500 words

4 ©

La bo

ra to

ri um

. 2 01

1. V

ol . 3

, n o.

2 :4

– 2

5

NOTIONS OF LOVE IN POLYAMORY—ELEMENTS IN A DISCOURSE ON MULTIPLE LOVING

Christian Klesse

Christian Klesse. Address for Correspondence: Department of Sociology, Manchester

Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton Building, Rosamond Street West, Manchester

M15 6LL, UK. [email protected].

I would like to thank the participants of the seminar series of the Research Network on

Love (Manchester Metropolitan University and University of Manchester, UK, January 29,

2008) and the participants of the International GEXcel Conference of Workshops “Love

in Our Time—A Question for Feminism” (in particular the ones who participated in the

sessions on the sub-theme “Gendered Interests in Sexual Love, Care Practices and

Erotic Agency” (Örebro University, Sweden, December 2-4, 2010) )for valuable feedback on my presentations on this subject. I am particularly grateful to Chiara Addis, Adriana

García Andrade and Anna Temkina for their encouragement. I would further like to

thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very insightful commentary and Mischa

Gabowisch of the editorial board of Laboratorium for his extremely friendly and

fl exible style of cooperation.

I N T R O D U C T I O NI N T R O D U C T I O N

Polyamory circumscribes a relationship philosophy or an approach to intimacy

and sexuality that is based on the belief that it is worthwhile and valid to have more

than one loving or erotic relationship. The term combines word elements derived

from the Greek (poly) and Latin (amory) languages and thus literally translates as

“many loves”. The concept has circulated for several decades in social networks

which are interested in developing alternatives to monogamous couple and family

relationships (Anapol 2010; Lano and Parry 1995a; Munson and Stelboum 1999a;

Klesse 2006). Polyamory endorses an ethical approach, according to which all

participants in a relationship are aware of the (potentially) non-monogamous

character of their mutual bond(s). In this regard, polyamory aims to challenge the

common “double standard” at the heart of what Pepper Mint (2004) calls the

monogamy/cheating system: the dominant cultural arrangement, according to which

people are expected to identify with the value of exclusivity, even if affairs are so

common that they can be considered to be an institutionalised part of the intimate

and sexual landscape (cf. Druckerman 2007).

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 5

It is primarily due to the emphasis on honesty and consensus that polyamory is

frequently referred to as a “responsible practice of non-monogamy" (Anapol 1997;

Lano and Parry 1995b; Klesse 2006). Most publications suggest that polyamory

promotes a distinctive set of values. As a consensual approach to non-monogamy,

polyamory promotes an ethics based on honesty, respectful negotiation and

decision making, integrity, reciprocity and equality (Anapol 2010:65–86; Barker

and Langdridge 2011). In previous publications, I have described polyamory as one

particular discourse on non-monogamy (Klesse 2006; 2007a). Its most distinctive

characteristic is its up-front endorsement of love. The confl ation of polyamory with

a practice of love is a salient feature of most publications on polyamory. For example,

Lano and Parry translate the term as “more loves than one”. They propagate polyamory

as “a generic term intended to cover all forms of responsible non-monogamy”,

because it “helps to emphasise that there is more than just sex at the issue in non-

monogamy” (all quotes, Lano and Parry 1995b:v).

Despite the centrality of love in the interpretation of polyamory, there are few

analytical accounts of what kind of love is advocated in polyamory.1 In this article, I

will explore polyamory as a “discourse on love”, rather than as a “discourse on non-

monogamy”.2 This will enable me to compare the notion of love advanced in the

discussion of polyamory with other conceptualisations of love, namely romantic love.

Positing polyamory as a specifi c discourse on love denaturalises love by framing it as

a socially constructed set of emotions, with particular histories and specifi c, culturally

bounded archives (cf. Ahmed 2004; Moon 2008; Jackson 2010). At the same time, I

am aware that any attempt to defi ne “poly love” is inherently problematic. The whole

debate about polyamory has been driven by a concern with the creation of a less

prescriptive emotional and sexual culture. A commitment to diversity is a salient

feature of the polyamory debates (Schroedter and Vetter 2010). I therefore consider

my analysis as an attempt at approximation. I will limit myself to discerning salient

“elements” within a non-cohesive discourse on love.3

The archive for my discourse-analytical study consists of the following sources.

Firstly, I will draw upon a critical reading of the major popular publications on

polyamory (primarily) in the English language. As I have argued elsewhere, the major

bulk of published literature on polyamory falls into the genre of popular advice

literature (Klesse 2007d). Most of this work has been written by authors who are

themselves quite close to, if not even active members of, polyamory communities.

Some of these texts could be placed on the borderline between advice and activist

1 Schroedter and Vetter’s book (2010) is a rare exception. They present an impressive histori-

cal genealogy of polyamory as a love style. However, they fall short of providing a detailed analysis

of the specifi c features of contemporary poly love.

2 The defi nition of polyamory as simply a particular approach to non-monogamy is also not

able to incorporate perspectives which consider intentional monogamy (Anapol 1997; 2010) or

asexuality (Scherrer 2010) as valid choices within polyamory.

3 My approach has been inspired by Roland Barthes’ (1978) subtle analysis in “Lovers’ Dis-

course: Fragments”. For Barthes, the discourse of love cannot be systematised. Zygmunt Bauman (2003), too, presents a largely non-systematic analysis with multiple entry points.

A R T I C L E S6

literature. For example, The Ethical Slut by Easton and Liszt (1997) is frequently

referred as the “Bible of Polyamory” (Klesse 2007a). Because of the popularity of

many of these publications among polyamory practitioners, I think it is possible to

analyse them next to more explicitly “activist” texts or personal experience stories

(e.g. some contributions to Lano and Parry 1995a) as parts of a multi-faceted

discourse on polyamory.4 In the case of polyamory literature, the boundaries between

genres are frequently blurred. For example, some of the early publications on polyamory

in more explicitly academic outlets, too, contain a signifi cant number of “activist” or

experience-based writings (cf. Anderlini-D’Onofrio 2004d). More thorough sociological

research and theory has only started to appear over the last few years, again, with

many authors having personally close links with polyamory communities (cf. Klesse

2007d; Barker and Langdridge 2011). While I treat the fi rst set of publications (i.e.

polyamory guide books and manifestos, FAQ texts, personal experience narratives,

etc.) primarily as sources within my heterogeneous archive for the study of the

discourse on polyamory, I draw upon recent research publications (in addition to

social, cultural and critical theories) primarily as guidance and inspiration for my

sociological contextualisation of polyamory. I will also utilise interview data collected

as part of my 1997-2003 research into gay male and bisexual consensual non-

monogamous relationships in the UK (Klesse 2007a). This study was designed around

a combination of qualitative methods, namely interviews, focus groups, documentary

research, participant-observation and discourse analysis. I conducted forty-four

interviews with people with experiences in non-monogamous relationships. Most of

my interview partners resided in the south-east of England, primarily in London.

Smaller numbers lived in (or around) Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Glasgow and

Edinburgh. One half of the research participants identifi ed as gay male or strongly

related to gay male cultural contexts. The other half consisted of bi- identifi ed men

and women (in roughly equal numbers) or people who strongly related to bisexual

cultural contexts. Both parts of the sample contained cis-gendered people5 (the

majority) and transgendered people (few). Most of the bi-identifi ed research

participants positively referred to polyamory. Many considered themselves to be

part of both the bisexual and polyamorous communities. Although they articulated

their views from a particular (bi poly) perspective, they usually refl ected extensively

on the wider debates on polyamory. In these personal interview narratives, they

refl ect upon their own decisions, choices, relationship trajectories and life

experiences. Referring to polyamory, they cite, alternate or negotiate elements of

wider discourses on polyamory they are familiar with. In my view, these personal

narratives are part of both the construction and reproduction of a discourse on poly

love (cf. Howarth 2000; Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000).

4 For a more detailed analysis of the discursive specifi cs of psychological advice literature on

non-monogamy and polyamory see Klesse 2007c; Haritaworn, Lin, and Klesse 2006; see also Pallot-

ta-Chiarolli 2004; Noël 2006; Petrella 2007. For a methodological discussion of heterogeneity as a

feature of archives, see Halberstam (1998).

5 The term cis-gendered relates to people who neither contest, nor wish to alter the sex which

was ascribed to them at birth.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 7

My discussion falls into the following parts. First I will provide a brief sociological

contextualisation of the phenomenon of polyamory. I will then discuss salient

features of the discourse on poly love by drawing on examples from both the literature

and my own research. In the last part of the paper, I will locate polyamory in the

larger context of the history of love and emotions.

P O L Y A M O R Y — I D E N T I T I E S , C O M M U N I T I E S A N D P R A C T I C E SP O L Y A M O R Y — I D E N T I T I E S , C O M M U N I T I E S A N D P R A C T I C E S

The concept of polyamory was developed in debates around alternative

approaches to relationships. According to Anapol, the word was coined by Morning

Glory and Oberon Zell, the founders of the neo-pagan Church of All Worlds to create

an alternative to the term “responsible non-monogamy” in 1990 (1997:5; 2010:1).6

The term initially spread in a primarily spiritualistic counter-cultural milieu in the

United States (cf. Anapol 2010; Aviram 2010; Kaldera 2005; Anderlini-D’Onofrio

2004c). Some researchers suggest that this history continues to shape the cultural

and political orientation of many polyamory communities today (Aviram 2010).

Polyamory has been an attractive concept for many people outside of neo-pagan

communities, because it envisions alternatives to couple-based monogamy. The critique

of monogamy was a hot topic in many progressive movements since the 1960s, including

socialist, anarchist, feminist, lesbian, gay male, bisexual, transgender, BDSM and queer

forms of activism (Adam 2010; Easton and Liszt 1997; Barker and Ritchie 2007; Jackson

and Scott 2004; Pieper and Bauer 2005; Schroedter and Vetter 2010, Anapol 2010; Heckert

2010b; Bauer 2010). The debate on polyamory had some resonance in all these movement

contexts. My interview partner Pal, for example, who has committed himself to an overtly

non-religious, queer-inspired, bi-and kink-assertive sex-radical political agenda,

explained his preference for the term polyamory with the fact that, in contradistinction

to the term non-monogamy, polyamory is not based on negation.

Pal: Breaking it down into being multiple loves, rather than using “non- monogamous”, which worked negatively, what you are not, rather what you are.

It’s not a word about what you are; [...] it’s more a sort of non-label.

Today the discourse on polyamory maps a broad and diversifi ed cultural terrain.

Polyamory has an appeal to people who are close to lesbian, gay male, bisexual, queer,

transgender, queer-feminist, BDSM, anarchist or other progressive tendencies within

the “new left”, as well as ecological and spiritual, religious or new age movements

(based in, for example, neo-Tantrism, neo-paganism, Wiccan religions, Christianity or

western adaptations of Hinduism or Buddhism).

6 There are also claims which suggest that variants of the term have been around throughout

the 1960s. Alan (2007), who discusses competing claims on the origin of the term, suggests that

this claim is based on a mix-up of the terms “polyamory” and “polyfi delity”. The latter is said to

have a much longer history. Alan’s 2007 text confi rms the thesis that the word “polyamorous” fi rst

appeared in print in Oberon Zell’s article “A Bouquet of Lovers” in spring 1990. See also The Raven- hearts (n.d) for a version of this historical narrative. However, subsequent research by Alan (2010)

brought up evidence for earlier circulations of the term, ranging back to 1953.

A R T I C L E S8

In the USA, there are expansive polyamorous communities in most major cities

(Anapol 2010). Jessica Bennett (2009) suggests in an article in Newsweek that there

are now more than half a million openly polyamorous families in the United States.

Aviram (2010:87) stresses the high degree of cultural and political organisation

among polyamorous people in the San Francisco Bay Area. This infrastructure includes

activist organisations, regular workshops and conferences, publications and social

gatherings (cf. Mint 2009). Loraine Hutchins (1996) talks of the existence of poly

movement in the USA as early as 1996. So far there is not a lot of detailed research

on polyamorous communities available.

Elisabeth Sheff (2005:8; 2006:624), who conducted a seven-year-long

ethnographic research project within a west-coast US poly community,

characterises mainstream poly communities in the region as follows: Members are

overwhelmingly white, college educated, claim a middle- or upper-middle class

status, have professional jobs (of ten in computers or counseling/therapy). Most

of her respondents were in their mid-thirties to late fi f ties. Pepper Mint (2009)

claims that there are few regular participants in San Francisco (i.e., in their teens,

twenties or early thirties). Other research, however, represents a wider age range.

Wosick-Correa’s (2010) 343 poly-identifi ed research participants fell in the age range

from 18 to 67, with 76% being aged between 18 and 45. Survey data collected on USA

polyamory communities affi rms the educated nature and advanced class-position

and ethnically/racially exclusive nature of polyamory communities (Weber 2002,

Wosick-Correa 2010), an image which is reproduced in most publications on polyamory

(cf. Haritaworn, Lin, and Klesse 2006; Noël 2006).

While polyamory communities have blossomed for decades in the USA

(cf. Munson and Stelboum 1999a; Anderlini-D’Onofrio 2004c), polyamory is still quite

unknown in Europe.7 The social organisation of polyamorous communities is not very

advanced in most European countries. Referring to the state of poly culture and

politics in Germany, Schroedter and Vetter (2010) prefer to talk of a subculture, rather

than a social movement. The poly community has no political voice, they argue, and

becomes only visible once journalists undertake the effort to go out and search for

it (2010:142 and 159). Yet there are social groups in larger cities (Von Gantenbrink

2011). The situation in the UK is similar.

Pal, who put a signifi cant amount of time into activism around polyamory when

I interviewed him in 1999 and 2000, questioned whether it would even make sense to

talk of a UK polyamorous community. Yet the existence of a community would be the

pre-condition for a social movement.

Pal: The people, who are doing it, just don’t know other people that are. [...]

Generally there’s a fairly visible gay community, lots of places, so you can fi nd it,

7 When I started my own research into gay male and bisexual non-monogamies in 1997, I had

not known about the existence of the term “polyamory”. Although I had been in non-monogamous

relationships with partners of different genders for most of my adult life in Germany and the UK, I

only encountered the concept when I did more systematic research into non-monogamy. Cath, one

of the research participants in my study, suggested that there are many more people “out there”

whom she would consider to be polyamorous, but who do not have access to this term.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 9

if you looked. And there isn’t that for poly at all. [...] It’s not even [worthwhile]

doing a thing, even [...] starting having a sort of activism without a sort of

community. [laughing] I don’t think you have a community, if no one knows

each other.

Things have progressed signifi cantly in the last few years. There are social poly

groups in at least three UK cities (London, Manchester and Cambridge). Poly-

interested people are connected via various networking sites, e-mail lists and

newsgroups (Bi.Org 2010). The moderator of several UK-based poly web groups

suggested in 2007 that at least 1000 people were part of this on-line community. In

the year 2006, the fi rst UK Poly Day was organised in London and attracted more than

200 people (Gill 2007). Poly Day has now established itself as a regular occasion for

the UK poly community to come together. The annual UK Bisexual Conventions

(BiCons) stage workshops and debates on polyamory as a regular feature. Poly-

identifi ed bisexuals use these events to have meetings specifi cally for the bi poly

community (Klesse 2007a). It is not surprising that polyamory meetings take place

at bisexual conventions and gatherings. Marianne suggests that the UK polyamory

community overlaps strongly with other communities.

Marianne: In the UK there’s a strong overlap with the S/M community and the

bisexual community. If you’re into S/M and you’re bisexual and you’re poly,

you’re likely to just keep bumping into the same people at all the events. I don’t

know why. I think [...] it’s partly because it’s quite a small community and it’s

mainly on-line people. [...] I mean there are also a lot of pagans, a lot of [...]

people, who like Science Fiction. [...] It’s quite funny. There’s like a set of

criteria almost. Are you into S/M? Are you bisexual? Are you into Science Fiction?

Are you a Pagan? And the amount of people, who fi t in all of those, is quite

surprising.

According to Marianne, the UK polyamory is located at the conjuncture of diverse

subcultures, including bisexual and S/M scenes, neo-pagans and the science fi ction

fan community.8 Other research participants had been part of the commune movement

(Rubin 2001). 9 The common references to neo-paganism, bisexuality, science fi ction

8 It is important to note that, of course, not all polyamorous people are bisexual. Some US-based

research mentions the prevalence of homophobia and biphobia in particular among straight-identi-

fi ed male polyamory practitioners (Sheff 2006). In general, polyamory appeals to people of various

sexual identities, including heterosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians and (according to anecdotal evidence) a

rather small number gay men. Research indicates that non-monogamous relationships are very com-

mon among gay men. However, there are rather few direct references to polyamory as a concept or

identity in gay male culture (Weeks, Donovan, and Heaphy 1996; Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan 2001;

Adam 2010; Klesse 2007a). Some authors see a particularly strong affi nity between bisexuality and

polyamory (cf. Anderlini-D’Onofrio 2004c, 2009). Bi-identifi ed people make up a signifi cant portion of

polyamorous activist networks and communities in some countries, such as, for example, in the UK and

the USA (Klesse 2007a; Mint 2004). Without question, polyamory creates a space for expressing desire

for people of different genders or irrespective of gender, i.e. kinds of desire which are often labelled

“bisexual”. This may be one of the reasons why many bi-identifi ed people are drawn to polyamory.

9 The confl uence of various marginalised and counter-cultural identities in Marianne’s ac-

A R T I C L E S10

fan culture, and geek culture in descriptions of the poly community by my UK

respondents resonate with US accounts (Anapol 2010; Aviram 2010; Weber 2002;

Wosick-Correa 2010). In both countries, poly cultures are furthermore predominantly

white and middle class (Sheff 2006; Noël 2006; Wosick-Correa 2010). Yet there seem

also to be differences: Some analysis suggests that poly advocates in Europe often

take a more politicised stance, whereas the spiritualistic currents are more strongly

developed in the USA (Anapol 2010; Bernhard 2009).

As an umbrella term, polyamory encompasses a whole range of relationship

practices. Open relationships, open marriages, intimate networks, group marriages,

triads and quads are the descriptive terms for polyamorous relationship arrangements

offered by a range of authors (Munson and Stelboum 1999b; Labriola 1999; Anapol

2010). Yet these labels do not exhaust the full range of polyamorous possibilities.

Moreover, for many polyamory does not manifest itself in a particular relationship

form, but consists in a dedication to a set of values and the cultivation of a particular

inner approach to intimacy (Anapol 1997; 2010).10 Only the emphasis that it is more

than just sex which grounds a polyamorous relationship is common to all descriptions

of polyamory. At times, this “more than sex” is captured in references to intimacy.

Taormino (2008:71) claims that polyamorous relationships are born out of the desire

for “maintaining multiple signifi cant, intimate relationships simultaneously”. Mostly,

however, the “more than sex” is given the name of love: “Polyamory means 'loving

more than one.' This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination

thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved” (alt.

polyamory 1997). In the following, I will explore in closer detail what kinds of love

are evoked and celebrated in polyamory.

E L E M E N T S O F A D I S C O U R S E O N P O L Y L O V E E L E M E N T S O F A D I S C O U R S E O N P O L Y L O V E

Although polyamory cannot be adequately theorised as a singular or closed

discourse, it is possible to discern salient themes across the entirety of the terrain of

its discursive enunciation. These themes or elements, as I call them, are part of a

wider repertoire of fragmented tropes on the issue of poly love. They do not form a

count is striking. There are various explanations between the cross-over between consensual non-

monogamy and other identities. Barker and Langdridge (2011:761) talk of a recent proliferation of

research into such cross-overs, for example between polyamory and bisexuality, transgender, asexu-

ality and BDSM (cf. Anderlini-D’Onofrio 2004c; 2009; Bauer 2010; Richards 2010; Scherrer 2010). I

do not have space to theorise these links in detail here. However, it is worthwhile to consider two

major general explanations which have been offered for this situation. One rests on the assumption

that people who have brought up the imagination and energy to defy, for example, heteronormativ-

ity, fi nd it easier to question compulsory monogamy. Another explanation highlights shared cul-

tural values between communities, for example the stress on communication and negotiation in

both polyamory and BDSM (cf. Bauer 2010).

10 Reciprocity is certainly central to this set of values. Depending on the relationship context,

this reciprocity may be enacted in different forms and according to different degrees of intensity

between the different people who are part of a particular polyamorous constellation. Scales of

reciprocity may range from abstract acknowledgment, to mutually shared recognition or mutually

shared bonds of trust, commitment, friendship, love, intimacy or sex.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 11

necessary part of every account of polyamorous love. At times, they may even

contradict each other. Yet each of these elements can be mobilised, on its own or in

combination with others, to describe the distinctive qualities of poly love.

Various analysts have undertaken the task to elucidate the socio-psychological

dimensions of love by looking at some of the integral elements of its articulation.

Erich Fromm (1971) believed that only love could provide some soothing of the

existential feelings of anxiety and isolation at the heart of the modern human

experience. However, love will only be able to bridge the separation between self and

others if it is marked by a variety of qualities. These qualities include a proactive

orientation towards other human beings and the capacity for (unconditional) giving.

Fromm then breaks love down into further elements, which, according to his view, are

common to all forms of love: care, responsibility, respect and knowledge.11

It could be seen as a shortcoming of Fromm’s “theory of love” that it posits

love as a holistic and (potentially) universalistic capacity. Yet his discussion also

advances historicising perspectives. The existential isolation of the individual, for

example, is described as the effect of a historical process, i.e. the increasing

separation of human life from nature and a divine cosmology. Moreover, Fromm

suggests that love risks disintegration under the commodity logic of capitalistic

consumer society (cf. Bauman 2003; Illouz 2007). However, if people develop love as

an emotional response to changing social and economic conditions, then love itself

is subject to a process of continuous transformation. This is the kernel of a social

constructionist understanding of love and emotions (Jackson 2010).

Monogamy, the couple relationship and the model of the core family have been

shaped by the cultural ideals bound up with romantic love. The cultural codes around

romantic love were fi rst elaborated in English romantic novels during the 18th century

and were then further developed in literary traditions on the European continent.

According to Karl Lenz (1998:267-272), the literary ideal of romantic love encompassed

the following characteristics: (1) the unity of sexual passion and affectionate

emotionality; (2) the unity of love and marriage; (3) the integration of parenthood;

(4) the values of commitment and faithfulness; (5) the intensifi cation of a sense of

individuality and uniqueness; (6) a promise of unique happiness; (7) a new ideal of

cross-gender mutuality and gender equality (which implied a more “androgynous”

tendency). Even if all these elements can be identifi ed in romantic prose of the time,

many of them, and in particular the ones which imply a transformation of gender

roles, according to Lenz, did not have any signifi cant impact on common practices of

love for a very long time to come.

An ideological postulate of more equitable partnership arrangements solidifi ed

in discourses around companionate marriage in the 1920s and subsequent decades

11 Fromm distinguishes various forms of love differentiated by the love object: “Brotherly

Love”, “Motherly Love”, “Fatherly Love”, “Erotic Love”, “Self-Love” and the “Love of God”. “Sisterly

Love” is strangely absent from Fromm’s discussion. Although Fromm differentiates between various

forms of love, he suggests that love is ultimately grounded in a unifi ed orientation towards the

world as such: “Love is not primarily a relationship to a specifi c person; it is an attitude, an orienta-

tion of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not towards

one “object” of love” (1971:38).

A R T I C L E S12

(Cancian 1987). Yet it is questionable to what extent these cultural imaginaries of

harmonious domesticity did really aim to foster the values of female integrity and

autonomy. Finch and Summerfi eld (1999) argue that motherhood remained central

to the ideal of femininity and that single women (and in particular single mothers)

were frequently pathologised. According to their analysis, the promotion of

companionate marriage was primarily driven by a concern with falling birth rates.

Anthony Giddens (1992) argues that the conditions of late modernity have

created a situation in which the promise of gender equity may fi nally come true.

Romantic love, he argues, may have had an egalitarian strain, but it was always

hampered by de facto inequalities. He sees contemporary Western societies at a

turning point. Now is the moment in which romantic love fi nally gives way to a new

cultural ideal of “confl uent love”. Confl uent love stands for a more contingent form

of love in which “in principal” equal partners negotiate their wishes and desires.

Giddens’ analysis has been rightly criticised by feminists and other critics who

showed that his claim of gender equality cannot be sustained in the light of current

empirical research into heterosexual gender relations. Moreover, it presents a

euphemistic analysis of the economic, class, gender and sexual relations of

contemporary western societies (Jamieson 1999; Bell and Binnie 2000; Klesse

2007b).

While sociologists like Giddens see romantic love on the decline, others argue

that romantic love has its heyday in the period of late modernity. Beck and Beck-

Gernsheim (1995), who pursue a slightly different version of individualisation theory

than Giddens, argue that in increasingly secularised societies romantic love has

taken the place of religion in many people’s lives.12 Karl Lenz (1998) assumes the

middle ground. He argues that elements of the old romantic paradigm currently

coexist with newer ones. The novel tendencies include a heightened emphasis on

self-actualisation and communication, a growing infl uence of therapeutic ideas

(cf. Rose 1999) and a continuation of de-gendering processes (Cancian 1987).13

However, which name we ever decide to give to this so-called new paradigm of love,

the symbolism of love as such has not ceased to provide a powerful stimulus for

human erotic and intimate imagination.

Schroedter and Vetter (2010) place the emergence of poly love discourses in the

historical context of an on-going transformation of economic and cultural relations

and the continuous struggle around sexual and cultural hegemony. The late 19th

century and the early 20th century witnessed changes in the representation of

heterosexual intimacy, which Steven Seidman (1991) refers to as the “sexualisation

of love” and the “eroticisation of sex”, a development which involved a profound

redefi nition of the relation between love, sexuality and marriage. Reciprocity and

mutuality emerged as a paradigm of modern love in western societies (Collins 2003).

12 See Beck et al. (1995) for a discussion of some of the differences between these theoretical

approaches.

13 I am skeptical in particular of this latter claim. Research into heterosexual relationships

indicates the persistence of profoundly gendered patterns of intimacy and sexuality (Holland et al.

1998; Gunnarson 2010; cf. Jónasdóttir 1994).

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 13

Sexual liberationist and counter-cultural currents within a broad range of social

movements after WW II undermined the normative expectation of monogamy (Pieper

and Bauer 2005). This is when the discourse on polyamory in a more narrow sense

took its starting point. Evidence suggests that variants of the term polyamory fi rst

appeared in the 1950s (Alan 2010) and solidifi ed on the subsequent decades. Pepper

Mint (2010) suggests that the older generation of poly-identifi ed people in the USA

(more specifi cally in San Francisco) came of age in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The

term has then gained increasing popularity over the last two decades (Ritchie and

Barker 2006).

Polyamory advocates believe that polyamory can resolve a lot of the contradictions

in intimate relationships in the current historical conjuncture (Anapol 2010; Anderlini-

D’Onofrio 2009). But what are the distinctive features of poly love? In the following, I

will analyse salient themes in or basic elements of the discourse of poly love.

L O V E I S T H E F O U N D A T I O N F O R E R O T I C I S M / S E X U A L I T Y L O V E I S T H E F O U N D A T I O N F O R E R O T I C I S M / S E X U A L I T Y

References to eroticism/sexuality are implicit in most discussions of polyamory.

This is evident in the common usage of polyamory as an umbrella term for “responsible

non-monogamy”. Schroedter and Vetter (2010) see in most discussions of polyamory

references to romantic versions of love.14 Eroticism has been an integral part of most

conceptualisations of romantic love (Lenz 1998). At the same time, there are positions

within poly communities, according to which poly relationships do not have to be sexual

at all (cf. Klesse 2007a). There is a space in the discourse of poly love for the exploration

of non-sexual forms of intimate partnership or loving friendship. From this perspective,

polyamory may also be an interesting issue for people who identify as asexual (Scherrer

2010). In principle, polyamory welcomes erotic and sexual involvements with multiple

partners. At the same time, there is a strong emphasis that these multiple involvements

should be of a “loving kind”. This explains the controversial or marginal status of “casual

sex” in many polyamory communities (Klesse 2006; 2007a). Marianne, a research

participant in my study, considered her disinterest in “casual sex” as a direct out-fl ow of

her polyamorous orientation. She saw casual sex (whether with strangers, acquaintances

or friends) primarily as a feature of non-monogamy. In contradistinction, polyamory

would be realised in a person’s commitment to a limited number of emotional or loving

relationships. “I guess polyamory’s more about love and non-monogamy’s more about

sex really, because I mean there’s different ways of doing non-monogamy.” The implication

is that in polyamory you do not have sex without love, although you may love somebody

with whom you do not intend to have sex. Consequently, love appears as the defi ning

feature of polyamorous desire. A similar point is made by Anapol, only from an explicitly

spiritualistic point of view. In her “hybrid” concept “sexuallove”, love, eroticism and

spirituality merge to bring about true polyamory (1997; 2010). The assumption that sex

should be an expression of love is also at the heart of the quite common dismissal of

swinging as repulsive, because it allegedly lacks emotionality and intimacy (Klesse 2006;

14 Schroedter and Vetter (2010:27) suggest that it is highly unlikely to encounter, for example,

a description of a mother as polyamorous because she loves both her lover and her child.

A R T I C L E S14

Ritchie 2010; McDonald 2010; cf. Heckert 2010a).15 Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio’s

(2009:104–128) spiritualistic, eco-feminist proposal of a “new politics of love” takes a

more sex-positive stance by explicitly embracing the “alternative styles of love” in

LGBTQ, BDSM, swinging, polyamorous and non-monogamous communities. In her work,

the boundaries between love, sexuality and eroticism are transposed in an endorsement

of the ars erotica, a political rejection of modernist interpretations of sexuality (via a

Foucauldian critique of normativity), and an incorporation of “sex” into a profoundly

eroticised spiritual-scientifi c cosmology. From this point of view, all love always contains

an erotic (if not sexual) element. Here, too, poly sex becomes indistinguishable from poly

love, although the signifi cance of sex is not diminished in this confl ation.

P O L Y L O V E I S N O N - E X C L U S I V E , U N L I M I T E D P O L Y L O V E I S N O N - E X C L U S I V E , U N L I M I T E D A N D O V E R A B U N D A N TA N D O V E R A B U N D A N T

Polyamorous love is non-exclusive and potentially unlimited. This is obvious in

the out-right rejection of compulsory monogamy at the heart of polyamory. Anapol’s

defi nition in her book “Polyamory—The New Love without Limits” puts that quite

explicitly:

Polyamory: A lovestyle which arises from the understanding that love cannot be

forced to fl ow, or not fl ow, in any particular direction: Polyamory emphasizes

consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to engage with rather than

accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person at a time (1997:179).

Polyamory is non-exclusive by being open to multiple partnerships. It is without

limits by rejecting limiting conventions. This does not mean that all poly-identifi ed

people have multiple relationships. Many may have only one partner or even no

partner at all. Yet in polyamory love is construed as an active agent which has a

potential to grow eternally. For example, Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt

construe love as a potentially limitless resource in their challenge of what they call

the “starvation economy” of monogamous romanticism.

Many people believe, explicitly or implicitly, that romantic love, intimacy and

connection are fi nite capabilities of which there is never enough to go around,

and that if you give some to one person, you must be taking some away from

another (1997:35).

They then continue:

Our belief is that the human capacity for sex and love and intimacy is far greater

than most people think—possibly infi nite—and that having a lot of satisfying

connection simply makes it possible for you to have a lot more (1997:36).

15 Deborah Anapol, who in the past has drawn rather rigid lines between swinging and

polyamory, is more inclined to consider similarities in the approaches between swingers and poly-

identifi ed people in her most recent publication (2010:13). See also Frank and DeLamater (2010)

for a deconstruction of the boundaries between swinging, polyamory and other non-monogamies.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 15

The potential overabundance of polyamory is also celebrated in the concept of

“compersion”, a poly term for the warm feeling and happiness induced by experiencing

a beloved partner enjoying the relationship with another lover/partner of theirs. The

more recent creation of the emotion word “frubbly” aims to capture similar feelings

(Richtie and Barker 2006:595). Many polyamorous people acknowledge that there

are limits to polyamory. Yet they tend to identify these limits on the level of

practicalities (such as time management) and not on the level of an emotional

capacity for loving.

P O L Y L O V E I S B A S E D O N F R E E D O MP O L Y L O V E I S B A S E D O N F R E E D O M

Some of my interview partners suggested that polyamory was primarily about

freedom. Andy who had several relationships of various degrees of intensity at the

time of the interview explained:

Andy: To me it’s about freedom mainly, [about] not having to be just with one

person or for it even to be a sexual thing. There’s different ways of looking at

relationships. I don’t see… although I have a boyfriend, I don’t think that we

have an open relationship. It’s just one of my relationships, although it’s very,

very important to me.

The theme of freedom is also mobilised by authors who place polyamory in a

historical lineage with the “free love” philosophy of the late 1960s and early 1970s hippie

movement (cf. Easton and Liszt 1997; Pieper and Bauer 2005; Schroedter and Vetter

2010). Some poly activists are more reluctant to claim this legacy, due to the limitations

imposed by the heteronormative and sexist ideologies which were salient in the “free

love” discourse. In this context, we should not forget, however, that feminist traditions

have brought about a vital critique of monogamy, too. Feminist critiques of compulsory

monogamy aimed at broadening the space for female erotic autonomy which for many

ultimately included the freedom to have multiple partners (Gregory 1983; Jackson and

Scott 2004; Jackson 2010). Such political beliefs have also shaped the writing of feminist

authors on polyamory (cf. Noël 2006:610–613; Pallotta-Chiarolli 2004). Yet while there

are certainly similarities between older feminist traditions of critiquing monogamy and

contemporary polyamory, there are also differences. In contradistinction to the primarily

political rejection of monogamy in 1970s feminist discourse, contemporary poly literature

often lacks a structural analysis of power or appeals to collective action. Liberal notions

of choice are most prominent (Klesse 2007a; Noël 2006; Wilkinson 2010).

P O L Y L O V E I S R E A L I S E D I N C O M M I T M E N T P O L Y L O V E I S R E A L I S E D I N C O M M I T M E N T

Polyamory endorses commitment. Many people would argue that the answer to

the question whether a person is non-monogamous or polyamorous can ultimately be

decided by knowing whether that person has a general interest in taking up a longer-

standing commitment with a new lover. Polyamory is based on a strong appreciation

of long-term relationships.

A R T I C L E S16

Andy: I tend to prefer long relationships. People talk to me about non-monogamy,

polyamory and… the question I get—one of the criticisms I’ve had is that

people think it’s just like one night stands or it’s just like easy sex all the time.

But to me it isn’t. To me I prefer long term relationships, whether they’re exclusive

or non-exclusive. I like relationships that last a long time. I hope, like the ones

that are happening at the moment do. In ten years time, if you spoke to me in

ten years time, it would be good if I said “well I’ve been seeing someone for

fi fteen years now, and I’ve been seeing these two people for ten years.” I’d like

that.

Yet the notion of commitment in polyamory is not fully exhausted in the value

of long-term intimacy. Commitment is also realised in the active effort to make a

relationship “work” (Petrella 2007). The readiness to work towards the resolution of

confl icts and the emphasis on communication are all demonstrations of a deep

commitment to the relationships in question. Polyamorous relationship guides often

contain whole chapters of advice on how to come to agreements, if confl icts arise

between partners (e.g. Easton and Liszt 1997:189–204; cf. Klesse 2007c).16 In poly

love, commitment seems to fi nd its ultimate manifestation in agreement (on freely

chosen rules) (cf. Wosik-Correa 2010). Of course, agreements are only helpful if the

partners also honour them and treat each other with integrity (Anapol 2010:80–82).

However, agreements and rules always impose constrictions. This is why it is diffi cult

to see all aspects of polyamory from a perspective of “freedom”. At times, poly love

can even look like the very opposite of “freedom”.

H O N E S T Y I S T H E B E D R O C K O F P O L Y L O V E A N D I N T I M A C YH O N E S T Y I S T H E B E D R O C K O F P O L Y L O V E A N D I N T I M A C Y

Honesty is described as a pre-condition for an ethical approach to polyamory in

virtually all guide books and manifestos on polyamory (cf. Klesse 2007a; Pallotta-

Chiarolli 2004). Many describe honesty as the core value in polyamory communities.

Tony: Well, there’s a sort of a mantra amongst what you could call the polyamory

community. And that’s honesty, honesty, honesty! You’ve got to be honest about

everything and say how you feel about it. But there’s little you can do because

they’ll know anyway.

Honesty is the sine qua non of polyamorous practice. It is the precondition

for an active consensus which is supposed to hold poly arrangements together

(Wosik-Correa 2010). It is the starting point for establishing a relationship culture

in which the permanent re-negotiation of boundaries becomes possible. Yet

honesty is more than a necessary element in a conversational process. It is an icon

for a high degree of interpersonal intimacy, which is based on the assumption that

there should be no secrets and no barriers between partners. Tony alludes to this

16 My own study demonstrated that confl icts about the terms and conditions of non-monoga-

my do in fact surface in the everyday dealings within polyamorous relationships. I present an in-

depth analysis of the power dimensions and dynamics of such confl icts and negotiations in chapter

six of my book The Spectre of Promiscuity (2007a).

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 17

quality of his relationships, when he suggests that his partners would always already

know anyway. If the dissolution of boundaries in polyamorous intimacy is fi nally

realised, honesty, its original precondition, is not necessary anymore. Lynn Jamieson

(1998) has described this vision of intimacy as “disclosing intimacy”. Disclosure is

described as a major route for enabling mutual intimate knowledge and closeness. It

is mainly this commitment to honesty and communication, which allows polyamory

to challenge the hegemonic cheating/monogamy system (Mint 2004).

P O L Y L O V E M E A N S D E D I C A T I O N P O L Y L O V E M E A N S D E D I C A T I O N

Polyamory envisions an intersubjective orientation, which reaches out to the

whole person. It does not allow convention to dictate any limits on intimacy. Each

important relationship (and not only sexual ones) should get the chance to

develop its full potential (Easton and Liszt 1997). Some of my interview partners

described polyamory as a profoundly friendship-centred relationship philosophy.

The polyamorous person is dedicated to their beloved partners and friends. In

fact, in many polyamorous settings the boundaries between friendship-, lover-, or

partner-relations may get blurred (Murray 1995). The notion of radical intimacy

promoted in polyamory transcends the categorical boundaries between status-

defi ned relationships. For Cath, polyamory contains the promise “that people, who

are not sexually close, housemates, close friends, get the whole thing, all the way

up and all the way down”. Within polyamory, she suggests, friendships are taken

seriously and can demand as much affection, attention and consideration as

sexual relationships.17 Cath, who has been only in relationships with women

previous to her entering her current relationship with a male bisexual partner,

continues to praise the power of female friendships. According to her experience,

closeness and intimacy are most intense in female friendships and sexual

relationships. For some polyamorous women, poly love is most intensely realised

in the encounter between women. Such accounts recapture the long history of

hailing women’s friendship in lesbian and bisexual feminism (Faderman 1985;

Smith-Rosenberg 1975; Rothblum 1999). This endorsement of close female

relationships can be seen as a further specifi cally feminist strand in polyamory

(Barker and Ritchie 2007).

P O L Y L O V E I S W O R KP O L Y L O V E I S W O R K

There is a strong emphasis on negotiation in polyamorous relationship culture.

In her study of polyamory relationship manuals, Petrella (2007) points out that the

conceptualisation of relationships as “work” recurs in virtually all polyamory guide

books. According to Petrella, the emphasis on work (around negotiation) echoes an

17 The rejection of a hierarchical order which prioritises erotic relationships (or “partner-

ships”) at the expense of non-erotic relationships (or “friendships”) has also been referred to as

“relationship anarchy” (see the statements by Andie Nordgren in Anapol 2010:205–207 and Barker

and Langdridge 2011). On the interrelationship between anarchism and polyamory, see also Heck-

ert (2010a; 2010b).

A R T I C L E S18

ascetic Protestant work ethics. From a (Foucauldian) governmentality perspective,

Petrella interprets this polyamorous “work ethics” as a strategy of (self)

responsibilisation: “Your relationship will (only) work if you work on it—and if you

work on yourself at the same time” (for example, by learning how to manage your

jealousy, etc.). Moreover, by demonstrating that they are undertaking all this labour

for the sake of maintaining enormously complex and emotionally demanding

relationships, poly folks are able to prove their dedication, both to their partners and

to their “lovestyle”. This way, Petrella argues, polyamory advocates manage to

represent a higher ethics which supercedes the banal hedonism of simple pleasure-

seeking (cf. Klesse 2007c).

In her polemical discussion of the cultural politics of love and adultery Laura

Kipnis (1998; 2003), too, assumes the stance that relationships are work. Adultery

can therefore be understood as a specifi c way to resist the work regime of maintaining

long-term romantic relationships in everyday routines of intimacy. However, these

mundane acts of resistance and these temporary escape routes are not options for

those who subscribe to the model of poly love. This is because polyamory fully

believes in the ethical foundations of the love = work equation.

P O L Y L O V E I S R E A L I S E D I N C A R E F O R T H E O T H E RP O L Y L O V E I S R E A L I S E D I N C A R E F O R T H E O T H E R

Looking at the centrality of an ethos of negotiation in polyamory culture we

can identify one further element of poly love discourses. Love is realised in the

care for the other. A multitude of polyamorous relationship guides instruct

readers on how to make sure that their partners are emotionally safe in multiple

relationship settings. These discussions focus on the need to recognise individual

differences and to practice trusting, non-manipulative and non-aggressive styles

of conversation. The attempts to safeguard the emotional comfort and safety of

all participants can to large extent be subsumed to what Lynn Jamieson (1998)

calls “disclosing intimacy”, i.e. an intimacy which is established in what and how

people say things to each other. Yet, according to Jamieson, this is a limiting

view. Of even greater importance than “disclosing intimacy” is “caring intimacy”

which is about acts of material and social support in everyday life. Of course, poly

love (like any love) is also lived through this dimension of caring intimacy.

However, publications on polyamory usually do not have a great deal to say on

these issues. This can be seen a serious fl aw, which stems from the fact that there

is not suffi cient awareness on the implication of social divisions (such as class,

race/ethnicity, gender and sexuality) within polyamorous communities

(Haritaworn, Lin, and Klesse 2006; Noël 2006). For example, some feminist

research participants have deplored the persistence of a profoundly gendered

division of labour in polyamorous families, an issue which does not fi nd a lot of

attention in popular writing on polyamory. At the same time, it could be argued

that polyamorous love discourse is less prescriptive on the “caring dimension of

intimacy”, because it wants to embrace relationships of very different shapes and

degrees of closeness. The details of levels of responsibility and obligation are

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 19

therefore not self-evident and need to be negotiated in a joint process with

respective partners, just as it is the case in other kinship formations (cf. Finch

and Mason 1991; 1993).

P O L Y L O V E I S T R A N S C E N D E N T ( A L T R U I S T I C , T H E L O V E O F P O L Y L O V E I S T R A N S C E N D E N T ( A L T R U I S T I C , T H E L O V E O F T H E W O R L D , T H E L O V E O F G O D )T H E W O R L D , T H E L O V E O F G O D )

In the accounts of some of my interview partners, polyamorous love has also

been cast in specifi cally religious terms (cf. Goss 2004). For example, Marianne

reconciles her Christian beliefs with her polyamorous practice through a re-

interpretation of the Christian obligation to love one another:

Marianne: You see, I reconcile being poly with Christianity in that Jesus said we

should love one another, and that’s what I do. I love lots of people, and I fall in

love with lots of people. And that’s what’s important to me. And I know people

who are sexual with lots of people, and they see it as an extension of their love.

It’s just a way of expressing love.

Other proponents of polyamory defi ne love in more spiritualistic terms.

Diverse new age and religious discourses have lef t their imprint on contemporary

polyamory cultures. According to Anderlini-D’Onofrio, the following are among

the most important ones: New Age spirituality, new Paganism and Wiccan religions

(2004a; 2009). Tantra practices provide another powerful magnet (Schroedter

and Vetter 2010). In some publications, Anderlini-D’Onofrio claims that there is

an affi liation of polyamory (and bisexuality) with pre-modern or “primitive”

cultures, inspired by the alleged lack of sexual differentiation (along the homo/

hetero divide) in these cultures: “There erotic love is of ten part of a pantheistic

concept of the scared which calls for gentler, contemplative, and more 'feminine'

relationships with nature” (2004b:3). Such endorsements of “primitivism” reveals

the extent to which poly love discourses (like other love discourses, too) deploy

heavily exoticising and/or profoundly racialised concepts (Povinelli 2006; Willey

2006). This tendency is also evident in the enormous popularity of a spiritualistic

brand of Orientalism in many polyamorous communities (cf. Haritaworn, Lin, and

Klesse 2006; Noël 2006). In her newest book, Gaia and the New Politics of Love,

Anderlini-D’Onofrio (2009) discusses polyamory as a part of a new life-affi rming,

peaceful, eco-feminist practice of love which transcends all dichotomies and will

help to save the planet from ultimate destruction. All these examples show that

in some accounts of polyamory, poly love transcends the dimension of

intersubjective humanism and expands into the realm of holistic spiritualism. In

these discourses, poly love is transcendent and evokes the notion of the sacred.

In some versions, polyamory gets symbolically infl ated to an extent that it is said

to carry “evolutionist” qualities, healing powers or even the potential to “save

the world”. Poly love thus becomes a rallying point for anarcho-primitivist, radical

eco-feminist or queer-spiritualistic politics (cf. Merrick 1999).

A R T I C L E S20

C O N C L U S I O NC O N C L U S I O N

Love is central to the defi nition of polyamory. Polyamory presents a distinctive

discourse on love in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The discourse of poly love

is constructed around a range of themes and values, an analysis of which can help us

to understand the kinds of emotionality and intimacy which are envisioned by poly

advocates and practitioners. In this chapter, I have analysed some salient features of

the debates on poly love. These “elements” in a discourse of poly love form part of a

larger repertoire of meanings which is available to people to develop their own

understandings of polyamory as an intimate aesthetics or erotic practice. These

elements can appear in various combinations and not all of them have to be present

in every poly narrative.

Even if most of these elements seem to correspond well with each other in most

poly discourses, they may also appear as contradictory in others. The discourse on

poly love is eclectic. It collects tropes from romantic love discourses, humanist

psychology, feminist ethics, queer family ideologies, sexual liberationism and diverse

forms of spiritualism and religion. At least with regard to the nature of its discursive

formation, it can be argued that poly love is ultimately “promiscuous”.18 By embracing

the possibility of multiple partnerships, polyamory challenges the hegemony of the

core couple as the only valid script for erotic and intimate relationships. Polyamory

embraces a diversity of relationship styles. Consequently, the discourse on poly love

undermines the cultural regime of compulsory monogamy. However, it does not

necessarily challenge the idea of romantic love, which has been instrumental to the

strategies which hold in place the values of monogamy and the long-term couple.

My analysis suggests that at least some aspects of romantic love discourses have

been absorbed into the notion of poly love. This is evidenced in the emphasis on the

close interrelation between love, intimacy, affection and sexual desire in polyamory

(Wilkinson 2010). The strong value placed on commitment and long-term bonds,

too, can be interpreted as a re-working of themes derived from older romantic love

discourses. The demand for faithfulness has given way to an endorsement of the

principle of negotiation. There is no automatic expectation to be sexually faithful

to one’s partner(s) and if some notion of “faithfulness” has survived, it has been

re-fashioned as “emotional faithfulness” (cf. Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan 2001;

Wosik-Correa 2010). Like the discourses on romantic love, poly love discourses value

individuality. The moment of individuation is enhanced through an endorsement of

self-actualisation. Ideas on poly love further reinforce the common expectation

that personal happiness can ultimately be found in loving, intimate partnership(s).

To the extent that local polyamorous communities welcome lesbian, gay male,

bisexual, transgender and queer poly-identifi ed people in their spaces and networks

18 I say this tongue-in-cheek. I am well aware that many poly advocates would hate nothing

more than seeing polyamory dragged in the proximity of “promiscuity”. Promiscuity does not have

a very good reputation. It is therefore better to be avoided, even on the metaphorical level. I as-

sume that this is also why Deric Shannon and Abbey Willis (2010) prefer the metaphor “theoretical

polyamory” over the probably much more common one of “theoretical promiscuity” in their propa-

gation of an un-orthodox (anarchist) theoretical eclecticism.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 21

(which is not always the case) (cf. Sheff 2006), it could be argued that

conceptualisations of poly love have overcome aspects of the heteronormative

dimension of romantic love. Yet other aspects of the romantic legacy are often

reinforced, as evidenced in the tendency among many poly advocates to exclude

more pleasure or sex-focussed forms of non-monogamy from the understanding of

polyamory proper (Klesse 2006; Ritchie 2010). Of course, such dismissals have always

been subject to contestation (like any attempt to come up with prescriptive ideas on

how to practice polyamory in the right way) (Aviram 2009). However, it could be

argued that wherever such practices of “othering” take place they usually fi nd strong

support in the endorsement of love as the ultimate value of erotic intimacy. Discourses

on poly love are therefore quite ambivalent regarding their potential for critically

transcending contemporary love culture.

REFERENCESREFERENCES Adam, Barry D. 2010. Relationship Innovation in Male Couples. Pp. 55–70 in: Understanding Non-

Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Alan. 2007. “Polyamory” Enters the Oxford English Dictionary, and Tracking the Word’s Origins. (January 6, 2007, up-dated, December 18, 2010). Polyamorous Percolations. Polyamory in the

News. Retrieved April 26, 2011. (polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/polyamory-enters-

oxford-english.html).

Alan. 2010. First Appearance of the Word “Polyamorist”: 1953! (December 26, 2010). Polyamorous

Percolations. Polyamory in the News. Retrieved April 26, 2011. (polyinthemedia.blogspot.

com/2010/12/fi rst-appearance-of-word-polyamorist.html#links).

alt.polyamory. 1997. alt.polyamory Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Internet FAQ Archives. Re-

trieved February 21, 2011 (www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/).

Anapol, Deborah. 1997. Polyamory: The New Love without Limits. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource

Center.

Anapol, Deborah. 2010. Polyamory in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld

Publishers.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. 2004a. Polyamory. Pp. 164–165 in: Sexuality. The Essential Glossary.

Edited by Jo Eadie. London, UK: Arnold.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. 2004b. Polyfi delity. Pp. 165–166 in: Sexuality. The Essential Glossary.

Edited by Jo Eadie. London, UK: Arnold.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. 2004c. Plural Loves: Bi and Poly Utopias for a New Millennium. Pp. 1–6

in: Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living. Edited by Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio. London,

UK: Harrington Park Press.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. (ed.). 2004d. Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living. London, UK:

Harrington Park Press.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. 2009. Gaia and the New Politics of Love. Notes for a Poly Planet. Berkley,

CA: North Atlantic Books.

Aviram, Hadar. 2009. Make Love, Not Law: Perceptions on Marriage Equality Struggle among

Polyamorous Activists. Pp. 123–148 in: Bisexuality and Same-Sex Marriage. Edited by M. Paz

Galupo. London, UK: Routledge.

Aviram, Hadar. 2010. Geeks, Godesses, and Green Eggs: Political Mobilization and the Cultural Locus

of the Polyamorous Community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pp. 87–93 in: Understanding

Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Barker, Meg, and Darran Langdridge. 2011. Whatever happened to Non-monogamies? Critical

Refl ections on Recent Research and Theory. Sexualities 13(6):748–772.

A R T I C L E S22

Barker, Meg, and Ani Ritchie. 2007. Hot Bi Babes and Feminist Politics: Polyamorous Women Speak

Out. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review 8(2):141–151.

Barthes, Roland. 1978. A Lover’s Discourse. (Translated by Richard Howard). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

Bauer, Robin. 2010. Non-Monogamy in Queer BDSM Communities: Putting the Sex Back into

Alternative Relationship Practices and Discourse. Pp. 142–153 in: Understanding Non-

Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2003. Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, Ulrich, and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 1995. The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash. 1995. Refl exive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and

Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bell, David, and Jon Binnie. 2000. The Sexual Citizen. Queer Politics and Beyond. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Bennett, Jessica. 2009. Only You. And You. And You. Newsweek, July 29, 2009. Retrieved February

21, 2011 (www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html).

Bernhardt, Colette. 2009. Meet the Polyamorists – A Growing Band of People Who Believe that

More Lovers Equals More Love. The Independent, September 13. Retrieved February 21, 2011

(www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/taboo-tolerance/meet-the-polyamorists-

n d a s h- a - gr o w i n g - b a n d - o f - p e o p l e - w h o - b e l i e v e - t h a t - m o r e - l o v e r s - e q u a l s - m o r e -

love-1785263.html).

Bi.Org. 2010. Poly in the UK. Retrieved February 21, 2011 (bi.org/uk-poly/polyuk.html).

Cancian, Francesca M. 1987. Love in America. Gender and Self-Development. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Collins, Marcus. 2003. Modern Love. An Intimate History of Men and Women in Twentieth-Century

Britain. London, UK: Atlantic Books.

Druckerman, Pamela. 2007. Lust in Translation. Infi delity from Tokyo to Tennessee. London, UK:

Penguin Books.

Easton, Dossie, and Catherine A. Liszt. 1997. The Ethical Slut. A Guide to Infi nite Sexual Possibilities.

San Francisco, CA: Greenery Press.

Faderman, Lillian. 1985. Surpassing the Love of Men. London, UK: The Women’s Press.

Finch, Janet, and Jennifer Mason. 1991. Obligations of Kinship in Contemporary Britain: is there

Normative Agreement. British Journal of Sociology 42(3):345–67.

Finch, Janet, and Jennifer Mason. 1993. Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London, UK: Routledge.

Finch, Janet, and Penny Summerfi eld 1999. Social Reconstruction and Companionate Marriage,

1945-59. Pp. 12–35 in: The Sociology of the Family. A Reader. Edited by Graham Allan. Oxford,

UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Frank, Katherine, and John DeLamater. 2010. Deconstructing Non-monogamy: Boundaries,

Identities, and Fluidities across Relationships. Pp. 3–8 in: Understanding Non-Monogamies.

Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Fromm, Erich. 1971. The Art of Loving. London, UK: Unwin Books.

Von Gantenbrink, Nora. 2011. Carl Gustafs Freunde. [“Carl Gustaf’s Friends.”]. Der Spiegel Online 1,

January 3, 2011. Retrieved February 21, 2011 (www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-76121053.

html).

Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern

Societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gill, Vicky L. 2007. “I Got You, You, You, You and You, Babe.” The Sunday Times Magazine, 3rd March

2007:45–55.

Goss, Robert .E. 2004. Proleptic Sexual Love: God’s Promiscuity Refl ected in Christian Polyamory.

Theology and Sexuality 11(1):52–63.

Gregory, Deborah. 1983. From Where I Stand: A Case for Feminist Bisexuality. Pp. 141–156 in: Sex &

Love. New Thoughts and Old Contradictions. Edited by Sue Cartledge and Joanna Ryan. London,

UK: The Women’s Press.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 23

Gunnarsson, Lena. 2010. Pinpointing the Mechanisms of Female Subordination in Heterosexual

Love. Unpublished paper presentation. GEXcel Conference of Workshops. Love in Our Time—A

Question for Feminism. Örebro University, Sweden.

Halberstam, Judith. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, PA and London, UK: Duke University Press.

Haritaworn, Jin., Chin-ju Lin, and Christian Klesse. 2006. Poly/logue: A Critical Introduction to

Polyamory. Sexualities 9(5):515–529.

Heckert, Jamie. 2010a. Love without Borders? Intimacy, Identity and the State of Compulsory

Monogamy. Pp. 255–266 in: Understanding Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran

Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Heckert, Jamie. 2010b. Relating Differently. Sexualities 13(4):403–411.

Holland, Janet, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe, and Rachel Thomson, R. 1998. The Male in the

Head. Young People, Heterosexuality and Power. London, UK: The Tufnell Press.

Howarth, David. 2000. Discourse. Buckingham, Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Howarth, David, and Yannis Stavrakakis. 2000. Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis.

Pp. 1–23 in: Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change.

Edited by David Howarth, Aletta J. Norval and Yannis Stavrakakis. Manchester, UK and New

York, NY: Manchester University Press.

Hutchins, Loraine. 1996. Bisexuality: Politics and Community. Pp. 240–262 in: Bisexuality. The

Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority. Edited by Beth A. Firestein. London, UK: Sage.

Illouz, Eva. 2007. Cold Intimacies. The Making of Emotional Capitalism. London, UK: Polity.

Jackson, Stevi. 2010. Love, Social Change and Everyday Heterosexuality. Unpublished paper

presentation. GEXcel Conference of Workshops. Love in Our Time—A Question for Feminism.

Örebro University, Sweden.

Jackson, Stevi, and Sue Scott. 2004. The Personal is Still Political: Heterosexuality, Feminism and

Monogamy. Feminism & Psychology 14(1):151–157.

Jamieson, Lynn. 1998. Intimacy. Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge, UK:

Polity.

Jamieson, Lynn. 1999. Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the “Pure Relationship”. Sociology

33(3):477–494.

Jónasdóttir, Anna. 1994. Why Women are Oppressed. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Kaldera, Raven. 2005. Pagan Polyamory. Becoming a Tribe of Hearts. Woodbury, MI: Llewellyn

Publications.

Kipnis, Laura. 1998. Adultery. Critical Inquiry 24(2):289–327.

Kipnis, Laura. 2003. Against Love. A Polemic. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Klesse, Christian. 2006. Polyamory and its “Others”: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy.

Sexualities 9(5):565–583.

Klesse, Christian. 2007a. The Spectre of Promiscuity. Gay Male and Bisexual Non-Monogamies and

Polyamories. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Klesse, Christian. 2007b. Gender, Sexuality, and Race in Post/modernisation Theories on the

Intimate. Pp. 59–79 in: The Sexual Politics of Desire and Belonging. Interdisciplinary Readings

on Sex and Sexuality. Edited by Alejandro Cervantes-Carson and Nick Rumens. Tijnmuiden, The

Netherlands: Rodopi.

Klesse, Christian. 2007c. “How to be a Happy Homosexual?!” Non-monogamy and Governmentality in Relationship Manuals for Gay Men in the 1980s and 1990s. The Sociological Review

55(3):571–591.

Klesse, Christian. 2007d. Von der Möglichkeit und dem Versprechen, viele zu Lieben—Diskurse über

”Polyamory“. [On the Possibility of Loving More than One Person—Discourses on ”Polyamory“].

Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, [Journal of Sexuality Research] 20(3):316–330.

Labriola, Kathy. 1999. Models of Open Relationships. Pp. 217–226 in: The Lesbian Polyamory Reader.

Open Relationships, Non-Monogamy, and Casual Sex, edited by Marcia Munson and Judith P.

Stelboum. London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

A R T I C L E S24

Lano, Kevin, and Claire Parry (eds.). 1995a. Breaking the Barriers to Desire. New Approaches to

Multiple Relationships. Nottingham, UK: Five Leaves Publications,.

Lano, Kevin, and Claire Parry Lano. 1995b. Preface. Pp. v–vi in: Breaking the Barriers to Desire. New

Approaches to Multiple Relationships. Edited by Lano Kevin and Claire Parry. Nottingham, UK:

Five Leaves Publications.

Lenz, Karl. 1998. Soziologie der Zweierbeziehung. Eine Einführung. [Sociology of the Couple. An

Introduction]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

McDonald, Dee. 2010. Swinging: Pushing the Boundaries of Monogamy? Pp. 70–81 in: Understanding

Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Merrick (ed.). 1999. Sexyouality. Challenging the Culture of Monogamy. Leeds, UK: Godhaven

INK.

Mint, Pepper. 2004. The Power Dynamics of Cheating: Effects on Polyamory and Bisexuality. Pp.

55–76 in: Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living. Edited by Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio.

London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

Mint, Pepper. 2009. Age and Polyamory Organizing. Freaksexual. Retrieved May 6, 2009 (freaksexu-

al.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/age-and-polyamory-organizing/).

Moon, Lindsey. 2008. Queer(y)ing the Heterosexualisation of Emotion. Pp. 36–53 in: Feeling Queer

or Queer Feelings. Radical Approaches to Counselling Sex, Sexualities and Genders. Edited by

Lyndsey Moon. London, UK: Routledge.

Munson, Marcia, and Judith P. Stelboum (eds.). 1999a. The Lesbian Polyamory Reader. Open

Relationships, Non-Monogamy and Casual Sex. London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

Munson, Marcia, and Judith P. Stelboum. 1999b. Introduction: The Lesbian Polyamory Reader: Open

Relationships, Non-Monogamy and Casual Sex. Pp. 1–10 in: The Lesbian Polyamory Reader.

Open Relationships, Non-Monogamy and Casual Sex. Edited by Marcia Munson and Judith P.

Stelboum. London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

Murray, Annie S. 1995. Forsaking All Others: A Bifeminist Discussion of Compulsory Monogamy. Pp.

293–304 in: Bisexual Politics. Theories, Queries & Visions. Edited by Naomi Tucker, Liz

Highleyman, and Rebecca Kaplan. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Noël, Melita J. 2006. Progressive Polyamory: Considering Issues of Diversity. Sexualities 9(5):602–619.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, Maria. 2004. ”Take Four Pioneering Poly Women”: A Review of Three Classical

Texts on Polyamory. Pp. 227–234 in: Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living. Edited by

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio. London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

Petrella, Serena. 2007. Ethical Sluts and Closet Polyamorists: Dissident Eroticism, Abject Subjects

and the Normative Cycle in Self–Help Books on Free Love. Pp. 151–170 in: The Sexual Politics

of Desire and Belonging. Edited by Alejandro Cervantes-Carson and Nick Rumens. Tijnmuiden,

The Netherlands: Rodopi.

Pieper, Marianne, and Robin Bauer. 2005. Polyamory und Mono-Normativität: Ergebnisse einer

Empirischen Studie über Nicht-Monogame Lebensformen. [Polyamory and Mono-

normativity. Results of an Empirical Study in Non-monogamous Ways of Life]. Pp. 59–70

in: Mehr als eine Liebe. Polyamouröse Beziehungen. [More Loves Than One. Polyamorous

Relationships]. Edited by Laura Merritt, Traude Bührmann, and Nadja Boris Schefzig. Berlin,

Germany: Orlanda.

Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2006. The Empire of Love. Toward a Theory of Intimacy, Genealogy, and

Carnality. Durham, PA and London, UK: Duke University Press.

Richards, Christine. 2010. Trans and Non-monogamies. Pp. 121–133 in: Understanding Non-

Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Ritchie, Ani. 2010. Discursive Constructions of Polyamory in Mono-Normative Media Culture. Pp.

46–50 in: Understanding Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge.

London, UK: Routledge.

Ritchie, Ani, and Meg Barker. 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 Monoga-

my. Sexualities 9(5):584–601.

C H R I S T I A N K L E S S E . N O T I O N S O F L O V E I N P O LYA M O R Y  E L E M E N T S I N A D I S C O U R S E . . . 25

Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Governing the Soul. The Shaping of the Private Self. London, UK: Free Association

Books.

Rothblum, Esther. 1999. Poly-Friendships. Pp. 71–84 in: The Lesbian Polyamory Reader. Open

Relationships, Non-Monogamy, and Casual Sex. Edited by Marcia Munson and Judith P. Stelboum.

London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

Rubin, Roger H. 2001. Alternative Lifestyles Revisited, or: Whatever Happened to Swingers, Group

Marriages, and Communes? Journal of Family Issues 22(6):711–726.

Scherrer, Kristin S. 2010. Asexual Relationships: What Does Asexuality Have to Do with

Polyamory? Pp. 154–159 in: Understanding Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and

Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Schroedter, Thomas, and Vetter, Christiane. 2010. Polyamory. Eine Erinnerung. [Polyamory. A

Memory]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schmetterling Verlag.

Seidman, Steven. 1991. Romantic Longings. Love in America, 1830-1980. London, UK: Routledge.

Shannon, Derrick, and Abbey Willis. 2010. Theoretical Polyamory: Some Thoughts on Loving,

Thinking, and Queering Anarchism. Sexualities 13(4):403–411.

Sheff, Elisabeth. 2005. Polyamorous Women, Sexual Subjectivity and Power. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography 34(3):251–283.

Sheff, Elisabeth. 2006. Poly-Hegemonic Masculinities. Sexualities 9(5):621–642.

Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. 1975. The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in

Nineteenth Century America. Signs, 1(1):1–29.

Taormino, Tristan. 2008. Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships. San

Francisco, CA: Cleis Press.

The Ravenhearts. n.d. Frequently-Asked Questions re: Polyamory. Order of the Mithrel Star.

Retrieved February 21, 2011 (www.mithrilstar.org/Polyamory-FAQ-Ravenhearts.htm).

Weber, Adam. 2002. Survey Results. Who Are We? And Other Interesting Impressions. Loving More

Magazine 30:4–6.

Weeks, Jeffrey, Catherine Donovan, and Brian Heaphy. 1996. Families of Choice: Patterns of Non-

Heterosexual Relationships. A Literature Review. Social Science Research Papers No. 2, London,

UK: School of Education and Social Science, Southbank University.

Weeks, Jeffrey, Brian Heaphy, and Catherine Donovan. 2001. Same-Sex Intimacies. Families of Choice

and Other Life Experiments. London, UK: Routledge.

Wilkinson, Eleanor. 2010. What’s Queer about Non-monogamy Now? Pp. 243–254 in: Understanding

Non-Monogamies. Edited by Meg Barker and Darran Langdridge. London, UK: Routledge.

Willey, Angela. 2006. ”Christian Nations”, “Polygamic Races” and Women’s Rights: Towards a

Genealogy of Non/Monogamy and Whiteness. Sexualities, 9(5):530–546.

Wosik-Correa, Kassia. 2010. Agreements, Rules and Agentic Fidelity in Polyamorous Relationships.

Psychology & Sexuality 1(1):44–61.

Zell, Oberon. 1990. A Bouquet of Lovers. Retrieved June 25, 2005 (portal.lucerella.com/bouquet.

html).

Copyright of Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research is the property of Laboratorium: Russian

Review of Social Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.