Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society

Author:
Irwin Altman, Joseph Ginat

Publisher:
Cambridge University Press

Date of Publication:
1996

ISBN:
0521567319

Rating:
8

Review:
Informative and exhaustive

Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society, by Irwin Altman and Joseph Ginat (1996) is an ethnographic study of polygynous offshoots of the mainstream Mormon Church, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[1] The book focuses primarily on two enclaves of contemporary polygynists, one located near Salt Lake City, Utah, and one located in a town split by the border between Utah and Arizona.

The authors employ typical ethnographic techniques in their research, including participant observation and extensive interviews with the families that chose to participate in their study. The authors also chose to limit the number of families involved in their research, opting for a “depth-over-breadth strategy” (p. 81).

In order to facilitate understanding of fundamentalist[2] Mormon polygynists, the authors have “drawn on archival and ethnographic material describing polygamy in other world cultures and among 19th-century Mormons” (p. xi). Primarily, these comparisons are between African tribal societies and the fundamentalist Mormon polygynists, but occasionally include comparisons with Israeli Bedouin.

The aim of the book is to explore how Mormon polygynists negotiate “viable dyadic and communal relationships” (p. 9). With this aim in mind, the book offers a brief history of Mormonism with a focus on the development of polygamy.[3] The authors then relate the history of the fundamentalist groups participating in the study, noting their origins in a late 19th century revelation by Mormon prophet John Taylor. Schisms have resulted in a number of polygynous groups, some affiliated, some not. At present, somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 Americans believe in and practice polygyny (p. 2), with several additional enclaves outside of the U.S.

The authors also discuss the theoretical approach that guides their research. They refer to it as a ‘transactional’ approach, and explain that “a transactional perspective calls for a pragmatic approach to research methodology that says: let the problem or phenomenon guide the selection of research tools” (p. 16). In addition to letting the approach guide the methodology, the author’s transactional approach does not propose causal or ‘antecedent-consequent relationships’ (p. 17). The authors are more concerned with “searching for patterns of relationships between variables – much as one pieces together the parts of a jigsaw puzzle” (p. 17). Thus, the focus is strictly on trying to understand how one element of the phenomena relates to another, but not in a causal fashion.

The remainder of the book reports the authors’ findings concerning the dyadic and communal relationships of Mormon fundamentalists. The book is divided into chapters on each of the following: deciding to add a new wife to a family; courtship; wedding and marriage ceremonies; honeymoons; adjusting to a new plural marriage; living arrangements; wives and homes; husbands and homes; the rotation process: husbands and wives alone together; budget and resource management; celebrations and holidays; social-emotional relationships of husbands and wives; relationships between wives; family structure; parents and children.

Probably in large part due to the author’s theoretical approach, the dyadic and communal aspects to the above elements of fundamentalist Mormon relationships are highly complex. For instance, when deciding to add a new wife to a family, nearly everyone who will be influenced by the decision has a say in it, “the pragmatic decision to add a wife to a fundamentalist family can be complex and multifaceted… [O]ne aspect of the decision centers on the dyadic relationship between a man and a woman… At the same time, fundamentalist families must deliberate at a communal level,” and “Couple members and plural families are not the only ones to have a say in the decision about a new wife joining a fundamentalist family. Parents and the religious leader are also central players” (p. 108). Thus, it is important for the future couple to be interested in one another, at least in the metropolitan polygynous enclave. [4] But the couple must also work communally, meaning the existing wives must agree or at least be willing to accept an additional wife and the religious leadership must also agree with the decision.

This level of complexity is typical of most of the elements of the dyadic and communal relationships described by the authors. Early in the book, in the authors’ description of courting behavior, they reveal an understanding that can be applied to most elements of the dyadic relationships discussed, “At one level, an outsider would see no difference between the courting behavior of Mormon fundamentalists and that of many other American couples. And dyadic courting activities frequently occur with any wife – first, second, or later. What is distinctive about fundamentalists is that other wives also court a prospective wife” (p. 113). In other words, polygynous families are, in many aspects, very similar to non-polygynous families, but the inclusion of additional wives and children results in complications.

This simplification is obvious once you dismiss the idea that these families are outrageously different from most American families. Yes, they are distinct, but the primary distinction, at least for the metropolitan enclave, is just the complications introduced with additional wives. The rural enclave differs in a number of other ways, but that is more a factor of their conservativism than it is of their practice of polygyny.

