POLYAMORY AND THE GENDER ORDER

CONSENT

Monogamy, or any other form of relationship that is consensual, is unproblematic in itself. Monogamy only becomes a problem when it is enforced - ie, when it is not consensual. What consent is, is difficult to define as no one seems to be in agreement; it is a contested word. For my part, unless someone shows me better, I see consent as the accurately informed agreement between freely communicating beings. Therefore consent depends on knowledge, understanding and communication. We all consent to a variety of phenomenon daily, be this is dialogue, negotiation, choosing where to be or who to see or how to do something. We also have a variety of phenomenon forced upon us, against our consent, either because we do not understand something (and therefore cannot agree to it) or because we have no communicative options (a phenomenon is one way). These breaches are accidental and intentional and multiple, despite the fact that consent supposedly informs our democratic system and our intimate relationships. Needless to say, consent has many blurred boundaries, partially due to its contested nature and partially because communication, understanding and the context of these can be ambiguous. (Problem: Is there any significant difference between consensus and consent? Or is this just an aesthetic point?).

SOCIAL FORCES

Enforced monogamy then, is a non-consensual practice by definition. Any practice which is imposed against an persons wishes contravenes consent. Enforced monogamy is the situation in which most Westerners find their relationships developing. It seems to me that the enforcement of monogamy takes place across a variety of social levels, so how this imposition occurs is complex. The obvious forms are found in explicit laws which favour monogamous couples. Specifically, it is heterosexual monogamous couples that are favoured. Laws which deal with wills, pension and other financial settlements between intimate partners, adoption, child custody and sex education all favour the heterosexual monogamist. (I’m not a lawyer though. Does anyone else have information/links on these kinds of discriminatory laws?). Implicit laws, the kind that are found outside of legislature but within the everyday interactions of people, groups and media, also contribute to this force. These social norms are as slight as casual, but disapproving glances, or as terrible as direct violence. There are other forms of normalising, which are regularly aired by political or religious groups in public debate. The media too creates, perpetuates and reflects the social norms of heterosexual monogamy in the mainstream. These images, options, and practices in everyday life are viewed as normal. That is, they are unquestioned because they are commonplace, accepted from early life (accepted and not thought of like the air we breathe). They are “moral” (this illustrates the true purpose of morality - it is an non-consensual measure to enforce conformity). They seem to be timeless (everyone, everywhere is the same, or should be). Monogamy, like heterosexuality, is the relational template on which people are expected to build their lives and sense of self.

In these ways, heterosexuality too is imposed. The coupling of heterosexuality and monogamy with the force of law and social norms creates a powerful impression on the psychology of people belonging to societies which bring these pressures to bare. Developmental psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have illustrated that our sexuality is partly formed by our social context (though to what degree it is biologically informed is controversial). In a context where one type of sexual/relational practice is favoured and others proscribed by degrees (by law or a variety of social sanction), the favoured practices will prevail. Here, options are closed, communicative lines are shut-down, understanding becomes difficult to obtain as a result, alternative forms of feeling and living are repressed. No-one consents to this kind of early character formation (and even in a free context it is doubtful they, as babies, could do so).

So as it stands, our social mainstream enforces monogamy and heterosexuality throughout the lives of beings who are not given an explicit choice. I doubt if I’ve said anything new, enlightening or contentious here, though I’m interested to see if anyone disagrees.

What we may very well disagree on, is WHY does this imposition occur? I understand this as being due to two primary and interlinked social forces: the gender order and the oppression of women and children.

DUALISMS

The process of conformity and (covertly or overtly) enforced cohesion within Western cultural groups reinforces a pervasive dualistic perspective which is essential to certain types of social order, including the gender order. Dualism is an ancient phenomenon found at the beginnings of Western culture in Greek thought (the difference between matter and soul) and the Christian religion which grew from it. This perspective is achieved by placing those who do not conform outside the accepted norm (through a process of definition and identification i.e. “you/they are not normal because....”), creating a series of dualistic oppositions that complement and support each other. Some of these oppositions are: male and female (i.e. genital sex), man and woman (i.e. socially defined gender), good and evil, law-abiding and criminal, sane and insane, right and wrong, healthy and ill, “straight” and perverted, normal and abnormal. These binary oppositions almost always require some degree of professional or qualified adjudication for legitimisation and resulting normalisation. Amongst these arbitrators are religious leaders, court judges, psychiatrists, medical doctors, academics, social workers, and even celebrities and politicians!

