The Shotgun Blog
« We have no reason to bar George Galloway: Lorne Gunter | Main | Beware religious dogma in Africa »
Monday, March 23, 2009
Andrew Coyne vs. Tom Flanagan on polygamy
Apparently there is some sort of court challenge to polygamy laws going on and two heavyweights in small-government thought have weighed in on the topic.
Tom Flanagan favours keeping polygamy illegal by striking down the court challenge of Winston Blackmore and James Oler from Bountiful, British Columbia. According to Flanagan, the Charter shouldn't be a problem.
[...] the Charter also says all rights are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Many other "free and democratic" societies, including the United States and many European countries, have criminalized polygamy, and their courts have always upheld such laws against legal challenge. What the U.S. Supreme Court said in its 1878 Reynolds decision is still compelling: Religious freedom means the state cannot punish people for religious opinions, but it can certainly regulate secular institutions such as marriage.
(Emphasis mine. Take note, all those who don't want to see churches forced to perform same-sex marriages. This isn't good for anyone.)
Flanagan believes that decriminalizing polygamy would lead to something resembling complete havoc, including the breakdown of democratic society, the undermining of equality, the overwhelming of the immigration system and the creation of an even slipperier slope than gay marriage could conjure up for the expansion of legal rights to another group of people. (Oh noes.)
I have more faith than Flanagan apparently does in the persistence of democracy and equality, and I don't think that "but the U.S. does it that way!" is much in the way of justification, but hey, if everyone agreed with me this blog would be boring.
Andrew Coyne, on the other hand, can't figure out why, exactly, polygamy ought to be a criminal activity.
It isn’t the discriminatory impact of Sect. 293 that condemns it, but simply that it is overkill. We don’t need to criminalize polygamy, not because we think it’s right or even acceptable, but because it is not the sort of behaviour properly addressed by the criminal law, and because we have other, less intrusive means of registering society’s abhorrence. And if we don’t need to criminalize a thing, we probably shouldn’t.
[...] consider the kinds of things that are not prohibited between consenting adults. A man may have sex with as many women (or men) as he likes, serially or coincidentally, individually or all at once. He may father children with any or all of them. He can marry one of them, and have sex with the rest. He can live together with all of them and their children, so long as they don’t marry or have sex. All of these things he can do without being charged with a crime. The only thing the law prohibits him from doing is marrying (or living in “conjugal union” with) more than one woman at the same time.
Coyne points out an (unfortunately) rare point - if we don't like polygamy, that's no reason to criminalize it. We can, for one thing, refuse to recognize it. We can also shun, roundly condemn and scowl at those rascally polygamists without spending the time or resources to put them in jail.
What on Coyne's laundry list of non-criminal activities is so different from polygamy? And assuming the husband and all the wives (or all the husbands... do people do that?) entered into their marriage (or marriages? I'm clearly not up to speed on polygamist lingo) willingly, where's the victim?
We can, and should, go after anyone who forces someone into marriage or sex or takes advantage of a child. Mixing this up with criminalizing polygamy more generally encourages polygamists to live in compound-like communities without outside influence - something I can only see increasing the chances of those sorts of abhorrent and legitimately criminal behaviour taking place.
Besides, woudln't we all rather the police spend their time investigating, arresting and prosecuting one murderer than a thousand polygamists? If nothing else, this should be a matter of priorities.
Full Flanagan and Coyne articles at the links.
h/t Ker for sending me another great Coyne piece.
Posted by Janet Neilson on March 23, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
The idea of not criminalizing and not recognizing makes some sense. What is to be avoided is paying welfare to multiple wives and their progeny.
Posted by: DML | 2009-03-23 11:34:14 PM
How is it possible to have more than one wife? Doesn't the state keep track of these things?
Isn't this really a situation in which a man has one official wife and a couple of other women in his life who he calls his wives and who bear his children?
Do I have this right? Or do these guys find a way to register each and every marriage?
As for the legality of polygamy, these are private arrangements based on deeply held beliefs. Tom Flanagan should mind his own business.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-03-23 11:47:03 PM
Some will be concerned about Muslims taking many wives. But even that should not be a threat really, since such a man will spend all his time and money on his wives and have little of either left over for political activism.
Posted by: TM | 2009-03-23 11:59:48 PM
"can't figure out why, exactly, polygamy ought to be a criminal activity."
Yes, and Terrence Watson can't figure out long division, national accounting, GAAP, or Stephen Harper's outstanding fiscal record, leaving us smart people in the very, very annoying position of having to explain everything to you airheads.
Typical libertarian airheadism: "what harm can it do?" How these people made it to adulthood without chugging a can of paint thinner is beyond me.
I want $25K for this one. Twenty five grand to explain to you the obvious.
Janet, you are a cultural Marxist. You need to read everything you can find at gnxp.com.
