Eponine
Active member
Don't know about meetups, but there's a FB group about RA: https://www.facebook.com/groups/RelationalAnarchy/
Anarchy! (Um . . . Relationship Anarchy, that is.)
- Thread starter hyperskeptic
- Start date
InfinitePossibility
New member
I think that there is a trickiness in thinking about RA or any anarchism - at least there is for me. The difficulty for me centres around approaches to organising. Most people I have communicated with about anarchism are in agreement that it is about setting things up in a way that allows everybody to have power. So that some individuals do not get to have more power just because of their position.
The difficulty for me in sorting this out in my head becomes the different approaches I see. Broadly I see two sorts of approaches.
1. Starting from the assumption that everybody has as much power as everybody else, individuals work on their thinking until they themselves have overcome whatever is blocking them in life.
In this sort of thinking. Everything is open to everybody if they would only adjust their way of viewing the world.
Lots of self help books I've read spring very much from this point of view. I see it too in loads of the links to articles and suggestions about positivity that pop up on my facebook feed.
In fiction, Robert Heinlein's main characters seem very often to have this sort of view.
I think that this view confers no duty and no responsibilities on the people holding it. Other than a responsibility to state their stand point. After that, anybody in that person's life who struggles must face their own struggle in the same individual fashion.
The person holding this view need feel no duty to help or support a struggling friend or lover. They may choose to but there is nothing compelling them.
2. Starting from the assumption that people don't have equal power, individuals look to work together to give power to those who have less and to view themselves critically to look for situations where they may have taken more power than they should have due to assumptions they hold.
In fiction, Stephen King has written a number of books where this sort of thing goes on. It is a really good example.
In this thinking there is absolutely duty and responsibility. This way of viewing anarchism springs from the desire to have everybody be free and powerful and for that to happen, there is a responsibility to help those with less power.
There is obviously overlap and grey areas in each of these. My own preference is for the second way of viewing things. I make friends of people who tend toward that view, I do paid work in a work place where that view is held and my voluntary work also springs from a desire to find ways to help everybody be powerful. I see it working very well in a wide range of areas and interests.
I suspect too that there have been (possibly are still) plenty of human societies where that sort of social organising has happened. It's just that those cultures tend to be wiped out when the Western world makes contact with them. Jay Griffith's book Wild is well worth a read on that subject.
IP
The difficulty for me in sorting this out in my head becomes the different approaches I see. Broadly I see two sorts of approaches.
1. Starting from the assumption that everybody has as much power as everybody else, individuals work on their thinking until they themselves have overcome whatever is blocking them in life.
In this sort of thinking. Everything is open to everybody if they would only adjust their way of viewing the world.
Lots of self help books I've read spring very much from this point of view. I see it too in loads of the links to articles and suggestions about positivity that pop up on my facebook feed.
In fiction, Robert Heinlein's main characters seem very often to have this sort of view.
I think that this view confers no duty and no responsibilities on the people holding it. Other than a responsibility to state their stand point. After that, anybody in that person's life who struggles must face their own struggle in the same individual fashion.
The person holding this view need feel no duty to help or support a struggling friend or lover. They may choose to but there is nothing compelling them.
2. Starting from the assumption that people don't have equal power, individuals look to work together to give power to those who have less and to view themselves critically to look for situations where they may have taken more power than they should have due to assumptions they hold.
In fiction, Stephen King has written a number of books where this sort of thing goes on. It is a really good example.
In this thinking there is absolutely duty and responsibility. This way of viewing anarchism springs from the desire to have everybody be free and powerful and for that to happen, there is a responsibility to help those with less power.
There is obviously overlap and grey areas in each of these. My own preference is for the second way of viewing things. I make friends of people who tend toward that view, I do paid work in a work place where that view is held and my voluntary work also springs from a desire to find ways to help everybody be powerful. I see it working very well in a wide range of areas and interests.
I suspect too that there have been (possibly are still) plenty of human societies where that sort of social organising has happened. It's just that those cultures tend to be wiped out when the Western world makes contact with them. Jay Griffith's book Wild is well worth a read on that subject.
IP
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
I don't understand the obsession with "power" in the poly world and the fear that if we don't have relationship power structures in place, all hell will break loose and people will run rampant in the streets. Most people don't conduct their everyday lives according to "power structures" and "organizational models" but through choices. The relationship anarchy perspective has nothing to do with political anarchy or economic anarchy, but simply holds that every individual is at all times free to make choices in intimate relationships (which is actually true whether the individual recognizes that or not.) A person doesn't decide to be helpful or responsible just because s/he is bound up in an organizational spider web, but because s/he chooses to. RA is about recognizing freedom of choice, plain and simple. There's really nothing more to it than that.
Last edited:
MusicalRose
Member
I see no need for any duty or obligation to any people in my life, no matter what my relationship to them. I do not see anybody else in my life as having any duty or obligation to me.
Here's the thing. If someone starts showing me that I can't rely on them for support, then I should not consider them to be someone I can rely on for support. It's just that simple. I don't want to force someone who doesn't want to be with me, love me, or support me to do any of those things, because I will be teaching them to lie to me.
I want people to show me who they really are. I want to know that anything someone does that brings me pleasure or happiness is something that they are doing that brings them pleasure and happiness too. This is how I find people who are compatible with me. Rather than holding up "commitment" as some kind of ideal or standard that must be achieved in order to have good relationships, I seek only to invest in people that are also investing in me in relationships that benefit us both.
People grow and change. Commitment is what has kept me in unhealthy and abusive relationships in the past. While it is still a value of mine, it is one that I keep a much sharper eye on, and not the standard by which good relationships should be judged. If I don't want to commit to someone and my lack of commitment is hurting them, then I expect them to withdraw their emotional attachment to me and find someone who wants to commit to them in the way they think they need. I accept the loss of that person in my life if that happens.
NO ONE should EVER be forced to do something they don't want to do just to avoid hurting someone else.
Here's the thing. If someone starts showing me that I can't rely on them for support, then I should not consider them to be someone I can rely on for support. It's just that simple. I don't want to force someone who doesn't want to be with me, love me, or support me to do any of those things, because I will be teaching them to lie to me.
I want people to show me who they really are. I want to know that anything someone does that brings me pleasure or happiness is something that they are doing that brings them pleasure and happiness too. This is how I find people who are compatible with me. Rather than holding up "commitment" as some kind of ideal or standard that must be achieved in order to have good relationships, I seek only to invest in people that are also investing in me in relationships that benefit us both.
People grow and change. Commitment is what has kept me in unhealthy and abusive relationships in the past. While it is still a value of mine, it is one that I keep a much sharper eye on, and not the standard by which good relationships should be judged. If I don't want to commit to someone and my lack of commitment is hurting them, then I expect them to withdraw their emotional attachment to me and find someone who wants to commit to them in the way they think they need. I accept the loss of that person in my life if that happens.
NO ONE should EVER be forced to do something they don't want to do just to avoid hurting someone else.
opalescent
Active member
You can call me wrong, incorrect, mistaken on my views on anarchy. Continue to present evidence on my incorrect ideas. Feel free. I enjoy debating ideas.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that if I only knew what you know, I would agree with you. I'm not ignorant about anarchism. I do know what you know (and your conclusions presented as fact above are off-base). I have come to a completely different conclusion. That does not make me or my ideas 'ridiculous'.
It's an asshole move to call my writing essentially ignorant and ridiculous and then say 'hey don't get mad cause I didn't mean it!' Yes, you did mean it. You did attack me even as you tried to deflect responsibility for attacking my writing. Fake 'sorry' not accepted. You clearly believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is ridiculous.
I assume you run into a quite a bit of ignorance about anarchism. I am under no illusions that rioting 'anarchists' represent any actual community of anarchists. (I have my doubts that they are anarchists at all.) I know quite a few folks who identify as anarchists and work to live their lives as close to their ideals as possible. I respect them immensely. But their way is not my way.
I can't take someone seriously intellectually (on any level actually) who is so locked into 'One True Way'ism. (Are you in your early to mid 20s by the way?) You have a strong point of view - which I appreciate. And you have put in work to understand your ideology. If you want people to take your ideas seriously - and take you seriously - learn how to discuss and argue for them without insulting or denigrating other people. Learn how to persuade people. It will serve you better.
AnarchistWithoutAdjective
New member
I wasn't assuming that you would agree if we had the same knowledge and I wasn't saying that you were ridiculous, I was saying that the idea that Communism is disconnected from how humans are is worthy of ridicule.
I don't know which points you were referring to so I will cover all of them.
Barter:
- David Graeber, anthropologist
Caves:
- Margaret Conkey, anthropologist
Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster (Paleolithic period) were nomadic hunter gatherers that lived in small groups, this was before we cultivated crops and domesticated other animals.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aJgp94zNwNQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Paleolithic&f=false
Nuclear family
I can't believe I have to do this in a polyamory forum...
- Meredith Small, anthropologist
War:
Human societies were extremely peaceful before agriculture which made us settle to one area, this encouraged raiding and is suspected to be what led to the development of states.
