Polyamory
is a meme, a cultural phenomenon of variation
reduplicating itself in the minds of more and more people. By
definition a meme is competitive with other social
institutions. Herein polyamory shows herself to be a meme: she
has entered the debate with other forms of relational and
erotic bonds. She aims at replacing these already existing forms
of relationship,
or at least, to step in as a good alternative.
This
essay wants to discuss the future of polyamory as a meme in three
possible perspectives, namely: 1.
Polyamory as an evolutionary phenomenon 2.
Polyamory as a marginal phenomenon 3.
Polyamory as a decadent phenomenon
Part
1. Polyamory as an evolutionary phenomenon In the
future polyamory makes a good chance of prevailing over other social
phenomena. She may do so on the
basis of an important asset she has, viz. her ability to bring
more people together in a relationship than traditional forms of love
could. In such a wider bond the
family nucleus may become stronger, when more people care for
more people.
The
family was originally the first step on the social ladder of
family, tribe, clan, town and country, leading all the way up to the
highest level
of state. The family was the first social commitment, a Good Tric
of evolution, the family being the best way until now to assure
the survival of our species.
But in
the modern day world of globalization and international mass
communications, these primary nuclei of social structure are swept up
in the vortex of their own development. Cities merge into ever larger
metropolitan areas; metropolitan arreas fuse into cooperative
territories, yes, entire states disappear into higher alliances,
perhaps not primarily politically and on a geographical scale, but in
the way
they actually exist culturally and according to their (administrative,
cultural, economic) communications. The emergence of
political unions like the EU or the Russian Union is nothing
compared to the worldwide globalization, bringing us from the 70s of
the
last millennium onward to an ever greater unity. In some
worlds,
eg. in the world of the Internet or in the world of international
business and finance, national borders do no longer exist. If you want
to have your say in these worlds than you better talk English and
behave like a cosmopolitan, in a suit that everyone can recognize as
their own (and not in a Scottish kilt or a Japanese
kimono).
It is
reasonable to view the disintegration of the traditional
family likewise. The family seems to 'globalize', -to stretch up that
term to the meaning of 'creating larger scale networks'. In
sofar polyamory shows herself a (post) modern cultural
phenomenon, being not only nourished by the new culture of mass
communication, but as a meme nourishing the new mass
communications her self. To be more specific: polyamory is not only
emerging
because of the Internet -also the reverse is the case: Internet is
flourishing because memes as polyamory are emerging .
According
to the philosopher Hegel, the world as Idea wants to become
increasingly self-referent, to grow more into a Unity
ultimately turning in to Itself. Many cultural
evolutionists keep these Hegelian notions in mind when describing
the modern globalization: the world is becoming increasingly more
unitive and
everyone trying to oppose this trend of unification is not even
ideologically, but simply on the basis of definition, reactionary.
It
is an irreversible development. Thus
polyamory is to be defined: an irreversible development. For both
individual and collective benefit from larger networks of love. Love is
shared with more and more people,
creating more knowledge, which in turn creates more
spiritual growth for all partners concerned.
Everyone benefits from it.
The
children come in contact with more parents than their primary
biological parents, resulting in greater tolerance, even for
'other' people, eg. when the biological parents take up relations with
people of another race or different culture. The child
grows richer when confronted with these higher stimuli of adaptation.
Seen
from such an evolutionary perspective, it comes as no surprise that
the divorce rate has risen so dramatically after the Second World War.
It has to do with the fact that the traditional family nucleus is no
longer compatible with a
rapidly changing world. We can not continue to think small in our
personal relations, when the world itself is thinking on a global
scale. Eventually,
the family would remain a somewhat ludicrous anachronism in a world
becoming increasingly all inclusive. It would be like remaining a
supporter of your local football team, when
the national team of your country is already playing at world level.
You'll be a fool when you do not encourage the national team instead.
It will make you feel much better.
Part
2. Polyamory as a marginal phenomenon
It is
also possible to present other future scenarios for polyamory.
For there are a number of objections raised against an
evolutionary model of polyamory dealing with concepts such as
holarchy and marginality. It is therefore worthwhile to discuss these
concepts.
Holarchy
Arthur
Koestler has described a system -and therefore also a social
system- as a composition of so-called holons, being units
working together on
an equal basis and with the same quality. For example,
water is a holon composed of H2O molecules. These lower holons,
the molecules, are in turn composed of even lower holons, namely the
hydrogen and
oxygen atoms. But these atoms also are in their turn a composition of
lower subatomic
particles. All these units -the holons- stand in a hierarchical
relationship to one another: water in this system is residing over its
lower holons, the molecules and atoms. The system is a so-called
holarchy.
Water can in its turn become the lesser holon in a larger system.
In humans,
water is part of our physiological holarchy. In this system, water
is subordinate to the functioning of our whole biological organism.
Such a
description may also be applied to social systems. We saw the
family being the primary sport of the ladder
family-clan-tribe-community-province-state. Therefore the family may be
regarded a lower holon in a holarchy leading all the way up to world,
even to cosmos level. Scientists
describing holarchies now say that you are not to remove one
holon
level without disrupting the whole holarchy. You can not remove or
change the nuclear family without destroying the
whole holarchy of human societies. It would be as if
you were to take away certain steps of a ladder. The effect would be
that the
entire ladder becomes unstable, unusable, yes, even dangerous. The
nuclear family as a basic unit of mother-father-child is not to be
turned
into a larger scale community. You would thus destroy its status as a
basic holon. It would be the same as when adding in the H2O
molucule a fourth alien atom. This would destroy the nature
of the molecule. Thus there would never be water. You can not tinker
with basic holons.
Sociologists
defending the family as a basic holon point to
the wide spread of monogamy in all cultures. The majority of
mankind (an amazingly high percentage) is monogamously married. This
has
in the course of evolution proved to be a Good Tric for humanity as a
whole. It gave to the reproduction and the upbringing of
offspring the greatest possible protection and security, with a father
procuring financial/economic stability and a mother giving alitive and
emotional safety. A child benefits from such a combination.
These
sociologists also quote biologists underlining the
close relationship of individuals genetically related to each
other. You are more benevolent to your biological father or your mother
than to another adult. You take the side of your biological sister or
brother more easily than the side of a classmate from another family.
'Weird strangers', my father
used to say in his local dialect, with an emphasis of scorn: you can
not appreciate what is
biologically/genetically strange. One cares less for strangers, at
least, not as well
as one cares for members of his family. Therefore, it is unlikely that
the involvement of other members in one's family is a sinecure. The
biological otherness will soon show itself in the predilection of
love the
members
feel for each other. With these sociologists polyamory is therefore not
a good alternative. They believe that polyamory will always remain a
marginal phenomenon.
Marginality
The
anthropologist Victor Turner has noticed that socio-cultural
changes often arise in so-called liminal situations (eg. rituals)
and
that they are often presented by marginal groups (teenagers in a rite
of passage, twins, mentally ill etc.) or by 'inferior' members of the
group (such as women, elderly, children, ethnic minorities). In the
ritual or the myth a marginal or inferior group (or a member of the
group) often presents a social criticism of the current state of
affairs. In this criticism she/he often comes out with an
alternative. 'Look, this is another way to do it, perhaps it's
even
better!.' Of course many members of the tribe shrug, for who is she/he
to make amendments? It
is going well for centuries. And we do not want to offend our deceased
grandparents, do we?
But
... a new seed is sown in the consciousness of the tribe and
if there is wisdom and depth in the proposal (maybe the girl, with her
new proposal, is really a genius, who are you to judge?)
then time will tell. More and more
people will come to realize that what she said was not so crazy after
all. In short: a
new social institution is born. Now
the meme polyamory might be such a similar proposal. It is
presented by marginal and 'inferior' groups such as
women, gays, BDSM's, and
members from the spiritual scene. But like
with
the marginals of Victor Turner, there may be something of value in
the social criticism they present. And this
criticism may find appeal with the main stream of the social
organization. More and more people may come to see that what the gay's,
the women and spirito's claim is not so crazy after all. From out of
inferiority
and marginality polyamory may thus penetrate into the main stream of
society. But
this strength may also prove to be its own weakness, since Victor
Turner also revealed that not all liminal proposals succeed in being
accepted in the existing social structure. And now the sociologists
from the previous paragraph say 'yes, that's because this
liminal (liminoid) proposal threatens to undermine the whole holarchic
structure of our society. This proposal is way too disruptive. Our
organization depends on the nuclear family as a basic holon'. Even
though this still remains to be seen, until now they have reality on
their side: the family is still vigorous as a social institution.
Is
there already at this point a prudent advice to be given, a
guideline how polyamory should present itself in the future, if her
meme
wants to gain acceptance in the mainstream of the social world?
Concepts such as marginality and inferiority are significant in
this regard. To begin with, polyamory may benefit from seeking alliance
with different forms of marginality, to make her story heard from
different angels. This means she should not cramp in keeping the gay's,
the BDSM's or
the spirito's out from her ranks in order to look decent and straight,
but it may well be better to incorporate all groups adhering to
principles of polyamory. From marginality social change comes. It is
therefore advisable to
show
that you are different; that you have another lifestyle.
A
possible error is pretending you have the same lifestyle as the
average
burgeois. Such a mistake the homosexuals imo make who are in favor of
gay marriage. They
would do better in stressing their different lifestyle and in showing
to everyone
that their way of life is much better (if so). Perhaps polyamory may
learn from the example of gay pride parades. More
and more ordinary citizens, -including decently married housewives-
dress up in a cheerfully pink prank and make a little dance, because
'gay life is so much more fun, isn't it?', as a woman whispered to me
recently when I watched the boats go by on
the bridges of Amsterdam.
It was
indeed a very cheerful happening.
