Article 21

When Brothers Share a WifeAmong Tibetans, the good life relegates many women to spinsterhood

Melvyn C. Goldstein

Eager to reach home, Dorje drives hisyaks hard over the 17,000-foot mountainpass, stopping only once to rest. He andhis two older brothers, Pema and Sonam,are jointly marrying a woman from thenext village in a few weeks, and he has tohelp with the preparations.

Dorje, Pema, and Sonam are Tibetansliving in Limi, a 200-square-mile area inthe northwest corner of Nepal, across theborder from Tibet. The form of marriagethey are about to enter—fraternal poly-andry in anthropological parlance—isone of the world’s rarest forms of mar-riage but is not uncommon in Tibetan so-ciety, where it has been practiced fromtime immemorial. For many Tibetan so-cial strata, it traditionally represented theideal form of marriage and family.

The mechanics of fraternal polyandryare simple. Two, three, four, or morebrothers jointly take a wife, who leavesher home to come and live with them.Traditionally, marriage was arranged byparents, with children, particularly fe-males, having little or no say. This ischanging somewhat nowadays, but it isstill unusual for children to marry with-out their parents’ consent. Marriage cer-emonies vary by income and region andrange from all the brothers sitting to-gether as grooms to only the eldest oneformally doing so. The age of the broth-ers plays an important role in determin-ing this: very young brothers almostnever participate in actual marriage cere-monies, although they typically join themarriage when they reach their mid-teens.

The eldest brother is normally domi-nant in terms of authority, that is, in man-aging the household, but all the brothersshare the work and participate as sexualpartners. Tibetan males and females donot find the sexual aspect of sharing aspouse the least bit unusual, repulsive, orscandalous, and the norm is for the wifeto treat all the brothers the same.

Offspring are treated similarly. Thereis no attempt to link children biologicallyto particular brothers, and a brothershows no favoritism toward his childeven if he knows he is the real father be-cause, for example, his other brotherswere away at the time the wife becamepregnant. The children, in turn, considerall of the brothers as their fathers andtreat them equally, even if they alsoknow who is their real father. In some re-gions children use the term “father” forthe eldest brother and “father’s brother”for the others, while in other areas theycall all the brothers by one term, modify-ing this by the use of “elder” and“younger.”

Unlike our own society, where mo-nogamy is the only form of marriage per-mitted, Tibetan society allows a varietyof marriage types, including monogamy,fraternal polyandry, and polygyny. Fra-ternal polyandry and monogamy are themost common forms of marriage, whilepolygyny typically occurs in cases wherethe first wife is barren. The widespreadpractice of fraternal polyandry, there-fore, is not the outcome of a law requir-ing brothers to marry jointly. There ischoice, and in fact, divorce traditionallywas relatively simple in Tibetan society.

If a brother in a polyandrous marriagebecame dissatisfied and wanted to sepa-rate, he simply left the main house andset up his own household. In such cases,all the children stayed in the main house-hold with the remaining brother(s), evenif the departing brother was known to bethe real father of one or more of the chil-dren.

The Tibetans’ own explanation forchoosing fraternal polyandry is material-istic. For example, when I asked Dorjewhy he decided to marry with his twobrothers rather than take his own wife, hethought for a moment, then said it pre-vented the division of his family’s farm(and animals) and thus facilitated all ofthem achieving a higher standard of liv-ing. And when I later asked Dorje’s bridewhether it wasn’t difficult for her to copewith three brothers as husbands, shelaughed and echoed the rationale ofavoiding fragmentation of the family andland, adding that she expected to be bet-ter off economically, since she wouldhave three husbands working for her andher children.

