unit may fission (Childs 2012, p. 433; Starkweather 2010, p. 126; Tiwari 2008, p. 129, 139, 142; Trevithick 1997, p. 165). However, as the Shoshoni, Barí, Nyinba, Mosuo and Hawaiians demonstrate, successful polyandrous women tend to be relatively autonomous and are able to wield “as much power and agency" as their husbands (Luintel 2004, p. 71). Different theories regarding polyandry apply to different societies, including a skewed sex ratio in favour of males, male contribution in restrained environments, and high male absence or death. As a psychological expression of adaption, each culture reacts to these stressors in a unique way resulting in different polyandry practices, as would be expected in small unconnected ecological and social conditions around the globe. This includes: • the status and autonomy of the female central figure of the family, and her role in domestic or commercial activities; • gender imbalance coping strategies resulting in different tactics to deal with plural husbands, such as impartiality; and • the maximisation of labour in areas of few resources, due to multiple husbands provisioning for the family, even in instances of male absence and death. There is much information lacking in the anthropological literature about polyandrous societies, especially the non-classical ones. Further investigation on living polyandrous cultures is required to fully understand these theories and how they impact on gender relations. 13 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Berreman, GD 1962, ‘Pahari Polyandry: A Comparison’, American Anthropologist, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 60-75. Cassidy, ML, and Lee, GR 1989, ‘The Study of Polyandry: A Critique and Synthesis’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-11. Childs, G 2012, ‘Polyandry and population growth in a historical Tibetan society’, The History of the Family, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 423-444. Ellis, AB 1891, ‘On Polyandry’, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 39, no. 52, pp. 801809. Johnson, NE, and Zhang, K 1991, ‘Matriarchy, polyandry, and fertility amongst the Mosuos in China’, Journal of Biosocial Science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 499-505. Levine, NE 1981, ‘Perspectives on love: morality and affect in Nyinba interpersonal relationships’, in Adrian C. Mayer (ed.), Culture and Morality: Essays in Honour of Christoph Von Fürer-Haimendorf, Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp. 106-125. Levine, NE, and Silk, JB 1997, ‘Why Polyandry Fails: Sources of Instability in Polyandrous Marriages’, Current Anthropology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 375-398. Luintel, YR 2004, ‘Agency, autonomy and the shared sexuality: Gender relationships in polyandry in Nepal Himalaya’, Contributions to Nepalese Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 43-83. McLennan, JF 1865, Primitive Marriage: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies, Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. 14 © Caroline Seawright The Practice of Polyandry Smith, EA 1998, ‘Is Tibetan Polyandry Adaptive? Methodological and Metatheoretical Analyses’, Human Nature, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 225-261. Starkweather, KE 2010, ‘Exploration into Human Polyandry: An Evolutionary Examination of the Non-Classical Cases’, Master of Arts thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln. Starkweather, KE, and Hames, R 2012, ‘A Survey of Non-Classical Polyandry’, Human Nature, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 149-172. Steward, JH 1936, ‘Shoshoni Polyandry’, American Anthropologist, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 561-564. Tiwari, G 2008, ‘Interplay of Love, Sex, and Marriage in a Polyandrous Society in the High Himalayas of India’, in William R. Jankowiak (ed.), Intimacies: love and sex across cultures, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 122-147. Trevithick, A 1997, ‘On a Panhuman Preference For Monandry: Is Polyandry an Exception?’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 154-181. VectorTemplates.com 2014, World Map (huge map), image, DIR Creative, viewed 27 April 2014, <http://www.vectortemplates.com/raster-maps.php>. 15
© Copyright 2024