Is Polyamory Revolutionary?
The revolutionary breeze that ushered in the 60s carried with it a desire for sexual liberation and emancipation from the bourgeois, patriarchal norm. By calling into question the fundamental unit of society, the nuclear family, rebellious youth hoped to shake the foundations of staid consumerism.
The Sexual Freedom League, a student group at the University of California – Berkeley, organized nude parties and orgies. The Weather Underground tried to "smash monogamy" with bisexuality and rotating sexual partners. And in 1971 Andreas Baader, founder of the Red Army Faction, captured the sentiment of his generation, exclaiming: "The anti-imperialist struggle and sexual emancipation go hand-in-hand, fucking and shooting are the same thing!"
Now, four decades later, we can discern the faint stirrings of a return to the project of sexual liberation. This time, however, it is not under the flag of "free love" but of "polyamory" that the struggle will be waged.
Experiments in free love were not always a success and in retrospect some former participants now admit there was another form of coercion at work. Free love ceased being free and revolutionary the moment it became obligatory. In his 1971 dystopian sci-fi novel, The World Inside, Robert Silverberg conveys this point brilliantly.
Writing in the midst of the sexual revolution, Silverberg imagines a world where an exponentially growing human population lives in mile high sky scrapers. With limited space, their society adopts sexual norms that avoid tension: promiscuity is encouraged, and it is considered anti-social to turn down a sexual advance. Every night, men sleep with their neighbors wives and wives freely switch partners as well. The result is a world of greater apparent freedom – drugs are also legal – sustained by a severe form of social control: those who resist the free love culture disappear.
Sexual liberation as imagined in the 60s was heavily biased towards a vision where sexual energy was freely flowing, all partners essentially equal, and sex something that ought to be shared without restriction. Against this borderless, formless vision of sex another perspective is gaining traction: the "polyamorous" position that maintains it is the tight bounding of a group, whether it be three or four or more, that is revolutionary.
Polyamory is an outgrowth of the free love movement but instead of looking to the orgy as the model for rebellion it is the notion of a tribe that excites their imagination. There are many visions of polyamory, but the one that many find intriguing is a world where partners are not exchangeable, relationships are stable and promiscuity is often frowned on. Whether polyamory means two women and a man, two men and a woman or two couples who share the same bed, the nuclear, patriarchal family is no where to be found.
Can capitalism exist without its foundation of heterosexual monogamy? Is polyamory inherently revolutionary? To all these questions we must answer: capitalism is a master of recuperation. What first shakes it, soon motivates it, later strengthens it. We will never know which tactics bring it down until we try.
To rupture the consumer myth will take more than protests in the streets and boycotts of consumer goods. It'll require a fundamental shift in the structure of society, a revocation of our libidinal investment. Whether that'll take the form of polyamory or simply neighbors getting to know each other remains to be seen.
Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley and is writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
160 comments on the article “Is Polyamory Revolutionary?”
Displaying 11 - 20 of 160
Page 2 of 16
Andrew McNicol
"It doesn't work even the people who do this get jealous and stupid."
Well, it really depends on the individuals involved as to whether it can work, just like any 'normal' relationship.
Sweeping statements are never helpful, Anonymous.
Andrew McNicol
"It doesn't work even the people who do this get jealous and stupid."
Well, it really depends on the individuals involved as to whether it can work, just like any 'normal' relationship.
Sweeping statements are never helpful, Anonymous.
Uland
You mean every human being, everywhere, throughout history? I exaggerate, but really, this idea that "love" has nothing to do with satisfying basic human needs is just ridiculous. We all want to be loved and nurtured. That feeling simply doesn't occur when the other party isn't committed, and they aren't committed if they're intimate with others.
Love is very much about giving yourself over to the possession of another, and being, in turn, possessed.
I just can't believe Lefties are still going on about this nonsense. Take a look at how well the sexual revolution has worked out! Everyone you know is a mess....
Who'da thunk that messing with such deeply foundational modes of culture would have a destabilizing effect?
btw, destabilizing consumerism isn't the same thing as trying to destroy authentic culture.