These dualisms have depleted a persons own power to make decisions and represent her/himself concerning these, and other issues, because they are not “qualified” to do so. These oppositions, categorisations and their arbitrators are present to the degree that a society is authoritarian or totalitarian. The more closely defined a person is, the more controlled they become.

OTHERS

These oppositions and categorisations are entirely supported by forms of power and knowledge and are usually arbitrary or false. For example, the medical, legal and social acceptance/perpetuation of the male and female dualism happily ignores asexual and hermaphroditic people. Such oppositions are important as conceptual background to a gender order.

The gender order is comprised of ‘masculinity’ which is by definition opposed to ‘femininity’ (Segal, L. - Why Feminism? p166). This opposition, and the dualisms above, result in “Otherness”. Otherness is a term of central importance to the understanding of the gender order and is used to describe the non-conformist or disenfranchised groups which are different from the dominant masculine identities. Male masculinity is what is considered to be the human paradigm, as evidenced by our medical understanding of the human body (we know more about men's then women's) and our use of androcentric language like “he” (which is supposedly neutral).

Otherness describes women, other “races” (I say “races“ because biologically, there is no such thing. Like gender, race is a social phenomenon based on appearances), other nationalities, homosexuals/lesbians, other animals and nature. In this sense, it is more accurate to speak of “Others”. Further dualisms, with long histories in western philosophy, reinforce this opposition. The notions that masculinity is active, emotionally detached/hard/cold, independent, competitive/ambitious, rational/logical, physical/strong and dominant is often contrasted to the notion that the feminine is passive, emotional, irrational, sensual, subordinate, caring/compassion and dependant. This list simply illustrates the traits that everyone has, but which have been assigned to specific gender identities. Each trait serves a purpose as part of the gender ideology, for example, masculinity claims reason for itself and “thus represent the interests of whole society.” (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p164).

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GENDER ORDER

1

These dualisms are problematic, not just because they serve to disenfranchise people of their power. Because dualism set-up Others as a confrontational and oppositional sub-set rather than a complimentary and interwoven part. This is due to the way masculinity (the socially defined male) is historically interwoven with patriarchy. Both “masculinity” & “patriarchy” are difficult to define, and this is due to the convolutions and ambiguities of history. Patriarchy can be said to be the state of affairs in which woman and children are unequal and men rule (though whole books have been written about this subject). Arguably, patriarchy has existed since the beginning of agriculture (around 10 000 years ago) when the idea of possession became useful or viable. Possession arose due to the staking out of territories for agriculture. From possessing land, men than took to possessing what was on it. Thus private property was born, and so too were women and children considered possessions. This is discussed further below. (This is not to say marriage or patriarchy didn’t exist before agriculture, but certainly, agriculture solidified male dominance).

Masculinity as a modern, Western concept was shaped by five particular developments beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. First, new understandings of what it is to be a person with a sexuality grew from the decline in religious influence over intellectual life, prompted by the Renaissance and Reformation. Importantly, “marital heterosexuality displaced monastic denial as the most honoured form of sexuality”. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p186). This shift emphasised the hierarchy of Christian cosmology with God at the top, followed by the angels, men, women, animals and finally plants and rocks. Men and women, like the angels, were ordered within their own hierarchies as a microcosm of the main cosmology. The king was at the top and the serf at the bottom. The family too was a microcosm of this structure with the husband at its head. In this way marital heterosexuality is historically tied to the structure of patriarchy. To reinforce this structure, heterosexuality become compulsory as part of this family life. Here are the true beginnings of heterosexuality as “normal”, though again, this is not to say heterosexuality wasn’t a big influence on our culture before this time (though the homosexual practices of the Greeks and the long, ambivalent attitude of Christians illustrates heterosexuality had less normative power).