Another example of how Mormon fundamentalists are similar to other American families yet different is in their honeymoon practices,

As in American society at large, honeymoons of contemporary fundamentalists are strongly dyadic. The newly married couple… usually goes on a short trip alone… At the same time, contemporary Mormon polygynous honeymoons often have a communal quality. Some husbands telephone or maintain contact with other wives during their honeymoons. And honeymoons tend to be relatively brief, thereby reducing the time newlyweds spend away from the family. (p. 152)

Thus, though fundamentalist Mormon honeymoons are similar to those of other Americans, there are complications involving the existing plural wives. For instance, plural wives may comfort one another while their husband is away with the newest wife. The authors also point out that the addition of a wife can cause a great deal of emotional turmoil among the previous wives, as well as physical turmoil as the families must determine how things will be arranged as a result of the addition of a new member.

The book includes an enormous amount of information about the daily workings of fundamentalist Mormon polygynous families. This is, in fact, one aspect of the book I found particularly useful. Though I had never thought to question how polygynous families celebrate holidays or work out their finances, I had often wondered how husbands rotate from wife to wife. The authors’ clear depiction of these rather mundane elements of polygynous families is a significant contribution to an accurate understanding of how these families work.

But the book is not without its problems. Foremost among these is the almost exclusive focus on successful polygynous families. Though there is some information on what happens when the norms of these groups break down, particularly when husbands show favoritism toward a specific wife, there is virtually no information on the illicit sexuality that abounds in John Krakauer’s book, Under the Banner of Heaven (2003). Admittedly, Krakauer’s focus is on fringe elements of these polygynous groups, but he also looks briefly at some of the same groups and finds numerous accounts of sexual abuse and a subculture that supports the oppression of women. Krakauer’s negative focus contrasts markedly with that of Altman and Ginat. Somewhere in between these two perspectives is likely an accurate depiction of the oppression of women, sexual abuse, and domestic insolvency, but I do not believe it is as pristine as depicted by Altman and Ginat nor as nefarious as depicted by Krakauer.

Another problem with Altman and Ginat’s book is the lack of predictive value. I was disappointed by their conclusions, which are limited to the following descriptors of successful polygynous families: (1) They practice a flexible rotation pattern where the husband is not forced to rotate between wives but accurately balances his attention between them (p. 300). (2) They are centrally focused on the husband, who is the patriarch of the home and has ultimate authority (p. 388).[5] (3) “In spite of the problems they face, some of these new forms of close relationships – including plural families among contemporary Mormon fundamentalists – are here to stay in American and Western society. They are not likely to “go away”; they are not fads or fancies; they are not aberrations. They will be part of the family life scene well into the future.” (p. 444)

Upon completing the book, I felt I had a better understanding of how polygynous families functioned, but, and perhaps this is the quantitative sociologist speaking within me, I was not satisfied that they had maximized the potential of their data. There is no discussion of factors that might increase the probability of an individual deciding to become a polygynist or Mormon fundamentalist, despite the fact that the authors noted the increasing number of converts to the groups involved in the study. There is also only minimal discussion of what might lead someone to leave the groups. Only two individuals that had left were interviewed, and both left as the result of failed marriages. I do recognize that the authors did not set out to explain these elements of polygynous fundamentalist groups, but their data and access to these groups seemed to be conducive to answering such questions or at least beginning to do so.

Finally, the authors’ fail to adequately treat the role of religion in these groups. The authors’ perspective on the role of religion in fundamentalist polygynous groups is presented early in the book, “The crucial point to note for the time being is that modern fundamentalists believe in and practice plural marriage in accordance with the tenets of early Mormonism…” (p. 3) and “Why fundamentalists believe in and practice polygyny is straightforward. They believe themselves to be following Mormon religious doctrine” (p. 4). Ironically, as it is presented here, religion is seen as causal – it is why these people practice polygyny. This is in contrast to the authors’ transactional approach, which intentionally tries not to argue causality.

Religion is ultimately employed four ways in the book: (1) As the motivation for entering polygynous families (p. 4; p. 439). (2) As a means of coping with the difficulties of polygynous family life (p. 177). (3) As a justification for the patriarchal order that exists in these families (p. 388). (4) As the primary justification for having numerous kids (p. 3). Based on these applications, if religion was inserted into a structural equation model predicting these behaviors, it would function as an exogenous, independent variable or a control variable (see figure 1), despite the non-causal framework employed by the authors. Thus, notwithstanding the authors’ presentation of religion as ‘a’-causal, to anyone interested in causal relationships the authors have laid the groundwork for a causal model of religion’s influence in these aspects of polygynous family life.

Because the authors are only discussing religion in the context of communal and dyadic relationships among polygynous Mormons, this type of research would fall into the cross-cultural comparison category described by Crapo (2003:5). The authors do not outline a specific perspective on religion, but based upon the ways it is seen as influential in the lives of the research participants, they seem to agree with Clifford Geertz’s approach. The authors argue that religion establishes ‘powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations’ and ‘formulates conceptions of a general order of existence’ (Crapo 2003:21). Because this order is realistic to Mormon polygynists, they are willing to continue in their religious beliefs, despite the problems that accompany polygyny, both internal and external (Altman and Ginat, 1996:439).

Given the authors’ claim that religion is what leads these individuals to practice polygyny, even though it is against the law, it is surprising that religion is as rarely mentioned in the ethnography as it is. Altman and Ginat only seemed to see it as influential in a handful of scenarios, though it does underlie the very foundation of what makes these families different. In short, religion seems to be primarily relevant in distinguishing this group for study, but in many aspects of the individuals’ lives it is completely irrelevant and only receives occasional mention from the authors.

Though the authors have done a remarkable job making available for the interested reader the inner-functions of contemporary fundamentalist Mormon polygynous families, their treatment of the issue seems to present polygyny in a slightly more favorable light than other authors have (Krakauer, 2003).[6] Also problematic is the authors’ theoretical approach, which results in a good description of polygynous relationships, but avoids any notions of causality. It is definitely an informative book, but more could have been done with the data than was.

Footnotes:
[1] Throughout this review I will refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its more common sobriquet – Mormon or Mormons – for ease of reading.
[2] I recognize that the use of the term ‘fundamentalist’ is varied. But since the members of these polygynous groups use it in reference to themselves, I believe it is an accurate referent.
[3] The earliest version of polygamy practiced in the Mormon Church was truly polygamous, meaning women had multiple husbands and men had multiple wives. This practiced was later revised to exclude polyandry (p. 26).
[4] In the rural enclave, marriages are often arranged by the ‘prophet’ or religious leader. Attraction between the members of the future couple, though recommended, is often a secondary factor in determining who marries whom. Also, since marriages are arranged, the religious leadership doesn’t exactly ‘acquiesce’; more accurately, he orders.
[5] “In theory, then, the authority a husband/father exercises in modern Mormon fundamentalist families is significant and pervasive, if not absolute, as long as he behaves within the bounds of theological principles and respects and defers to church authorities” (p. 388).
[6] I should note that the authors admit to being initially bothered by their subject matter, especially the illegality of some of the practices (bigamy and underage marriages), but they eventually decided to try to understand it strictly from the perspectives of their research participants, despite their inclination to be judgmental (pp. 433-434)

References:
Altman, Irwin and Joseph Ginat. 1996. Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Crapo, Richley H. 2003. Anthropology of Religion: The Unity and Diversity of Religions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Krakauer, John. 2003. Under the Banner of Heaven. Doubleday.

Leakey, Richard. 1996. The Origin Of Humankind. Basic Books.

Rating:
10

Review:
If I were an expert on anthropology and human evolution I probably wouldn’t be reading a book on it from the Science Masters Series. This is really something of a primer on human evolution for people like me (I’m a Sociology graduate student) that are interested in the topic but really have very little background in biology or anthropology. Admittedly, I did find some of his topics overly interesting because of their apparent relationship to topics addressed by Sociology. One of these was the notion of consciousness. He attributes the idea of the Inner Eye/Inner ‘I’ to Humphrey, 1986. Perhaps Humphrey pulled a fast one on anthropologists because his interpretation is a rehash of George Herbert Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism and his conceptions of consciousness and the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’.

Aside from that criticism, I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. I have something of a background in biology (no expert by any stretch), but with what little background I do have the concepts discussed were not over my head. For individuals that have a good high school and perhaps college education, this book shouldn’t be too difficult to digest and should be rather informative. I think I was most intrigued by the discussion of the human mind and consciousness, but the entire book was interesting (in a positive way) to me and I would highly recommend it.