Are we speaking Arabic now? No. We're speaking English, despite most of us not being Englishmen. Why? Among other reasons, because between 1200 and 1800 the out of wedlock birthrate in England was 4%, without abortion, and with monogamy. That's why we are speaking English today. That one was free.
Posted by: JOPKE JOPKE JOPKE | 2009-03-24 12:19:06 AM
As if gay marriages are giving grief, now polygamy, so what next? Well for starters, why not polygamous gay men or gay polygamous lesbians. One man marrying 3 or four men. And the same for lesbians. Or even a combination of one man marrying 2 gays (guys) and a woman also for variety. one has to wonder, if anything and everything is fair game? When courts allow one thing, it has to allow others that demand equality and rights.
Posted by: daniwitz13 | 2009-03-24 2:25:37 AM
The UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women condemns polygamy as a contravention of women's equality rights that also impoverishes them and harms their children. Canada ratified the protocol on Oct. 18 2002 and is legally obligated to uphold its provisions, meaning that polygamy will not be legalized in Canada. Polygamous "wives" (in reality, concubines in harems) cannot share in their "husband's" health insurance, life insurance or pension, and may not share equally in the man's estate if he dies. Add to that the stress of sharing one's home and "husband" with many other women, with all the attendant jealousies and jockeying for position that entails ... not to mention that while the man enjoys abundant sex, the women have to be rationed and line up for their turn. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women had no rights and were treated as chattels. It's way past time this discriminatory Third World practice was kicked into the garbage can of history. The year is 2009 AD, not 2009 BC!
Posted by: Jancis M. Andrews | 2009-03-24 6:27:33 AM
Matthew - it's possible that they could keep more than one wife after having their own ceremonies or rights that are not recognized officially by the government -- but don't worry, that's illegal, too.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-24 6:36:37 AM
Jancis - those all sound like fantastic reasons to not enter into a polygamous marriage or relationship. I would also not start or remain in a relationship with someone who was unfaithful, but I wouldn't want them locked in prison.
Again, I don't see why it ought to be criminal activity.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-24 6:39:05 AM
JOPKEx3 - Man oh man, you're right! We could all end up stuck speaking Danish in the near future. That had never occurred to me.
Now I'm probably too frightened to sleep at night. Thanks a lot.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-24 6:46:03 AM
Aren't some of these cults forcing their children to marry as young as 15, to men that are in their 50's or older? It is for that reason alone that this Archaic practice should be highly illegal.
Posted by: glen | 2009-03-24 9:04:11 AM
glen: "Aren't some of these cults forcing their children to marry as young as 15, to men that are in their 50's or older? It is for that reason alone that this Archaic practice should be highly illegal."
But that's already illegal. I don't see why we should charge people for having sex (or entering into a contract) with underage girls (or boys) *and* for polygamy.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-24 10:32:22 AM
First, get the state out of the marriage business and leave religious organizations free to continue their traditions including marriage (contractual requirements). Other "marriages" should be left to contract law (including binding provisions for divorce) of consenting adults. Exclusivity can be an optional clause employed.
Now, what about those sheep? Consent required?
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-03-24 11:05:31 AM
I'm with you, John. Contract law can cover non-religious marriages, and churches can determine what contracts they will sanctify.
As for sheep, a contract can only be made between two (or more) creatures that can consent. Since sheep can't give consent (not of the right type for contract law, anyways), we can't enter into any sort of contract with them. So they're out when it comes to marriage.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-24 1:11:03 PM
I have had the distinct "pleasure" of meeting some of Winston Blackmore's wives. Growing up in the area I can attest to the harm of letting them continue with what they are doing.
As a girl you are expected to start to prepare yourself for "marriage" at a young age. You are also taught that you are nothing more than a possession to Winston and his sidekicks. You will more than likely be married off at 15 or 16 to a 50+ year old man. Occassionally you may luck out and be selected to marry one of Winston's sons who is closer to your age but otherwise you are passed off when it is expedient.
As a girl you will not recieve a full education, more than likely you will stop recieving a sschooling past grade 6 or 7. An educated female is dangerous in this community and they do everything in their power to stop education at a young age.
You are to be grateful for the fabrics given to you so you can make your own clothing which at all times must cover every inch of your body. Pants are not allowed (unless long underwear) you must always be in a dress which goes from neck to the floor, but in the winter you are permitted to wear your long underwear underneath.
You are to NEVER question what your husband says to you. A marriage is not an equal partnership, rather he is superior to you and you should be grateful for anything he chooses to bestow on you. You are never to complain or question what he does to you, the other wives, or the children after all he knows best.
