In this post, Nick J Fox reviews some of the questions that polyamory raises and explores the ‘poly’ assemblage.
It seems pointless to attempt to answer the question of whether humans are ‘meant’ to be monogamous or non-monogamous. How could we possibly know? Answers to that question will either be based upon prejudices (which of the alternatives fits with their other preferences or beliefs) or by logical inference from a theory such as biological determinism, evolutionary psychology, social constructionism and so on.
So for example, we might use evolutionary theory to infer that because, supposedly, males need to spread their genes widely, consequently they will be oriented to non-monogamy. Women, meanwhile, will want the greatest opportunity to have others to share the burden of child-rearing. (This theory can ‘explain’ most anything!) By contrast, Freudian theorists would conclude from the heterosexual oedipal triangle (mummy – daddy – me) that monogamy is a self-perpetuating form within which human sexuality is relatively successfully managed (with other forms producing neuroses).
One can come up with countless theories to explain the same data, and the choice of one theory over another cannot be made without recourse to some external criterion. (This is the ‘under-determination of theory’ problem in the philosophy of science.) Typically, in science, the external criterion is supposed to be the test of theory by experiment, but that is not really available when it comes to human sexuality, at least at a population level.
Does poly work?
Elizabeth Sheff’s (2013) blogpost on polyamory avoided this question of the ‘naturalness’ or otherwise of polyamory, but instead asked the more interesting question ‘does it work?’ Reasons one might adopt a polyamorous lifestyle included that one wants:
‘… to examine your feelings and discuss them in detail with others, like trying new things, enjoy sharing; find yourself falling in love with more than one person at a tim;, have a high sex drive and/or want sexual variety; are willing to use safer sex techniques; and most importantly are open to the idea of honest non-monogamy.’
She argued that it can work, in terms of managing human sexual desire and need for emotion al intimacy, but like other relationships it can go badly wrong.
Sheff’s approach was more psychological that sociological, however, and didn’t really look at poly as a social institution. The sense of her paper is that in a Western secular, (neo)liberal culture, people can do what they like so that’s not a problem either. Meanwhile, Meg-John Barker looked at some of the opportunities and social consequences of being in a polyamorous (or ‘poly’) relationship in her 2005 Journal of Constructivist Psychology paper. Participants in their research study presented it as a more feminine way of managing relationships: enabling open communication, the expression of emotions, and the availability of a supportive network. Poly can also supply heterosexual women with the means to challenge gendered power issues.
Barker found that polyamory was a potentially stigmatising behaviour and identity, with some participants reticent to disclose their relationship status to others. Poly could be threatening to those for whom monogamy was a deeply embedded social norm, while also blurring the boundaries between ‘friends’ and ‘lovers’.
Assembling poly
I want to tweak the debate a little further now, to ask instead ‘what does polyamory do? By that I mean, what effects does poly have on bodies, body-parts and collectivities of bodies, subjectivities, emotions, actions, social formations, cultural beliefs, powers; what flows, forces, intensities and resistances does it produce?
Some of the physical, emotional and psychological flows between elements are no different in this poly assemblage than in a mono intimate relationship. But adding a third or more people contributes complexity to the flows, to the vectors of forces. At the simplest level, there will be physical effects in terms of the spatial organisation of bodies in households, bedrooms, beds etc. New emotions may flow too: jealousies, envies, rivalries and so on.
But it also has profounder effects: poly fractures the privatised world of the couple, the closed realm of sexual intimacy and emotion. Poly assemblages overturn the atavistic binary formulation that infects both hetero and homo monogamous relationships that hark back to a model based upon heterosexual marriage.
Poly unsettles the notions of sexual, emotional and intimate exclusivities that invest monogamy with power relations. And it produces new challenges for the public face of a poly relationship – Barker’s (2005) ‘this is my partner … and my partner’s partner’). It poses all sorts of questions about how society and culture has been organising around binary relationships, for instance in terms of children’s upbringing, care, housing and so forth.
It also asks (turning mainstream evolutionary psychology on its head) if poly is actually a more enabling arrangement than monogamy for adult humans. Is monogamy actually manogamy – one among many social techniques by which men have sought to control female sexualities for millennia?
These are among the many interesting and research-worthy issues raised by polyamory. It warrants sociological study and application, as more than simply a choice made by three or more people.
Nick J Fox is a former convenor of the Applied Sociology Group and professor of sociology at the University of Huddersfield.
0 Comments