Exotic as it may seem to Westerners,Tibetan fraternal polyandry is thus inmany ways analogous to the way primo-geniture functioned in nineteenth-cen-tury England. Primogeniture dictatedthat the eldest son inherited the familyestate, while younger sons had to leavehome and seek their own employment—for example, in the military or the clergy.Primogeniture maintained family estatesintact over generations by permittingonly one heir per generation. Fraternalpolyandry also accomplishes this but

1

Article 21. When Brothers Share a Wife

does so by keeping all the brothers to-gether with just one wife so that there isonly one set of heirs per generation.

While Tibetans believe that in thisway fraternal polyandry reduces the riskof family fission, monogamous mar-riages among brothers need not neces-sarily precipitate the division of thefamily estate: brothers could continue tolive together, and the family land couldcontinue to be worked jointly. When Iasked Tibetans about this, however, theyinvariably responded that such joint fam-ilies are unstable because each wife isprimarily oriented to her own childrenand interested in their success and well-being over that of the children of theother wives. For example, if the young-est brother’s wife had three sons whilethe eldest brother’s wife had only onedaughter, the wife of the youngestbrother might begin to demand more re-sources for her children since, as males,they represent the future of the family.Thus, the children from different wivesin the same generation are competingsets of heirs, and this makes such fami-lies inherently unstable. Tibetans per-ceive that conflict will spread from thewives to their husbands and consider thislikely to cause family fission. Conse-quently, it is almost never done.

Although Tibetans see an economicadvantage to fraternal polyandry, they donot value the sharing of a wife as an end

in itself. On the contrary, they articulatea number of problems inherent in thepractice. For example, because authorityis customarily exercised by the eldestbrother, his younger male siblings haveto subordinate themselves with littlehope of changing their status within thefamily. When these younger brothers areaggressive and individualistic, tensionsand difficulties often occur despite therebeing only one set of heirs.

In addition, tension and conflict mayarise in polyandrous families because ofsexual favoritism. The bride normallysleeps with the eldest brother, and thetwo have the responsibility to see to itthat the other males have opportunitiesfor sexual access. Since the Tibetan sub-sistence economy requires males totravel a lot, the temporary absence of oneor more brothers facilitates this, but thereare also other rotation practices. The cul-tural ideal unambiguously calls for thewife to show equal affection and sexual-ity to each of the brothers (and viceversa), but deviations from this ideal oc-cur, especially when there is a sizabledifference in age between the partners inthe marriage.

Dorje’s family represents just such apotential situation. He is fifteen years oldand his two older brothers are twenty-five and twenty-two years old. The newbride is twenty-three years old, eightyears Dorje’s senior. Sometimes such a

bride finds the youngest husband imma-ture and adolescent and does not treathim with equal affection; alternatively,she may find his youth attractive and lav-ish special attention on him. Apart fromthat consideration, when a younger malelike Dorje grows up, he may consider hiswife “ancient” and prefer the companyof a woman his own age or younger.Consequently, although men and womendo not find the idea of sharing a bride orbridegroom repulsive, individual likesand dislikes can cause familial discord.

Two reasons have commonly been of-fered for the perpetuation of fraternalpolyandry in Tibet: that Tibetans prac-tice female infanticide and thereforehave to marry polyandrously, owing to ashortage of females; and that Tibet, lyingat extremely high altitudes, is so barrenand bleak that Tibetans would starvewithout resort to this mechanism. A Je-suit who lived in Tibet during the eigh-teenth century articulated this secondview: “One reason for this most odiouscustom is the sterility of the soil, and thesmall amount of land that can be culti-vated owing to the lack of water. Thecrops may suffice if the brothers all livetogether, but if they form separate fami-lies they would be reduced to beggary.”

Both explanations are wrong, how-ever. Not only has there never been insti-tutionalized female infanticide in Tibet,but Tibetan society gives females con-

Family Planning in Tibet

An economic rationale for fraternal polyandry isoutlined in the diagram below, which emphasizesonly the male offspring in each generation. If everywife is assumed to bear three sons, a family splittingup into monogamous households would rapidlymultiply and fragment the family land. In this case,a rule of inheritance, such as primogeniture, couldretain the family land intact, but only at the cost ofcreating many landless male offspring. In contrast,the family practicing fraternal polyandry maintainsa steady ratio of persons to land.