You get the idea. The women are treated as nothing more than indentured servants. It is painful to watch little girls being shepparded away from any contact with society where they will be homeschooled to ensure that they are not able to learn any skills which they could rely on to improve themselves. Knowing that the ONLY time you will see them dressed normally is if a camera crew is around so the appearance is that the family is modern and normal, just a little larger than average. And if you are not Winston or his brother in law, you will always live a life of extreme poverty with no hope of experiencing much of what we take for granted. (including typing a message on the internet)
Suffice it to say I will fight tooth and nail from allowing him and his ilk to continue to treat women like second class citizens and dressing it up as "consenting adults" practicing their religion faithfully.
Posted by: Nika | 2009-03-24 3:55:45 PM
Nika - First off, the argument is over whether polygamy ought to be considered a criminal activity and not just a weird or morally reprehensible one. It's been made clear in the post and the comments that everyone here supports enforcing laws against forced marriage and taking advantage of children.
That said, a lot of the problems you list are very real, but they do not happen only in polygamist colonies, and polygamists are not the only group more likely to think of women as less valuable than men. There are, for example, also small groups of very conservative religious people of many different creeds who believe women are subservient to men for whatever reason. (Some of these women seem to believe it, too. I don't get it, but to each their own, I suppose.)
It absolutely breaks my heart that little girls (or any children) can be raised in this sort of environment, and the laws that protect children from neglect, abuse and sexual assault (whether it's after a "marriage" or not) ought to be enforced.
I just can't see how it's not the case that these women and children can be taken advantage of more easily because laws against polygamy have encouraged those who believe in it to live in isolation. A law criminalizing polygamy is not necessary or sufficient to protect these women and children, and it even seems, to me, to make things worse.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-24 5:24:17 PM
Janet, if laws are forcing these people to live in isolation, so what, that doesn't mean the law can't get at them, it's just that they won't. I don't understand why these men aren't being dragged out of these compounds and severely punished for what they are doing.
I agree with Nika, and commend her for her comments. We need a lot more people like her {men and women} to speak up on issues like this. No child should suffer.
Posted by: glen | 2009-03-24 5:56:36 PM
Janet, your complete inability to reason never ceases to amaze me. The crux of your argument is that outlawing a practice increases the likelihood of people engaging in it. Or at least when the practice is "victimless." Strangely, almost magically, the same logic does not apply to "traditional" crimes like robbery, murder, arson, etc. Are you being intentionally dense?
For years activists have accused conservative types of resorting to the "slippery slope" argument when it comes to liberalizing the laws regulating sex and marriage. We were promised, on a stack, backed by numerous "experts," that legalizing gay marriage would not lead to legalizing polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. But only a few short years after gay marriage was legalized, the polygamists are petitioning the courts.
What many people do not consider is that the traditional prohibitions against incest, polygamy, and homosexuality all derive from the same part of the Torah. All were prohibited because they were considered contrary to harmonious family relations. To discredit one is to discredit all. Polygamists are already capitalizing on this, and more than one pedophile has argued that if gay marriage and polygamous marriage are legalized, why not marriage between adult and consenting child?
Here's a simple litmus test of maturity: Instead of asking, "Why can't I, why can't I?" try asking instead, "Should I, or shouldn't I?"
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 6:37:29 PM
One thing you are all missing about polygamous societies is: what happens to all of the surplus boys? If a few men monopolize all the women and girls, most of the boys who grow up in these colonies must either be sentenced to a life of celibacy or they must be pushed out, into the mainstream, unprepared for the real world. Why doesn't that concern anyone?
I don't think there is anything *inherent* in polygamy that leads to female servitude, etc. Servitude is in some ways a matter of perspective, anyway. For example, the silverback gorilla is actually controled by his harem, not the other way around. He uses his superior physical strength to fight off male pretenders to his top-dog status. Primatologist Frans de Waal points out that when one of the harem wants something that the alpha male can provide, 9 times out of 10 he will give it to her, because without the support of his harem he cannot on his own defeat coalitions of beta-males. Pleasing the harem means life and death to males.
Mainstream men in the western world aren't much better off than the alpha-male gorilla. They have to provide for their women and children, in fierce combat with other males, or they get uncerimoniously turfed. Sacrificing their lives for women and children does not only happen on the Titanic or at war: 95% of all occupational deaths (and nearly as high a proportion of injuries) occur to men, who need to work to support women and children. And that doesn't even take into account the deaths and shortened lifespans due to work stress and lifestyle. Why isn't this an occupation opportunity anyone wants to see equalized? Why don't we expect women to take the same risks in support of men and children? Who is the servant, and who the master, in mainstream society?
The fact that humans are "dimorphic" (two forms), with males being larger than females, suggests that in our evolutionary past we were a harem-building species. Polygamy is as natural to humans as dominance-aggression is to males. It might be a natural tendency - like a taste for sugar - than needs to be curbed in modern life. But to think that one size must necessarily fit all people is a bit naive.
As long as people have informed, educated, autonomous consent to their personal lifestyles, they should be allowed to do whatever doesn't impose negative externalities on non-consenting others. Coyne is right. This is not a criminal issue.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-25 3:51:00 AM
If you listen to groups like Women Against Violence Against Women or National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Grant, you'll soon have the answer to your question: Although none of them will come right out and say it, many women feel that while men's lives are expendable, theirs are not.
How else could they justify demanding special attention to the "crisis" of violence against women, when men are murdered at twice the rate, and assaulted at three times the rate? (The fact that most assailants are men is irrelevant; we are discussing the victims, not the aggressors, so nobody throw that at me.) How else could they receive lesser sentences for the same offence?
The reason so many more men die on the job is because, in spite of their claims to the contrary, women really don't want true equality with men; they just want what they traditionally haven't been able to have. Equality a la carte, as it were. They simply don't gravitate to the grungy, dirty, dangerous jobs in significant numbers.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-25 6:22:02 AM
Shane: "Janet, your complete inability to reason never ceases to amaze me. The crux of your argument is that outlawing a practice increases the likelihood of people engaging in it. Or at least when the practice is "victimless." Strangely, almost magically, the same logic does not apply to "traditional" crimes like robbery, murder, arson, etc. Are you being intentionally dense?"
I didn't see that argument at all. One argument I see is: With polygamy illegal, the polygamists go into hiding. When in hiding, it is more difficult for the rest of us to see when something heinous is going on. That's not at all the same thing as: Making polygamy illegal, there will be more polygamy.
The argument has always been (whether in this debate or the marijuana one): Making X illegal increases Y, where X is either polygamy or drugs, and Y is violence, harm, death, rape, etc.
The claim is that X is either not immoral *all on its own* (marijuana and, to some, polygamy), or the badness of X is less severe than the badness of Y.
Part two of the argument is that making X legal would reduce incidence of Y, even if it may increase incidence of X itself. But if X is not inherently bad, or the bad of X is less severe than the badness of Y, then, in the former case, we shouldn't care and in the latter case we should approve of legalizing X if the net bad is less than the status quo.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-25 6:25:33 AM
"I don't think there is anything *inherent* in polygamy that leads to female servitude, etc."
Grant - I agree, and didn't mean to imply that. I think there's some correlation there, although it's based only on the popular impression (though with so many polygamists living in isolation I think it might be a safe impression to hold).
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-25 7:04:48 AM
"Janet, if laws are forcing these people to live in isolation, so what, that doesn't mean the law can't get at them, it's just that they won't."
Exactly. And what good are laws that won't be enforced? Not much better than those that can't be.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-25 7:08:01 AM
Grant, what makes you think that these young boys and girls are giving informed, educated, autonomous consent to their lifestyles when they are "told" how to dress and act their whole lives?
Do you actually think these kids have access to the outside world, t.v., internet, newspapers,etc. Of course not. Thats one way of "brainwashing" and controlling kids starting at a young age.
Posted by: glen | 2009-03-25 9:19:54 AM
Karol, that was quite the interesting read. Welcome back.
Posted by: glen | 2009-03-25 9:59:57 AM
P.M.,
1. Crime cannot be eliminated; the best we can hope for is to drive it underground. Few people are prepared to endure the legal persecutions and sanctions associated with criminalized behaviour; fewer still have the means to do so. What is the problem here?
2. If you criminalize something, then after that point, by definition, only criminals will do it. Criminals tend to be violent anyway because they have few scruples. Thus violence will become associated with the forbidden act. But it is not the prohibition itself that causes the violence, but the fact that only criminals perform the act.
3. History is replete with examples of polygamy. Almost all favour men at the expense of women. This system is incompatible with modern notions of liberty and equality, as well as with moral traditions dating back nearly 3,000 years. That's too high a price to pay for (theoretically) eliminating the odd pervert farm.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-25 10:03:03 AM
Karol, isn't that the basic plot of The Handmaid's Tale?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-25 10:04:22 AM
glen,
I'm pretty sure the children of Bountiful are indoctrinated into accepting the ideology of the alpha-males, just as the children of Jonestown and Waco were. Examples of destructive, cult-like indoctrination abound, and are hardly limited to polygamous enclaves. The problem with these cult-like places is the indoctrination and other abuses of power that undermine educated, informed consent. THAT is what we should be addressing - not polygamy per se.
All I need to claim is that polygamy and polyandry CAN be rational, automonous lifestyle choices for them to be permissible in a free society. Just because it is a lifestyle choice that very few WOULD rationally and autonomously choose is not a basis to ban it. Very few people would rationally and autonomously choose to be professional wrestlers or honeywagon operators, too, but that's no basis for banning them.
