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 41 - 50 of 160
Page 5 of 16
Uland
Have I offended you, or this mythic group of perfectly satisfied, life-long swingers?
I don't feel a need to cite instances in which monogamy works. It's the norm, world-wide. It has worked for billions of people over the course of human history. The onus is on you to offer some examples of a culture in which sleeping around is an accepted norm, and has been shown to lead to a greater sense of fulfillment than monogamy. Mormons of yore? How about the aristocrat and his concubines? Rome? Greece? Hippies? Modern Homosexual male culture? Your Marxist professors?
Look, this stuff is fantasy material for disaffected young people who usually mean well. It's a matter of experience; nothing about human sexuality is rational, as such. Monogamy is a great way for us to limit the impact of our irrationality by enjoying a cultural standard that works well for most people. If it doesn't work for you, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that you've probably not enjoyed what we'd call a normative social and psychic development.
There are plenty of problems with our culture, but the fact that we want to build solid, nurturing relationships ( that also provide a secure environment to bring children into) is not one of them. In fact, it might be what saves us.
Uland
Have I offended you, or this mythic group of perfectly satisfied, life-long swingers?
I don't feel a need to cite instances in which monogamy works. It's the norm, world-wide. It has worked for billions of people over the course of human history. The onus is on you to offer some examples of a culture in which sleeping around is an accepted norm, and has been shown to lead to a greater sense of fulfillment than monogamy. Mormons of yore? How about the aristocrat and his concubines? Rome? Greece? Hippies? Modern Homosexual male culture? Your Marxist professors?
Look, this stuff is fantasy material for disaffected young people who usually mean well. It's a matter of experience; nothing about human sexuality is rational, as such. Monogamy is a great way for us to limit the impact of our irrationality by enjoying a cultural standard that works well for most people. If it doesn't work for you, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that you've probably not enjoyed what we'd call a normative social and psychic development.
There are plenty of problems with our culture, but the fact that we want to build solid, nurturing relationships ( that also provide a secure environment to bring children into) is not one of them. In fact, it might be what saves us.
Andrew McNicol
What you appear to be saying is that, for my argument to be valid, all I need to do is cite a particular instance where polyamory does work for all the people involved, and they feel they have their basic human needs satisfied. And I can do this. (I won't here, though, because I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss the intimate details of my close friends on the Internet.) If you can't imagine this to be possible then you probably have a very limited understanding of polyamory.
You've said nothing about what the basic human needs are that you originally referred to, or why monogamy is the only relationship type which can satisfy them, apart from making a vague nod to it being 'culturally accepted'. This is a circular argument. Just because polyamory is not an 'accepted norm' in most (western) countries, does not mean it is in some way deficient when compared to what is 'popular'.
OK, so you did mention monogamy being a way of building solid, nurturing relationships, but why is it impossible for polyamory to do this as well, and perhaps even better in some circumstances? Polyamorous relationships are quite diverse. Some may involve a group of people who are all equal and who live together. Some polyamorous people may be married as a couple and have other partners who they may or may not share. And it could easily be argued that having more people around during a child's development is beneficial.
But if you are a stubborn believer that monogamy is best when considering long-term life goals or raising children, even though such relationships fail with great regularity - all relationships have the potential to fail - then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I just feel your view is not well informed and, well, a little simple.
"If [monogamy] doesn't work for you . . ."
I never said anything about my own relationship status or whether I believe monogamy is flawed. That is irrelevant to the conversation which discusses whether polyamory is an acceptable alternative.
Andrew McNicol
What you appear to be saying is that, for my argument to be valid, all I need to do is cite a particular instance where polyamory does work for all the people involved, and they feel they have their basic human needs satisfied. And I can do this. (I won't here, though, because I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss the intimate details of my close friends on the Internet.) If you can't imagine this to be possible then you probably have a very limited understanding of polyamory.
