Human Sexuality: Polygamy and Polyamory - Article Example

Despite the seeming opposition between the opponents and exponents of same-sex marriage certain common points marked their respective positions. Thiswas especially with regard to other non-monogamous forms of sexual/marital unions like polygamy and incest (Ritchie and Barker 2006). The common antipathy against these forms invoke interesting questions pertaining to the very ethical, moral base and the constitution of our marriage system which may further lead one to the larger concerns that chart the language of this debate. What is more interesting, as Emmens (2003) has pointed out, is that even those who challenge the cross gender requirement of legitimate marriage – the proponents of same-sex marriage – struggle to defend their claim by differentiating same-sex marriage from other forms of non-monogamous marital arrangements like polygamy. This also becomes highly pertinent for the simple fact that non-monogamy, especially in the forms of divorce and other forms of separation, adultery and marital infidelity, has already been a part and parcel of the daily social existence (Emmens 2003). Hence this leads us to the subtle differentiations between various conceptual categories that are critical in the constitution of our sexual desires and preferences. The constructionist approach towards human sexuality and sexual preferences have already shattered the essentialists’ and conservatives’ arguments on the ground that sexual subjectivity, including identity and sexual orientations and desires, are inherently offshoots of the larger social and cultural environment (Ritchie and Barker 2006, 585). It is in this context that a postmodern challenge against the hegemony of heterosexual monogamy has emerged from an albeit new form of “partner arrangements that vary as to the number of people involved, the sexes of those involved, the sexualities of those involved, the level of commitment of those involved, and the kinds of relationships pursued” known as polyamory (Strassberg 2003, 440). A form of non-monogamy polyamory stresses upon “people’s capacity to share and multiply their love in honest and consensual ways” (Anderlini-D’Onofrio, 2004 as quoted in Ritchie and Barker 2006) as opposed to the rigid ethical, moral restraints associated with monogamy. The emergence of polyamory as a conceptual category seeking to subvert the prevalent beliefs regarding sexual desire and practice has significantly contributed to the ongoing debate around, especially, polygamy and other non-monogamous unions. In fact defining the various forms of non-monogamous and other forms of sexual practices, as neatly articulated in the Lawrence case at the Supreme Court (See Emens 2003 and Ashbee 2007 for a detailed analysis of this case), like bigamy, polygamy, incest, obscenity, masturbation and so on as logical extensions of enterprises to legalize same-sex marriage invites us to revisit those categories, including monogamy and the postmodern polyamory. Despite the different factors that co-exist with monogamy and that have already invalidated the very base of monogamy, the institution of monogamy still looms large “in this nation’s social landscape” (Emens 2003, 8). In the western culture it still continues to be a fact that that life-long or serial monogamy with one (everlasting) partner is the dominant model of relationships available. It exerts its hegemony through various apparatuses that are basically concerned with mainstream, statist ideologies. Depictions and valorizations of monogamous couples, fidelities and other romantic associations still fill the media discussions and other forms of cultural representations. This compulsory notion of monogamy not only renders all other forms of non-monogamy invalid and invisible but also labels alternative desires and relationships as completely unethical, amoral and pathological (Ritchie and Barker 2006). The representations of monogamy have indeed served to further normativise its existence and other forms of marital unions essentially fall outside of this normativity. This predominant existence is historically and culturally rooted and this constructive background comes to vicinity the general social hostility not only against same-sex marriages but also against, as I mentioned earlier, other non-monogamous unions. Thus, despite measures to legalise same-sex marriage, the mandatory character of monogamy continues to prevail in the society. Beyond that the general antagonism against polygamy and against the latter polyamory is constantly reproduced in the society (Weeks 1998). In fact the negative reaction against polygamy and polyamory in the contemporary American society has common features that are, nevertheless, historically specific. Polygamy refers to the marital system that prevailed in many pre-modern, simple societies where it was possible for one man or one woman to have more than one marriage partner at the same time. The system where one man kept more than a single wife was called polygyny and the system where it was possible for one woman to have more than one husband was called polyandry (Strassberg 2003). Nevertheless in the context of American society, especially in the context of the ongoing debate, polygamy is considered as synonymous of polygyny (Emens 2003, 20). In other words the system where a single man was permitted to marry for more than once essentially involved the question of ranking the women he married on the basis of various criteria and which makes its acceptance in the modern world a seriously problematic one. This power relation within a conjugal relation essentially degrades women’s status and takes away any possibilities of equality. In American society the experiences with Mormon polygamy in the 19th century (Emens 2003 20) has sufficiently consolidated the general hostility against polygamy as such which is again re-invited and called forth in the current debate. Such a re-invocation particularly makes the task of opposing any marital establishment outside the frameworks of monogamy a convenient one. This terrain deploys multiple strategies that are nevertheless oriented towards reproducing the patriarchal structures. On the one hand it enables to define polygamy on the basis of polygyny alone which apparently shifts its location beyond the frameworks of a debate; as in it is beyond the scope of any debate itself as the question of power and subjugation involved in it cannot be challenged (Emens 2003). On the other hand it also provides one with a logical ground to contest the postmodern movements towards polyamory. The latter has become possible precisely by equating polyamory with polygamy conveniently erasing the serious differences between the two and also to constrict the range of polyamory by labeling it “postmodern polygamy” (Strassberg 2003, 444). In fact polyamory includes within its vicinity a wide range of relationships possible from the perspectives