Fraternal polyandry and its implications on constructions of marriage and gender

I was digging in my archives and found a piece I wrote two years ago on fraternal polyandry (a wife marrying multiple brothers) in the Tibetan society of Nyinba. Although my writing skills are lagging a bit, I think it is powerful because it captures a different culture, but also because, in doing so, challenges American customs as being natural and/or logical.

I remember I took on the topic because I wanted to study an instance of women having sexual power over men, or regulating men in the way that men have historically regulated women. Well, don't be fooled--men still run the show in fraternal polyandry, but it is interesting to see how the terms change. I also took on this topic because I wanted to explore how gender is culturally negotiated across different peoples.

More significant is this idea that place matters. That is to say, geographic and political contexts shape our ways of life to such a degree that we do not notice them. This begs the question then, what is the American context in which ideas of sex, gender and marriage emerge?

It's a long read, but worth a skim:

The cultural phenomenon of fraternal polyandry demonstrates the flexibility of male and female relationships to adapt to specific environmental and economic circumstances. As multiple brothers share a common wife in the Nyinba society of Tibet, masculine and feminine roles evolve to accommodate a unique society rather than remaining stagnant notions based solely upon reproductive components. Thus, dual binaries of male/female and child/adult reveal gender in Nyinba is indeed a social construct rather than a biological template.

Unlike certain practices of polygamy, where a man enjoys multiple brides for sexual and recreational purposes, polyandry has become a distinctive cultural practice to best suit a difficult and limited agricultural situation. Brothers serve as the primary source of labor to sustain farmlands and herds. What is more, as brothers remain a single unit through marriage, family land is kept together, allowing the wealthy to retain large sums of land and preventing the poor from generational subdivisions. The practiced marital arrangement is unique because it accommodates the economic situation of a very specific region of Tibet and is not the result of a natural, physiological process. In this union, the eldest brother is the dominant force among co-husbands and is able to delegate work to the younger brothers. Thus, not all husbands share equality in the home and the central male position is a direct result of a hierarchal birth right. In this manner, cultural significance placed on the eldest child dictates the authoritative husband, not a physical quality or biological trait that would make one male more capable than the other.

Regardless of birth order, the presence of multiple husbands in the home serves to indicate the economic importance of the male role. Aside from agriculture and herding, Tibetan economy relies heavily on long-distance trade and networking. The presence of multiple adults and limited children is more economically efficient, as children are unable to take on hard labor while grown men can contribute significantly. In fact, an ideal polyandrous household will have three brothers, with the hope that each one will engage in agriculture, herding and trade. Thus, marriage is more of a financial investment. Agriculture and herding are lucrative economic endeavors due to the regional quality of the land, not because Tibetan men are genetically best-suited for this field. Though a strong body may handle manual labor with more efficiency, there are other physically-demanding occupational alternatives available. There is no biological component that forces the Nyinba male to herd or farm, only the power of personal choice to choose the most resourceful opportunity available. It is this necessity to engage in the agricultural labor pool that frames a family structure that is equally accommodating and subsequently, both culturally and regionally unique.

Multiple husbands are ideal, not just to create a larger pool of laborers, but to also create substitute husbands, so to speak. In response to the long periods of time that traders are absent in order to work, multiple husbands are able to fill in for one another at home. This particular arrangement of marriage has evolved to cycle and regulate the absence of husbands, stressing the emphasis on a constant paternal figure. In fact, the desire for a paternal role in fraternal polyandrous households is so strong that men partition their marriages and accept co-wives if they do not produce children. (Levine and Silk 377-379)

Children, just as husbands and wives, have evolved into gendered resources for economic survival and prosperity. Occurrences of infanticide and child mortality reflect prejudice between male and female offspring. Nyinba society holds a strong value on sons, yet considers daughters to be an economic and social burden. The gendered value placed on children does not result directly from biological differences, but is drawn from regional limits of what occupations are financially rewarding and who can most effectively handle that occupation. Due to limited resources, each member of the family is appraised based on current and future contributions to the household; individual interests are compromised for family interest. Therefore, sons, who are best suited for the labor-intensive agricultural field, combine work efforts and eventually support parents. Daughters, on the other hand, cost parents a dowry, marriage expenses, leave the home, and offer no future financial or domestic contributions. What is more, females are subject to shame family with excessive and immoral sexual practices, making daughters a cause for extreme concern. On the other hand, in households where there are no sons, the daughter becomes heiress, though eventually her husbands will take over her estate, indicating that Nyinba associates masculinity with successful leadership and control. However, the fact that a female can serve as heiress, even if she does not remain so, indicates that the position does not need a male, rather the culture prefers a male (Levine, Differential Child Care 281-282). Thus, the agricultural limitations in work variety place a region-specific value on males and females, precipitating a different cultural value and role for each of the sexes.

