ANT3KAM © Caroline Seawright 2014

Transcription

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
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
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
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
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
Fraternal & non-fraternal, informal polyandry
Fraternal, formal polyandry
Fraternal polyandry (Kinnaur, Kyirong, Nyinba,
Pahari , Sherpa, etc)
Fraternal & non-fraternal, informal polyandry
Fraternal polyandry
Fraternal, informal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Informal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Formal polyandry
Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry
Panoan Matis
Suruí
Yanomamö
Zo’e
Southeast Asia
Bang Chan
Punans
Sakai
Semang
Subanu
Notes
Informal polyandry
Non-fraternal polyandry
Non-fraternal, formal polyandry, partible paternity
Informal polyandry, partible paternity
Fraternal, informal polyandry, partible paternity
Non-fraternal, informal polyandry, partible
paternity
Fraternal & non-fraternal, formal polyandry,
partible paternity
Formal polyandry
Formal polyandry
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
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
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
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
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
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
Sex Ratio
Male Contribution
Male Absence
Male Mortality
Both genders contribute equally
Not common
Low
Males contribute greatly
Males contribute more
Common
Not common
Common
Low
High
High
More males
More males
More males
Females contribute more
Females contribute more
Common
Common
Common
-
High
High
-
-
-
-
More females
More males
More females
More males
More males
More males
More males
More males
-
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
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
Sex Ratio
Equal
More males
-
Male Contribution
Male Absence
Common
Common
Common
Common
-
Male Mortality
High
High
High
High
More males
More females
More males
-
Not common
Common
Common
-
Low
High
-
More males
More males
More males
More males
More males
More males
More males
-
Not common
Common
Not common
Not common
Common
Not common
Not common
High
High
High
High
Low
High
-
-
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
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
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
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
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
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

ANT3KAM © Caroline Seawright 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

When Brothers Share a Wife - Department of Anthropology

Family, Religion, and Education

Magic-YES-Double T - Lubbock Radio Advertising

A Preliminary Survey of Lesser

Mating Systems

Marital Structure

CONCLUSION Chapter- IV

Chapter 12 and 13 Mates and Breeding Systems 2014.pptx

Ambareen Siraj Department of Computer Science [email protected]