The Ethics (And Economics) of Tibetan Polyandry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Buddhist Ethics ISSN 1076-9005 http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 21, 2014 The Ethics (and Economics) of Tibetan Polyandry Jonathan Stoltz University of St. Thomas Copyright Notice: Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no change is made and no alteration is made to the content. Reproduction in any other format, with the exception of a single copy for private study, requires the written permission of the author. All en- quiries to: [email protected]. The Ethics (and Economics) Of Tibetan Polyandry Jonathan Stoltz 1 Abstract Fraternal polyandry—one woman simultaneously being married to two or more brothers—has been a prominent practice within Tibetan agricultural societies for many generations. While the topic of Tibetan polyandry has been widely discussed in the field of anthropology, there are, to my knowledge, no contributions by philosophers on this topic. For this reason alone, my brief analysis of the ethics of Tibetan polyandry will serve to enhance scholars’s understanding of this practice. In this article, I examine the factors that have sustained the practice of polyandry in Tibet, but do so with the further aim of drawing attention to some of the key ethical implications of polyandrous marriage. I argue that the natural law crit- icisms raised against the practice of polyandry by St. Thomas Aquinas are unsuccessful, but I also argue that the 1 Department of Philosophy, University of St. Thomas. Email: [email protected]. 602 Stoltz, The Ethics (and Economics) of Tibetan Polyandry utilitarian motivations for this marriage practice en- dorsed by agrarian Tibetans are also highly suspect. Introduction In the midst of providing his moral defense of monogamy, the thirteenth century Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas argues, “Therefore, since certainty as to offspring is the principal good which is sought in matri- mony, no law or custom has permitted one woman to be a wife for sev- eral husbands” (SCG III-II, 124.2). 2 Thomas was almost certainly wrong about this conclusion. Though it appears that he was ignorant of the practice of polyandry—that is, the practice of one woman simultaneous- ly being married to multiple husbands—the tradition has existed in a va- riety of societies throughout history, and, in particular, continues to this day to be a prominent practice within agricultural communities on the Tibetan Plateau. Yet, though he was undoubtedly mistaken about the ex- istence of polyandry, there is much less certainty with regard to Thom- as’s moral condemnation of this form of marriage, and so an examina- tion of his criticisms deserves closer attention. Western philosophers have written almost nothing about Tibetan polyandry. Aside from a few offhand comments by Bertrand Russell— where Russell’s concern is logical, not ethical—there has never been, to my knowledge, any deep philosophical discussion of this Tibetan marriage practice (45). In addition, surprisingly few Buddhist studies scholars have tackled the topic. Nearly all of the investigations of Tibetan polyandry in the past fifty years have been carried out by anthropologists or, to a lesser extent, evolutionary biologists, and most 2 Here, by “certainty as to offspring,” Aquinas is referring to knowledge of paternity. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 603 of our collective knowledge about this marriage custom derives from a series of anthropological studies. Given this state of affairs, I believe the time is right to start a philosophical conversation about the ethics of Tibetan polyandry. In what follows I will engage in a preliminary examination of the moral status of Tibetan polyandry, focusing my inquiry on just two items. First, I will briefly describe the practice of fraternal polyandry in Tibet, identifying its central features and also teasing out the principal reasons why this form of marriage has continued into the twenty-first century. I will then reflect on some of the ethical questions surrounding the practice by looking at both natural law arguments and utilitarian considerations relevant to the practice. I will argue that the natural law criticisms of polyandry that are raised by Thomas Aquinas fail to be persuasive, but I will subsequently show that the utilitarian motivations that Tibetans use to support this form of marriage are themselves problematic. Background of Polyandry in Tibet I shall begin by tracing some of the basic features of polyandrous marriage as it is practiced on the Tibetan plateau. The details that follow come from anthropological research that has been carried out over the past forty years. 3 My aim is not at all to contribute to this research. I am only providing these details to help ground my subsequent philosophical analysis of Tibetan polyandry. 