of both love and sex. It in its larger sense incorporates “all relationships that include more than one participant” (Emens 2003, 23). This ‘multi’ nature of polyamorous groups and individuals cuts across gender restrictions as well. An interesting observation in this context pertains to whether differentiations do exist within polyamorous relationships with regard to the sexual and asexual relationships within it (Emens 2003 23-25). Amidst these differences the commitments towards partners may also range depending upon the longevity and the emotional involvement. Straussberg (2003) categorizes polyamorous commitments as primary, secondary and tertiary on these aforementioned priorities. In short polyamory presents one with a wide range of possible relationships outside the current normative considerations. However the discourse of polyamory still invokes serious questions pertaining to certain fundamental ethical themes that are basic to human existence. The base of monogamous relationships is marital fidelity and the only way through which any non-monogamous relation could be articulated is through the language of infidelity (Ritchie and Barker 2006 588-596). The polyamorous people have to invariably borrow from the language that is constantly deployed by their opponents to trivialize them. In other words the language of cheating and fraudulent relations at the cost of the marriage partner seems to dictate the terms in which non-monogamous relations are negotiated. The limits of the available terminologies to demarcate sexual or marital unions with more than a single partner, other than in terms of cheating and deception, is very critical in charting this map. The question is just of linguistic terminologies but also that of concepts that exert crucial influence in arranging our sexual desires, practices and relations. According to Ritchie and Barker (2006, 586) this has considerably limited the scope of discussions around polyamory as also in gaining more popularity for the same. The polyamorous people have to further negotiate with the larger society in order to clarify this disillusionment surrounding its claims by stressing more upon the qualities of honesty, openness and sincerity to one’s own desires (Ritchie and Barker 2006). Also that many polyamorous people articulate their support for polyamory in terms of “what they actually are rather in terms of what they actually do” (Barker 2004 cited in Ritchie and Barker 2006.). Nonetheless the equation of polyamory with polygamy and the more or less stable common attitude against polygamy has not only complicated the debate around same-sex marriage but also has sufficiently conditioned the discursive paradigms around the sexual and marital standards in the American society. The heated exchange has considerably transformed the linguistic and logical contours within which the normative standards are articulated. The post Lawrence judgment and the points that were raised both in favour of and to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriages has substantively influenced the very notions of subversion and the terms under which the standard, normative sexual expressions are contested. This space of deliberation has got itself expanded to rethink about the, or at least to include within its framework, common perceptions of polygamy and polyamory in the larger society. As was mentioned in the beginning of this analysis the logical extension of legalizing homoeroticism and homo adult couplings to other non-mongamous, especially polygamy and polyamory, has made it an inevitable aspect to deal with (Emens 2003; Ashbee 2007). It is in this context that the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs Texas gather more significance since, as Ashbee argues through his paper, this ruling, by legalizing same-sex marriages, has extended the concept and provisions of sexual liberty to other adult people willing to engage in consensual relationships (Ashbee 2007). In other words once the rights of gay couples is accepted and recognized then the same logical justification gets extended to support other non-monogamous unions like polygamy and polyamory (Ashbee 2007). However as Emmens (2003) has articulated the numerosity requirement still functions a crucial role in this whole space of deliberation. Also added to this is the case of conceptual and ethical imagination of relationships with more than one person at a time in the popular common sense. As we have already seen in Ritchie and Barker (2006) the questions of fidelity and cheating are not something that could be easily surmounted in this context. Although Ashbee’s (2007) observations largely invoke an optimistic feeling about shattering the rigid boundaries drawn by the patriarchal, monogamous structures the possibilities of recognizing alternative desires, practices and relationships have to still travel a long distance. This is precisely because the larger society’s attitudes are not solely determined by the legal rulings or what the constitution imagines to be valid or invalid. Beyond the realm of law the wider society has its own stakes commonly rooted in its familiarities and philosophical, logical justifications which cannot be easily changed. For instance despite the same sex marriage’s validation it is not sure to what extent people consider it as an open possibility unless and until they are pushed to the verge of embracing it despite their homoerotic orientations. This is mainly because of the hostility one may have to confront from her own kith and kin. The same may get extended to the case of polygamy and polyamory as well. It may still take a long time for these forms to be widely accepted in the society. However such observations are not meant to discard the advantages of the current debate around these issues. In one sense the legal debates have been quite successful in inviting the larger society’s attention towards these issues. Also significant is the fact that both homoerotic relations and non-monogamous relations have considerably benefitted from this ongoing debate. References Ashbee, Edward. 2007. “Polyamory, Social Conservatism and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the US.” Politics. 27.2 (2007): 101-107. Strassberg, Maura I. 2003. “The Challenge of Post-Modern Polygamy: Considering Polyamory”. Retreived from https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/lawreview/backissues/31-3/strassberg14.pdf on April 2, 2011. Weeks, J. (1998) ‘The Sexual Citizen’. In Theory, Culture & Society 15(3–4): 35–52. Ritchie, Ani and Barker, Meg. 2006. “There Aren’t Words for What We Do or How We Feel So We Have To Make Them Up’: Constructing Polyamorous Languages in a Culture of Compulsory Monogamy.” In Sexualities Vol 9(5): 584–601. Emens, Elizabeth F. 2003. “Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence.” Retreived from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html on April 2, 2011. Read More