And I do want to insist that polygamy has as many inherent problems for males as for females. The obsessive, single-mined focus on the harms done to women in our society is unhelpful.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-25 11:43:01 AM
Actually, Grant, that is NOT all you need to claim, nor is to claim it enough in itself. This is not an exercise in philosophy or theoretical sociology; in this real world of ours, actions have consequences, as do policies. And the fact that very few people would rationally and autonomously choose this lifestyle is, in fact, sufficient cause to ban it. Much more than sufficient. You could use the same argument to justify slavery, which is a much closer approximation of what the women in Bountiful apparently endure than pro wrestling. The difference is the element of choice; no one FORCES anyone to become a wrestler. You have to work very hard at it in fact. But being born in Bountiful instead of anywhere else requires only ill luck.
I agree that society needs to stop putting women on pedestals, if they're ever to have any hope of true equality. However, women have made it perfectly clear that they're quite happy to keep one foot on the pedestal while keeping the other planted in the executive suite. They will never true respect in the eyes of men with an attitude like that. And their all-but-literally-stated belief that a man's life is worth less than a woman's life (despite the fact that there are more women than men) is similarly counterproductive.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-25 12:13:17 PM
Grant, I agree polygamy can be a rational choice for adults, but why enforce it onto children? There are lots of honeywagon operators out there and pro wrestlers but I would have to think that was by choice.
I'm pretty sure children of these polygamist's are free to leave at a certain age, and some have already done that, but where would you go if you don't know how to survive in the outside world and know nobody?
Posted by: glen | 2009-03-25 12:31:25 PM
glen, Shane:
What part of "The problem with these cult-like places is the indoctrination and other abuses of power that undermine educated, informed consent." don't you understand? Honestly! I want to eradicate the indoctrination of children and the abuse of power against children - and let them choose polygamy or polyandry or homosexuality or whatever they like once they have their autonomy.
Take your fingers off the trigger long enough to think about what you are "attacking" for a change. Sheesh!
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-26 12:38:19 AM
All choices are not equally valid, Grant.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-26 6:24:52 AM
Polygamy is foreign to European peoples, it's literally not in our bones, we have a genetic predisposition to monogamy; many people have written on this and it's obvious you haven't read them.
You're stuck in the 20th century while us conservatives have access to newer and better scientific genetic data. I'd recommend Kevin MacDonald, here is the intro to his essay on western culture:
"Western culture was built by people who differ genetically from those who have built the other civilizations and cultures of the world. In the following I will argue that Western cultures have a unique cultural profile compared to other traditional civilizations:
1. The Catholic Church and Christianity.
2. A tendency toward monogamy.
3. A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family.
4. A greater tendency for marriage to be companionate and based on mutual affection of the partners.
5. A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism.
6. A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science. "
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 8:06:24 AM
See also:
"Indeed, there are major contrasts in social organization between different culture areas.
1 I have argued that a critical factor for understanding the origins of European culture is that Europeans are part of the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area.
2 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy, because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period."
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/RubinRev.htm
What exactly do you people have against Darwin and science, anyway? I guess we white social conservatives are the last Darwinists; hmph, who would have thought?
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 8:10:10 AM
But, BRT, I'm confused why this should be applied at the individual level. It may be true that, generally, our culture likes this-and-that and frowns on this-and-that, and the reason for it may be genetic, and there may be a lovely evolutionary story to tell about why this-or-that is generally preferred. So, too, might chocolate be preferred over vanilla, say, in our culture for these reasons.
But these sort of reasons are the wrong sort of reasons for ethics, unless we're going to endorse cultural relativism.
So why should the fact that my culture prefers chocolate to vanilla, and this preference, say, is grounded in a nice evolutionary story, have any normative implications?
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to think that it has any normative implications whatsoever. It is merely a descriptive story. We need normative premises, coupled with the facts in evolution, to get normative conclusions. And you haven't offered (not yet, anyways) any normative premises.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-26 8:56:19 AM
OK, we've got Jaws marked as a Lysenkoist, big surprise there, considering his communist past. Anyone else want to reject Darwin and science?
"and there may be a lovely evolutionary story"
Heh, the antipathy towards genetics is palpable, though I must assure you genetics is not a "story", it is science.
You've conceded there is a genetic basis for monogamy among European peoples, despite your obvious negative feelings towards that conclusion, that's enough for me; I'll leave it to you to explain why social engineering is a preferable option.
Monogamous societies do better, lots of empirical data for that conclusion, by your logic we should be telling brown people who practice polygamy not to do so, despite their preference for polygamy being genetically based.
If you wish to continue this conversation I insist you clearly state your position and produce data and studies to back it up, as I have. No ankle biting Peter, this is a serious topic and not time for childish libertarian games. Your "confusion" is not my problem, but rather a source of amusement.
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 9:20:08 AM
You make too many assumptions, BRT. I endorse and wholeheartedly accept genetics and evolution. The bit about a "lovely evolutionary story" was not meant as an attack on evolution or genetics. It was meant as an objection to the uses we put a *descriptive* story to.
