ENJOYING SOLITUDE AND OTHER PEOPLE ■ 1 79a better position to help their members develop a rich self than families
held together against their will are able to do.
There have been endless discussions about whether humans are
naturally promiscuous, polygamous, or monogamous; and whether in
terms of cultural evolution monogamy is the highest form of family
organization. It is important to realize that these questions deal only
with the extrinsic conditions shaping marriage relationships. And on
that count, the bottom line seems to be that marriages will take the form
that most efficiently ensures survival. Even members of the same animal
species will vary their patterns of relationship so as to adapt best in a
given environment. For instance the male long-billed marsh wren (Cisto-
thorus palustris) is polygamous in Washington, where swamps vary in
quality and females are attracted to those few males who have rich
territories, leaving the less lucky ones to a life of enforced bachelorhood.
The same wrens are monogamous in Georgia, not so much because that
state is part of the Bible Belt, but because the marshes all have roughly
the same amount of food and cover, and so each male can attract a
doting spouse to an equally comfortable nesting site.
The form the human family takes is a response to similar kinds
of environmental pressures. In terms of extrinsic reasons, we are monog
amous because in technological societies based on a money economy,
time has proven this to be a more convenient arrangement. But the issue
we have to confront as individuals is not whether humans are “natu
rally” monogamous or not, but whether we want to be monogamous or
not. And in answering that question, we need to weigh all the conse
quences of our choice.
It is customary to think of marriage as the end of freedom, and
some refer to their spouses as “old ball-and-chain.” The notion of family
life typically implies constraints, responsibilities that interfere with one’s
goals and freedom of action. While this is true, especially when the
marriage is one of convenience, what we tend to forget is that these rules
and obligations are no different, in principle, than those rules that
constrain behavior in a game. Like all rules, they exclude a wide range
of possibilities so that we might concentrate fully on a selected set of
options.
Cicero once wrote that to be completely free one must become a
slave to a set of laws. In other words, accepting limitations is liberating.
For example, by making up one’s mind to invest psychic energy exclu
sively in a monogamous marriage, regardless of any problems, obstacles,
or more attractive options that may come along later, one is freed of the
constant pressure of trying to maximize emotional returns. Having made