Blaming the Setting, Not the Actors
A story on Anderson Cooper today (repeated from last November) about the evils of polygamy. A woman who was trapped in a polygamous marriage, practically a prisoner in her own home. She was forced in to marriage by her parents, who belonged to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, a radical breakoff sect of Mormonism. Her husband told her that a if she refused to have children with him as often as he dictated, it was a sin unto death to refuse him. She had eight children by him in 15 years. She was trapped and imprisoned because the four other wives and many of the total 54 children in the family were conditioned to report anything suspicious happening to the husband/father, making it feel like a police state. The children were moved into a private sect school and the “books were burned,” though it’s not made completely clear what that means. The woman eventually made a dramatic escape.
Now, the interesting thing is that the original story back in November focused on the correct issue, which was the fanaticism and wrongdoing within the religious cult. But the story run today, with a different intro, screen banner, and follow-up interview, focused on polygamy as being the evil. Polygamy was mentioned several times as the root cause of the problem, identified as the culprit, in a sense. And that’s quite an interesting shift in the editorial slant on the story. Polygamy has been more in the news recently, mostly due to the new HBO series, Big Love; there seem to be many people who, in reaction, feel the need to vilify polygamy.
Now, if this ‘news’ show decided to examine polygamy’s ups and downs, that would be one thing. But to take a story about a radical religious cult and to shift the blame for its practices on polygamy? That’s kind of like taking the Jonestown massacre that killed 913 people in Guayana in 1978 and blaming it on the Kool-Aid company, or taking the David Koresh cult story and blaming it on farm houses.
What I’d like to see–but probably won’t–is an actual, objective look at polygamy, both in historical and international perspectives, both the good and the bad. But most importantly, the good and the bad of polygamy, not the idiosyncrasies of the people or cults that practice it.
I read an interesting book last year by Jon Krakauer called “Under the Banner of Heaven” all about the FLDS church in Colorado City.
That’s a great book- I read it too. The prime argument of the book seems to be that Mormonism is run, through and through, with violence. Polygamy is a large part of it, but Mormon history is rampant with non-polygamy violent events.
But Luis, you’re right- it’d be interesting to see what kind of coverage a truly fair look at polygamy would receive.
Paul
Seattle, WA
The problem with polygamy or any analysis of marriage or relationships is that it cannot be divorced (no pun intended) from the idiosyncracies of the involved individuals. By its very nature, marriage is deeply affected by the personalities, values, belief systems, etc. of all involved parties. The quality of a partnership, monogamous or otherwise, is dictated by the emotional maturity and psychological stability of the people involved.
In the end, this is why polygamy will never work. Any time there is unequal power in a relationship, there is pain for the less empowered. Polygamy by it’s very nature increases the power of the “head of household” (be it male or female) and increasingly decreases the power of the dependents. And the dependents will then feel obliged to compete for a bigger slice of the pie (that can be a financial, emotional, sexual, etc.) and the head of household would end up manipulating the competitors. Human beings simply aren’t self-actualized enough to deal with such relationships in a fair and emotionally equitable fashion. The chances of all involved parties being well-adjusted and mature enough for a healthy arrangement is nearly zero.
There is a reason polygamy is associated with a mentality that a man desiring it wants a “harem” to serve him. It’s because having multiple partners is about power.
If you want to get an inkling of how hard it’d be, consider how hard it is for parents to treat all their children equally and fairly (or for them to avoid the appearance of favoritism). In the case of parents, there is a much stronger motivation to deal with children fairly but they rarely manage regardless. If you multiply all the sibling issues and resentment by about a thousand, you’d probably approach how it’d be among multiple husbands or wives in a polygamous situation.
In any situation where someone has power over multiple dependents, there will always be serious problems related to favoritism and the currying of favor. And there will always be those who are powerless and at a disadvantage. A man with one wife may be reluctant to lose her and make compromises to improve his communication skills or habits to have a satisfying arrangement with his wife. A man with several wives has little incentive to make such adjustments. In the end, polygamy would very likely only serve to place more women at a disadvantage in relationships than already are in such a position. And I mainly relate this to women because men would be the ones primarily in a financial position to support multiple wives and the ones most attracted to the power of a polygamous situation. Women aren’t psychologically inclined toward multiple partners.