2

The second development arose from three inter-linked religious and then secular trends which developed the idea of masculinity as rational, in opposition to the natural world and emotion. This development is the primary example of “transcendental” activity which Simone de Beauvoir considers to define masculinity. The first trend was the opposition of rationality and culture to emotion and nature which were understood as feminine. This first trend stretches back before the Renaissance, to the beginnings of Christian religion where the assigning of value to a transcendent being placed value beyond nature, which was then understood as secondary and ephemeral. This was supported by biblical exegesis, and resulted in the exploitation of those life-forms deemed less valuable and placed here for our own use (e.g. Genesis (1:28) “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over it...”). This exploitation of nature must be emphasised because nature was understood in direct relation to women. The Christian cosmology and the later secular opposition and gendering of rationality and emotionality provided the ideal conditions for sexism, where women are equated with an irrational, cyclical and dangerous nature, both of which must be controlled or destroyed. It also provided the conditions for technology and science to emerge and dominate nature. These conditions firmly place women and nature in the sphere of “the Other”, thus justifying the patriarchal order of exploitation and hierarchy. The second trend was to emphasise the dichotomy of nature and culture, providing the dualistic underpinning for a particular way of organising gender relationships which separates biology from culture and ensures the political domination of men and the subordination of women. This dichotomy would justify men’s aggression and sexuality as “natural”, foundational and inevitable. The third trend was to equate masculinity with culture and rationality in a period where the Western world was understood as the bearer of reason which must enlighten the savage world. This resulted in “the forging of a cultural link between the legitimation of patriarchy and the legitimation of empire”. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p187)

3

The third development in the making of modern masculinity was in the creation of overseas empires, which is related to the above three trends. The imperial states and armies were ruled and staffed by men and divinely supported by a male God. The imperial ideology was masculine in its goal of conquest, control, subjection and the instrumental use of reason. The connection between masculinity and violence is explicit here and is embodied by the successful conquistador, one of the first masculine exemplars. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p187). The connection between masculinity and the state is something that is a historical constant in the West.

4

War of a different kind drove the fourth development. The wars and civil wars within Europe affected and challenged the gender order as it did the class order; as shown by the seventeenth century Quakers who defended equality in religion for women. But absolute monarchy, the Reformation of patriarchal religion, strong states and aggressive armies provided further institutionalisation of men’s power. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p189). These developments in empire building and civil war do not mean that genocide, sexism and racism did not exist before the scientific and economic revolutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but that men were able to kill and oppress each other with greater efficiency. War was no longer a local affair between tribes or kingdoms, but between states and countries culminating in colonialisation, World Wars and the Holocaust of the twentieth century. The importance of the connections between war and masculinity also necessitates deeper examination.

5

The fifth development is the growth of centres of capitalism. The city allowed for an emergence of sexual sub-cultures like Molly houses, run by transvestites. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p188). This was an important development for marginalised forms of masculinity based on sexuality. These cities were more controlled than other comparable living spaces, but their anonymous nature allowed for an increase in the individualism and a change in the understanding of work and the workplace. As part of the influence of Protestantism, individualism gained cultural strength because of the emphasis on following ones own conscience without the need for priestly mediation. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p186). This individualism is important to the development of masculinity because of its emphasis on self-reliance, achievement and competition which in turn supported the development of modern capitalism and the changing attitude towards work. Weber identified this development as the “Protestant Work Ethic” whereby men would pursue an occupation to achieve the greatest profit possible as a religious duty. This pursuit later became secularised and Weber emphasized the popular writings of Benjamin Franklin as an example of how, by the eighteenth century, diligence in work, scrupulous use of time, and deferment of pleasure had become a part of the popular philosophy of work in the Western world. (see Weber, M - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). The masculine tone of this philosophy is evident in that what is expected of a hard worker is expected of a man specifically. Connell explains “The entrepreneurial culture and workplaces of commercial capitalism institutionalised a form of masculinity, creating and legitimating new forms of gendered work and power in the counting-house, the warehouse and the exchange.” (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p188). Masculine ideology lends itself well to capitalism because of its emphasis on competition and achievement.

POSSESSION AND SEXUAL DIVISION

The individualism that grew from Protestantism in the climate of the city was an important requirement for the development for masculinity and its relation to modern capitalism for other reasons too. Several inter-related trends were necessary for this development. First, people began to think of themselves in terms of owners of commodities, the private form of property; this included owning their own “properties”, their own capabilities. The methodologies of enlightenment rationalisation, logic, scientific enquiry and empiricism theorised the social and natural world in terms of properties, resulting in the notion of a shared species essence, a collection of properties which expressed our shared equality. (MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p3). Once people began to think of themselves in these terms the idea that they were possessors of a gender became fixed. It is not that men and women did not think of themselves as masculine or feminine before this, but that gender became a more important part of personal identity than it ever had been before.