Part
3. Polyamory as a decadent phenomenon
Until
now, polyamory was described as a meme having the chance to grow in the
future. Her competitive position has become somewhat
clearer. Her arguments have been put forward. Yet the picture of
polyamory may remain incomplete and perhaps inaccurate, if we do not
also present the
arguments of her opponents, the mono-amorists. Often, these arguments
remain hidden or merely implicit in a discussion of the subject. They
are literally the
'silent majority'. What are their arguments for rejecting polyamory,
yes, for even seeing her as a decadent phenomenon?
Counterforces
They
argue as follows: a human being is psychologically incomplete and
in want of love. Love is the unification of subject
and object,
the observer coinciding with the observed. This unification (this
becoming whole
again) can be achieved in different ways, eg. by unification with an
idea (mental unification), unification with a soul object
(psychological unification) or union with a transcendent object
(spiritual unification). The amorous love, they say, belongs to the
second category, the psychological unification.
Now
unification assumes concentration of the subject on the object of
unification. In the case of love, that is: the soul object, the love
object. You
need to focus all your attention, all your energy, all your internal
faculties on the sole love object. Compare it with the third category,
spiritual unification. There, in your prayer or in your meditations,
you'll need to concentrate on the One Beloved or on one mantra,
or on one
breathing (yours) etc. If you are going to work with different
spiritual objects,
with different mantras, different techniques, your attention becomes
fragmented. Then, the lack of concentration prevents you from sinking
into the Self. And so you will never find Love. Thus
also in amorous love between people, the mono-amorists say. If
you do not concentrate on the one and only soulmate, then
you will not be
able to overcome your ego. Then you will not
find true love. In the one and only soulmate you will find your self,
with all
of your problems, with all of your weaknesses and imperfections. But in
the one these imperfections also find their solution and their
catharsis. In the
one you can not run away from yourself. In several (many) relationships
you can hide much easier and run away. But the one forces you to
confront your self fully and unambigiously.
Losing
your self in the many
Love
is not many. When a human being is fragmented, she is unhappy
and imperfect. So, if man wants to find her true self again, she is not
to
lose herself in the many, but rather to return to the one. Return to
the
one is spiritual growth. Losing your self in the many is decay,
decadence, they say.
The many create unrest. The one creates peace and satisfaction. In
real love there is always this feeling 'this is enough for me
...'.
These
mono-amorists see polyamory as an inability of the self to dive deeper
and deeper.
Unification is always on the vertical level, they
say, while the many are superficially
located on the horizontal level. Losing your self again in another
partner or attending another swing
party does not make you any happier, they say. You'll only get more and
more alienated from your self. It may be that your 'love mantra' isn't
functioning anymore or does not
seem to fit you well. But that's no reason for getting lost into the
many. Start looking for
another one. For
only a single love object can take you into the depth.
Practical
objections against polyamory
To
these moving, almost spiritual, arguments they add other objections,
which are of a more practical nature. Let's state them in short:
1.
Multiple relationships arouse much more unexpected jealousy,
not only between primary love partners, but also among
primary and secondary partners and between secondary partners.
2.
The dynamics of the various relationships create a lot more
unexpected mood fluctuations: there arises an increased struggle
between what the different partners each want for
themselves at different times. `What do I want now?' becomes the
all-important issue in a
poly-relationship.
3.
Poly relationships take far too much time. That may lead to
fragmentation and deterioration of the love relationships.
4.
Children are vulnerable to the fact that polyamory is still
not fully accepted in society.
5.
You have the same shit as in any relationship, only doubled, tripled,
quadriplied etc.
6.
The chance of multiple partners being not compatible and clashing
is greater than in the case of two partners.
7.
How will the quiet, not socially active partner fill his/her time when
his/her partner is having his/her poly contacts?
These
objections -both basic and more practical- make it
difficult for polyamory to win acceptance for her meme from within a
larger proportion of the
population. The objections of the mono-amorists are still too much a
part of our morality and are rooted in our tradition. So polyamory will
probably remain a
marginal phenomenon for the near future, as described in part 2. But
that does not mean
that she is not valuable, yes, perhaps even more valuable than the
existing social structure. She has winning cards of her own. Maybe
these assets can
not replace the boons of the existing social structure. But they could
mean a
supplement. Not an either/or situation. But an and/and. That too may be
possible.
concerned.
Everyone benefits from it.
The
children come in contact with more parents than their primary
biological parents, resulting in greater tolerance, even for
'other' people, eg. when the biological parents take up relations with
people of another race or different culture. The child
grows richer when confronted with these higher stimuli of adaptation. 
BDSM's, and
members from the spiritual scene. But like
with
the marginals of Victor Turner, there may be something of value in
the social criticism they present. And this
criticism may find appeal with the main stream of the social
organization. More and more people may come to see that what the gay's,
the women and spirito's claim is not so crazy after all. From out of
inferiority
and marginality polyamory may thus penetrate into the main stream of
society. 
not be
able to overcome your ego. Then you will not
find true love. In the one and only soulmate you will find your self,
with all
of your problems, with all of your weaknesses and imperfections. But in
the one these imperfections also find their solution and their
catharsis. In the
one you can not run away from yourself. In several (many) relationships
you can hide much easier and run away. But the one forces you to
confront your self fully and unambigiously. 