I have no negative feelings towards the conclusion that there is a genetic basis for monogamy among European peoples. I just don't think anything normative follows from that fact. If there were a genetic basis for preferring chocolate among European peoples, that would tell me, of European background, absolutely nothing about whether or not I'm right to prefer chocolate.
Obviously, I object social engineering. It is obvious in everything I have written. It is not social engineering to endorse individual liberty, and giving people the option to do something or not.
By my logic? Please spell out my logic. Because nothing I've written even suggests that. The claim that "monogamous societies do better" is fine, but what it supports (adding the normative premise "we ought to promote what makes societies do better") is that society ought to be sufficiently monogamous. But that allows for a few exceptions. For example, we might think that baseball is fun to play, and societies that permit baseball do better than those that do not. But this doesn't tell us whether or not Jimmy, in particular, should play baseball. It also doesn't tell us when it's good to play baseball. It only tells us that a certain amount of baseball playing, perhaps distributed evenly across the population, or unevenly within a subgroup, etc., is good for society. That still permits Jimmy not to play at all, or even pay attention to baseball at all. So, too, with polygamy. You can't go from "societies that practice monogamy do better" to "everyone ought to be monogamous within that society" unless you add the premise that "only if everyone is monogamous will society do better."
As for your final comment, my concern was only about ethics, not about the science or evolution. I'm not disputing your scientific claims, nor your familiarity with evolution. I'm merely disputing the claim that we can go from descriptive facts to normative claims. I am insisting on the is-ought gap.
I am also insisting on something that I should know better than to insist upon, and that's a certain amount of levity, charity and decency. I'm sincerely doing my best to engage your arguments, and to get somewhere, even if that somewhere is disagreement. But we can agree to disagree without ad hominem or attacks on character and so on.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-26 10:42:55 AM
Actually don't bother responding, Peter, I reread your response - it's straight Trotskyism, and I use the term advisedly.
Example: men are genetically predisposed to being better at math and more interested in it then women; it's only the feminists and lefties, and now you apparently, who see a problem with that and feel the need to change that, because they see it as "wrong". They, and you, prefer a socially engineered society, one where people do what their "betters" tell them to do, rather what is natural and what they want to do, as they have done for thousands of years.
It was said Trotsky was in love with a version of man that never existed. Apparently you are too, my social engineering friend.
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 10:43:59 AM
Damn, a few seconds earlier and I coulda stopped him, lol.
I'm not interested in hearing a Trotskyist's opinion on the matter, your junk science has already been debunked. I always had you pegged for a lefty but, geez, not this far left.
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 10:46:32 AM
Nothing I've said suggests social engineering.
Nothing I've said suggests any opposition to evolution or genetics. In fact, I've said, repeatedly, that I endorse both.
I have not presented any scientific views of my own, so the claim that I believe junk science is without evidence or support.
My dispute is ethical, not scientific. Normative, not descriptive. I want to know how you plan on using the descriptive evolutionary and genetic science to buttress a normative view about whether or not we (without exception) ought to be monogamous. I tried to be charitable and offered a normative premise for you that, with the empirical facts, would yield a normative conclusion.
So, how do you go from the descriptive to the normative? And how do you move from a non-universal claim about European cultures to a universal claim about European cultures?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-26 10:56:50 AM
Sorry, BRT, but you're full of shit.
It's true that Europeans differ from other peoples genetically, but anyone living in America, that land of immigrants, ought to know that you can have any ethnic group's genes and still grow up to be as American as baseball and apple pie. Genetic makeup does dictate the framework in which your ultimate personality and attitudes will be constructed--some people will be short-tempered, others patient, some brave, some cowardly--but not to the point of erasing basic evolutionary imperatives.
Humans are not evolutionarily disposed towards monogamy; this is a social, not a biological development. Men are equipped physically and mentally to be roving impregnators, and uniquely among most animals, women are capable of accepting sex at any time during their cycle, and are also capable of refusing. Their libido does rise some when they are most fertile, but that's it.
Now as for your "points," please allow me to torpedo them one by one:
1. Neither Jews nor Arabs are European. All three Abrahamic religions have a common root in the ancient Hebrews and there is far more about them that is alike than different, yet Arabs still have a tribal, extended family outlook that Europeans have long since shed--despite the similarity of their religions.
2. A blatant falsehood; see above. What tendency towards monogamy is social, not evolutionary or genetic.
3. Europeans were as tribal as any Arab nation until comparatively recently. The nation-state as we know it did not exist in medieval times. In the case of Irish and Scottish clans and Sicilian crime families, it survived into the early modern era and even, in diluted form, to the present day. And Arabs in the Middle Ages were far more advanced socially and scientifically than Europeans. So, for that matter, were many Asian civilizations.
