Spirituality and Intimate Relationships: Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond
Jorge N Ferrer
Tikkun; Jan/Feb 2007; 22, lg ProQuest Religion
pg. 37
                    V          7                   y        
 l
by Jorge N. Ferrer , *2
l I
N BUDDHISM, SYMPATHETIC JOY (MUDITA) IS RE- i
. , i ~
garded as one of the "four immeasurable states ’ i I
. . . . i ;
(bmhmamhams) or qualities of an enlightened per- ;
son—the other three being loving kindness (metta), V
· compassion (karuna), and equanimity (upeksha). g {V
l Sympathetic joy refers to the human capability to par- 1
I ticipate in the joy of others, to feel happy when others l g
feel happy. Although with different emphases, such under- ;
. . . . i -
standing can also be found in the contemplative teachings of i V
many other religious traditions such as the Kabbalah, Chris- i ‘
tianity, or Sufism, which in their respective languages talk about { ·
empathic joy, for example, in terms of opening the “eye ofthe i
heart.” According to these and other traditions, the cultivation  
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.T|KKUN.ORG   TIKKUN   V
i
r s s   on s   . J    we s _ _ I so . ...-ir_-_._.¤.-..,_insnm__r___.___.ii i    , I s __,,   s `
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

E of sympathetic joy can break through the ultimately false duality between self and oth-  
` . p I ers, being therefore a potent aid on the path toward overcoming self-centeredness and
‘ l achieving liberation.
_ ‘ Though the ultimate aim of many religious practices is to develop sympathetic joy
‘ for all sentient beings, intimate relationships offer human beings—whether they are
p spiritual practitioners or not—a precious opportunity to taste its experiential flavor.
i i I Most psychologically balanced individuals naturally share, to some degree, in the hap-
  , piness of their mates. Bliss and delight can effortlessly emerge within us as we feel the
I f Q joy of our partner’s ecstatic dance, enjoyment of an art performance, relishing of a fa-
  , vorite dish, or serene contemplation of a splendid sunset. And this innate capacity for
I · sympathetic joy in intimate relationships often reaches its peak in deeply emotional
l shared experiences, sensual exchange, and lovemaking. When we are in love, the em-
l bodied joy of our beloved becomes extremely contagious.
`I I Jealousy in Monogamous Relationships
l I BUT WHAT IF our. PARTNER’S sensuous or emotional joy were to arise in relation not
i l to us but to someone else? For the vast majority of people, the immediate reaction
 p would likely be not one of expansive openness and love, but rather of contracting fear,
  anger, and perhaps even violent rage. The change of a single variable has rapidly turned
1 the selfless contentment of sympathetic joy into the "green—eyed monster" of jealousy, j
;;» as Shakespeare called this compulsive emotion.
  Perhaps due to its prevalence, jealousy is widely accepted as “normal” in most cul-
* i tures, and many of its violent consequences have often been regarded as understand-
able, morally justified, and even legally permissible. (It is worth remembering that as
I late as the 1970s the law of states such as Texas, Utah, and New Mexico considered “rea-
{ sonable" the homicide of one’s adulterous partner if it happened at the scene of discov- l
l I   ·   ery!). Though there are circumstances in which the mindful expression of
J · J • y rightful anger (not violence) may be a temporary appropriate resp0nse—for
n.   dls S  S ’ unlvcrs all example, 1n the case ofthe adulterous breakmg of monogamous vows—jeal-
. j , ousy frequently makes 1tS appearance in interpersonal s1tuat1ons where no j
  l           betrayal has taken place or when we rationally know that no real threat actu-
  I ‘ ' all exists (for exam le, watchin our artner’s sensuous dance with an at-
l l     tralctive person at a garty). In ge§eral,Ifhe awakening of sympathetic joy in
        observing the happiness of one’s mate in relationship with perceived “rivals"
° • is an extremely rare pearl to find. In the context of romantic relationships,
avall   tO   jealousy functions as a hindrance to sympathetic joy.
p   31. Vlrhat are the roots of this widespread difficulty in experiencing sympa-
thetic joy IH the arenas of sexuality and sensuous experience? What is ulti-
J mately lurking behind such an apparently deiiled behavior as jealousy? Can jealousy be
’ transformed through a fuller embodiment of sympathetic joy in our intimate relation-
  ships? VVhat emotional response can take the place of jealousy? And what are the impli-
E cations of transforming jealousy for our spiritually informed relationship choices? To I
, begin exploring these questions, we need to turn to the discoveries of modern evolu-
1 tionary psychology.
