It is well
known that monogamy goes against the grain; yet also that it’s needed for
civilization. From this I deduce that monogamy is a socialistic intervention
into the mating market.
If pure
laissez-faire applied in the mating market, then the most likely result would
be oligopoly; a few males corner the market and gather large harems, the other
males are out of luck. But unattached males without prospects are a danger to
themselves and others; this is a political problem; therefore some of the
brighter politicians and priests back in the Bronze Age decided to enforce a share-and-share-alike
policy. One woman per man, no more nor less; and this rationing is enforced by
moral suasion, peer pressure, and failing that, the sword of the Law.
Such a
system is called socialism. As usual with socialism, it works approximately as
planned, but there are unintended consequences and known systemic failures.
Nonetheless, this form of socialism is, all in all, relatively successful.
Yes, you are 100% right. This is a fascinating topic. Further recommended reading would be "Sexual Utopia in Power" from F. Roger Devlin.
ReplyDeleteIs it known? There are many civilisations with polygamy. Though I suppose one might argue that in practice they have tended to be monogamous for most, nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteIt was attributed to Mazdak that he redistributed excess women from the polygamous rich to the monogamous poor, as policy. This may be a libel against him; it has been subject to all kinds of other interpretations. Mazdak, of course, was called a proto-socialist many centuries later.