A while back I wrote a post suggesting that chastity could improve the world in important ways.
The post sparked some interesting discussion on chastity — what it is, what it can do, etc — with some very clever people.
And though I am certainly interested in the importance of virtues like chastity, Iâm also intrigued by the power that plain ole monogamy — regardless of why it is practiced — has to make a society flourish or flounder.
Thatâs why I was fascinated to stumble upon the studies of J. D. Unwin, in his Sex and Culture, published in 1934. Studying eighty-six different societies, Unwin concluded that monogamy is directly tied to a societyâs prosperity.
[I must note that since this book is out of print and extremely rare, I have not actually read it. I have only read other peopleâs summaries/analyses of it. So forgive me if I am slightly off on a couple of points].
Seeking to test the Freudian idea that civilization is a byproduct of repressed sexuality, Unwin studied eighty-six different societies. His findings surprised many scholars, above all himself, because all eighty-six demonstrated a direct tie between monogamy and the âexpansive energyâ of civilization. In other words, monogamy was the single-most important predictor of a societyâs ascendancy.
âIn human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and post-nuptial continence,â Unwin wrote.
His explanation for this phenomenon (as I understand it) went something like this: monogamous marriage and premarital chastity increase the âmental energyâ or inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects like agriculture, architecture, and conquest. In other words, the âlimitation of sexual opportunityâ enforced by monogamy creates the âmental energyâ necessary to build a civilization.
After examining the histories of Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon civilization, Unwin found without exception that these societies flourished most during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Civilizations such as these always began with the ruling classes being the chastest, with the middle class soon following suit, leading to increased prosperity. But as decadence among the upper classes increased, strict monogamy loosened. Sexual opportunity became easier, societyâs mental energy weakened, and it lost its ability to innovate, create, and expand, and was soon taken over by a robust monogamous society.
As a result of these discoveries, Unwin proposed that citizens of special promise in Great Britain — an âAlphaâ class of sorts — ought to take vows of chastity before marriage for the sake of the empire.
Of course, Unwinâs interest in the âexpansive energyâ of societies is troubling in a post-colonial era that is currently grappling with the evils of imperialism. Most of us arenât going to encourage monogamy for the sake of the Empire when we doubt the value of empire.
(I’m also a little perturbed by some of the organizations and blogs that have enthusiastically embraced Unwin’s teachings . . . I’m worried that I’m missing something important [and oppressive] in my cursory study of his work.)
But I think Unwinâs findings are interesting nonetheless. Does monogamy really encourage creativity, innovation, and progress in societies? Perhaps nonreligious people have reason to think twice about the value of monogamy. And maybe people of faith, who believe that God instructs them to practice chastity for a reason, actually know a little something about how to make the world a safer, more interesting, and more vibrant place than modern North Americans tend to give them credit for.
What are your thoughts?
Photo courtesy of Frisno.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting, but I see it as a circular argument… does A cause B or vis-versa? Are society successful because they embrace monogamy or is monogamy a sign of success (i.e. no need for polygamous relationships when there are enough people of each gender to marry, and society has acceptable ways of taking care of it’s widows, etc. and there’s a wide enough range of genetic material to choose from)?
Also does Unwin take into considerations non-patriarchal societies? Do the same findings hold true when lineage is passed down from the female line rather than having to trust and find ways to regulate behavior to be more certain that so-and-so is in fact the son/daughter of the father.
I’d like to see what he offers as evidence for the actual practice of monogamy and chastity and does it hold true for both genders, a brief study of history will show that in many of these societies it was expected that women would have to follow in these practices and virtues, (so the aforementioned lineage was easier to trace) while the rules were a little more lax for men provided they and their virtuous wife produced an heir in the correct timetables.
Lots of interesting questions to think of none the less.
I can definitely see that being true. The less time and energy people spend on the stresses and drama of dating and the anxiety of divorce, the more time and energy they have to spend on important things.
Interesting line of thought. While I can’t really argue either way (or maybe I can see both ways and thus don’t want to), I can certainly see how much energy the college students around me put into chasing the opposite sex. If they would put half as much time into something else, I can only imagine what they would accomplish.
However, even as a married man, I am expending a good bit of energy pursuing my wife. I still plan dates, make sure she knows how loved she is, etc. Thus, my time and energy is still diverted. I also have the support of an amazing woman for projects that I undertake, so I am more likely to succeed because of that.
Circular logic indeed…
You’re right, Kathleen, those organizations and blogs that you linked to are terrifying. This quote in particular I found absolutely unbelievable:
“Professor Unwin, by the way, was not in any way a male chauvinist. He concluded his book with a hopeful wish that we may find some way to have sexual repression and the equality of the sexes at the same time, and clearly believed that women are not inherently unfit for power and independence.
That is one of the two criticisms I would make of this excellent work. But one can hardly blame Professor Unwin, who was writing in 1934, long before scientific study had verified that all of the traditional stereotypes about women were based in biological fact. Indeed, thanks to feminist domination of mass media, few people today are aware of this.”
- From the “No Ma’am” blog you linked to.
Who IS this guy?? Unbelievable.
Thanks for reminding me why I’m glad I’m educated, employable, and thus independent of douchebags like him, and able to prove him wrong.
THAT guy from No Ma’am was me.
And, if you had half an educated brain in your head, you would read and study whether all of you educated dimwits were, gasp, wrong! Gee, it’s not like the intelligentsia has never been proven WRONG in the past!
In fact, they have been proven wrong more often than proven right!
Blank slate my ass. The evidence contradicting such nonsense is overwhelming, and completely refutes academic women’s studies as well as 90% of other academic beliefs.
Rob Fedders: Brother, you are one scary dude. I’ve been to your blog and checked out what you have to say, and find it truly disturbing. I’m not going to try and argue with you – it’s clear you have a point of view that is very firmly lodged, and no argument from me, or anyone else, to the contrary is going to shake it. Since there is no option to comment on your blog, anywhere, I’m sensing you’re not really all that interested in hearing other points of view anyway.
I will say this: using Al Bundy as an icon is pretty ironic… you do know he’s the butt of satire…?
Fascinating!
“monogamous marriage and premarital chastity increase the âmental energyâ or inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects like agriculture, architecture, and conquest.” Maybe… but as others have pointed out, this is a circular argument.
When there’s a correlation between two events, one may or may NOT cause another. For example, during a baby boom, there is usually also increased consumption of coffee. Is that because new parents are drinking coffee to keep up with the demands of the baby (babies cause coffee)? Or, are more people making babies because they are up late at night because of all the coffee they are drinking (coffee causes babies)? Or, are there other factors not even considered?
Possibly people are more monogamous during periods of conquest, etc., because they don’t have the time/energy to pursue additional partners. Or because their potential partner pool is limited – not counting widespread rape, of course. (War causes monogamy.)
American fundamentalist Christians are among the most vocal proponents of monogamy and abstinence before marriage, and ALSO have the highest rates of infidelity, divorce and remarriage. Does that mean Christianity causes cheating? Or that cheating causes fundamental Christianity?
Mind you, I personally believe that deliberately choosing celibacy or monogamy CAN be a great thing, and can increase energy, focus and creativity. And living that lifestyle because it is forced on you can have the opposite effect. Just not seeing evidence in THIS piece or the quoted book to that effect.
You (and others) are right: it’s hard to tell what causes what. As far as I can see, Unwin has identified a correlation between monogamy and prospertity, but not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship. If I were publishing something a little more academic, though, I would read Unwin’s entire book and see if he gives a compelling reason to believe monogamy causes prosperity. Maybe he does and I just don’t know it.
That is fascinating! Thanks for sharing!
I have not read Unwin’s book, only your posting and a few similar ones. I like your honesty, others try to give the impression that they have actually read the book but merely cite the same few points. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily prove causation, I find people only invoke this fallacy against arguments they dislike.
That said, my experience from reading biographies and from personal acquaintances is that many highly productive and creative men have lived sexually promiscuous lives. In fact they seem to think it a deserved reward for their status and achievements. It does not seem to inhibit their ability to work hard or produce results. Maybe they could have done more if more focused, but that is a mute point.
And monogamous relations can be very demanding of one’s time and attentions too, especially in modern society where great psychological expectations are frequently placed on them.