4. Arranged marriages persisted in European societies until comparatively recently, and as late as the 20th century the patriarch reserved the right to approve this or that union.
5. A rehash of 3. Only in the 20th century has the European family devolved to the point of the nuclear family, which is indeed more of an American phenomenon than a European one. Know why houses in the 19th century were so huge? Because you had three generations of a family living in them.
6. The tendency toward individualism is also largely an American phenomenon. Collectivist thinking is still quite common in Europe, particularly eastern Europe. Socialism as an idea swept the world in the 20th century, but took root only in those countries with collectivist outlooks. Many people throughout the world cannot understand the American cult of the individual.
In any case, your insistence that a proper moral family structure is the exclusive baggage of the Great White Christian smacks of racism, if not Nazi-style Aryanism, showing the same basic ignorance of human culture and semi-mythical "science," so we may fairly safely discount it. Western society may be at the top of the heap technologically and perhaps even morally today, but it certainly hasn't always been that way. As recently as a thousand years ago the picture was very different.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-26 11:06:22 AM
Peter: let me answer you more cheerfully if more vaguely by saying I never did like Socrates or the socratic method. I see the value in it but respectfully neither you nor I are Socrates. At least Shane did more than ask questions, even if he did call me a nazi and full of sh*t, so I'll respond to him.
Your response to 1 through six are full of crap, I'll zero in on our key difference:
"Humans are not evolutionarily disposed towards monogamy; this is a social, not a biological development."
You at least state what you believe, but don't really back it up, the argument re: men as impregnators is a non sequitur and not really news to anyone.
Europeans were a hunter gatherer people for quite a long time and a unique one due to their harsh terrain and climate. Without agriculture it is more difficult to acquire wealth and in any case material goods were of lesser value in a society that moved with migrations. This is key in understanding the evolutionary basis for monogamy among Europeans.
MacDonald goes into further detail. The bias toward monogamy exists and is fact and precedes Christianity; that's not up for debate. MacDonald's reasoning is sound, peer reviewed, and remains unrebutted, except by internet heroes of course. Much of your understanding of history is wrong and superficial and directly contradicted by MacDonald's peer reviewed papers.
You'll have to offer more than unsupported assertions, a poor grasp of history, and accusations of Naziism, I'm afraid.
Posted by: BRT | 2009-03-26 11:50:41 AM
SOURCE OF PARODY
"SYMETRIC EQUALITY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN"
PARODY
TEST CASE DEFENSE OF POLYGAMY UNDER:
MARK WITH AN (X): DEFINE NEW LEGAL THEORY OF:
( ) "ASSYMETRIC EQUALITY" BETWEEN MAN AND WOMEN
DISCLAIMERS OR DISCLAIMERS; COMPILATION AND DERIVATIVE WORKS; [QUASI] FACT OR [QUASI] FICTION; WRITER'S NOTICES AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOTATED, SUMMARIZED, OR STATED.
NOTICE OF OWNERSHIP OF COMMENT (NOTICE OF OFFENSIVE RIGHTS):
The Licensor and/or its affiliates or subsidiaries own all rights that may exist from time to time in this or any other jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic, under patent law, copyright law, publicity rights law, moral rights law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law or other similar protections, regardless of whether or not such rights or protections are registered or perfected (the "Intellectual Property Rights"), in the Software/Written Material. ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AND TO THE COMMENT MATERIALS ARE AND SHALL REMAIN IN LICENSOR.
=====================================
Posted by: DEBATER | 2009-03-26 12:00:59 PM
"My dispute is ethical, not scientific. Normative, not descriptive. I want to know how you plan on using the descriptive evolutionary and genetic science to buttress a normative view about whether or not we (without exception) ought to be monogamous."
Why do you believe the descriptive is not ethical? Hume is wrong. Why doubt the evolutionary traits of your forefathers? It's not an ethical question, but one of freedom.
Posted by: DJ | 2009-03-26 2:17:15 PM
"that land of immigrants" a myth largely propagated by successive immigrant groups to further their own interest. There was. of course, a founding American ethny, 'a population sharing a commons descent, shared historical memories, one or more elements of common culture, a link with a homeland and a sense of solidarity among at least some of its members’.
BRT,
Shane is an ethnomasochist, although of late he reveals a modicum of sense vis-a-vis mass immigration.
Thanks for interjecting KMac, it was a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: DJ | 2009-03-26 2:51:49 PM
BTR, how is men's predisposition towards the life of a roving impregnator a non sequitur? To say that humans are predisposed to monogamy in the face of a male gender perfectly happy to play the field, especially when you provide not a shred of proof that people are disposed toward such monogamy in the first place, is just blowing smoke.