You've said nothing about what the basic human needs are that you originally referred to, or why monogamy is the only relationship type which can satisfy them, apart from making a vague nod to it being 'culturally accepted'. This is a circular argument. Just because polyamory is not an 'accepted norm' in most (western) countries, does not mean it is in some way deficient when compared to what is 'popular'.
OK, so you did mention monogamy being a way of building solid, nurturing relationships, but why is it impossible for polyamory to do this as well, and perhaps even better in some circumstances? Polyamorous relationships are quite diverse. Some may involve a group of people who are all equal and who live together. Some polyamorous people may be married as a couple and have other partners who they may or may not share. And it could easily be argued that having more people around during a child's development is beneficial.
But if you are a stubborn believer that monogamy is best when considering long-term life goals or raising children, even though such relationships fail with great regularity - all relationships have the potential to fail - then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I just feel your view is not well informed and, well, a little simple.
"If [monogamy] doesn't work for you . . ."
I never said anything about my own relationship status or whether I believe monogamy is flawed. That is irrelevant to the conversation which discusses whether polyamory is an acceptable alternative.
UN#196/242
Monogamy will fall just as religion will. Human culture is moving this way whether we like it or not (at least in the West.)
It's amusing to observe how many Adbusters "revolutionaries" scoff at the idea that monogamy might be a narrative whose relevance is waning. Not so hard for said folks to agree that religion may have served it's purpose - that we have moved beyond it - but monogamy seems too sacred a cow to abandon.
Abandon it we will though. It doesn't measure up to the evolution of our intelligence. A person who wants commitment can have it with one person or two or three, goes the polyamorous reasoning. Likewise deep relationships can certainly be had with a multitude of people; nothing to prove otherwise. And a person who wants children can bear and raise progeny in any number of ways that aren't confined to a nuclear family. In fact this is now the norm in America where divorced parents outnumber married.
One could even argue what motivates most monogamy is fear. And guilt. Not the greatest testaments to an evolved species. Add to that the growing appreciation of Buddhist "non-attachment" as well as the concept of real love as non-possessive and non-ego based and it's hard to make a case for monogamy at all.
To each of the classic arguments for monogamy apply the test of whether they are formed in fear and guilt, jealousy or possessiveness. Where are such motivations born? Furthermore is there any merit to the argument that we are genetically predisposed to monogamy? That there is some natural order to pairing with one partner? If the answer is no then really what is the point at all? Could it be that we are too lazy to find someone else to share time with - someone who might actually want to be with us? And what is laziness if not a form of fear. We are afraid others wont be able to pick our great many locks and peer into our souls such that we might feel connected and ultimately "loved." God knows we don't want to simply undo the damn locks in the first place and let others see who we are. Though we seem all too happy to do so on Facebook, etc.
So we resign ourselves to the fairy tale myths of knights in shining armor and damsels in distress. We consign our lives to one person as per the ancient narrative and though we instinctively feel something is amiss we flog ourselves into believing monogamy is the only way. Because some people still believe in it, we tell ourselves, there must be something too it. Though in the back of our minds we admit this sounds an awful lot like so many other paradigms that were ultimately deconstructed for the benefit of evolution.
With or without capitalism the construct of monogamy is crumbling. Consciousness has reached the end of such old fashioned stories and is moving on.
No need to bemoan the inevitable.
UN#196/242
Monogamy will fall just as religion will. Human culture is moving this way whether we like it or not (at least in the West.)
It's amusing to observe how many Adbusters "revolutionaries" scoff at the idea that monogamy might be a narrative whose relevance is waning. Not so hard for said folks to agree that religion may have served it's purpose - that we have moved beyond it - but monogamy seems too sacred a cow to abandon.
Abandon it we will though. It doesn't measure up to the evolution of our intelligence. A person who wants commitment can have it with one person or two or three, goes the polyamorous reasoning. Likewise deep relationships can certainly be had with a multitude of people; nothing to prove otherwise. And a person who wants children can bear and raise progeny in any number of ways that aren't confined to a nuclear family. In fact this is now the norm in America where divorced parents outnumber married.
