LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SF-LIT Archives


SF-LIT Archives

SF-LIT Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT  April 2002

SF-LIT April 2002

Subject:

Re: Reflections on cultural generalizations...: Hart

From:

Mark Tiedemann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:04:48 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

I'm even more embarrassed now.  I took the (radical) expedient of looking
the words up and, lo and behold, Polyandry is the female-dominant term
while Polygamy is male-dominant.  So, damn--my brains (or memory, which may
well be the same thing) have been on the fritz.

Still, both these terms describe institutional arrangements.  As such, the
problems begin with the institution--or, in the case of our current
civilization, the lack of them.  Marriages "work" as much because there is
a large social network of support for them as because of the bond between
the two principles.  This is a very unromantic notion, so it meets with
resistance when you point it out.  This is also why many alternative forms
do not work, or at least work well--no such network of support exists.  Not
that such networks couldn't (or shouldn't) be created, but there's a vested
interest in the status quo that comes with membership in a community.
"Change" is automatically inimical to community identity, even in the
change in question might be a good thing.

Which is why social change happens first at the margins, then permeates the
rest of society, arguing, fighting, and scraping all the way for
Acceptance.  People live together in what arrangements suit their outlook
of the moment--and if the arrangements proved viable, change follows.

The internal structure of some arrangements seems to be unstable--but it's
a question of whether the instability is the result of reaction to social
pressure or if the instability comes built in to the arrangement.  Multiple
marriages, for instance--institutionalized or not, jealousy and envy,
favoritism and personal incompatibility magnified by added numbers don't
have a lot to do with society at large.  Perhaps it is something one would
have to "grow up" with in order for it to work, but I wonder.  The
Seventies particularly saw a tremendous amount of SF with nonpossessive
sexual relationships and there is an incredibly naive feel to most of it,
as if over a period of a few decades humans would suddenly shuck a thousand
years of cultural momentum and "be mature" about something few humans in
history have ever been mature about.

What seems to be happening now is that marriage itself is undergoing
revision, due to divorce rates and the growing numbers of people simply
rejecting the institutional aspect and living together (they're a column on
the Census, you know).  In time, the erosion of marriage as it has been
will result in a new set of institutions which may include multiple
arrangements, but for now those people "simply" living together seem to
have the same internal dynamic as traditionally married folks.
Possessiveness doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.

But Todd is correct--it's messy at that level and subsequently hard to
encapsulate.

Mark

> [Original Message]
> From: Todd Mason <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
 > Date: 04/04/2002 5:52:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [SF-LIT] Reflections on cultural generalizations...: Hart
>
> Because such things are just icky, M'e, unlike the just and fitting
fantasy
> of effortless polygamy.
>
> Actually, didn't someone mention, or at least ask for the word for,
> polyandry?

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager