Analysing Compulsory Monogamy As A Product Of Societal Impositions And Expectations 

Compulsory monogamy is deeply interconnected with hierarchy, ideas of ownership, gender and patriarchal religious beliefs, which makes it a critical point of interest and debate for anarchist feminists.

In “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884), Friedrich Engels states that monogamy became the norm with the advent of industrialisation and the increase in private property, leading to patrilineage. Thus, sons inherited their father’s private property and assets, reinforcing class inequality. Initially, monogamy referred to the custom or practice of being married to only one person at a specific time. The concept has evolved to imply having only one romantic or sexual partner at a particular time, ultimately transforming the arrangement into the contract of marriage. It is imperative to note that the concept of monogamy which connotes exclusive relationships, is vastly distinct from its compulsory form.

Monogamy has been reiterated as the ideal adult custom in terms of sexuality, for both men and women, and especially for the latter through stringent policing. This policing of “inherently feminine behaviour” reiterates the compulsory aspect of monogamy as natural, viewing coupled belonging as the norm.

One may adhere to monogamy while still being critical of the practice of compulsory monogamy. It is imperative to question the idea of “possession” which is perceived as an inherent feature of sexual or romantic love. Feminists argue that the notion of compulsory monogamy must be critically analysed, accounting for the romantic and sexual exclusivity of individuals. The institution of monogamy must be viewed as a choice, rather than an imposition even against one’s will.

The “twoness requirement”

There is a stark difference between monogamous unions based on consent and relationships comprising a dyadic pair, which are the product of cultural imposition and expectations. When viewed through a sociological lens, monogamy may be understood as a compulsory and normative practice, beyond state-approved marriage customs, to sustain the paramountcy of longevity and coupledom and simultaneously uphold romantic love as having an edge over other intimate bonds. This societal expectation is referred to as compulsory monogamy.

According to the Census conducted in 2000 in the United States, 70 per cent of individuals who divorced planned to remarry, while over 90 per cent of Americans expressed the desire to marry, attributing attention to the foundation of monogamy as an institution.

References from pop culture like “he/she is the one for you” and “they are made for each other” draw our attention to both the romanticisation and legitimation of compulsory monogamy, as a practice that caters to all our needs and establishes our moral upstanding. There is a need to articulate one’s opinion about this straitjacketed view of romance for its propagation of stereotypical gender roles and underlying heteronormativity.

Analysing how compulsory monogamy is intertwined with patriarchy

Two dominant dimensions of compulsory monogamy demand critical analysis. In the context of the Western Romance Tradition, Adam Phillips draws a line of distinction between the idea of sharing amongst friends and lovers. While sharing oneself and each other may be accepted and practised in friendships, love is marked by the possession of the other individual. 

The second discourse is that of Biological Anthropology which puts forth the commonsensical understanding that pairing up with a breadearner or provider (a male, based on the sexual division of labour) ensures a woman’s sound health, security and growth of their offspring. On the other side of the spectrum, men form a dyadic pair with women to ensure “domestic bliss“, a condition fruitful for the child. In the words of Sarah Hrdy, “Monogamy reduces inherent conflicts of interest between the sexes. Her reproductive success becomes, and vice versa, promoting harmonious relations between genetically distinct individuals striving towards a common goal.“

Compulsory monogamy promotes a power disparity between men and women. It is sexually unequal, allowing men to acquire agency, while women are entrusted to perform sexual, mental and physical labour, reduced to objects of possession. Any woman who engages in infidelity is labelled as a “deviant” wife or a “slut“, while male infidelity is not socially condemned to the same degree.

Proponents of the notion of compulsory monogamy put forth that the security women gain as part of monogamy is not purely economic, it is intertwined with other types of security. In “Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and Visions” (1995), Murray argues that attachment to a man can ensure the protection of both a woman’s reputation and her body. Further, in “Sugar and Spice: Sexuality and Adolescent Girls” (1993), Lees states that a woman can mitigate the possibility of being tagged as a “lesbian,” “prude” or “slut” by settling down with a man.

Feminist roots

Compulsory monogamy is the ideal individuals are socialised to strive for. However, that ideal is betrayed by the behaviour and desires some individuals develop.

In her essay entitled “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Adrienne Rich argues that capitalist and patriarchal societies use explicit and implicit oppression to supervise and exercise control over women’s sexual and emotional desires. According to Rich, viewing heterosexuality as natural and given results in not acknowledging the compulsions that underlie its legitimation and undermining how women acquire emotional well-being from their intimate bonds with other women. Transcending the medical connotation of lesbianism as a genital-oriented phenomenon, she aims to highlight other aspects of intimacy among women, including shared lived experiences, resistance against male dominance and the extension of political and practical aid.

Compulsory monogamy is a societal expectation that women must conform to, to procure and maintain a high degree of morality and purity. At the turn of the twentieth century, anarchist feminists in the US and UK highlighted the nexus between patriarchy, capitalism and the State and their role in compelling women to enter compulsory monogamous unions. Voltairine de Cleyre asserted, in the context of monogamous relationships, “I would have men and women so arrange their lives that they shall always, at all times, be free beings in this regard as in all others. The limits of abstinence or indulgence can be fixed by the individual alone, what is normal for one being excess for another, what is normal for one being excess for another . . . “

The concept of compulsory monogamy has feminine roots. It was coined to explain the normalisation of coupling, particularly for women. Arguing that monogamy is compulsory is equivalent to imposing restrictions on the possibility of envisaging choices. However, the presence of these choices can not only pose a challenge to monogamy’s hold on our thinking but may also strengthen its grip.

Compulsory monogamy is a societal expectation that women must conform to, to procure and maintain a high degree of morality and purity. It is deeply interconnected with hierarchy, ideas of ownership, gender and patriarchal religious beliefs, which makes it a critical point of interest and debate for anarchist feminists.