Joe LeMonnier

2

ANNUAL EDITIONS

siderable rights, including inheriting thefamily estate in the absence of brothers.In such cases, the woman takes a bride-groom who comes to live in her familyand adopts her family’s name and iden-tity. Moreover, there is no demographicevidence of a shortage of females. InLimi, for example, there were (in 1974)sixty females and fifty-three males in thefifteen- to thirty-five-year age category,and many adult females were unmarried.

The second reason is also incorrect.The climate in Tibet is extremely harsh,and ecological factors do play a majorrole perpetuating polyandry, but polyan-dry is not a means of preventing starva-tion. It is characteristic, not of thepoorest segments of the society, butrather of the peasant landowning fami-lies.

In the old society, the landless poorcould not realistically aspire to prosper-ity, but they did not fear starvation.There was a persistent labor shortagethroughout Tibet, and very poor familieswith little or no land and few animalscould subsist through agricultural labor,tenant farming, craft occupations such ascarpentry, or by working as servants. Al-though the per person family incomecould increase somewhat if brothersmarried polyandrously and pooled theirwages, in the absence of inheritable land,the advantage of fraternal polyandry wasnot generally sufficient to prevent themfrom setting up their own households. Amore skilled or energetic youngerbrother could do as well or better alone,since he would completely control his in-come and would not have to share it withhis siblings. Consequently, while therewas and is some polyandry among thepoor, it is much less frequent and moreprone to result in divorce and family fis-sion.

An alternative reason for the persis-tence of fraternal polyandry is that it re-duces population growth (and therebyreduces the pressure on resources) byrelegating some females to lifetime spin-sterhood. Fraternal polyandrous mar-riages in Limi (in 1974) averaged 2.35men per woman, and not surprisingly, 31percent of the females of child-bearingage (twenty to forty-nine) were unmar-ried. These spinsters either continued tolive at home, set up their own house-

holds, or worked as servants for otherfamilies. They could also become Bud-dhist nuns. Being unmarried is not syn-onymous with exclusion from thereproductive pool. Discreet extramaritalrelationships are tolerated, and actuallyhalf of the adult unmarried women inLimi had one or more children. Theyraised these children as single mothers,working for wages or weaving cloth andblankets for sale. As a group, however,the unmarried woman had far fewer off-spring than the married women, averag-ing only 0.7 children per woman,compared with 3.3 for married women,whether polyandrous, monogamous, orpolygynous. While polyandry helps reg-ulate population, this function of polyan-dry is not consciously perceived byTibetans and is not the reason they con-sistently choose it.

If neither a shortage of females northe fear of starvation perpetuates frater-nal polyandry, what motivates brothers,particularly younger brothers, to opt forthis system of marriage? From the per-spective of the younger brother in a land-holding family, the main incentive is theattainment or maintenance of the goodlife. With polyandry, he can expect amore secure and higher standard of liv-ing, with access not only to this family’sland and animals but also to its inheritedcollection of clothes, jewelry, rugs, sad-dles, and horses. In addition, he will ex-perience less work pressure and muchgreater security because all responsibil-ity does not fall on one “father.” For Ti-betan brothers, the question is whether totrade off the greater personal freedom in-herent in monogamy for the real or po-tential economic security, affluence, andsocial prestige associated with life in alarger, labor-rich polyandrous family.

A brother thinking of separating fromhis polyandrous marriage and taking hisown wife would face various disadvan-tages. Although in the majority of Ti-betan regions all brothers theoreticallyhave rights to their family’s estate, in re-ality Tibetans are reluctant to divide theirland into small fragments. Generally, ayounger brother who insists on leavingthe family will receive only a small plotof land, if that. Because of its power andwealth, the rest of the family usually canblock any attempt of the younger brother

to increase his share of land through liti-gation. Moreover, a younger brothermay not even get a house and cannot ex-pect to receive much above the minimumin terms of movable possessions, such asfurniture, pots, and pans. Thus, a brothercontemplating going it on his own mustplan on achieving economic security andthe good life not through inheritance butthrough his own work.