- Raymond C. Kelly, anthropologist specializing in warfare
I was attacking the idea, not you. I used the term ignorance to mean that I think you lack knowledge in a certain area (thinking that communism is disconnected from humans), everybody is ignorant of something, I didn't mean it as an insult. I don't think that anybody that disagrees with me is ridiculous, I think that the idea that human society wasn't communistic is ridiculous if it can't be backed up against all the evidence that says otherwise.
Thank you for understanding, I don't think that you should have to conform to an Anarchist or Communist way of life. To add to that I would like to say that we have no choice, we are not allowed to live our lives in an Anarchist or Communist fashion because if we try to we are violently attacked, your way is not my way.
I'm not locked into 'One True Way'ism', I'm arguing against that. We are forced to live in this way which we see as exploititive and violent, in an Anarchist society people would be able to live however they wanted as long as they don't force it onto other people, that is the whole point. The problem is that other peoples way of living is forcing us to live the same way and we're sick of being forced. The idea of property is forced, the idea of the state is forced, the idea of capitalism is forced, I am telling you that these arguments are absolute shit and require subordination whether you like it or not. I'm disagreeing with everybody that is forcing 'One True Way'ism' on me. Pursuading people means absolutely nothing unless they are willing to fight, I can't live my life because if I try to violence is used against me. My posts seem agitative and strong because the ideas that are being forced upon us are leading to starvation, homelessness, war, needless spread of disease (yes, I'm talking about ebola), poverty, making the plannet uninhabitable or at least leading to mass death and nobody seems to give a shit. These are not just ideas, they are things that are forced and leading to really big problems, this is serious.
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
Just a point of order:
Maybe we can take the history and economic discussions down to the Fireplace, since relationship anarchy is a very different topic of dicussion than political anarchy.
Maybe we can take the history and economic discussions down to the Fireplace, since relationship anarchy is a very different topic of dicussion than political anarchy.
I like relationship anarchy because it removes the expectation that I control things that I really have no control over. So for example, my rights and responsibilities (responsibilities that I have taken on gladly) begin and end with the relationship I'm in. My partner, The Philosopher, recently took on a new lover who was a novice to ethical non-monogamy - but very smart and unconventional. Early on, she was struggling with feelings of territoriality. There was a time, before relationship anarchy, I would have worried that I needed to help her fix that out of fear it would negatively impact my relationship. But while I am sympathetic, and would gladly offer an ear, I know it is not *my* responsibility to worry about that. It is between my partner and his new lover; its their relationship; not mine.
In fact, The Philosopher and I discussed the issue. His words: this issue belongs to my new lover and perhaps to me. You do not have to worry. And guess what? It got resolved without me just fine.
All of this said, the Philosopher, myself, and his new love are all INTJs. I think that helps in the big scheme of things.
In fact, The Philosopher and I discussed the issue. His words: this issue belongs to my new lover and perhaps to me. You do not have to worry. And guess what? It got resolved without me just fine.
All of this said, the Philosopher, myself, and his new love are all INTJs. I think that helps in the big scheme of things.
InfinitePossibility
New member
How fascinating. I became interested in RA because of an interest in looking for ways to live my everyday life as much as possible without "power structures" and "organisational models". I see them all around and having major impacts on people's everyday lives. From a very young age children are taught to do what the teacher tells them just because the teacher has that job. It's spread out to university lecturers, to work places, to police, to doctors, to politicians, to bankers.
I live in a society where I may not legally marry more than one person even if we all agree. I may not demand an abortion if I become pregnant - instead I must convince two doctors that it would be a bad idea for me to have a baby. I may drink alcohol and spend every day in a drunken stupor but ingesting marijuana could get me chucked in prison. I may not take 5 week off work with no notice because I want to go travelling with my friends. Unless I have a huge amount of money, I may not borrow a mortgage from a bank even though paying rent costs more than the mortgage does and I cover that just fine. If that's not conducting life according to "power structures" and "organisational models" I don't know what is.
There are some restrictions on my life but I am generally quite free. If I'd grown up in poverty with a single parent who was a heroin addict and who had kept me off school most days to go begging for them, I can pretty much guarantee that I'd have a whole lot less freedom than I enjoy now.
From looking at that and seeking ways to negotiate every day life in order to reduce the impact of organisation and power, I became interested in how that might work in personal relationships.
I very much agree with your statement about recognising freedom of choice. I just don't think that freedom of choice is in any way plain and simple.
IP
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
Arguably, we always have choices. Whether we recognize or exercise them is another matter, but we always, always have choices. Be that as it may, this thread is about intimate relationships and that's what I was referring to above.
InfinitePossibility
New member
Ah - okay.
