Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human Hardcover – February 3, 2014

Victorian values? Great! Sexual repression? Bravo! How counterintuitive can you get? William Tucker's new book, Marriage and Civilization, turns just about every sexual freedom slogan coined over the last 50 years on its head.

To make his case that it was monogamy that civilized mankind, Tucker traces the roots of family formation from prehistoric, even pre-human times. Polygamy may be the natural tendency of any prosperous society, as men with wealth and status demand multiple wives, but the result, he avers, is almost always aggression. Whether in the form of wars, forcible marriages with underage brides or killing off rival men, he sees violence as a natural outgrowth of polygamy, and cites the Muslim world and early Mormon history in the US as evidence.

Monogamy, on the other hand, keeps men on the straight and narrow path to peace and prosperity - not unlike what American Mormons achieved after they foreswore polygamy. That's why Tucker sees Victorian society with its lengthy lists of Dos and Don'ts as an exemplar of civilization. Likewise, he rates the much-reviled post-war Eisenhower era as the best possible atmosphere for a prosperous middle class.

That's quite a bit to swallow, and there's lots more to the book (although it never drags.) If nothing else, Marriage and Civilization is provocative in the best sense of the word. I'd recommend it for your next book club selection. Or, for a little excitement, read Marriage and Civilization, give a copy to your favorite hippie or feminist and have at it.

Very interesting historical survey of forms of marriage and the significance of monogamous marriage. The book is well and intelligently written and concise. It looks at biology, zoology, anthropology and culture so it is a broad and fascinating sweep. Even though I do not agree with some of the anayses and conclusions in the last chapter, I highly recommend it.

This intelligent and insightful man examines the history of husband/wife relations through the ages. He tells an intriguing history, full of surprises, with uncommon wit and good writing. This book is a must for intelligent, concerned citizens of the world, of every political stripe. One of the most important books in years.

Somewhat controversial; but contains much information of great value for thr advancement of civilization, and good public morals. Worth reading.

Clear, concise, seemingly robust, lots of information. A great book for a foundation on the subject with excellent breadth and adequate detail.

I ordered this book because I wanted to read a defense of marriage that was not primarily religious in nature. This book delivered. I enjoyed it very much, and it was easy to read and yet not "fluffy." The positive things that other reviewers say here resonated with me as well in the first four parts of the book. They do a fairly good job of detailing the winning aspects of the book, most of which I agree with. For that reason, and because I saw in the Acknowledgements section that Mr. Tucker wrote the book while dealing with a serious illness, I gave him some leeway, Therefore, my review will concentrate on the few (but significant) things I found off-putting about Mr. Tucker's book.

On the jacket, one of the six issues the book promises to address is "Why same-sex marriage -- utterly irrelevant in evolutionary terms -- is a distraction from the real marriage debate we should be having." I was intrigued. "What is this debate?" As I read the book, I began to infer that the argument referenced on the jacket was the argument for monogamy and against polygamy (vs. other expressions of monogamy). Tucker seems to be building up to that point throughout parts 1-4 with his thorough exploration of the possible emergence of monogamy from an evolutionary perspective, tracing the establishment of monogamy and its effects to early western civilization and the Catholic church, and then contrasting monogamous and polygamous societies. So far, so good.

It was in Part V: MODERN QUESTIONS that the focus and trajectory of Tucker's premise seemed to begin unraveling. Chapter 21, entitled, "The Black Family and the Emergence of Single Motherhood," made some pretty bold claims about the role of "the welfare state" (his words) in normalizing single motherhood. He also included a rather sensational - sounding explanation for the higher percentage of babies born out of wedlock to African American mothers. He connects this statistic to the African tribal "child of fortune" born out of wedlock to prove fertility before the woman settled into a polygamous relationship as one of many wives of a tribal male. According the Tucker, this normative behavior continued during slavery in spite of most slave owners imposing monogamy on the slaves "for religious reasons." (One must assume exceptions were made for those instances wherein the slave owner wished to infringe upon the religious principle of monogamy by demanding sex from his female slaves.)

Tucker cites journalist Nicholas Lemann (author of the award-winning book, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How it Changed America) as the source for the information that shapes his theory. Lemann got this information, which provides evidence of transference of this behavior from Africa to the West, from African Americans who lived in the small towns of Alabama and Mississippi.They assured him - and he assured his readers -- single motherhood was a common practice in "the rurals." Lemann never bothered observe or interview the subjects he posits his theory on, even though the subjects simply resided in a more rurual area of the same states. However, he published this unconfirmed information in his book. which went on to win an award and be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize thus establishing his explanation of the roots of single motherhood amongst black families. Here, I began to feel uncomfortable, as it seemed that Mr. Tucker was now attempting to establish a wildly disproportionate link between the statistic of illegitimacy and race. I could only hope that the "real marriage debate we should be having" was not one centered on welfare dependency and rooted in racism.