The obvious solution for youngerbrothers—creating new fields from vir-gin land—is generally not a feasible op-tion. Most Tibetan populations live athigh altitudes (above 12,000 feet), wherearable land is extremely scarce. For ex-ample, in Dorje’s village, agricultureranges only from about 12,900 feet, thelowest point in the area, to 13,300 feet.Above that altitude, early frost and snowdestroy the staple barley crop. Further-more, because of the low rainfall causedby the Himalayan rain shadow, many ar-eas in Tibet and northern Nepal that arewithin the appropriate altitude range foragriculture have no reliable sources of ir-rigation. In the end, although there isplenty of unused land in such areas, mostof it is either too high or too arid.

Even where unused land capable ofbeing farmed exists, clearing the landand building the substantial terraces nec-essary for irrigation constitute a great un-dertaking. Each plot has to be completelydug out to a depth of two to two and halffeet so that the large rocks and boulderscan be removed. At best, a man might beable to bring a few new fields under cul-tivation in the first years after separatingfrom his brothers, but he could not ex-pect to acquire substantial amounts of ar-able land this way.

In addition, because of the limitedfarmland, the Tibetan subsistence econ-omy characteristically includes a strongemphasis on animal husbandry. Tibetanfarmers regularly maintain cattle, yaks,goats, and sheep, grazing them in the ar-eas too high for agriculture. These herdsproduce wool, milk, cheese, butter, meat,and skins. To obtain these resources,however, shepherds must accompany theanimals on a daily basis. When first set-ting up a monogamous household, ayounger brother like Dorje would find itdifficult to both farm and manage ani-mals.

3

Article 21. When Brothers Share a Wife

In traditional Tibetan society, therewas an even more critical factor that op-erated to perpetuate fraternal polyan-dry—a form of hereditary servitudesomewhat analogous to serfdom in Eu-rope. Peasants were tied to large estatesheld by aristocrats, monasteries, and theLhasa government. They were allowedthe use of some farmland to producetheir own subsistence but were requiredto provide taxes in kind and corvée (freelabor) to their lords. The corvée was asubstantial hardship, since a peasanthousehold was in many cases required tofurnish the lord with one laborer daily formost of the year and more on specific oc-casions such as the harvest. This en-forced labor, along with the lack of newland and ecological pressure to pursue

both agriculture and animal husbandry,made polyandrous families particularlybeneficial. The polyandrous family al-lowed an internal division of adult labor,maximizing economic advantage. Forexample, while the wife worked the fam-ily fields, one brother could perform thelord’s corvée, another could look afterthe animals, and a third could engage intrade.

Although social scientists often dis-count other people’s explanations ofwhy they do things, in the case of Ti-betan fraternal polyandry, such explana-tions are very close to the truth. Thecustom, however, is very sensitive tochanges in its political and economic mi-lieu and, not surprisingly, is in decline inmost Tibetan areas. Made less important

by the elimination of the traditional serf-based economy, it is disparaged by thedominant non-Tibetan leaders of India,China, and Nepal. New opportunities foreconomic and social mobility in thesecountries, such as the tourist trade andgovernment employment, are also erod-ing the rationale for polyandry, and so itmay vanish within the next generation.

Melvyn C. Goldstein, now a professor of an-thropology at Case Western Reserve Univer-sity in Cleveland, has been interested in theTibetan practice of fraternal polyandry (sev-eral brothers marrying one wife) since hewas a graduate student in the 1960s.

Reprinted with permission from Natural History, March 1987, pp. 39–48. © 1987 by the American Museum of Natural History.

4