Uland
You mean every human being, everywhere, throughout history? I exaggerate, but really, this idea that "love" has nothing to do with satisfying basic human needs is just ridiculous. We all want to be loved and nurtured. That feeling simply doesn't occur when the other party isn't committed, and they aren't committed if they're intimate with others.
Love is very much about giving yourself over to the possession of another, and being, in turn, possessed.
I just can't believe Lefties are still going on about this nonsense. Take a look at how well the sexual revolution has worked out! Everyone you know is a mess....
Who'da thunk that messing with such deeply foundational modes of culture would have a destabilizing effect?
btw, destabilizing consumerism isn't the same thing as trying to destroy authentic culture.
Andrew McNicol
"We all want to be loved and nurtured. That feeling simply doesn't occur when the other party isn't committed . . ."
I kinda agree with these premises, but I'll accept them for the sake of argument. However, I can not agree at all with the following section:
". . . and they aren't committed if they're intimate with others."
Why must exclusive intimacy be a necessary requirement for commitment? A person can definitely be committed to more than one idea, more than one movement. Why can't you see that this can apply to human relationships, too? If a parent has more than one child does that mean they can't completely care for both?
Turning the claim around, there are plenty of people who are intimate with only one person, but this does not necessarily imply they are also committed to that person.
I don't agree with your claim that having intimate relationships with multiple people means that those relationships are necessarily inferior to the alternative of being close to only one other person. It just doesn't work.
Andrew McNicol
"We all want to be loved and nurtured. That feeling simply doesn't occur when the other party isn't committed . . ."
I kinda agree with these premises, but I'll accept them for the sake of argument. However, I can not agree at all with the following section:
". . . and they aren't committed if they're intimate with others."
Why must exclusive intimacy be a necessary requirement for commitment? A person can definitely be committed to more than one idea, more than one movement. Why can't you see that this can apply to human relationships, too? If a parent has more than one child does that mean they can't completely care for both?
Turning the claim around, there are plenty of people who are intimate with only one person, but this does not necessarily imply they are also committed to that person.
I don't agree with your claim that having intimate relationships with multiple people means that those relationships are necessarily inferior to the alternative of being close to only one other person. It just doesn't work.
Uland
It goes without saying that a monogamous relationship in which one party isn't committed to the other is a faulty relationship. We're not dealing with a software program, or something, we're talking about human beings, who are irrational if anything else. Lying and emotional instability are a given in every conceivable relationship. Monogamy doesn't offer some kind perfect solution to these problems of being human, but it certainly limits the damage they might cause and keeps people on a path that most people have found beneficial ( who but a Bill Maher type would argue that sleeping around—oh wait, "Polyamory"— is a good way to sate our desire to be loved?) .
The "rules" of monogamy, or what we general conceive of as healthy, adult relationships, are not proscribed by logic, but by our own innate tendencies. Those tendencies tend to take the form of tradition, or social mores. So, while ( and I think this is where Marxists and Progressives go off the rails) we might understand that our reaction to being spurned for the affections of another are not reasonable, they are unavoidable.
Believing you've transcended base human emotions like jealousy is, I'd argue, a way of dehumanizing yourself and others.
One tactic that Marxist and Progressive intellectual movements have used to unmoor us from "irrational" ( more accurately described as pre-rational, imo) traditions ( Nation, family, religion) has been to appeal to the sexual desires/fantasies of younger people, i.e; you will not find fulfillment of these fantasies in the culture your parents built for you, so let's fuck our way into the new society.
Uland
It goes without saying that a monogamous relationship in which one party isn't committed to the other is a faulty relationship. We're not dealing with a software program, or something, we're talking about human beings, who are irrational if anything else. Lying and emotional instability are a given in every conceivable relationship. Monogamy doesn't offer some kind perfect solution to these problems of being human, but it certainly limits the damage they might cause and keeps people on a path that most people have found beneficial ( who but a Bill Maher type would argue that sleeping around—oh wait, "Polyamory"— is a good way to sate our desire to be loved?) .