Gender was closely related to the market for other reasons because it was the “ideological result of a material struggle over the sexual division of labour”. (MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p2). The sexual division of labour is “the process whereby males and females routinely perform different activities or occupy different social roles, receive different material rewards and have access to contrasting amounts of power and status because of their sex”. (MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p1). Because women spent most of their time and energy gestating and nurturing children they were construed by men as not being able to contribute to political or economic life. Women were more closely subject to the forces of reproduction then men. Until recently, women have spent around fifty percent of their fertile lives pregnant or breastfeeding infants. In such circumstances, solidarities of sex emerged between those who deal in this way with infants and those who do not. Because men as a sex were relatively biologically free from dealing with the species’ reproductive needs in comparison to women, ideologies which legitimised the social arrangements were developed by men that took advantage of this freedom. These ideologies rationalised the existence of a social division of labour between the sexes and the possession of woman and children through marriage, resting on the biologically determined division of procreation and early feeding. (MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p42).

This rationalisation of division and possession could have been reinforced in the event of the scarcity of women and exchange of them by men, the development of animal husbandry by men, the dependence of women on men when they were vulnerable while heavily pregnant or with small children, and later in history, the consolidation of private property by men. (Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p82-p104). This rationalisation implied that these arrangements were natural, given and unquestionable and it is because of this claim to naturalness that gender as an ideology has so much power. However, there are counter-examples and instances where men co-operated or shared women’s work, and it is likely that this rationalisation suffered set-backs and modifications throughout the course of history. It is also possible that women became separated and eventually denigrated in a different sphere of labour because of men’s fear of women and their power. The sexual and reproductive organs of a woman are interior, hidden and mysterious, leaving men feeling exposed, obvious and vulnerable. Women have a creative power and power over the life of the species, they give birth to and they nurture us all. This power of creation is also associated with destruction for example, there are many taboos on menstruation - some tribes believe that a man who touches a menstruating woman may die, such is the aura of power and magic surrounding women. Therefore women must be kept weak or separated, lest they overwhelm men with their mysterious powers. (Horrock, R. - Masculinity in Crisis, p46).

It is important to understand that gender does not cause the sexual division of labour. Why the sexual division of labour, as structured by the “forces of reproduction”, results in the ideology of gender goes some way as to explaining the patriarchal exploitation of women and its connection to masculinity. That these ideologies differ over place and time is something Connell notes: “the evidence of cross-cultural and historical diversity in gender in overwhelming.” (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p47).

Gender socialisation (that boys and girls are differentiated as such and brought up with different roles and expectations) happens in spite of the fact that there is little biological difference between men and women. It is a striking idea that men and women are virtually the same, especially when we are so used to understanding them as very different. But “sex differences, on almost every psychological trait measured, are either non-existent or fairly small.” More differences exist between individuals within the sexes than between the sexes as two groups. Biologically, the similarities between men and women are greater than the differences, some of which are merely cosmetic and secondary. But these modest differences are always exaggerated due to the influence gender ideology has on our culture. (Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p21). The feminist Gayle Rubin has also written that “far from being the expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the suppression of natural similarities.” (Rubin, G. - “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex” in R. R. Reiter (ed.) Towards and Anthropology of Women, p180)

(For more on masculinity, patriarchy and the gender order see the “Hierarchic Masculinity” links at http://www.walpurg.iwarp.com/).

VIOLENCE

In this section I’m going to quote heavily from Prescott’s article “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence” found at http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html Here “bodily pleasure” should be understood synonymously with “affection”. This is to illustrate that both are really the same thing, though affection need not and is not always expressed affectionately, and neither is pleasure always somatosensory.

