Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human

by William Tucker

Marriage built civilization. Will its collapse lead to our downfall?

In Marriage and Civilization , Tucker takes readers on a journey through the history of the human race to demonstrate how a pattern of life-long, monogamous pairings has enabled humans to build modern civilization. Drawing extensively on biological, anthropological, and historical evidence, Tucker makes the case that marriage is not only a desirable institution for societies, it’s actually the bedrock of civilization.

Tucker also examines America (and the world)’s current marriage crisis, and the factors that have led to the decline of marriage, the dramatic rise of divorce, and the epidemic of single parenthood. He draws bold predictions about what could happen to American society of marriage collapses entirely, and he sketches out the threat from polygamous groups such as fundamental Muslim sects. Polygamy, Tucker argues, not only generates discontent and disorder within a society, but promotes violence against others. Monogamous marriage is vital not only to our domestic well-being, but our survival in the face of violent enemies.

Genres: History, Sociology, Psychology, Nonfiction, Anthropology

289 pages, Hardcover

First published February 3, 2014

Reviews

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the second book (the first was How the West Really Lost God by Mary Eberstadt) I've read that argues that marriage is crucial for a healthy society.  Whereas Eberstadt examines the issue from a religious perspective, Tucker is concerned with an evolutionary/sociological approach.  Both agree that monogamous marriages/family are crucial to civilization as we know it.  It's something to consider as we rank our values.  Some notes I took:


Tucker argues that income inequality is based on family.  The presence of a father is key

Evolutionary perspective. Tucker is agnostic on the issue of same-sex marriage. Thinks it could hurt or help.. Jury Still out

High male losses to warfare resulted in polygamy

On the flip side, the shortage of women will cause societies to go to war. Men need more women for marriage. There's a relationship between monogamy and warfare

Monogamy leads to reduced crime rate and higher productivity among men, because they have to support the family

Under modern monogamy, child marriages disappear and the disparity between ages reduces

Tucker scoffs at the idea that romantic love was a medieval invention. Cites examples of ancient poetry, such as Song of Solomon

Fascinating history of Mormonism

Links the violence of Islam with polygamy

Shortage of women= volatile male population

Everyone's rebelling against a 1950 society that doesn't exist anymore

Criticizes the Democrat Party for perpetuating fatherlessness in order to bolster votes

[Vicki · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reader, be forewarned before you read this book.
I liked the first three quarters of the book for its historical and sociological defence of marriage, which I found interesting and refreshing since marriage is more commonly defended on religious grounds.
I grew a little concerned as the section on "Modern Questions" focused a little too much on single black mothers in the US.
It was the second last chapter called "What Do Women Want?" where things got political and ugly with elements of racism, sexism, and classism. Let me just quote the passage and let William Tucker's words speak for themselves:

"The dean of collective parenting, of course, is Hillary Clinton, the former first lady whose bestseller It Takes a Village, says we should look to Africa for a model of society-wide parenting to supplement the nuclear family. Why anyone would look to tropical Africa, the home of polygamy and one of the most dysfunctional regions of the planet for an example, is a bit of a mystery. But by page thirty-seven the "village" has become the "government" and you can imagine what happens after that. Feminists have been pushing for the state to take over the role of the father almost since the feminist revival of the 1960s began. Barbara Ehrenreich has never stopped pushing for a welfare system to support middle-class single mothers. In her last book, Betty Friedan argued for a "federal subsidy for divorce" (she had divorced her husband in 1969). Sarah Blaffer Hrdy complains "politicians... are still out there talking about how they know children are healthier when they're reared with a mother who is married to their father."
"Instead of acknowledging that what we are witnessing is the break-down of the oldest human institution, feminists try to redefine the problem as the "feminization of poverty." This is a rhetorical trick to divert attention from the obvious fact that women have caused a great deal of the problem themselves by seeking alternatives to marriage. Single motherhood is now considered a progressive option that women openly embrace. Seventy-five percent of divorces are initiated by women, often for the most trivial of reasons. No-fault divorce and near-automatic maternal custody have made the process as painless as possible for both men and women. The "feminization of poverty" is simply a plea for a paternalistic state to take over the role of men.
"Ironically, part of the problem is that educated elites don't practice what they preach. As Charles Murray has noted, most educated people keep their families together, defer childbirth until marriage, send their children to good colleges, and practice an ethic of ambition. It is the lower classes who are absorbing the message that marriage doesn't matter, that illegitimacy is no big deal, and that there is nothing wrong with being on the public dole.
"In the middle of all this, the strategy of the Democratic Party has become to peel off low-income women, the most vulnerable constituency, and turn them into a voting bloc entirely dependent on the government. This was epitomized by the Obama administration's egregious "Julia" campaign advertisement during the 2012 election, featuring the woman who received all her benefits from the government and never had to rely on a father or husband. The Democrats have already been wildly successful in recruiting African American women, who vote for them in banana-republic proportions. If they succeed in peeling off working-class women as well, they may have an unassailable national majority.
"Central to this campaign is an imaginary "war on women," which has now become a staple in Democratic campaigns. Drawn straight from the feminist playbook, the "war on women" says that women are an oppressed class if they do not have: 1) unlimited access to free birth control; 2) unlimited access to abortion; 3) the right to complete wage parity with men, based on "credentials" rather than performance; and 4) the right to government support if all else fails. This is not an attempt to alleviate poverty or redistribute income across social classes. It is an attempt to set up a separate statist constituency that operated entirely separately from monogamous society.
"Although barely acknowledged, this split has already become the main dividing line in the American electorate. A common theme in the reelection of Barack Obama in 2012 was that the votes of blacks and women put him over the top and that the Republican Party had simply become "too old and too white." "Too married" would be more appropriate. Married women voted by a margin of 7 percentage points for Romney and married people favoured him by 14 points. It was the vote of single women - single mothers, divorced women, plus fire-breathing feminists convinced that society is making war on them - who supported Obama by a devastating 68-to-30 majority, putting him over the top. And of course the cohort of unmarried people is continually growing.
"The major question facing future electorates is likely to be whether we will continue as a society built around the monogamous two-parent family or whether we will submit to a kind of "state polygamy" where women congregate around the major source of wealth - the government - while men slink off into their separate quarters to pursue a fading warrior culture - played out this time on video games.
"The art of fatherhood does not come naturally but is a skill that must be passed on from generation to generation. It is being lost. And when it is lost, women may be the ones to suffer even more than men."

Still want to read the rest of the book? You can have my copy. I don't want it anymore. I'm all for marriage, but this has tainted the entire book which would have been quite good if this chapter had been left out.

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

تعدد الزوجات
.
.
لا شيء أذهل علماء الأنثروبولوجيا في القرن التاسع عشر أكثر من مسألة كيف ومتى تطورت الأسرة البشرية.
منذ العصور القديمة، كان الزواج الأحادي هو القاعدة العامة للحضارات الغربية. ومع ذلك، كان الناس يعرفون دائمًا أن أنظمة التزاوج الأخرى ممكنة. مارست الآلهة اليونانية زواجًا أحاديًا فضفاضًا جدًا يقترب من الفوضى الزوجية. اتخذ العديد من البطاركة العبرانيين الأوائل عدة زوجات. على الرغم من أن الزواج الأحادي كان منصوص عليه في اللوائح القانونية في اليونان وروما وعززته الكنيسة الكاثوليكية في العصور الوسطى، إلا أنه كان من المعروف أن الثقافات الأخرى - وأبرزها الإسلام في الشرق الأوسط - لم تعترف به.

أصبح هذا الأمر أكثر وضوحًا مع انتشار المستكشفين الأوروبيين بين قبائل أفريقيا والبحار الجنوبية والسهول الأمريكية، وكشفوا أن ممارسة تعدد الزوجات كانت شبه عالمية خارج الغرب المسيحي. أصبح التقرير الأول لرحلات الكابتن كوك، الذي نُشر عام 1771، معيارًا للاعتراف بأن عادات الزواج الغربية لم تكن شائعة على الإطلاق في العالم الواسع. كتب كوك عن مواطني نيوزيلندا الأصليين: «تعدد الزوجات مسموح به بين هؤلاء الناس، وليس من غير المألوف أن يكون للرجل زوجتان أو ثلاث زوجات، كما أن المرأة تكون صالحة للزواج في سن مبكرة جداً.

وهناك ملاحظة أخرى، أكدها آخرون على مدى العقود والقرون التالية، وهي أن القبائل البدائية كانت في حالة حرب دائمة تقريبًا مع بعضها البعض. كتب كوك: "يبدو من عدد أسلحتهم وبراعتهم في استخدامها، أن الحرب هي مهنتهم الرئيسية". العديد من اللقاءات اللاحقة والدراسات الأنثروبولوجية ستؤكد ذلك لاحقًا.

بطبيعة الحال، كان لكل هذا تفسير سهل بالنسبة للمجتمع المسيحي في القرن الثامن عشر : وهو أن هؤلاء الناس وثنيين، غير مستنيرين في طرق الله وبحاجة إلى التحول. ومع اكتشاف الهياكل العظمية الأولى لإنسان النياندرتال في عام 1856 ونشر كتاب أصل الأنواع (1859) وأصل الإنسان (1871)، بدأ هذا التفسير السهل يفقد أهميته. وتدريجيًا، أصبح من الواضح أن الأرض أقدم بكثير مما كان يتوقع سابقاً، وأن أصول الإنسان تعود إلى زمن بعيد جدًا. لذا، يمكن العثور على جذور تعدد الزوجات في عصور ما قبل التاريخ البعيدة أيضًا، وربما تكون جزءًا من تركيبتنا التطورية.

جاءت أول محاولة لتفسير أصول العائلة البشرية من الناحية التطورية في عام 1861، أي بعد عامين من كتاب أصل الأنواع. نشر يوهان باهوفن، أستاذ القانون السويسري، كتاب «حق الأم: بحث في الطابع الديني والقانوني للنظام الأمومي في العالم القديم». بدأ باهوفن بملاحظة بسيطة تظل أقوى حجة ، بما في ذلك للعديد من الناشطين في مجال حقوق المرأة اليوم، الذين يرون الأسرة تقوم على الأمومة العازبة. قال باهوفن إنه في حين أن الأمومة واضحة دائمًا، فإن الأبوة دائمًا ما تكون غامضة إلى حد ما. في العالم المتحضر، يفهم الرجال المتزوجون العلاقة بين الجماع والحمل ويطرحون ادعاءاتهم الأبوية. لكن في عالم بدائي، كانت العلاقة بين الجنس والأبوة أكثر غموضا. ونتيجة لذلك، كان من الممكن أن يواجه الذكور صعوبة أكبر في المطالبة بنسلهم، وكانت الأسرة تتألف فقط من الأم وأطفالها. وقال باهوفن إن الأسرة المكونة من الوالدين لم تتشكل إلا عندما سئمت النساء من تربية الأطفال بمفردهن وأقنعن الرجال بالاستقرار والمساعدة.
.
Tucker William
Marriage and Civilization
Translated By #Maher_Razouk

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book on a whim when I was perusing the library shelves. I am glad that I did. Tucker examined the roots of monogamy and its practice in various societies throughout history. He admits that it is a social construct, but one that has many benefits over a free love or polygamous society. The last few chapters of the book about the explosion of unwed mothers were especially fascinating.

[Nathan Roach · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tucker's work is a collection of historical and anthropological truths. Edifying and incredibly entertaining to read.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a scientific study. It is a personal evaluation of the subject from the life long perspective of an experienced, worldly journalist.

In my opinion, he nails it.

Give it to your 20/30 something sons and your teenage daughters. If they take it to heart they will enhance their prospect of real happiness and success.

And they will help advance the state of human civilization.

[Chunchun · Rating 4 out of 5]

前半部分非常有趣，后面有些枯燥，一夫一妻制保障了低等地位的男性能够延续后代，进而保障了高等阶层男性地位的稳定性，还保障了高等地位的妻子的权益。
作者对那些一夫多妻社会的鄙视溢于言表，看看现在还有一夫多妻的文化，嗯，咱也不敢说，咱也不敢问。

[Erin Mcmillen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I very much enjoyed this book until the last chapters where factual information seemed to stop and opinions and political views overruled. This tainted the material that came before.

[Oolalaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

17/20

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tucker's treatment of marriage, specifically the differences between monogamous and polygamous marriage, and its effect on civilization (not just in the west but globally) is a tour de force.
Tucker relies on biology, evolution, literature as a witness to societal norms through history, and the historical record to give readers a picture of how marriage developed through time as well as its likely origins (and unlike some Tucker actually uses what evidence there is of early humans in order to come to his conclusion). This is a book that is neither based on religious belief, not is it hostile to it. Indeed, religious beliefs are treated quite fairly when they are being critiqued for their impact on the institution of marriage with both good and bad being brought forth. This is not to say that every religion receives glowing marks when it comes to its view of, and influence on, marriage but neither are they all rejected out of hand.

Tucker's book shows how it was the development of monogamy in the earliest phase of human development that led to the possibility of a stable family unit which, in turn, led to the development of civilization. It was only later that polygamy was accepted and then as something of a "back slide" into more primitive behavior. Polygamy results in a shortage of suitable mates for a good portion of the male population which, in turn, leads to both violence across societies as young males look for wives elsewhere as well as societal unrest when they begin to view the more economically advantaged males as unfairly taking away potential wives. Indeed, through all of history polygamy has been the exclusive purview of the rich. It is interesting to note that it was the lower classes in Rome who wanted the laws outlawing marriages between social classes in order to prevent wealthy men from taking lower class women as extra wives, thus leaving the lower class men with none.

There has been an interesting development in modern society. While polygamy hasn't been accepted in the west there has been ample promotion of another non-monogamous lifestyle: the single parent household. It is promoted as being just another form a family can take, one that is every bit as good as the two parent household. But it is the poor who have adopted the single parent model, usually a single mother the father(s) of whose children has left the scene. The rich, who are invariably the promoters of single parenthood, continue to marry, stay married, have children after marriage, and educate their children. While they may see single parenthood as being good enough for the poor they themselves refuse to experience its "benefits."

My one criticism of Tucker occurs late in the game, in one of the last chapters of his book. After spending 200 or so pages pointing out the extreme dangers of polygamy Tucker states that if a society tries to become monogamous, or return to monogamy, "not everyone will be happy." I am unsure if this is meant to be a real critique since his treatment of polygamy through history makes it obvious that EVEN FEWER people would be happy if polygamy were adopted. The absence of any such statement is quizzical, to say the least.

While the current debate on marriage in society revolves around whether or not homosexual marriage is on a par with marriage itself, or is even a thing in the first place, Tucker in effect brackets that question in order to focus more clearly on his chosen topic. He does a good job of playing his cards close to his chest on that topic and in the few instances where the topic of homosexuality comes up it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell where he would come down on the issue of gay marriage.

[W. Derek Atkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, William Tucker examines the role that marriage - and specifically the role that monogamy - has on building a stable society. Tucker's central thesis is that monogamy is the key reason for why Western civilization has been so successful, although he does concede that the industrial revolution also played a role in the rise of the West (still, even then, he points out that other societies have also adopted the industrial revolution, yet did not experience the same economic success that Western countries did.)

This book is divided into four sections, with the first section being an examination of how monogamy evolved throughout human history, beginning with our primate forbears. The second section considers how monogamy took root in the West during the ancient world, while the third section considers marriage customs in the non-Western world, especially in Islamic countries, in India, and in China. Tucker finishes up with the fourth section, which takes a careful look at what has been happening to the family in America during the last 50 years.

I found this book full of great insights, and I feel that Tucker does an especially good job of describing the forces that have led to the breakup of the African-American family over the past half-century, and how many of these same forces are now leading to the breakup of the Anglo family in America.

So, why did I give this book 4 stars rather than 5? Two reasons: (1) I found much of what Tucker wrote in his first section on the evolution of marriage during humanity's prehistory to be quite speculative. At one point, Tucker even admits that what he was describing has the quality of "just so" stories. I think Tucker stands on much more solid ground once he shifts his focus away from evolutionary speculation to an examination of the historical record. (2) I felt that Tucker could have done a better job of fleshing out the history of monogamy during ancient and medieval times. I felt that his description of how monogamy took root in the West, and how monogamy survived in the West over the centuries was much too brief, and felt that his reliance on literary sources - while helpful in some ways - was too anecdotal in nature.

Still, I greatly appreciate Tucker's book, and feels he does a good job of laying out his case for the importance of monogamy in helping produce social stability, and in turning a keen eye on many of the forces that even now threaten that very stability. Along these lines, I found fascinating his description and explanation for why polygamous societies such as Islamic nations are characterized by endemic violence.

I recommend this book for scholars such as sociologists and anthropologists who are interested in issues of marriage and family structure; while I'm sure many scholars would view Tucker's work as lacking the intellectual rigor that characterize their own works, I still think Tucker's book will have the merit of provoking them to reconsider many of the current assumptions that underlie current academic thinking about marriage and family life. I also highly recommend this book for anyone who is concerned about the institution of marriage and its importance to society.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Tucker in Marriage and Civilization does an interesting job of charting the history of marriage, defining this as the union of male and female with the goal of producing and rearing young, over the course of our species and how monogamy appeared and what role polygamy played in our species and civilization.

Mr Tucker takes the monogamous as the keystone to a peaceful and productive civilization and marshals a great deal of evidence to support the thesis. At the same time, the author recognizes the role polygamy is increasingly playing in our 'welfare' state and how this is creating many tensions and failures within society as a whole.

This is a book that will infuriate Progressives/Cultural Marxists and sadden a great many Conservatives. Sadden because there does not seem to be anything that can be done to change the movement toward a fully realized welfare state; the death of marriage, and the splitting of society along the lines of the high status (normally those well-off, practicing monogamy, and staying married) and the low status (those laboring in the lower-classes, practicing polygamy, and divorcing or never marrying).

The author does not offer value judgements but is clear that polygamy leads to a division between the upper and lower elements of society and this will only get worse as the welfare state takes the place of binary monogamy.

Marriage and Civilization is not overtly anti-LGBT but in its assessments of success and failure it is difficult not to read it as so...at least inadvertently.

Rating 4 out of 5 stars

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating view into the evolutionary, anthropological, and cultural origins of monogamy, 'Marriage and Civilization' tells a very believable and rational tale regarding the benefits of marriage. Mine eyes were opened, and the connections between chimpanzees, Homer, Arabian Knights, and Queen Elizabeth were woven together with mastery.

Almost.

Anthropology and evolution are not my forté, and the cynical analyst in me (the same one which screams 'Don't trust a word they say!' every time an insurance underwriter tries to convince me that this is a 'good account') is suspicious of treasonous cherry-picking in the text. It is easy enough to look to the Rape of Lucretia or the Oddessy to validate your point, but when you claim that the tragedies from the same era also further your cause, it would appear that we have a case of having-and-eating-the-cake. You don't get it both ways.

The final section was a politically biased attempt to apply the learnings of the previous findings to the current issues facing our civilization: rising divorce rates, absent fathers, single mothers and the like. While I agree with the majority of his unabashedly Right-Wing nuttery, the delivery was a sloppy departure from the deliberate poise of the prior conclusions. 'Did I accidentally pick up Glen Beck's latest book?'

However, in aggregate, this work opened my eyes to a different view of marriage, its origins, and benefits - which is exactly what I signed up for.

[B · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book succinctly explains why we're all doomed. Enthusiasts for polygamy, "state"riarchy (where the state takes over the provider's role), libertinism, etc., ought to ponder the historical record and the evidence of human nature (Ghenghis Khan) as widely as Mr. Tucker does.

[Katharine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Made me want to check out about twenty other books! Dives into history, anthropology, and a few case studies on welfare and other more modern ideas. A fascinating read for anyone even remotely interested in relationships.

[Angeliki · Rating 1 out of 5]

Boring, outdated and often not based on valid facts but opinion