Romantic Jealousy: Causes, Symptoms, Cures (19 page)

Similarly, in most polyandrous societies, the multiple husbands tend to show little jealousy as long as the appropriate status differences are observed.

All of these examples demonstrate how cultures define the rules for verifying the existence of a threat to a marriage. Members of a culture will not support someone's jealous behavior unless that person provides the appropriate justification.

How Cultures Create the Conditions That Dispose Jealousy

According to the social-psychological approach, jealousy is not simply a psychological phenomenon that takes place in the mind of an individual. It's a social phenomenon as well-a product of growing up in a certain culture, anchored in the basic decisions made in that culture about such fundamental issues as physical survival and mating. These decisions become integrated into the customs, morals, and laws of the culture. They define for the individual what is valued and must therefore be protected from possible loss. In this way the culture also defines for the individual the situations that trigger jealousy. If we consider what is valued in our society, we discover that it is related to the most common triggers of jealousy.

Societies differ greatly in the conditions that make people susceptible to jealousy. The more members of a society depend on their mate to fulfill different needs or help face threats to survival, the greater the potential for jealousy.)?

The Ammasalik Eskimo, for example, was dependent on a competent mate to survive the long, harsh winter. Consequently an interloper presented not only a threat to the marriage, but to actual survival. One cultural solution was a custom of wine-stealing. A man who lost his mate to another was allowed, among other solutions, to steal the wife of another husband. A man who dared to carry away the wife in the presence of her husband was considered a powerful person, and his status in the community increase(]. 18

The Dobuan of the D'Entrecastreaux Islands, east of New Guinea, lived in tiny hostile kin groups on very limited and unfruitful lands. A Dobuan man would stay up half the night uttering magic spells and incantations to protect his crop of yams and seduce the yams of his neighbor's field into his own. But no amount of spells and hard work produced a really fine and bountiful crop. The Samoans, on the other hand, lived in large villages united by formal ceremonies on abundant and fertile land. This difference is one of the conditions that, according to Margaret Mead, help explain why jealousy was a widespread phenomenon among the Dobuan, while among the Samoans jealousy was rare.19

Marriage happened at a young age for the Dobuan, and not always by mutual consent. It came after a period of great sexual freedom, and imposed strict fidelity on both mates. As a result, during the engagement both mates were tortured by the suspicion that the other was returning to those just recently abandoned sexual adventures. The suspicions only increased after marriage. A Dobuan husband followed his wife everywhere. Ile sat nearby, watching while she did her work, and counted her footsteps if she left for the bush. A Dobuan wife was never allowed to go to another village alone.

The punishment for adultery among the Dobuan was as harsh as their jealousy. A man who was discovered having sex with another man's wife was likely to have a spear thrust in his back. When that option was not available, the betrayed spouse could try to commit suicide by taking fish poison.

Options for Responding to Jealousy

Culturally sanctioned responses to jealousy are as varied as the cultures on earth. They range from doing nothing to killing both the unfaithful mate and the interloper. The first option is most often given to women, the latter to men. As noted during the discussion of the evolutionary perspective, the difference between men and women in "paternity confidence"-the fact that while women always know that their offspring are theirs, men have no such assurance-explains why the majority of human societies penalize women more severely than men for adultery.

As an example of 'a woman's comparatively mild response to jealousy, we can look again at the Zuni wife, who at first said nothing to her unfaithful husband. But when his sexual liaison became the source of tribal gossip, forcing her to respond, she refused to wash his laundry. This made it clear to him that the affair was common knowledge, and that he'd better stop it. Among the Murngin of Aus tralia, a wife had only one culturally sanctioned way to respond to her husband's infidelity: assault him verbally in public. If she ran away, her father and brothers would search for her and return her to her husband, who would then beat her as punishment and warn- ing.20 Physical aggression is allowed among women only when directed toward a rival. Among the Toba Indians of Bolivia, a wife was allowed either to leave her unfaithful husband or fight her rival. Fights could go on for hours, the two women beating each other with their hands and scratching each other with fingernails or cactus thorns.2'

Culturally acceptable responses to a wife's unfaithfulness tend to be far more severe. In cases of jealousy-related "justifiable homicide," the justified party, almost without exception, is a man.L2 An Antakerrinya husband in South Australia who discovered that his wife had been unfaithful was allowed to cut her across her buttocks and thighs or burn herz' A Marquesan husband, under similar circumstances, could punish his wife either by whipping or by killing her.24 Apache husbands would cut all the hair from the heads of their unfaithful wives, and sometimes cut their noses.'

A nineteenth-century husband of an Aboriginal tribe of New Zealand had several culturally accepted options for responding to his wife's unfaithfulness: He could beat, divorce, or kill her. He could also demand either compensation or a duel from her lover. In the duel, both men were armed with spears. At first the husband could try to pierce his rival's chest with his spear while his rival was allowed only to ward off the thrust. After the rival warded off the third thrust, the debt was considered paid and both men continued to fight on even terms.26

In all these cases, the options for response available to the jealous individual are related to the culture's evaluation of the offense and the threat it implied. In addition, cultures allow responses according to the assigned responsibility.

Among the Maori of New Zealand, when a wife was unfaithful, her family was required to compensate her husband with a land settlement. But if she ran away with her lover, the husband was held accountable; in the interest of the community, lie should have been aware of what was going on and prevented the escape. Because the husband was held responsible, his property was taken away as punishment.27

Since the stability of marriage is important to society-it ensures that children will be born and taken care of by both parents-most societies accept jealous behavior as legitimate. According to sociologist Kingsley Davis, a jealousy situation is not a triangle but a quadrangle, because the public or the community at large is always an interested party. By failing to acknowledge the public or community, we fail to grasp the social character of jealousy. To understand jealousy, argues Davis, we must understand the social function it serves.28

Most cultures support the betrayed mate and condemn the transgressing mate and the interloper. Yet the punishments prescribed by the social norms of different cultures, and even the person designated to deliver the punishment, can vary greatly. Among the Plateau tribes of northern Zimbabwe, for example, when the adultery was between individuals of equal rank, it was the duty of the tribal chief to flog the male lover. Punishment was much more severe when the husband caught his wife and her lover "in the act." In such cases the husband was expected to kill both wife and lover. If he chose not to punish them, and the wife was caught again, the villagers took on the responsibility for punishment. They impaled the unfaithful wife and her lover on sharp stakes, and then taunted them until they died.--9

The punishments delivered by the husband, the villagers, and the chief were all prescribed according to a social code and designed to serve as deterrents. They all demonstrate the relationship between the individual's jealousy and the prohibition against adultery that protects the institution of marriage.

Among the I lidatsa Indians of North America, a husband had several options if his wife ran away with another man. One option was to kill his wife and seize the property that belonged to her lover and his friends. This custom encouraged men not to get involved with married women for fear their friends might have to pay for their transgression. But the most praise-worthy alternative was to treat the whole affair as good riddance from the wife by inviting the runaways to his lodge and formally presenting his wife to her new lover.30

Everything said so far indicates that the ways in which we experience and express jealousy reflect the norms and social structure of society. What social forces encourage or discourage jealousy? Following Ralph I-lupka, this question will be explored through a comparison between the turn-of-the-century Toda of Southern India'' and the prereservation Apache Indians of North America.'2 The Toda tended to minimize expressions of jealousy; the Apache expressed jealousy frequently.

The Toda and the Apache

For the Todd, jealousy was akin to selfishness, and was considered a minor sin. According to Todd religion, people who died traveled across a river on a bridge made of spiderwebs before they reached the home of their god. Individuals who were jealous during their life had heavy hearts that tore the thin bridge. They fell into the river, where they were bitten by leeches. Swamp-dwellers would detain them for a period of time proportionate to the severity of their jealousy and selfishness. For the Apache Indians, jealousy was a culturally acceptable emotion. One did not need to apologize for expressing jealousy or repent for experiencing jealousy.

The Toda were primarily polyandrous. When a woman married a man, she automatically became the wife of his brothers as well, even of those not yet born. She had sexual relations with the brothers as well as with the husband who married her. The woman and her "husbands" lived together as one family. Marriage was not a requirement or a reward. Needs for food and shelter were provided by the joint effort of all the men in the family. Emotional needs for companionship were also easily satisfied.

The Apache, on the other hand, were monogamous. Marriage for an Apache was the key to recognition as a mature adult and to economic self-sufficiency. Adults without mates were rare and considered abnormal. Both husband and wife were expected to contribute to the economy of the family. Men hunted; women gathered wild fruits and vegetables.

For the Apache, marriage was a prerequisite to sexual gratification. Virginity in both sexes was associated with purity, and premarital sex was discouraged. For the Apache, sexual pleasure was a reward earned after a long period of deprivations-a reward to be jealously guarded against the threat of an interloper.

The Toda, by contrast, had few sexual restrictions, and sex was easily obtained before and after marriage. Both husbands and wives were allowed to have lovers. When a man wanted someone else's wife as a lover, he sought the consent of the wife and her husband or husbands. If consent was given by all, the men negotiated for an annual fee to be received by the husband(s). The man then visited the woman at the house of her husband(s), or in some cases had her live with him as if she were his wife.

Among the Toda, the clan owned the most valuable property: the sacred buffaloes and the land. Each family had its own nonsacrcd buffaloes, whose milk was a major source of food, and its own house. Material possessions were few and not highly valued. People had almost no personal property.

The Apache owned most property individually, and such property was not used by anyone else, even a parent, without permission. Handling someone else's belongings implied a special and intimate relationship. A husband's clothes could be washed only by his wife, mother, or slaughter. Any other woman who did his laundry was assumed to be having an affair with him.

The Toda were casual not only about personal property, but about personal descendants as well. Men took little interest in knowing whether the child they were rearing was their own; fatherhood was a legal relation established through a ceremony in which the man gave a bow and arrow to the mother. At times that man had no physical contact with the mother prior to the ceremony. The oldest husband in the family usually performed the ceremony when the wife was about seven months pregnant, yet all the husbands were regarded as the father of the child.

To the Apache, children were a great asset that provided not only status and prestige, but also a form of social security since children fed and cared for their parents in old age. Daughters attracted sizable marriage gifts and after their marriage, their parents had access to their husbands' labor and to portions of the game the husbands brought home. In addition, family and children were the major vehicle for attaining high status in the tribe, because family size was a reflection of wealth. The ability to support a large family indicated that a man was a good hunter. Because the Apache placed such great importance on personal lineage, "paternity confidence" was extremely important to then. When an Apache husband was away, he had a close blood relative spy on his wife to make sure she was not seeing other men.

Another difference between the Toda and the Apache had to do with the importance of women's economic contribution. Toda women contributed little; the men did virtually everything, including the cooking. Women fetched water, embroidered clothes, pounded grain, and cleaned the house. They were not allowed to approach the buffaloes or handle the milk. They were also excluded from all political and religious activities. Apache husband and wife were economically self-sufficient and both contributed significantly to the economy of the family, men by hunting, women by gathering and preparing food.