The "rules" of monogamy, or what we general conceive of as healthy, adult relationships, are not proscribed by logic, but by our own innate tendencies. Those tendencies tend to take the form of tradition, or social mores. So, while ( and I think this is where Marxists and Progressives go off the rails) we might understand that our reaction to being spurned for the affections of another are not reasonable, they are unavoidable.
Believing you've transcended base human emotions like jealousy is, I'd argue, a way of dehumanizing yourself and others.
One tactic that Marxist and Progressive intellectual movements have used to unmoor us from "irrational" ( more accurately described as pre-rational, imo) traditions ( Nation, family, religion) has been to appeal to the sexual desires/fantasies of younger people, i.e; you will not find fulfillment of these fantasies in the culture your parents built for you, so let's fuck our way into the new society.
Anonymous
"Monogamy […] limits the damage they might cause and keeps people on a path that most people have found beneficial."
So, the monogamous relationship should be chosen over other options because it limits the damage caused to the involved parties? Could it be that this instilled fear of being hurt is what limits our capabilities in what might prove to be more fulfilling relationships, such as polyamory? Also, I don’t see how you can say that monogamy’s keeping people on said “path” has mostly led to their benefit when the divorce rate for first marriages is 41%. Is it more beneficial for humans to completely dedicate themselves in a monogamous relationship in order to “limit the damage” simply to be divorced and repeat the same process again? By the way, divorce rates are 60% and 73% for second and third marriages, respectively.
"The "rules" of monogamy, or what we general conceive of as healthy, adult relationships, are not proscribed by logic, but by our own innate tendencies. Those tendencies tend to take the form of tradition, or social mores."
[NOTE: I assume you mean "PREscribed" and not "PROscribed"]
I’m not sure I can participate in any kind of polyamorous relationship myself, but these arguments are not logical. How is a monogamous relationship not prescribed by logic when we are constantly barraged with propaganda meant solely to instill the concept of a nuclear family from the day we are born? I don’t see many children playing with “Polyamory Jackie and Friends” rather than Barbie and Ken. Could it be that the feelings of jealousy and ownership that surface in relationships do so because we have been "programmed" to feel them at the loss of all materialistic stuffs?
And why should a system be accepted and practiced simply because of tradition? “Traditional” marriages were male dominated with little or no regard for a woman’s rights – should this social more have remained the same for the sake of tradition? Your arguments of healthy relationships being bound by monogamy are akin to saying there is no morality without religion.
Anonymous
"Monogamy […] limits the damage they might cause and keeps people on a path that most people have found beneficial."
So, the monogamous relationship should be chosen over other options because it limits the damage caused to the involved parties? Could it be that this instilled fear of being hurt is what limits our capabilities in what might prove to be more fulfilling relationships, such as polyamory? Also, I don’t see how you can say that monogamy’s keeping people on said “path” has mostly led to their benefit when the divorce rate for first marriages is 41%. Is it more beneficial for humans to completely dedicate themselves in a monogamous relationship in order to “limit the damage” simply to be divorced and repeat the same process again? By the way, divorce rates are 60% and 73% for second and third marriages, respectively.
"The "rules" of monogamy, or what we general conceive of as healthy, adult relationships, are not proscribed by logic, but by our own innate tendencies. Those tendencies tend to take the form of tradition, or social mores."
[NOTE: I assume you mean "PREscribed" and not "PROscribed"]
I’m not sure I can participate in any kind of polyamorous relationship myself, but these arguments are not logical. How is a monogamous relationship not prescribed by logic when we are constantly barraged with propaganda meant solely to instill the concept of a nuclear family from the day we are born? I don’t see many children playing with “Polyamory Jackie and Friends” rather than Barbie and Ken. Could it be that the feelings of jealousy and ownership that surface in relationships do so because we have been "programmed" to feel them at the loss of all materialistic stuffs?
And why should a system be accepted and practiced simply because of tradition? “Traditional” marriages were male dominated with little or no regard for a woman’s rights – should this social more have remained the same for the sake of tradition? Your arguments of healthy relationships being bound by monogamy are akin to saying there is no morality without religion.
Pages
Add a new comment