Evolutionary Map of Jealousy
THE EVOLUTIONARY oR1G1Ns and function of jealousy have been clearly mapped by
contemporary evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists, and zoologists. Despite its
tragic impact in the modern world (the overwhelming majority of mate battering and
spousal murders worldwide is caused by jealous violence), jealousy very likely emerged
around 3.5 million years ago in our hominid ancestors as an adaptive response of vital
i i evolutionary value for both genders. VVhereas the reproductive payoff` of jealousy for
I males was to secure certainty of paternity and avoid spending resources in support of an-
other male’s genetic offspring, for females it evolved as a mechanism for guaranteeing
  38 rnw·?$`  ,A   e 
A ii rey il    *   A   ` »
protection and resources for biological iufifgili    I  , A °” I '”`A ~i°,§` Y;  fl A.
short, jealousy emerged in our ances- Ii I y   I i e    
. A A._¤   ‘‘=. ‘·       A ei;   ·~,  A     J'! AA e· s~»~· *¢ee··"¤’l“~·
tra] past to protect males from being AAAS; ··e>  {jg   ·A—/ »A;ggg·gfAg§;¤¥;j;gAA  ··-~·~ IA-·*· ·
cuckolded and to protect women from  will   · p     J   A I
A being abandoned. This is why even       nw A {
  today men tend to experience more in-       ,     Q     g  V   )z_dh’
tense feelings of jealousy than women ii A· pgjgfgjji  Ar      {fj  l   I I — L ' ,_
I do when they suspect sexual infidelity, A ,Ao    AAAAAi     =lA  I e>i”i'i   .%, A l 9;
{ while women are more likely than men · i  3Q  »i’··           AA,  ri: Ar E J, if
mfeeltmeeteeedwheeeheiemmeebe·   if   eey    QA} A ~A   —e i `  " T"?-*‘-— ef *’  ~
come emotionally attached to another         A · I All ‘~—`::""·-"?.-~ »
femme mm Svemi time end meeey   lAAA  ii v  lAAA if “eii?  ‘ iiifli   AA " I · E I A ii 
with her. Modern research shows that  {   AA     i p, I i  AA j   - Ri ·—  QQ “""""¤
this “evolutionary logic" in relation to  W   lil ii`i _. ,i ml l   V A _   ,_.,,j_-.i   , i` \ 
gender—specific jealousy patterns oper- ° 4Ti`  I     {A_ fi {  if    " i A ,
ates widely across disparate cultures   -  ,   flip! V`? — 1     .
' ` '  w ifi?. AiAeAle {$]W1§A§A$§ `Ail``  2 le,·A wZ€¥EiY1iY=i   {   U] ful! ' ” A ` *,,2 -··"‘ A i it
and countries, from Sweden to China, A   ,'k· g        _     Ajey ,5  {,1], fj I, A _ W,  
from North America and the Nether- g L    fi  if Vi ·f' E A i " 
lands to Japan and Korea. ”      J   i    j A I i I fi i
The problem, of course, is that A i i;°[A*r~I  ffgj    ‘ » lk \ A_ i i A A , `
many instinctive reactions that had   in  pg _ R lg    l i  I
evolutionary significance in ancestral     ·/I G 5* I  i` `  ..7**
times do not make much sense in our     if  `   . A ` ‘ ` if ~A
modern world. There are today many A I       A  (   _ p gi.,  
single mothers, for example, who do ,   i i A _, Y i
not need or want financial—or even l   i
emotional—support from their children’s fathers, yet still feel jealous when their ex- T  
partners pay attention to other women. And most contemporary men and women suf- l
fer from jealousy independent of whether they want children or plan to have them with A,
their partners. As evolutionary psychologist David Buss puts it in his acclaimed book i
The Evolution of Desire, most human mating mechanisms and responses are actually  
"living fossils" shaped by the genetic pressures of our evolutionary history. g l
Our Genetic Instincts A i,
INTERESTINGLY, THE GENETIC noors of jealousy are precisely the same as those be-  
hind the desire for sexual exclusivity (or possessiveness) that we have come to call  
"monogamy." In contrast to conventional use, however, the term "monogamy" simply  
means "one spouse" and does not necessarily entail sexual fidelity. In any event, where-  ·
as jealousy is not exclusive to monogamous bonds (swingers and polyamorous people
also feel j ealous), the origins of jealousy and monogamy are intimately connected in our
primeval past. Indeed, evolutionary psychology tells us that jealousy emerged as a hy-
persensitive defense mechanism against the genetically disastrous possibility of having .
one’s partner stray from monogamy. In the ancestral savannah, it was as imperative for
females to secure a stable partner who would provide food and protect their children
from predators as it was for males to make sure they were not investing their time and l
energy in someone else’s progeny. Put simply, from an evolutionary standpoint the  
main purpose of both monogamy and jealousy is to provide for the dissemination of QA
one’s DNA. {
In a context of spiritual aspiration aimed at the gradual uncovering and transforma— V`
tion of increasingly subtle forms of self—centeredness, we can perhaps recognize that  l
jealousy ultimately serves a biologically engrained form of egotism which we may call 5 ;
“genetic selfishness"—not to be confused with Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene" theory  
which reduces human beings to the status of survival machines at the service of gene E
JANuAnv/i=EBnuAnv zoov www.tu