I am glad to be able to report that, upon reading the next chapter, "What is Happening to the Family Today?" I found that the target of the argument shifted away from welfare-dependent African American women. In fact, it appears that in the 1950s all was right with the world. "Monogamous culture had triumphed ... men had been domesticated to a degree probably never before achieved in history." (P. 215) What toppled the fragile balance of power necessary to make monogamy (which Tucker admits is not natural for humans) normative in American Society? It was "the demise of the 'family wage,' the system adopted informally in America and Western Europe for over a century. The goal of the family wage was to strengthen families and distribute income more evenly across society by limiting everyone to one wage earner per family. In practice, this became a simple rule: unmarried, divorced, or widowed women could work but married women were expected to stay home with their children. ... Unfortunately, the family wage was a disadvantage to one, specific group -- highly educated, professionally ambitious women." (P.217) How relieving to find that it was not poor welfare-dependent African American women who are to blame for the demise of monogamy (which I practice. cherish, and heartily enjoy.) Instead, uppity smart white women who insist on abandoning their children and taking the jobs of men everywhere are the culprits.

Of course this was all made possible through birth control becoming widely available and thus removing the possibility of conception from the act of sex. And yes, the argument proceeds along the expected trajectory-- decrying Betty Friedman and all -- until the blame for, not just the demise of monogamy, but the pitiable plight of lower class American women everywhere, is laid upon the shoulders of these "highly educated, professionally ambitious women." It turns out that "The real marriage debate we should be having" (jacket) is not one against polygamy, nor welfare dependency, nor even same-sex marriage. It is against feminism. Mr. Tucker states, "It would not be too much to say at this point that many American women have gotten swelled heads or that, replete with feminist dogma, they have simply decided that no men are good enough for them." (P. 229) I am not making this up.

This is where Mr. Tucker's argument spirals irreparably downward and becomes as off-putting as it is weak. Not once in his diatribe against females replacing fathers with the state does he address the obvious reasons why any given female might find the state -- or a career -- a more reliable partner than an actual male. When abandonment, divorce, death, curtailment of resources, and at the very least infidelity without serious repercussions (since financial dependency reduces the demand for accountability) are real possibilities and even common occurrences (in the case of infidelity) can one blame women for wanting to diversify their options? Of course, Mr. tucker never even alludes to these factors, just as he never turns his gaze or commentary toward the inherently oppressive power structure of the slave/owner relationship and how that dynamic could have contributed to disproportionate rates of babies born out of wedlock amongst African American women in the first half of the 20th century. Nope -- had to be some kind of weird carry over from tribal polygamy.

I love men. I love my husband and I want my son to grow up in a world where his masculinity is valued and validated. But Mr. Tucker must -- he MUST -- account for the role that men have played in the overall dynamic he describes if he is going to so carefully dissect the contribution of women.He writes on page 232 that the "feminization of poverty" is a "rhetorical trick to divert attention from the obvious fact that women have caused a great deal of the problem [the breakdown of monogamy, and by extension, society] themselves by seeking alternatives to marriage." Yet he never even remotely alludes to what the reasons for their seeking alternatives might be. It's disappointing to see such transparent bias from a journalist, not to mention the avoidance of of the topic of any and all male contribution to the breakdown of the institution he so loves.

In the end, I must say that Mr. Tucker evens out the playing field by spreading around a little of the blame -- but not between men and women. Instead, he allows the welfare-dependent African American woman to shoulder some of the blame, too. Of course, he kindly and compassionately concedes that she can't help it. She's just not evolved enough to control her impulses. On page 227 he writes, " What we have then, is a picture of the Ur-Female, the naked evolutionary id that lies at the core of every woman. ... She is the Welfare Mother, the woman who has a large brood of children by different men." (Supposedly to give her genes the greatest chance of diversity so that they can thrive in an adapting environment.)
So, you see, Mr. Tucker is a reasonable. It's not just African American welfare-dependent women who are at fault here ... it's women in general. They just won't be happy that men "domesticated" for them. They must also demand partnership, consistency, and fidelity, upsetting the whole precarious arrangement. Add to that the hope for equal opportunity to flourish intellectually and professionally and society crumbles.

Since survival of the fittest is a main tenet of the evolutionary premise for his treatment of this subject, it seems that Mr. Tucker perhaps (rather grumpily) concludes that men have peaked in an evolutionary sense and "you damn women need to get back into the house and wait for us to catch up!" What a sad and discouraging prognosis for the state of manhood in our time. If we shift to the premise of his argument to include intelligent design by a Creator in whose image we are fashioned,we might be able to say that men are on a forward path to more fully represent of the heart of God in the context of the family. But that's another conversation and this review has gone on long enough :)

The first "Social Studies" book I could ever see ant common sense in.

A heavy-duty analysis of marriage and its seminal role in forming human society. Marriage of a man and a woman to prosper the human race is brilliant in its design--even divine.