There was one quote from Richard Dawkins in the book that I found particularly insightful (whether true or not, I don’t claim to know), “Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.” (p. 142).

And another quote which isn’t so much the quote but the content, “Skilled players of the game-those equipped with a more acute mental model, a sharper consciousness-would have enjoyed greater social and reproductive success. This is grist for natural selection, which would have raised consciousness to higher and higher levels. This gradually unfolding consciousness changed us into a new kind of animal. It transformed us into an animal who sets arbitrary standards of behavior based on what is considered to be right and wrong.” (p. 154).

Overall, there are undoubtedly other books out there with more up-to-date information. The presentation of the material in this book also reveals that with every passing year the information in the book will become more and more outdated – so it is with science. But for an introduction to human evolution, I very much enjoyed it.

Franken, Al. 1996. Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Island Book.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Occasionally funny; gets old quick

Franken uses close to three hundred pages to try to illustrate why Democrats and their liberal ideologies and philosophies are a better approach to politics and social problems than are Republican ones. In doing so, he spends about 1/5 of the book calling Rush Limbaugh ‘fat’. Another fifth is spent explaining why Limbaugh is a liar and, in Franken’s words, an ‘idiot’ (a sentiment I am more inclined to agree with and definitely found more interesting than the continuous ranting that Limbaugh was obese).

In the mix, Franken uses his occasionally witty humor to attack several other famous conservative Republicans and illustrate why a large number of them are hypocrites, insensitive capitalists, and not very nice people. There isn’t much in the way of fair and balanced rhetoric as Franken considers Bill Clinton to be the greatest president of the twentieth century (even greater than FDR).

Franken also spends a good deal of time talking about two additional topics that are really unrelated despite his continued attempts to integrate them into his discussions – his family and his assistant Geoff. Franken continuously blames the poor quality of the book on the fact that he’s spending all of his time with his kids (unlike all of those ‘mean’ Republican conservatives). Of course this is all really supposed to be meant in jest, but after reading the book I began to wonder…

Review:
Despite sharing a liberal perspective on society and life, I didn’t really love this book. It started out pretty good with some funny commentary and rather creative presentation. But after the 80-something time Franken went on a rant about how fat Limbaugh is, it started to bug me. What does he being fat have to do with his political ideas? If he were the secretary of health, I could understand how it is relevant, but he’s a propagandist, not a nutritionist. There are also several ‘chapters’ that are only two to three pages in length that are really just excuses for why he didn’t do more research (I call them chapters because they start a new page, but whether they are really chapters…).

Which introduces a second issue. Despite claiming that Limbaugh is a liar and misleads or outright deceives his followers a lot of the time, Franken doesn’t employ traditional scientific/academic approaches to his presentation of data – only rarely does he actually cite sources. Though I must admit I am more inclined to agree with the information Franken presents because much of it sounds as though it at least closely resembles the information with which I am familiar (I’m a sociologist), it would have been nice if Franken had at least footnoted his data. As it stands, I would suggest that anyone that reads this book read it only for humor and not as a source of accurate information.

Some additional problems include the repetitiveness of the book. Despite what Franken seems to think, his political ‘expertise’ seems limited to just a few issues, which he returns to over and over. In short, he repeats himself a lot. Also, there is absolutely no continuity from ‘chapter’ to ‘chapter’; the book does not ‘flow’.

Overall, even though I would agree that Rush Limbaugh (and now Sean Hannity and Michael Savage) tends to appeal only to the uneducated who don’t question and refuse to think for themselves (which might also explain the appeal of Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party to religious conservatives), this book isn’t the best platform for presenting the counter arguments. Sometimes it is funny and there are even occasionally glimpses of brilliant writing, but it doesn’t take long to realize that Franken’s primary comedic tool is the insult. One or two insults are occasionally funny, but a book of insults can only appeal to people who are less interested in the issues than they are in attacking the opponent. Though Michael Moore occasionally stoops to this level, also doesn’t do a very good job of citing references, and isn’t particularly qualified to be writing on this topic, I think he does a better job of focusing on the issues and making sound arguments than does Franken. As a result, I would recommend Moore’s books instead of Franken’s.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton.

