There are no monogamous animals save those which love only once during
their lifetime. Exceptions to this rule have not sufficient constancy
to be erected into a counter-rule. There are monogamists in fact, there
are none of necessity, from the time an animal lives long enough to
commit the reproductive act several times. Free female mammals nearly
always flee the male who has once served them, they need a new one.
A bitch does not receive last season's dog save in direst extremity.
This appears to me to be the struggle of the specie against variety.
The couple is the maker of varieties. Polygamy drags them back to the
general type of the specie. Individuals of a specie frankly polygamous
should present a very great similarity; if the species incline toward
a certain monogamy, the dissemblances become more numerous. It is not
an illusion which makes us recognize in human races almost monogamous,
a lesser uniformity of type than in polygamous societies or those
given over to promiscuity, or among animal species. The example of
the dog seems the worst that one could have chosen. It isn't, it is
the best, considering that in receiving successively individuals of
different variety, the bitch tends to produce individuals not of a
specialized breed, but on the contrary of a type where several breeds
will be mixed, individuals which in crossing and recrossing in their
turn, will end, if the dogs live in a free state, in forming one
single specie. Sexual liberty tends to establish uniformity of type;
monogamy strives against this tendency and maintains diversity.[1]
Another consequence of this manner of seeing is that one must consider
monogamy as favourable to intellectual development, intelligence being
a differentiation which accomplishes itself more often, in proportion
as there are individuals and groups who differ physically. Physical
uniformity engenders uniformity of sensibility, thence of intelligence;
this does not need to be explained; now intelligences count, and mark
only their differences; uniform, they are as if they were not; impotent
to hook themselves one onto the other, to react against each other,
lacking asperities, lacking contrary currents. This is the flock, in
which each member makes the same gesture of flight, of biting, or of
roaring.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account