I'm not convinced that people can separate their intimate relationships from the rest of their lives. My experience is that people conduct their romantic relationships among the rest of their life. That their past experiences, the rules they live with, preferences and ways of communicating all become part of how they relate to others on an intimate level.
As an example - In Scotland where I live, women tend to be more open with each other, more physically affectionate. Bisexuality among women is fairly acceptable. Men tend not to relate to each other in a physically affectionate way. Scottish men, on the whole, do not go around hugging other men. This, I would imagine, is stuff that is learned. Cultural norms that are internalised until men do not feel harmed by being unable to be affectionate with each other - instead, they feel that it is a normal part of being a man. This sort of thing impacts on how they relate to each other in a big way.
For me, it is because the different parts of life bleed into each other that I think it's important to pay attention to other people, to their struggles, to their strengths and to take care to at least not make their struggles worse and preferably help make their strengths stronger. Especially in intimate relationships.
To imagine that everybody I come across feels able to freely make the same choices that I feel are open to me seems dangerous to me. It leaves the door open to a world where I go around just living my life, doing what makes me happy and if others get harmed by that then it's their fault and they should see it as a growth experience. After all, they are just as free as me and can make their own choices. I have no desire to live in a world like that - although I know that lots of people do.
My preference is to live in a world where people think about others, understand that others are different and support those who feel less free. I prefer to seek out people who think similarly and surround myself with them. I choose friends and groups with this in mind and it has led me to a place where I am part of a range of different social groups that all feel safe and supportive. That is the world I live in and I'm very happy with it.
It absolutely does mean that sometimes I do things out of a sense of responsibility - sometimes things that I'd rather not do.
My experience is that people who see the world as a community of individuals are usually pretty good at developing support networks and at being alone sometimes. My friends and lover are not clingy or overly demanding on my time. This means that I don't do many things that I'd rather not do out of a sense of responsibility - so it doesn't feel overwhelming.
IP
I'm not convinced that people can separate their intimate relationships from the rest of their lives. My experience is that people conduct their romantic relationships among the rest of their life. That their past experiences, the rules they live with, preferences and ways of communicating all become part of how they relate to others on an intimate level.
As an example - In Scotland where I live, women tend to be more open with each other, more physically affectionate. Bisexuality among women is fairly acceptable. Men tend not to relate to each other in a physically affectionate way. Scottish men, on the whole, do not go around hugging other men. This, I would imagine, is stuff that is learned. Cultural norms that are internalised until men do not feel harmed by being unable to be affectionate with each other - instead, they feel that it is a normal part of being a man. This sort of thing impacts on how they relate to each other in a big way.
For me, it is because the different parts of life bleed into each other that I think it's important to pay attention to other people, to their struggles, to their strengths and to take care to at least not make their struggles worse and preferably help make their strengths stronger. Especially in intimate relationships.
To imagine that everybody I come across feels able to freely make the same choices that I feel are open to me seems dangerous to me. It leaves the door open to a world where I go around just living my life, doing what makes me happy and if others get harmed by that then it's their fault and they should see it as a growth experience. After all, they are just as free as me and can make their own choices. I have no desire to live in a world like that - although I know that lots of people do.
My preference is to live in a world where people think about others, understand that others are different and support those who feel less free. I prefer to seek out people who think similarly and surround myself with them. I choose friends and groups with this in mind and it has led me to a place where I am part of a range of different social groups that all feel safe and supportive. That is the world I live in and I'm very happy with it.
It absolutely does mean that sometimes I do things out of a sense of responsibility - sometimes things that I'd rather not do.
My experience is that people who see the world as a community of individuals are usually pretty good at developing support networks and at being alone sometimes. My friends and lover are not clingy or overly demanding on my time. This means that I don't do many things that I'd rather not do out of a sense of responsibility - so it doesn't feel overwhelming.
IP
MusicalRose
Member
It is really difficult to communicate how frustrating it is that people assume that the notion of anarchy automatically has people being total asshats willy nilly and not giving a damn about their fellow human beings.
It is absolutely beneficial to the self to engage in prosocial behavior. I do nice things for people I care about because I love those people and I want to see them succeed. I behave with honesty and integrity because trust is valuable to me.
Can relationship anarchists be assholes? Absolutely. So can anyone else, and they often do. I always encourage people to stop feeding feeding assholes and stop trusting them. That is the way to make it more costly to be an asshole than it is to be a decent person. Systems where there is a "moral" imperative to act in certain ways don't control the assholes any better than no system of control. Exploitative and cruel people will be exploitative and cruel no matter what their philosophy.
Because of the "assholes have no authority" quoted above, I believe that relationship anarchy actually provides one of the best possible means of routing them out. It empowers each person to make choices for themselves rather than to try to control another to behave in the ways we want them to. Each person becomes responsible for themselves, and have only themselves to answer to if the way they behave loses them all their friends and loved ones.
It is absolutely beneficial to the self to engage in prosocial behavior. I do nice things for people I care about because I love those people and I want to see them succeed. I behave with honesty and integrity because trust is valuable to me.
Can relationship anarchists be assholes? Absolutely. So can anyone else, and they often do. I always encourage people to stop feeding feeding assholes and stop trusting them. That is the way to make it more costly to be an asshole than it is to be a decent person. Systems where there is a "moral" imperative to act in certain ways don't control the assholes any better than no system of control. Exploitative and cruel people will be exploitative and cruel no matter what their philosophy.
Because of the "assholes have no authority" quoted above, I believe that relationship anarchy actually provides one of the best possible means of routing them out. It empowers each person to make choices for themselves rather than to try to control another to behave in the ways we want them to. Each person becomes responsible for themselves, and have only themselves to answer to if the way they behave loses them all their friends and loved ones.
Norwegianpoly
New member
Everyone likes to think that their relationship style requires people to have a stable sense of self. That is simply not true. Not of mono, not of poly, not of RA. Anyone can be attracted to any relationship style. If a bunch of people doing RA are stable and furfilled, nothing makes me happier.
So, basically RA as you see it is like poly but with an emphisis on no rules? Kind of like almost the opposite of my polyfidility style of poly. I would be interested to hear how it might work out. And also how you and other RA people experience being committed to someone.
I find it interesting that you are married btw, aka officially committed. It might be a Nordic thing, but everyone I know that practice RA are strongly against the insitution of marriage.
Norwegianpoly
New member
While some might use the term just in anger over someone who didn't propose, actually commitment phobia means more that you constantly go between wanting to and not wanting to. It means that you are scared of making almost any kind of decitions in your life. You might propose, then take it back. You move in, you move out. Once you make a decition even like buying a car or a house, you tend to regret it. It is really a fear of having to take the consequenses of one's actions. A person reluctant to marry is just not that interested, it will not trigger any fear because such a person sees no reason why he /she should be married unless that person really wanted to. That has got little to do with real fear of commitment. It is a type of phobia, created by one's own strong ambivalence to most things in life, not just romantic relationships. A true fear of commitment would mean that rather than breaking up with the person you may not see a clear future with, you just tag them along because making the commitment to not commit is equally impossable.
Last edited:
Norwegianpoly
New member
Ok, we can agree that people should not deliberately hurt their loved ones. But i am more interested in the grey area areas. Often people misunderstand and misread each other. How will RA prevent and aid that? Often people are more comfortable with not talking about the way things work because talking seems to distroy the magic. How will RA help in that departementet? Sometimes people are afraid to ask for what they want, because they don't want to come out as demanding. And so on. People are often clumsy and when they try to replace too much demands with lots of freedom strange things might happen that noone intended.
AnarchistWithoutAdjective
New member
I will admit that was a little off topic but I wouldn't say that they're "very" different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Armand
http://www.iisg.nl/womhist/manfreuk.pdf
- Emma Goldman
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
I agree with the venerated Ms. Goldman on her assessment of love, but would not ever want to live in the economic society espoused by her and the anarchist/terrorists of her day. I am a proud, successful, self-made business owner and would never want to live in an economic system that did not directly reward innovation, private property and ownership. Relationship Anarchy is an entirely different animal in my book.
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
As has been discussed, RA has nothing to do with the depth of commitment a person is capable of or desires. And as I mentioned in the passage you quoted, my marriage is what my husband and I agree that it is, not a "relationship model" that we fit ourselves into. I guess the mark of a true relationship anarchist is her unwillingness to go along with rules set forth by any people, including other relationship anarchists!
Last edited:
Eponine
Active member
That's true of most of the RA's I know as well. Personally I'm also against the institution of marriage, or at least the way it is currently. I got married for the practical benefits, not because marriage is a sacred thing or a demonstration of love and commitment. I believe any number of people, regardless of gender, orientation, and whether their relationships are romantic/sexual, should be able to form a marriage-like union with all the legal benefits associated with marriage (I'm not fussed about whether it's called marriage or not, as long as it has the same legal effects as marriage today).
I think one can be RA and married. What's important isn't whether they're married or not, but why they get married and how they view their marriage. If they see the marriage as inherently above all their other relationships, I don't think that's compatible with RA. But marriage is essentially a legal contract; other than that, what meaning it entails is totally up to the couple.
Last edited: