Perspectives - #1 - Is Monogamy Unnatural?

ExcellingPsychology_Perspectives - #1 -  Is Monogamy Unnatural?

Having studied and practiced psychology, I am often asked for a psychologist's perspective on different issues. Though there is nothing like an absolute 'psychologist's view' on any issue, given that the field is comprised of diverse theories, I am presenting a new series of a few insights based on what I have learnt in my years with psychology which I hope will resonate with you.

Is Monogamy Unnatural?

('Monogamy' as used in this post and as being discussed today is not strictly in reference to a marital relationship, but in reference to having one intimate, romantic commitment at one time.)

An idea floating around since some time now is that monogamy is a man-made institution of intimacy which is overriding man's natural instinct - by virtue of being an animal in essence - towards having multiple intimate commitments at the same time. This is being seen as a suffocating societal imposition by many today. So, is monogamy really an unnatural way of forming relationships?

Man is a social animal. 

This oft-repeated reality contains the most critical reminder for people doubting the validity of human monogamy. Let us not remember half of the reality - that man is an animal. The complete truth is that man is a social animal. Importantly, the word social ought not be taken as a mere qualifier here. It is much more than that. It is a privilege for man to be a social animal.

Relationships define human lives. The fact that people are giving so much thought to the nature of relationships we are born to have is reflective of this. Humans are preoccupied with their relationships for most of their time - we work to provide for our loved ones, we want to attain a status to garner appreciation from those we value, we experience a host of emotions based on our exchange with others. We are capable of experiencing higher-order emotions because of these very relationships. This character of being social - not simply as a protective mechanism or to harness on the physical strength of multiples - but as a way of life is worth cherishing. We live social lives, not merely collective ones. How can we delete this truth from our definition?

We live social lives, not merely collective ones

Another fact that is inseparable from our core is that we are intellectual beings. We are capable of higher-order thinking besides feeling complex emotions. We are capable of noting the choices that we have in life and of deliberating through them to see what consequences making those choices would have on our future. This is another privilege of ours.

Let us not discount the value of our privileged lives by comparing ourselves to species who do not share these privileges. Let us be grateful to evolution for the gifts it has given us and the way it has taken us forward rather than turning back to see what has been left behind. Just as evolution has given us the physical mechanisms to enjoy social living, it has given us emotional and cognitive mechanisms too, that we cannot lose sight of. If what comes to us by virtue of being animals is 'natural,' then how can what comes to us by being evolved animals be 'unnatural'?

Even animals adapt to the unique requirements of their species

Every species faces some unique challenges. For many, it is a matter of survival. For man, it these are opportunities to enjoy living. Some species have to hibernate to conserve their energy and prepare for a change in weather, others have to learn group tactics to protect themselves from predators. These adjustments are not punitive but protective - they can never be unhealthy.

Social living requires that man commit to partnership to a single individual. It has been argued that this very society had no such requirement in the past. Since this has been the case in many civilizations, we should realize that the fact that the practice of polygamy was abandoned overtime itself reveals its failure. It has been tried and tested to reveal that it cannot add to man's quality of living.

Just because the idea of monogamy has not come immediately after the evolution of our species, it cannot be taken as 'imposed' or 'unnatural.' Even the idea of settlement did not come to man immediately after evolution. However, living a settled life is irrefutably conducive to man's well-being as compared to living openly in a jungle.

While survival is the guiding force in the lives of lower-order species, it is a given for many of us human beings. Relationships are the guiding forces in our lives. Having to adapt to strengthen our relationships is not a curse but a blessing.

Is it even possible to be intimate with many people at the same time?

Proponents of polygamy insist that it is not physical attraction that drives them, but true intimacy towards many individuals at the same time. They do not see why they should be asked to restrict or redirect their love. The question is, is intimacy with many people simultaneously possible? While having a physical relationship with many at the same time is a possibility can the same be extended to deep, romantic bonding?

When a person feels like s/he is in 'love' with more than one, s/he needs to introspect whether the emotion is really of 'love' or 'attraction.' Inherent in a real romantic relationship is devotion of time. So, not all considerations in favour of monogamy are idealistic. This critical consideration is very practical.

How do we concretely define sharing in our relationships? It is devotion of time that defines our relationships. The more time that we dedicate to a relationship, the more significance that it holds in our life. This allotment of time is not confined to one-to-one interaction alone, but also to time spent in performing activities for the significant other and even time spent just thinking about them. Given that humans are assigned limited time, can the relationships based on this time be unlimited?

It is devotion of time that defines our relationships

Moreover, of this limited time, we already have significant relationships that take the most of it. Our relationships with our family and dear friends already demand most of our time. Then comes a significant other for whom we decide we are ready to prepare a big room of accommodation. Is there a possibility of creating two or three big rooms in a home that has limited space? An attempt to do so will only lead to a compromise in the space of the rooms to adjust them altogether. Ultimately, this will lead to misery for no one enjoys a compromise.

Everything has its own nature. Relationships, too, have their own nature. They can either be defined by quantity or quality - not both. This is why, the whole argument that monogamy is not 'natural' is surprising. Perhaps it is the unfounded comparison with lower-order species that has led to this argument. The relationships of those species are meant for ends like procreation, not emotional bonding. There is no comparison between their relationships and ours.

We all feel the need for intimacy despite having close friendships

Most of us have strong feelings for some family members, someone whom we call a 'bestie' and we do enjoy these relationships and acknowledge their contribution in our lives. Yet, we feel the need for that one intimate, enduring relationship that we can label as 'lifelong companionship.' We want that one person we can share everything with, we can trust everything to, we can gain complete acceptance and understanding from. Since this is felt by the most of us, perhaps we can call it a natural longing, though people on the other side would call it a socially created one.

Now, what would happen if we enter a polygamous relationship? Woulf the relationship that we have with each partner in this arrangement restrict itself to friendship or would it move beyond to having deeper intimacy? Would we have multiple partners or multiple friends?

We all feel the need for intimacy despite having close friendships

Not any bond can be termed as an intimate one. Bonding takes place at different levels - with different intensities. A lifelong companionship cannot be based on the premise of friendship alone. Friendship does not involve the kind of commitment involved in romantic intimacy and romantic intimacy is not the same as friendship extended to intimate physical encounters. A romantic commitment often exceeds the commitment that an individual has with himself - such commitment can be found in no other relationship.

An intimate relationship does not end at a choice, it begins at one

We grow in our relationships. We discover ourselves, explore ourselves and channelize ourselves within the warmth of these relationships. We do not simply choose a relationship, label it and keep it aside. A relationship evolves with us as we evolve with it. Even a short-term relationship has a bearing on our life - it impacts our emotions, it changes our worldview. We need to be careful about how we choose the relationships in our lives.

Some proponents of polygamy argue that they see different qualities in different people that attract them towards each of them to different extents. If our manner of forming relationships is to concentrate on what we like of people while ignoring what does not appeal to us, we need to realize that this is the same attitude that others will take towards us. When we choose people rather than their qualities, our love is unconditional. When we choose one person, we take that person into our lives fully. When we choose some aspects of one person, we actually reject the person because people are complete entities and not sum totals who can be fragmented to one's preference. Segregation of a personality is impossible since personality functions as a whole at any given time. Relationships based on selective preferences are on a constant move towards failure.

We also need to introspect - are we ready for conditional acceptance or do we desire unconditional acceptance? If our partner has others s/he chooses to be intimate with, will that not lead to feelings of rejection within us? Particularly, if a person has chosen the best aspects of different people, does it not imply that there is something lacking s/he feels among some which s/he is seeking to compensate through others? Are we truly open to such judgmental relationships ourselves?

A relationship evolves with us as we evolve with it

The reality of today is that we have many expectations from our lives which keep our focus on what all we presume we could have had but do not. With this frame of mind, we keep chasing desires that we have not contemplated to the finish. Seeking multiple intimacies simultaneously is a striking example of this tiring chase. This chase will cease only when we realize that the satisfaction we are searching in all these relationships is not  a commodity that can be found and consumed. The satisfaction we seek is a fruit that will emerge out of the intention we sow and the nurturance we provide it with. This process requires attention and dedication. It is nevertheless enjoyable for the sense of progress and achievement it brings.

Let us form our relationships unconditionally and with the sincerest intent in our hearts. Then we will find such fulfillment that will keep us away from the twinge of desire.