hyperskeptic
New member
In this thread, I will collect fragments of things I've read that have given me pause, made me question both the wisdom and the viability of the practice of polyamory.
I don't agree with everything in each of these fragments, but they raise for me important questions about what many on this forum and in the wider literature of non-monogamy claim as the meaning and the justification for their own choices.
First up, are some passages from a short essay by Wendell Berry, who has been an influence on my thought about place and community for nearly as long as I've been thinking.
In "Rugged Individualism," Berry describes and takes to task two "tragic" variants of that most American of ideologies: "the presumptive 'right' of individuals to do as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity."
(I differ with him on the question of whether there's a God, but I tend to agree that, in understanding human life, community has some primacy.)
He first dispatches with the rugged individualism of the right, that which focuses on the "right" to do whatever you want with your property, which leads to untold disruptions of landscapes and communities.
He then turns to the tragic individualism of the left:
"The rugged individualism of the left believes that an individual's body is a property belonging to that individual absolutely: The owners of bodies may, by right, use them as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity. This supposed right is manifested in the democratization of 'sexual liberation'; in the popular assumption that marriage has been 'privatized' and so made subordinate to the wishes of individuals; in the proposition that the individual is 'autonomous'; in the legitimation of abortion as birth control - in the denial, that is to say, that the community, the family, one's spouse, or even one's own soul might exercises a legitimate proprietary interest in the use one makes of one's body. And this too is tragic, for it sets us 'free' from responsibility and thus from the possibility of meaning. It makes unintelligible the self-sacrifice that sent Thoreau to jail."
After a discussion of the environmental consequences of each variant of tragic individualism, Berry concludes:
"'Every man for himself' is a doctrine for a feeding frenzy or for a panic in a burning nightclub, appropriate for sharks or hogs or perhaps a cascade of lemmings. A society wishing to endure must speak the language of care-taking, faith-keeping, kindness, neighborliness, and peace. That language is another precious resource that cannot be 'privatized'."
I see two implications for polyamory and those who claim or aim to practice it.
First, it suggests that interest in polyamory is a product of a time in which the American middle class is especially isolated and rootless, living apart from one another in suburban houses and urban apartments, apparently accountable to no one, supported by no one. Anyone who wants to do any thing that appeals to their own dear self can find like-minded others through anonymous or semi-anonymous online forums and dating sites.
To the extent such an isolated condition can be taken as a sign of sickness in our culture, polyamory can look like a symptom rather than a healthy development.
Second, and on the other hand, polyamory could be cast as an effort to address the very real shortcomings of the existing institution of monogamous marriage, perhaps opening up the possibility of (further) revision to social institutions.
The problem with that is that solitary individuals are not the arbiters of institutions. By their nature, institutions are social, and revising and restructuring them is a task for communities . . . often through a long and difficult struggle.
Witness the ongoing struggle over same-sex marriage.
If individuals cast their "free" private choices in relationships - "opening" marriages, and so on - too far ahead of broader community-driven changes in institutions, well, they're likely to find themselves dashed against the hard edges of those institutions . . . unless they can somehow be furtive enough to get around them.
This second point helps me to make sense of my own current plight. Even if I were still convinced that polyamory is just a peachy idea - and I am far from convinced - nearly everyone else sees me as a middle-aged married man with children.
Part of how institutions shape us is by governing the development of our perceptions and our values, and monogamous marriage is no different: with very few exceptions, anyone who discovered that I am a middle-aged married man with children who is interested in and open to intimate relationships with others automatically sees me as off-limits, unappealing, and maybe even creepy.
So, this is me, dashed up against the hard edges of established monogamy.
Thus the institution re-enforces itself, which is how institutions are supposed to work, institutions that can, at their best, establish a basis for living meaningful lives in the world.
------
Work cited: Wendell Berry, "Rugged Individualism" in The Way of Ignorance and Other Essays (Shoemaker and Hoard, 2005), pp. 9-11.
I don't agree with everything in each of these fragments, but they raise for me important questions about what many on this forum and in the wider literature of non-monogamy claim as the meaning and the justification for their own choices.
First up, are some passages from a short essay by Wendell Berry, who has been an influence on my thought about place and community for nearly as long as I've been thinking.
In "Rugged Individualism," Berry describes and takes to task two "tragic" variants of that most American of ideologies: "the presumptive 'right' of individuals to do as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity."
(I differ with him on the question of whether there's a God, but I tend to agree that, in understanding human life, community has some primacy.)
He first dispatches with the rugged individualism of the right, that which focuses on the "right" to do whatever you want with your property, which leads to untold disruptions of landscapes and communities.
He then turns to the tragic individualism of the left:
"The rugged individualism of the left believes that an individual's body is a property belonging to that individual absolutely: The owners of bodies may, by right, use them as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity. This supposed right is manifested in the democratization of 'sexual liberation'; in the popular assumption that marriage has been 'privatized' and so made subordinate to the wishes of individuals; in the proposition that the individual is 'autonomous'; in the legitimation of abortion as birth control - in the denial, that is to say, that the community, the family, one's spouse, or even one's own soul might exercises a legitimate proprietary interest in the use one makes of one's body. And this too is tragic, for it sets us 'free' from responsibility and thus from the possibility of meaning. It makes unintelligible the self-sacrifice that sent Thoreau to jail."
After a discussion of the environmental consequences of each variant of tragic individualism, Berry concludes:
"'Every man for himself' is a doctrine for a feeding frenzy or for a panic in a burning nightclub, appropriate for sharks or hogs or perhaps a cascade of lemmings. A society wishing to endure must speak the language of care-taking, faith-keeping, kindness, neighborliness, and peace. That language is another precious resource that cannot be 'privatized'."
I see two implications for polyamory and those who claim or aim to practice it.
First, it suggests that interest in polyamory is a product of a time in which the American middle class is especially isolated and rootless, living apart from one another in suburban houses and urban apartments, apparently accountable to no one, supported by no one. Anyone who wants to do any thing that appeals to their own dear self can find like-minded others through anonymous or semi-anonymous online forums and dating sites.
To the extent such an isolated condition can be taken as a sign of sickness in our culture, polyamory can look like a symptom rather than a healthy development.
Second, and on the other hand, polyamory could be cast as an effort to address the very real shortcomings of the existing institution of monogamous marriage, perhaps opening up the possibility of (further) revision to social institutions.
The problem with that is that solitary individuals are not the arbiters of institutions. By their nature, institutions are social, and revising and restructuring them is a task for communities . . . often through a long and difficult struggle.
Witness the ongoing struggle over same-sex marriage.
If individuals cast their "free" private choices in relationships - "opening" marriages, and so on - too far ahead of broader community-driven changes in institutions, well, they're likely to find themselves dashed against the hard edges of those institutions . . . unless they can somehow be furtive enough to get around them.
This second point helps me to make sense of my own current plight. Even if I were still convinced that polyamory is just a peachy idea - and I am far from convinced - nearly everyone else sees me as a middle-aged married man with children.
Part of how institutions shape us is by governing the development of our perceptions and our values, and monogamous marriage is no different: with very few exceptions, anyone who discovered that I am a middle-aged married man with children who is interested in and open to intimate relationships with others automatically sees me as off-limits, unappealing, and maybe even creepy.
So, this is me, dashed up against the hard edges of established monogamy.
Thus the institution re-enforces itself, which is how institutions are supposed to work, institutions that can, at their best, establish a basis for living meaningful lives in the world.
------
Work cited: Wendell Berry, "Rugged Individualism" in The Way of Ignorance and Other Essays (Shoemaker and Hoard, 2005), pp. 9-11.
Last edited: