![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The So-Called Monogamy Gene
Sep. 4th, 2008 04:09 pmSo there's lots of news coverage going on about the so-called "Monogamy Gene", but I suspected something that Alan, over at the Polyamory In The Media Blogspot, also suspects and wrote about more clearly than I could:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/monogamy-gene.html
"The monogamy gene"? Or just a bonding gene?
What the reseachers seem to have found is a gene that affects bonding, not necessarily a "monogamy gene." It's being called that because monogamy is the only kind of intimate, committed sexual bonding that the news media grasp.
Here's a hypothesis: Test people in triads and quads for the gene, and I have a hunch that they'll be strikingly low in the genetic trait, rather than high as people might naively expect.
Hey researchers, here's a project! Not just because it might tell interesting things about polys, but because it would refine the actual effect of the gene and its vasopressin mechanism. Does lack of the gene promote successful monogamy directly? Or does it merely promote intimate connections generally? Including the polyamorous generalization of couple-love into something wider. Polys would be a tool to split the difference.
And from Wired! Magzine:
Furthermore, the study's fine print notes a previously observed and tentative link between the genetic variation and autism. Men with "bad" genes — or "bad" neural networks — might not be two-timing gigolos, but people who are bad at communicating and social interaction.
I'm fully on board with this summary. I was concerned when I saw this headline being repeated all over the internet. It is my personal belief that humans are not all hardwired for monogamy. I think monogamy is almost exclusively culturally-ingrained, but that's not really my point here. I'm all for understanding the "whys" of things, but for political reasons, it really doesn't matter if it's "hardwired" or not. Humans have the capacity for rising above their genetic programming in many ways. Contraception, for instance, goes completely against our genetic programming. In a civilized society, we should be able to do the things we like that aren't harming others just because we *want* to.
If non-monogamy is genetic, we'll get the opposition saying we should rise above our genetics and be "moral" people. If monogamy is genetic, we'll get the "I told you so" argument and pressure to conform to genetic limitations.
But the fact of the matter is that this is the first study of its kind and the conclusions are not conclusive. Much more needs to be done and my understanding of what these chemicals did prior to this study leads me to suspect, as Alan does, that it's about BONDING, not monogomy, since we have not studied all the factors and the sample population size was not enough to answer these kinds of questions.
The Wired! Magazine's quote makes a very crucial point. This gene has a KNOWN link to autism. There is also a recent surge in people getting labeled with Asperger's Syndrome, which is primarily about the ability to connect with people - high functioning autism that prevents people from understanding the socially-accepted rules like how to look people in the eye when talking, empathizing, etc. In a different culture, would AS be a "syndrome"? The point is, we have a culture that has certain rules and regulations for how to relate to each other, but other cultures have other rules. In another society, it would not only NOT be considered rude for me to avoid someone's eyes, but I might be punished severely if I did look someone in the eye.
So we do not know if this gene causes monogamy, per se, but we do suspect it has something to do with the bonding process. In a society that allows multiple instances of bonding, how would this gene affect a person's ability to be "faithful"? I strongly suspect that people who tend to bond deeply to multiple partners and have long-term relationships that each partner would define as "successful" and "happy" is someone who has fewer copies of this gene, just as so-called monogamous men have fewer copies.
While many of us polys think that some people are hardwired monogamous and others are hardwired polyamorous, many more people fit somewhere in the middle, and a fulfilling relationship can meet the needs of someone who might *also* find fulfillment in a poly relationships - where the "fulfillment" part comes from emotional needs being met, not simply number of partners. If that kind of person dates someone who is monogamous and is getting his emotional needs met, he might just agree to go along with monogamy for the sake of the monogamous partner and actually be successful at it because he can bond strongly with that person and has the ability to communicate effectively. It doesn't mean he's "hardwired monogamous", it means he can develop strong emotional bonds and is willing to place an arbitrary limitation on the number of partners for some other reason like societal pressure.
And let's not overlook just how societal pressure can and does shape people, sometimes in spite of their "genetic" programming. Just because someone has several copies of this gene, it does not mean automatically that he will screw around or that he makes a "bad" partner. He could have learned those good-relationship skills intentionally, as some people with AS (and just shy people) learn socially-acceptable behaviour to overcome their natural limitations. And someone with fewer copies of that gene could have had the kind of upbringing that turns him into an asshole.
As poly people, I think we need to do our part to calm those who come to us with this kind of sensationalist news by explaining 1) the limitations of the study, 2) the details of the conclusions that are being mis-represented (some people are now calling it the divorce-gene!), 3) reminding people that it shouldn't be used as an excuse for poor behaviour and, 4) although it's interesting, ultimately it doesn't matter if it's "nature" or "nurture", if people want to be non-monogamous for whatever reason, it should be allowed when all parties consent.
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/monogamy-gene.html
"The monogamy gene"? Or just a bonding gene?
What the reseachers seem to have found is a gene that affects bonding, not necessarily a "monogamy gene." It's being called that because monogamy is the only kind of intimate, committed sexual bonding that the news media grasp.
Here's a hypothesis: Test people in triads and quads for the gene, and I have a hunch that they'll be strikingly low in the genetic trait, rather than high as people might naively expect.
Hey researchers, here's a project! Not just because it might tell interesting things about polys, but because it would refine the actual effect of the gene and its vasopressin mechanism. Does lack of the gene promote successful monogamy directly? Or does it merely promote intimate connections generally? Including the polyamorous generalization of couple-love into something wider. Polys would be a tool to split the difference.
And from Wired! Magzine:
Furthermore, the study's fine print notes a previously observed and tentative link between the genetic variation and autism. Men with "bad" genes — or "bad" neural networks — might not be two-timing gigolos, but people who are bad at communicating and social interaction.
I'm fully on board with this summary. I was concerned when I saw this headline being repeated all over the internet. It is my personal belief that humans are not all hardwired for monogamy. I think monogamy is almost exclusively culturally-ingrained, but that's not really my point here. I'm all for understanding the "whys" of things, but for political reasons, it really doesn't matter if it's "hardwired" or not. Humans have the capacity for rising above their genetic programming in many ways. Contraception, for instance, goes completely against our genetic programming. In a civilized society, we should be able to do the things we like that aren't harming others just because we *want* to.
If non-monogamy is genetic, we'll get the opposition saying we should rise above our genetics and be "moral" people. If monogamy is genetic, we'll get the "I told you so" argument and pressure to conform to genetic limitations.
But the fact of the matter is that this is the first study of its kind and the conclusions are not conclusive. Much more needs to be done and my understanding of what these chemicals did prior to this study leads me to suspect, as Alan does, that it's about BONDING, not monogomy, since we have not studied all the factors and the sample population size was not enough to answer these kinds of questions.
The Wired! Magazine's quote makes a very crucial point. This gene has a KNOWN link to autism. There is also a recent surge in people getting labeled with Asperger's Syndrome, which is primarily about the ability to connect with people - high functioning autism that prevents people from understanding the socially-accepted rules like how to look people in the eye when talking, empathizing, etc. In a different culture, would AS be a "syndrome"? The point is, we have a culture that has certain rules and regulations for how to relate to each other, but other cultures have other rules. In another society, it would not only NOT be considered rude for me to avoid someone's eyes, but I might be punished severely if I did look someone in the eye.
So we do not know if this gene causes monogamy, per se, but we do suspect it has something to do with the bonding process. In a society that allows multiple instances of bonding, how would this gene affect a person's ability to be "faithful"? I strongly suspect that people who tend to bond deeply to multiple partners and have long-term relationships that each partner would define as "successful" and "happy" is someone who has fewer copies of this gene, just as so-called monogamous men have fewer copies.
While many of us polys think that some people are hardwired monogamous and others are hardwired polyamorous, many more people fit somewhere in the middle, and a fulfilling relationship can meet the needs of someone who might *also* find fulfillment in a poly relationships - where the "fulfillment" part comes from emotional needs being met, not simply number of partners. If that kind of person dates someone who is monogamous and is getting his emotional needs met, he might just agree to go along with monogamy for the sake of the monogamous partner and actually be successful at it because he can bond strongly with that person and has the ability to communicate effectively. It doesn't mean he's "hardwired monogamous", it means he can develop strong emotional bonds and is willing to place an arbitrary limitation on the number of partners for some other reason like societal pressure.
And let's not overlook just how societal pressure can and does shape people, sometimes in spite of their "genetic" programming. Just because someone has several copies of this gene, it does not mean automatically that he will screw around or that he makes a "bad" partner. He could have learned those good-relationship skills intentionally, as some people with AS (and just shy people) learn socially-acceptable behaviour to overcome their natural limitations. And someone with fewer copies of that gene could have had the kind of upbringing that turns him into an asshole.
As poly people, I think we need to do our part to calm those who come to us with this kind of sensationalist news by explaining 1) the limitations of the study, 2) the details of the conclusions that are being mis-represented (some people are now calling it the divorce-gene!), 3) reminding people that it shouldn't be used as an excuse for poor behaviour and, 4) although it's interesting, ultimately it doesn't matter if it's "nature" or "nurture", if people want to be non-monogamous for whatever reason, it should be allowed when all parties consent.