Rating:
10

Summary:
brilliantly writing, occasionally hilarious, and remarkably insightful

The book covers several different issues, but all are related to the primary focus of the book, which is to treat “one particular form of quantified claim about the ranking of human groups: the argument that intelligence can be meaningfully abstracted as a single number capable of ranking all people on a linear scale of intrinsic and unalterable mental worth” (p. 20). In order to treat this issue, the book addresses some of the early methods used to make these claims, including: craniometry (the measurement of crania), the measurement of other aspects of the body (e.g., arms, legs, etc.), and IQ (intelligence quotient) testing and theories.

The author illustrates how in all of these methods the early advocates of hereditarian notions of intelligence either fudged their numbers (consciously or subconsciously, e.g., Morton and Broca) or how their numbers were meaningless (e.g., Spearman’s g). The author does this by first examining the actual data and second, by presenting the same two arguments, over and over again:
(1) Intelligence is more complicated than a single number. Some people are very good with mechanical things while others are good with abstract reasoning and others make great chefs; trying to incorporate all of these abilities into a single number glosses over the different components of what one might loosely refer to as ‘intelligence.’ Thus, any measure of ‘intelligence’ should include far more than one simple number, or as Binet put it, ‘It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous’ (p. 179).
(2) Intelligence cannot be claimed to actually belong to a specific component of the brain nor is it solely determined by hereditary factors. Identical twins, raised apart and in different circumstances (one with a poor education and one with an excellent education) will have very different outcomes when their ‘intelligence’ is measured. This is because both nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) are important in developing intelligence. (An excellent example of this second notion is the movie GATTACA.)

The author goes on to explain that hereditarian notions of intelligence are continuously resurrected (e.g., The Bell Curve). Nevertheless, the author illustrates that many of them continue to fudge their data and also fail to address the two arguments outlined above.

Gould discusses two additional things that warrant mentioning in this review. First, Gould notes that the inventor of the IQ scale, Binet, never intended for it to be used to rank people, “the aim of his scale was to identify in order to help and improve, not to label in order to limit. Some children might be innately incapable of normal achievement, but all could improve with special help” (p. 182). Second, Gould’s discussion of factor analysis, a complicated statistical technique which lies at the heart of IQ testing, is very clear and would make for superb additional reading in a statistics course that includes the study of factor analysis.

Included at the very end of the 1996 edition of the book are several essays evaluating The Bell Curve, a book published in the early 1990s that claimed blacks were less intelligent than whites and therefore advocated that they should be quarantined from whites and treated like prisoners (along with other ‘stupid’ people). Gould’s criticisms of the book are not only damning of the conclusions of The Bell Curve, but also illustrate that the authors were intentionally misleading and had pre-conceived notions that they were trying to prove rather than basing their conclusions off the data.

Review:
This is a superb book. I highly recommend it. The only criticism I could come up with is so minor that it almost does not warrant mentioning: Gould occasionally repeats himself. This is primarily an issue when, after having read the original book, one reads the extra essays included at the back of the book. The extra essays repeat sections of the book almost verbatim at times. I would still encourage people to read the extra essays, but keep in mind that they do occasionally cover the exact same material.

Other than that one criticism, I fail to see any problems with this book. It is clear, concise, and well-referenced. The author also admits (in the revised version) where he has made mistakes and what his biases are up front – he is for treating people equally and fairly and participated in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s.

One point the author made that is assuredly noteworthy is “that publications of The Bell Curve coincided exactly with the election of Newt Gingrich’s Congress, and with a new age of social meanness unprecedented in my lifetime… Slash every program of social services for people in genuine need; terminate support for the arts (but don’t cut a dime, heaven forfend, from the military); balance the budget and provide tax relief for the wealthy. Perhaps I am caricaturing, but can we doubt the consonance of this new meanspiritedness with an argument that social spending can’t work because, contra Darwin, the misery of the poor does result from the laws of nature and from the innate ineptitude of the disadvantaged?” (pp. 31-32). Though I’m sure Gould would hate for his writings to be used to explicitly espouse a political agenda, his political leanings are a bit more than implied in the above quote. In short, Republicans are elitists that care only about making themselves more money; the poor be damned.

Finally, Gould opens and closes with a quote from Darwin which I find particularly profound. For all the theists out there who choose to demonize Darwin, perhaps you should reconsider your position based on this quote alone, “If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” (p. 19). I, for one, believe much of the misery in the world is caused by our institutions. While I don’t necessarily believe in ‘sin’ as most religious people would, I think I would agree with the implied definition here – humanity should be ashamed of the sorry state of so many humans; we can and should do better.