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?
|