Enforced monogamy and sexual repression is a practice which is found in only violent societies, like ours. “The common association of sex with violence provides a clue to understanding physical violence in terms of deprivation of physical pleasure/affection and repression. The reciprocal relationship of pleasure and violence is highly significant because certain sensory experiences during the formative periods of child development will create a neuropsychological predisposition for either violence-seeking or pleasure-seeking behaviours later in life.” Prescott is convinced that “various abnormal social and emotional behaviours resulting from what psychologists call 'maternal-social' deprivation, that is, a lack of tender, loving care, are caused by a unique type of sensory deprivation, SOMATOSENSORY deprivation.” This hypothesis was tested by examining cross-cultural studies of child-rearing practices, sexual behaviours, and physical violence. “We would expect to find that human societies which provide their infants and children with a great deal of physical affection (touching, holding, carrying) would be less physically violent than human societies which give very little physical affection to their infants and children. Similarly, human societies which tolerate and accept premarital and extramarital sex would be less physically violent than societies which prohibit and punish premarital and extramarital sex.” (See Tables 1, 2, 3 & 4 at http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html). This is proven to be the case.

Prescott examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence in 49 different cultures. “The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.

“Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence. The denial of female sexuality must give way to an acceptance and respect for it, and men must share with women the responsibility for giving affection and care to infants and children. As the father assumes a more equal role with the mother in child-rearing and becomes more affectionate toward his children, certain changes must follow in our socioeconomic system. A corporate structure which tends to separate either parent from the family by travel, extended meetings, or overtime work weakens the parent-child relationship and harms family stability. To develop a peaceful society, we must put more emphasis on human relationships.

About 50% percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce, and 2 in 5 in the UK in 2001 (UK figures from http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/swps/2001-01.pdf). “This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence, and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more pluralistic system of relating becomes clear. Contemporary experiments with communal living and group marriage are attempting to meet basic needs that remain unfulfilled in the isolation of a nuclear marriage. We must seriously consider new options, such as extended families comprised of two or three couples who share values and lifestyles. By sharing the benefits and responsibilities of child rearing, such families could provide an affectionate and varied environment for children as well as adults, and thereby reduce the incidence of child abuse and runaways. The communal family - like the extended family group - can provide a more stimulating and supportive environment for both children and adults than can the average nuclear family.

“If we accept the theory that the lack of sufficient somatosensory pleasure is a principal cause of violence, we can work toward promoting pleasure and encouraging affectionate interpersonal relationships as a means of combating aggression. We should give high priority to body pleasure in the context of meaningful human relationships. Such body pleasure is very different from promiscuity, which reflects a basic inability to experience pleasure. If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual looks for another partner. A continuing failure to find sexual satisfaction leads to a continuing search for new partners, that is, to promiscuous behaviour. Affectionately shared physical pleasure, on the other hand, tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search. However, a variety of sexual experiences seems to be normal in cultures which permit its expression, and this may be important for optimising pleasure and affection in sexual relationships.

“These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship. These findings overwhelmingly support the thesis that deprivation of body pleasure throughout life - but particularly during the formative periods of infancy, childhood, and adolescence - are very closely related to the amount of warfare and interpersonal violence. These insights should be applied to large and complicated industrial and postindustrial societies.

“Evidently, the sexual repression of youths and of non-heterosexual people and enforced monogamy results in a lowering of sensual pleasure and intimate affection, which greatly contributes to violent cultural practices.”

CONCLUSIONS

Clearly there are many reasons why monogamy and heterosexuality are enforced by the patriarchal gender order most of us live today. Primarily, hetero-monogamy reinforces gender dualism, thus supporting male power. It allows men to possess women and children and to control their sexual activities. Most men do not do this with deliberation or malice; historical practices have their own impetus in which we are all caught up. For example, if your parents were to have said they weren’t going to raise you as a boy or a girl, you would have still received a gender identity from the various social influences upon you, like school, mass-media and peer groups. Also, hetero-monogamy isn’t a free seat of power for men as it sexually represses and politically oppresses men also. (This is evidenced by homophobia for example.) This reduction of male power is partially because compulsory hetero-monogamy has recently been stripped of its primary hypocrisy. Though women have long had to be faithful to men, the opposite was never really true. Though society would pay lip service to the idea, men had other sexual relationships, mainly with prostitutes, mistresses or other men. Though hetero-monogamy is a weakening force in our society, it still has a strong influence (as the social pressures illustrated at the beginning illustrate). Evidently, enforced hetero-monogamy is a damaging state of affairs which hurts individuals and corrupts societies. That this state seems to be slowly declining is cause for celebration. That it isn’t declining very quickly is cause for worry.

Polyamory Resources

Two Plus

My Writings:

Other:

Links:

Please consider making a small donation to keep this site ad-free.