EVERYONE was a hunter-gatherer group at some time, and Europe's climate is positively mild compared with what you face in the tropics. Ferocious storms, torrential rain, battering heat, endless deserts, and a far more diversified and fiercely competitive ecology than the relatively safe and barren north; life in the north was, if anything, safer. Despite this, civilization appeared first not in Europe, but in subtropical Afro-Eurasia, and tropical America. Europe north of the Alps remained a cultural backwater until the Renaissance; such civilization as existed had been imposed by the Romans, and collapsed when the Western Empire fell.
Why European culture should have ultimately surpassed all the others is a hotly debated topic among anthropologists and historians. A recurrent theme is that it was civilized from the south up, not once but twice. It had access to the heritage of the southern civilizations, but did not have their ossified social structure; a great deal more opportunity based on merit was to be found. In a way, America has inherited Europe's mantle, becoming the dominant culture thanks to the heritage of civilized early modern Europe without the baggage of their now-ossified social structure.
Finally, don't show your pretentiousness by knocking about phrases like "peer-reviewed." We are unimpressed by what bickering academics think of one another or their ideas. Good scientific arguments are more likely to be found in found in journals and essays than in paperbacks intended for mass consumption, or ankle-biting critiques thereof. Historical records have been available for thousands of years, studied by the finest minds throughout all the ages, and to say that they have never been interpreted correctly by anyone but your hand-picked, "peer-reviewed" hero is hubris in excelsis.
Opinion is opinion is opinion, even when it's "peer-reviewed." Give me your own arguments, not somebody else's. And publish facts in support of your opinion, rather than trying to back opinion with more opinion.
"Peer-reviewed." You want fries with that?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-26 6:18:42 PM
"Ethnomasochist"?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-26 6:19:00 PM
Read Michael Hart, Shane. Who were the Roman patrician class? Who were the ancient Greeks? None other than the Indo-Europeans who posessed, on average, considerably higher intelligence than most of the peoples they defeated (including the Egyptians, Babylonian, Assyrians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Pelasgians, Tartessians, Iberians, Etruscans, Berbers, and Dravidian-speaking peoples), all of whom had evolved in milder climates than had the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans.
"That is in fact the view put forward in Hart's book and elsewhere (the theory was first proposed by Richard Lynn and then Philippe Rushton in the 1990s): In hot climates, living doesn't take a great deal of effort. In cold climates with long cold winters, exceptional efforts, organization, self-discipline, planning, group cooperation is needed. People who had those traits would have survived and produced more offspring, leading to a marked increase in the average IQ of the population. The result is, e.g., northern Asians, who developed in extremely cold climates during the last Ice Age and have high average IQs. People who developed in sub-Saharan Africa have average IQ of 70.
In brief, living in northern latitudes during the last Ice Age produced marked selective pressures for higher intelligence. Living in tropical climate does not produce selective pressures for higher intelligence."
Posted by: DJ | 2009-03-26 10:44:11 PM
First, DJ, you didn't answer the question: What is an "ethnomasochist"? Secondly, you've done the same thing BTR did, by attempting to promote your opinion backed by another opinion.
If group planning, cooperation, and organization are needed more in the north than the south, why did civilization--which requires, at a minimum, all three--first appear in the south, among the "less intelligent" non-indo-European peoples?
And how stupid could the Egyptians have been if they assembled what would become the tallest building in the world for 4,000 years without the use of a single wheel? To this day, our "superior" indo-European minds still can't figure out how they did it.
And let's not forget those quintessential dullards, the non-Indo-European Chinese, whose piddling contributions include paper, the printing press, the repeating crossbow, the firearm, the multistage rocket (and the rocket period), the bursting shell, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder (as opposed to the tiller or oarsweep then in use elsewhere), the clock escapement, manned flight (with kites), metallurgy of such quality that some 2,000-year-old swords are still in battle condition, and the most exquisite pottery the world has ever seen.
By the way, on the average, east Asians have higher IQ's than indo-Europeans, despite many of them inhabiting more southerly latitudes. And the wheel--the greatest invention in history after the taming of fire--was NOT invented by an Indo-European, but by a Mesopotamian, who today would be called an "Iraqi."
As I said before, indo-Europeans might today be at the high-water mark of their history while other cultures have languished, but the roles were once reversed, and well within post-Classical history. The upshot is that while there is variation of IQ between the races, it doesn't seem to have hindered them much. Innate IQ can also be raised significantly by repeated mental drilling and exercising early in life.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-27 6:45:47 AM
all these pet theories- applied femminism- Ice age Politics, dynamics of immigration etc....... nobody quotes anything from the polygamists themselves.
this might as well be a discussion about Life on Mars
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-27 6:51:11 AM
P.S. Most north Mediterranean peoples, including the Basque, Iberians, and Etruscans, spoke indo-European languages. And let's not forget that indo-European is a linguistic definition, not an ethnic definition. A Swede comes from much different racial stock than an Indian. But both speak Indo-European languages.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-27 6:53:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.