Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society
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.