Polyandrous households in Tibetan society are commonly thought of as the ideal family structure; it is comparable to the western model of the nuclear family. According to Melvyn C. Goldstein, a Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University, insists that while Westerners may find sharing a wife detestable, we must approach the idea with relativism; Tibetan men and women do not find it unusual, unethical or disgusting (1).Michael Alan Park, author of Introducing Anthropology, insists that polyandry is rare because it presents no greater "reproductive potential" than a monogamous marriage (236). Although polyandry does not promote population growth it has other benefits.[1] One reason polyandry is preferred is for its strong familial relationships. Marriages were traditionally arranged, but now only require parental consent. The wife moves out of her household to join her husbands. Elders are much respected and the eldest brother tends to hold more authority in the household; besides this point there seems to be a very strong attempt at equality within the family. All of the brothers share household work and sexual participation with their common wife, and the wife also treats the brothers the same (Goldstein 1). Each brother treats the children as his own regardless of any known biological link, and in turn the children view all the brothers as fathers and treat them equally (Goldstein 1). Nancy Levine, Associate Professor at the University of California, during her fieldwork with the Nyinba, heard men say that their relationshipsamong their brothers held a "strong sense of obligation," and subsequent to their parents, they "trust their brothers more than anyone else in the world" (Dynamics of Polyandry 9).[2] This strong bond between brothers is what allows such a polyandrous relationship to prevail. From a woman's point of view, there is a strong sense of security when there are at least two husbands providing for her and the children (Goldstein 2). In either case, polyandry seems to create a sturdy sense of family unity.[3]This is very important in order for the family to maintain its socioeconomic status and keep land holdings undivided.

Economic considerations are essential in understanding the continuance of polyandrous practices. The benefits of polyandry can easily be seen within the goal of raising socioeconomic status. One advantage of having a polyandrous family is that it provides a larger family workforce (Park 236). Brothers come together with a common wife in order to maintain harmonious relationships, and jointly work the land. Furthermore, with the abundance of manpower, a husband can leave the home and partake in other economic ventures, such as trade, while one of his brothers helps look after the children. So this begs the question, can multiple monogamous relationships within a household provide the same environment as a polyandrous family?[4] Goldstein asked this question to some Tibetans and they explained that having more than one wife per generation creates tension because each wife looks after the interests of her own kin and competes with the other wives for resources, in turn leading to instability and partition (the division of landholdings) (2). A larger household is able to sustain its wealth easier while creating a higher standard of living. In turn, this sense of economic security helps strengthen the family's relationships and that is why most people choose polyandry over monogamy. Family cohesion and economic stability are both good reasons to practice polyandry but they do not provide an answer to why its practice was started.

To get a better idea of where polyandry may have originated let us draw our attention to traditional serf society in Tibet. Levine has spoken with some Nyinba and they claim polyandry is a long-standing tradition (Dynamics of Polyandry 9). Seeing as all cultural behaviour is learned and shared (Park 145), we can try and trace polyandry back to a certain origin. Previous to 1950 Tibet was organized in what some call "feudal serfdom," where there were two general classes of people, excluding the lords. "Taxpayers" were fairly wealthy and had a feudal obligation to pay taxes to a landlord, while "small households" had no obligation to a lord, but were poorer because they had no hereditary land.[5] Goldstein proposes that "taxpayers" owed such large amounts of money to their landlords that family solidarity was necessary in order to pay them; in this case polyandry may have been accepted (as cited in Meza 38). Given that polyandry is a way in which families can maintain a higher socioeconomic status, this hypothesis provides insight into why the class of "taxpayers" developed into polyandrous families.

Although the reasons for polyandry gravitate towards material concerns of economic stability and security, it is important to aim for a holistic perspective of the subject. Polyandry seems to defy evolutionary predictions in that it does not contain behaviours that maximize reproductive success (Levine "Why Polyandry Fails" 2). Therefore, polyandry must have originally been adaptive for some other reason. Perhaps it is as Goldstein suggested: a tightening of family relationships as an adaptation to serfdom. Tibetan culture is quite a recent area of study and a great deal of further research in family organization and historic societal structures is required before any conclusions about the origins of polyandry can be drawn. For now, it is suffice to say that polyandry functions as a means of maintaining a family's wealth and land in order to provide the best life for its members.
References

Goldstein, Melvyn C. "When Brothers Share a Wife." Natural History Mar 87:4. EbscoHost. Alan Batey Library/ Media Centre, Camosun College, Victoria, BC. 7 Oct. 2006 .

Meza, Alicia I. Anthropological Topics. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2004.

Levine, Nancy E., and Joan B. Silk. "Why Polyandry Fails: Sources of Instability in Polyandrous Marriages." Current Anthropology June 97:24. EbscoHost. Alan Batey Library/ Media Centre, Camosun College, Victoria, BC. 7 Oct. 2006 .

---. The Dynamics of Polyandry: Kinship, Domesticity, and Population on the Tibetan Border. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1988.

Park, Michael Alan. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach. New York: McGraw, 2006.

[1] Population growth is usually seen as an important aspect in economics; however, polyandry latently restrains such growth. Restricting population growth is advantageous in areas such as Tibet where resources are scarce and arable land is hard to come by. Controlling population growth is not a conscious reason the Tibetans practice polyandry and, for this reason it is not being discussed.

[2] The Nyinba are a well-studied ethnically Tibetan group living in northwestern Nepal, on the Tibetan border.

[3]Polyandrous marriages were not without their problems, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Generally, polyandry tends to help unify multiple generations within a household and this is economically functional.

[4]Polygyny is not mentioned as it is usually only practiced when the first wife is infertile, and in that case a sister is commonly brought in as a second wife. Sisters are chosen because their relationships tend to be stronger than two strangers.

[5]"Small households" rarely engaged in polyandry since they lacked any hereditary land to sustain and did not have any large taxes to pay. Instead, most were monogamous.

Click here for the original post