Oligamy Against Couples

Oligamy is the principle that each person (man or woman) should, if they choose, be intimately engaged, semi-permanently, with a few persons rather than a single person as in monogamy. “A few” means three or four or five. This arrangement should have recognition in law. The meaning of “intimate” is a matter of interpretation. The persons are not casual or temporary partners. They may or may not know each other, but must know of each other.

I contend that, in practice, the principle of monogamous marriage causes harm on a massive scale for most concerned. Often, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

Oligamy does not deprive those content in a monogamous situation of their choice. What is egregious is the unrealistic ideal of monogamous marriage for everyone.

Intimate relationships do not necessitate co-habitation. In fact, I contend, it is the principle of co-habitation that causes half of the disputes and vexation we are all aware of.

Societal and State recognition of Oligamy as an institution similar to monogamous marriage could also be described as the formalisation of friendship.

In my first and best-known essay “Against Couples” — as well as in subsequent writing on the topic — the emphasis was on the lack of any contemporary justification for monogamy as a universal principle. Now, some forty years later, I wish to stress the harm which that dominant ideology causes.

The issue is not the handful of cases where, eventually, all goes well, as if it were a matter of persistence and goodwill alone. What is at issue, rather, are habits of thought and assumptions which are often hidden. But also denial, since almost all of my personal observations (from the time I was a child to the present) indicate pernicious ramifications not only at an individual level, but in wider society. Marriage constrains, and when it is upheld obstinately it risks preventing vastly better constellations.

For newcomers to my argument, let me first dispose of the objection of the need for any child to be cared for by both mother and father. I discuss this separately, proposing alternative and constructive avenues away from the narrow nuclear family, with involvement of others in upbringing and a growing role for paternity.

A crucial consideration there — but also more widely — is the desirability of legal status. One good reason that people marry is so that, on death or incapacity of the other, they are not a nobody in the eyes of the world and the eyes of government.

With the concept of oligamy I am advocating that this status should not be restricted to a single partner, but be possible, permanently, for a few. Not many, which is what opponents are quick to allege. And, of course, equally for men and women. Hence oligamy is quite distinct from polygamy.

One core criticism of monogamy is that it is, de facto, based on the principle of exclusion. It does this through the idea, or ideal, of fidelity. It is opposed to new love. One corollary is the emergence of power and power-play. These, in turn, are opposed to love, which at its best is devoid of such. The nature of personal love has been a parallel focus of my thinking, which can be found at www.thinking-for-clarity.com/love.html

I venture that the main reason people marry is to provide sexual satisfaction without continual seeking. Marriage reins in the disruption which is implicit in sexual desire.

Some religious — or rather puritan — quarters deny the premise of this argument, namely that there is for almost everyone, for some decades at least, such a thing as incapacitating or recurrent sexual desire. The puritans have lost the argument not least since we have become aware of widespread abuse and especially child abuse precisely among those who have sworn to chastity.

With its prohibition of “infidelity,” monogamy enables either partner to put pressure on the other by persistently refusing intercourse, i.e. without there being any other good reason (such as not being in the mood). (That is, the purpose of the refusal is to deprive the other of sexual satisfaction.)

The adherents of monogamy refuse to countenance the obvious solution, which is a broad acceptance of the principle of the right of first refusal.

The dynamics of sexual desire and focus merit separate and profound treatment. Suffice it to say here that (i) there is fundamental asymmetry between men and women; (ii) ambivalence in matters sexual is endemic, which is to say it cannot be eradicated; and (iii) some of us need a way of conceptualising what happens in sex (my suggestion is that desire is the reminder that, apart from being individuals, we are members of the human race, with sex being a movement into anonymity).

Other factors are at play. One of these is identification with the spouse or partner, whether subjective or in the eyes of the world. An examination of this would consider the experience of being in love and the temporary merging which this demands, to be set against an easy compatibility and familiarity which may arise later. Other couples are for public display only. (In the Belle Époche being unmarried was frowned upon, with the result that homosexual men married lesbians.)

Another factor is the demand for co-habitation. Many marital disputes, I contend, stem from living on top of each other. Co-habitation may be of necessity, with separate households nearby being unaffordable or unavailable. But, for many, it is less than ideal and often an entrapment. Just as some need the buzz of constant company, others need a private space and solitude.

A further point to consider is change in society. In the West, men & women no longer live in separate worlds as they still do in many parts of the world. They work side-by-side and socialise similarly. The male-female divide is handled differently.

Better than divorce, I contend, is addition. A new liaison need not come at the expense of the old. Of course, there is a danger it will be seen as such by those of a jealous disposition. One of the gravest faults of the current dispensation is that it encourages this vice, or even makes it out to be a virtue.

English, and no language I know of, lacks a word for the inverse of jealousy, which is indignation at exclusion. Certainly, some exclusion is inevitable, since we can only be close to a very small number of people. The objection is when then this small number is reduced to one as a matter of principle rather than misfortune.

A major encumbrance is that we lack a culture of amicable separation. This applies even when the relationship has run its course, with nothing novel, only rehearsal of what has been. (Solidarity or assistance in times of need is a separate matter.) Knowing this, many will hesitate even to begin a new liaison. Yet such a liaison may lead to something much better than a fond memory.

As long as monogamous marriage is the prevailing norm, it inhibits full flourishing — quite apart from, not infrequently, ending disastrously, while in more felicitous cases there is incessant bickering. It needs to be discredited and seen instead as one option among others. If two people meet and merge, as in the ideal, then good on them. Their lifestyle and life choices will eventually have downsides — as will any others. What is objectionable is the implicit suppression or disregard of other lifestyles and life choices. (Not that all necessarily have much choice.)