3 Most of the anthropological studies on Tibetan polyandry have been conducted in Nepal, and not in Tibet proper. These studies include those of Goldstein (Fraternal, Paha- ri), Levine, Levine and Silk, and Haddix. The information that follows is derived largely from these publications. 604 Stoltz, The Ethics (and Economics) of Tibetan Polyandry Although there are obviously going to be small differences in the practice from region to region, the general features of Tibetan polyandry are fairly stable. First of all, and most importantly, the only common form of polyandry in Tibet is fraternal polyandry, wherein multiple brothers share a single wife. (To be more precise, because polyandrous relations commonly occur in successive generations, this means that in many cases the siblings who share a single wife will actually be half- brothers.) In most instances of polyandrous marriage two or three brothers take the same wife, but it is not unusual for four, five, or even six brothers to have a single wife. In these arrangements, the parents of the male children arrange a marriage for those sons whereby a bride is brought into the family unit. The eldest son is considered the dominant male figure in the marriage, but the expectation is that all the brothers will play equal roles in working for the good of the family, and also that all of the brothers (assuming they have reached an age of sexual maturity) will have equitable sexual access to the wife. A second key point is that fraternal polyandry is practiced almost exclusively within farming communities in Tibet. That is, it is not commonly practiced in nomadic regions of Tibet—where the main occupation is the herding of yaks and other animals—nor is it practiced within urban areas of Tibet. Instead, and for reasons that will become clear shortly, polyandry is a widespread form of marriage in Tibetan agricultural regions alone. Within farming areas there is much physical labor that needs to be performed, and the presence of multiple males working toward the sustenance of a single family unit makes it possible for the family to reach a level of economic security that likely could not be obtained from the work of one husband. Evidence suggests that polyandrous marriages are most stable in situations where the brothers Journal of Buddhist Ethics 605 have distinct contributions to the household’s success.4 So, for example, one brother might be in charge of farming the field, while a second brother takes charge of herding the family’s sheep, and a third brother engages in trade. Such a division of labor creates a situation in which each brother will have different periods of the year in which he is absent from the house, thus making it possible, in principle, for all the brothers to have sexual access to their wife without great tension. In most areas where polyandry is practiced, it is expected that the wife will treat, and love, each of the brothers equally. Surface level affection for all her husbands is encouraged, and emotional bias in favor of one husband over others is ideally to be avoided. Along similar lines, in most Tibetan areas where polyandry takes place paternity is not explicitly assigned to an individual husband. All the husbands are to treat all the children equally, not showing favoritism toward offspring that they might know to be their own. It is also the case that in areas of Tibet where this form of mar- riage exists, it tends to be the norm rather than the exception. While both monogamous and polyandrous marriages exist side by side (togeth- er with, to a lesser extent, polygynous marriages) in agricultural areas of Tibet, it is clear from numerous studies that polyandrous marriage units are sought whenever possible. Most cases of monogamous marriages in these agricultural regions arise as a result of one of two scenarios. First, a monogamous marriage can occur due to a family’s having only one male child or, at the very least, having only one male child who is physically and cognitively suitable for marriage. Second, a monogamous marriage may arise when a previously polyandrous marriage suffers a partition in which an invariably younger brother leaves the marriage. Yet, in nearly 4 This was one of the key findings in Haddix. The matter was not carefully addressed in Levine, where sources of instability were also studied. 606 Stoltz, The Ethics (and Economics) of Tibetan Polyandry all cases in which a landowning farming family does have multiple male children, a polyandrous marriage is sought. Although polyandrous marriages are the norm in these areas, participation in such a marriage is not viewed as compulsory or perma- nently binding for the brothers. Younger siblings in a polyandrous mar- riage are free to partition from the relationship and start their own fami- lies, and there is little or no social stigma associated with doing so. As I will explain below, economic considerations may constrain the willing- ness of the brothers to partition. But, at least in principle, participation within a polyandrous marriage is viewed as optional.