Mags GarganThis idea of marriage as a fluid and arbitrary social construct is all-pervasive, writes Dr Samuel Shephard
The Irish Constitution commits the State to guard marriage with special care. Irish courts have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
An upcoming referendum will ask the electorate whether this definition should be changed to allow marriage between individuals of the same sex. Public argument on the topic has been fiery and largely non-productive; a significant problem is failure to adequately state the terms of the debate. Proponents of marriage re-definition typically present same-sex unions as a question of ‘equality’ – you can get married, why can’t we?
More recently articulated is the suggestion that ‘equalising’ marriage law would normalise homosexual relationships and moderate intolerance. Such arguments have sentimental resonance and strong political leverage. They are not automatically refuted by a superficial ‘traditional’ image of marriage. Marriage practices change with time and culture, why can they not be changed again?
This idea of marriage as a fluid and arbitrary social construct is pervasive enough to demand investigation. If it were true, it would represent a strong argument for re-defining marriage to reflect contemporary secular views on homosexuality.
Contast
In contrast, if marriage has a more rooted and objective basis, we should perhaps be cautious about instituting radical change. Fortunately, this question has been addressed by recent research in evolutionary biology and cross-cultural anthropology.
A first observation is that marriage practices do indeed vary: anthropologist Joseph Henrich observed that “different societies have evolved diverse sets of norms that regulate pair-bonds”. Polygyny and arranged marriage remain relatively common globally; polyandry and other groupings are rare but still evident.
There is considerable variation in marriageable age, the desirable number of wives and the acceptability of divorce and infidelity. At a superficial glance, it does appear that marriage exists as a cultural flux that simply reflects arbitrary social norms.
But nature is often like that, at first assessment we’re blinded by complexity, colour and apparent chaos. Natural systems can be characterised by amazing dynamism and diversity. The role of science is to make sense of this blur, to identify patterns and processes and develop mechanistic understanding.
Scientists studying marriage across multiple cultures can parse out differences in cultural practice into ‘ecologically’ and ‘socially’ imposed norms.
This process reveals the underlying foundation – marriage is a cultural means of constraining our evolved mating strategies to best serve society. In other words, marriage emphasises social good over individual desire, and it is essentially about reproduction.
The study of marriage as an institutionalised mating pair bond is currently a hot research topic. It has been shown that regulated marriages have a deep evolutionary history that probably goes back to the first migration of modern humans out of Africa.
The distinguished anthropologist Bernard Chapais suggests that marriage yielded “stable breeding bonds, paternity recognition and between-group transfer that paved the way for a meta-group social structure”.
Cultural
This means that prior to the emergence of complex cultural marriage practices, marriage as a distinct human trait was already a primary driver in the development of human society. Marriage created networks of kinship that ameliorated conflict and fostered cooperation among neighboring hunter-gatherer groups. Of relevance here is that the key benefit of marriage was not legal or ceremonial connection, but ‘ties of blood’ – it concerned offspring. This focus is amply reflected in almost universal proscriptions as to which categories of kin are acceptable for marriage. Such incest ‘taboos’ emphasise the role of marriage not as a social contract, but as a reproductive (mating) relationship.
Fascinatingly, the cultural significance of the human mating pair bond goes back much further still. Evolutionary theorist Sergey Gavrilets notes that pair bonding played a crucial role in the very emergence of our species!
Pair bonding probably evolved around seven million years ago when it replaced a system in which males competed for a ‘harem’ of females. The new mating behaviour allowed for increased investment in offspring and establishment of the first ‘family groups’ in which juveniles could confidently identify both their parents.
A critical factor is that interaction within and among family groups requires cooperation rather than just aggressive competition. Smarter individuals cope better with the computational demands of cooperation, and hence there is strong evolutionary selection for intelligence. In this way, the demands of intense pair bonding probably triggered the evolutionary development of our large brains!
It seems that the core behaviours associated with marriage precede white weddings and confetti by about seven million years. But, I hear you cry, you have not yet mentioned love! The answer to this lies in the old rhyme: “First comes love and then comes marriage, then comes baby in a golden carriage.”
This apparently inconsequential ditty actually captures the anthropology of marriage extremely well. It is love that drives pair bonding, and that infuses marriage with such joy, but with the clear purpose of reproduction – ‘you and me and baby makes three’.
Phenomenon
Remember that ‘being in love’ is largely a chemical phenomenon; what transforms and sanctifies marriage is the daily decision to love actively ‘for better or worse’. This noble commitment is where the pair bonding instinct becomes fully human.
Who has babies with whom, and how this structures society, is the role that marriage has played from the earliest times. Of course, some pairs cannot have children, but this does not re-order the system. The resources of such couples are re-allocated in a way that enhances net social benefit.
Recourse to science allows us to address the common argument that marriage is an arbitrary construct that can be molded to suit social fashions.
We find in contrast that while cultural practices vary, marriage as an institutionalised mating pair bond has an extraordinary basis in human nature.
This recognition helps to specify more clearly the true context of the marriage debate. Same sex marriage is not just a case of expanding the marriage fold to accommodate an excluded minority; it demands a fundamental break with the social structure and function of marriage as it has evolved over literally millions of years.
The 2015 referendum on same-sex unions will paraphrase a game-changing question: should married love retain its objective biological basis and purpose (mummy, daddy and maybe-baby), or should it be re-defined as a closed romantic contract (adult 1 and adult 2)?
*Dr Samuel Shephard is a research fellow in the School of Biological Science, Queens University Belfast.