One could even argue what motivates most monogamy is fear. And guilt. Not the greatest testaments to an evolved species. Add to that the growing appreciation of Buddhist "non-attachment" as well as the concept of real love as non-possessive and non-ego based and it's hard to make a case for monogamy at all.
To each of the classic arguments for monogamy apply the test of whether they are formed in fear and guilt, jealousy or possessiveness. Where are such motivations born? Furthermore is there any merit to the argument that we are genetically predisposed to monogamy? That there is some natural order to pairing with one partner? If the answer is no then really what is the point at all? Could it be that we are too lazy to find someone else to share time with - someone who might actually want to be with us? And what is laziness if not a form of fear. We are afraid others wont be able to pick our great many locks and peer into our souls such that we might feel connected and ultimately "loved." God knows we don't want to simply undo the damn locks in the first place and let others see who we are. Though we seem all too happy to do so on Facebook, etc.
So we resign ourselves to the fairy tale myths of knights in shining armor and damsels in distress. We consign our lives to one person as per the ancient narrative and though we instinctively feel something is amiss we flog ourselves into believing monogamy is the only way. Because some people still believe in it, we tell ourselves, there must be something too it. Though in the back of our minds we admit this sounds an awful lot like so many other paradigms that were ultimately deconstructed for the benefit of evolution.
With or without capitalism the construct of monogamy is crumbling. Consciousness has reached the end of such old fashioned stories and is moving on.
No need to bemoan the inevitable.
G.
The one troubling notion of Polyamory is the human desire for possession. You are mine, I am yours, and we will try to remain that way. We will stand up in front of family and friends and swear we will stay this way. We will breed our children and raise them to be like us. We will make our home, buy a car, pay for private school, etc,etc. The failures to this ideal abound, but it is human nature to strive for it. What constitutes the relationship, may indeed be changing, may becoming more flexible, but it is just a way to make the "norm" work better. My partner needs something else on the side, I understand it and allow it, so that the core of our relationship stays intact. Is that polyamory or is that just allowing a weakness to become a strength? My fear is that the side dish becomes the main course and i am left holding the kid's hand in a much smaller rental apartment. But it is the risk the relationship requires.
To deny the desire for possession is nonsensical and to think that multiple partners can fill that desire is childish. We as animals are not that complex that we can carry on deep emotional relationships with more than one person at a time. Sure, we can have sex with multiple partners but that is not commitment, that is not possession, and by that I mean the dreaded L word, Love.
G.
The one troubling notion of Polyamory is the human desire for possession. You are mine, I am yours, and we will try to remain that way. We will stand up in front of family and friends and swear we will stay this way. We will breed our children and raise them to be like us. We will make our home, buy a car, pay for private school, etc,etc. The failures to this ideal abound, but it is human nature to strive for it. What constitutes the relationship, may indeed be changing, may becoming more flexible, but it is just a way to make the "norm" work better. My partner needs something else on the side, I understand it and allow it, so that the core of our relationship stays intact. Is that polyamory or is that just allowing a weakness to become a strength? My fear is that the side dish becomes the main course and i am left holding the kid's hand in a much smaller rental apartment. But it is the risk the relationship requires.
To deny the desire for possession is nonsensical and to think that multiple partners can fill that desire is childish. We as animals are not that complex that we can carry on deep emotional relationships with more than one person at a time. Sure, we can have sex with multiple partners but that is not commitment, that is not possession, and by that I mean the dreaded L word, Love.
Deborah Anapol
Interesting conversation! I wish polyamory was more as Micah imagines it. In my new book Polyamory in the 21st Century I discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly. The revolutionary POTENTIAL is there, but yet to be actualized for the most part IMHO ...
Deborah Anapol
Interesting conversation! I wish polyamory was more as Micah imagines it. In my new book Polyamory in the 21st Century I discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly. The revolutionary POTENTIAL is there, but yet to be actualized for the most part IMHO ...
Pages
Add a new comment