As children, sons represent the continuity and success of the family. For this reason, it is crucial for co-husbands to produce offspring, as the sons of each husband will share a single wife when the eldest son comes of age. Sharing a wife and sexual partner succeeds in boosting household income and does not strain the brotherhood, perhaps because co-husbands integrate their brotherly dedication into a marital commitment. However, it is desire for a stronger income that keeps brothers together, not fraternal love or instinctual urges. Co-husbands generally lose the competition and jealousy involved in sexual and marital partners because this arrangement is accepted as most successful. Co-husbands are not possessive over their wives and “the household programming of sexual intercourse is said, by those participating, to be no problem; elsewhere, plural husbands also arrange these matters amicably” (Mogey via Peter 95). Though members of the family choose to be cooperative, it is essentially necessary and in the best interest of survival. This behavior is financially rewarding, not biologically determined, and therefore implemented into the household.

Though it is the responsibility of the wife to please her husbands, emotional fulfillment through life-long partners is not stressed in this culture because it does not facilitate a communal living arrangement or economic survival. Cultural practices compliment functionality, not individual desire or emotions such as love. In the typical marriage, the eldest son picks the wife for all of the brothers. The wife is younger than the oldest brother, but older than the younger brothers. This lack of personal connection indicates the female role as child-bearer above all else. What is more, younger brothers, concerned that their wife is too old and consequently infertile, can partition the marriage. These younger husbands may leave or accept co-wives because they cannot fulfill their reproductive role and therefore cannot meet the cultural quota and regional arrangement. However, there have been cases where the wife will sexually ignore a brother whom she does not like in order to encourage that husband to leave the family. This is extremely rare, because the female role is to keep her husbands together in order to sustain a functioning family. (Levine and Silk 377)

Though a wife may occasionally succumb to temptation and ignore one of her husbands, in reality, she is powerless and, ironically, isolated in an over-populated home. “Tibetan women have considerable autonomy and are highly valued in their marital homes” (Levine, Differential Child Care 287). Actually, the women only have autonomy over domestic ventures so long as no additional wives have been accepted. Moreover, the wife is only valued for her reproductive capacity and her role in the home. The cultural value placed on a biological capability ascribes a woman to her role in society, not the capability itself. Men have the final word in household matters and hold all political positions within Nyinba. By limiting women to the domestic sphere, men are able to dominate the public realm; by constructing the feminine role as passive, men protect their own leadership. This often works against women. Co-husbands are brothers and thus have a common bond with one another, while women battle for limited resources and domestic influence amongst one another. As a result, women come to rely upon men and children within the house, isolating females from one another (Levine, Belief and Explanation 261). In this way, cultural reproduction serves to alienate women and create a dependence on husbands and children for legitimacy.

Though women use their husbands as allies, Nyinba witchcraft indicates hostility between wives and husbands as well. Examining Nyinba witchcraft reveals female frustration in gender roles. Witchcraft is associated with women, who use the household support beam and a husband’s head for a flying vehicle--symbolizing the very source of the witch’s unrest: confinement to the home and helplessness under male dominion. Witches commit violent acts against those they hate or envy and, typically, the first act of violence is committed against the husband(s). Anxiety related to the female gender role reveals how cultural constructions built for economic survival do not necessarily meet the personal needs of the people within households. This has systematic repercussions for certain positions within the family (Levine, Belief and Explanation 270).

The gender roles of men and women in Nyinba from infancy to adulthood have evolved to accommodate marital arrangements that allow the Nyinba to conquer the difficult terrain of a specific region. Brothers marry a single woman to control population growth in an environment of limited resources and to keep family land from being subdivided. Daughters serve as homemakers and reproductive vessels, bearing sons and, with reluctance, daughters to carry on the Nyinba society. Women become instruments of continuity and must sexually satisfy all husbands for the sake of the family unit. These roles therefore define notions of masculinity and femininity as best suited for geographical and economic survival and are therefore determined by environment—not biology. “When Polyandry has once been established as a tradition it will carry on because of its importance as a distinctive cultural trait” (Prince 91). Though sex determines whether an individual is male or female, it is the distinctive cultural traits that assign gender roles to a given people.

Levine, Nancy. “Belief and Explanation in Nyinba Women’s Witchcraft.” Man, New Series 17.2 (1982): 259-271.

Levine, Nancy. “Differential Child Care in Three Tibetan Communities: Beyond Son Preference.” Population and Development Review 13.2 (1987): 281-287.

Levine, Nancy and Silk, Joan. “Why Polyandry Fails.” Current Anthropology 38.3 (1997): 375-386.

Peter, Prince. “A Study of Polyandry.” Current Anthropology 6.1 (1965): 88-98.