Review: "Polyamory is a Quietly Revolutionary Political Tool in the U.S." (Quartz) (Patreon)

Quartz published this piece last week. Below are my key reactions, listed in chronological order.

—

1. Exclusionary Attitudes at poly parties: Tableaux, the first party mentioned, is definitely one of those poly gatherings with classist and ageist overtones. I went once, and was a bit turned off by the homogeny. 

If folx of color, if trans folx, if disabled, plus-sized or 45+ year old people aren't there, it means they either don't feel comfortable, or they weren't invited. To me, those are red flags that a space is not as inclusive / progressive as it would like you to believe.

2. Consumerism / Hypercapitalism in poly spaces: I appreciate the writer's apt observation about Tableaux's pro-consumerist vibe. While I don't fault individuals for enjoying the fruits of capitalism, it's very telling when a public space is full of solely hyper-materialistic guests. (For me, the conversations were mostly "what do you do?" and bragging about vacationing in the Swiss Alps. Stuff like that.) When you're trying to connect with people about intimacy, love and sex, a classist crowd makes you feel pressure to instead be performative about your career or proximity to power.

These kinds of hypercapitalist gatherings will gloss over the discomfort of getting to know strangers, and the fear of being really present with each other. I am not impoverished, and I have hiked the Swiss Alps. That just never comes up except at parties like this, when prompted by someone else. I find it very boring to replace genuine human connection with peacocking and elitism. 

3. Leon Feingold's argument that it's "illogical for [a person] to not be polyamorous." Full disclosure: I've met Leon Feingold. The reality is, he doesn't speak for all of us. He's positioned himself as New York's unofficial poly spokesperson, but he's always seemed (to me) like a poly man who likes to convert young monogamous women to the lifestyle. While he does fight for our rights and visibility, I caution anyone reading his words to take them with a grain of salt, because I personally have been turned off by his approach to poly, especially his public representation of our communities.

I believe non-monogamy and monogamy are both valid relationship structures. Anyone who acts holier-than-thou, as if polyamorous people are more evolved than monogamous people, are not being helpful and only serve to alienate anyone who might've otherwise been our allies.

4. Sheff's research on poly women is included in this piece, which is awesome. I covered her work recently, in case you missed it, so I'll only briefly mention it here.

5. Lack of political activism in polyamory can be a thing, sure. But I chalk this up to a growth in the number of poly people, therefore more types of poly people, including those who happily participate in existing social / political structures.

To claim that today's polyamory is somehow less radical, less politically active, less engaged than yesterday's poly, is to omit a large portion of our population. Plenty of folx still live on non-monogamous communes, organize and march to Fight The Power. You just probably won't find them at bougie mixers in Brooklyn.

6. "Polyamory is radical politics" by nature? Well, this sentiment seems to let inactive people off the hook, as if their existence is automatically progressive. Really, it depends. If you grew up in a liberal hippie town, or in a religious cult, polyamory might be conformist. If you grew up in a Southern Baptist, sexually oppressive town, your love style might be the biggest political fight of your life.

Apart from those extreme circumstances, I don't see how our day-to-day lives could be revolutionary by default. Is it radical to split the resources of multiple parents? Well, that happens in serial monogamy, too. (Step parents mean 3-4 people pitch in to raise a child). Is it radical to bend the gender roles? Well, plenty of monogamous people are evolving their gender definitions, as well. So she's giving poly too much credit for social changes that are already happening elsewhere.

7. "There are still sexist hang ups within polyamory" is true, mostly because poly people are still people. We all have to deprogram our root teachings on sex, gender, or what love should look like.

However, her conclusion that most poly women are queer but most poly men are straight, that's just completely false. It tells me she's only interviewing cis/straight poly people, like at Tableaux, so her findings are skewed.

8. "Polyamory also struggles with racial diversity" is very false. Many POC people practice poly and lead poly spaces, like Mischa Lin of Open Love NY or Kevin Patterson of Poly Role Models.

To give the writer the benefit of the doubt, she might be trying to say that some poly groups struggle with desegregation. This is true, just like every other mixed-race colonial culture. It's evidence that we still have a long way to go about seeing and loving people who don't look like us, and that being poly doesn't save us from internalized racism, colorism or classism.

9. Kevin Patterson's book "Love's Not Color Blind" is mentioned, and this is awesome. (I'll review it soon!) He's a massive leader in poly community building, and actually interviewed me last week. I do wish this writer interviewed him for this article, though. She talks about lack of diversity, and then skims over the contributions of a prominent black poly leader... Jussayin.

10. "Polyamory can encourage greater independence than traditional monogamous relationships." Yes and no. I've seen plenty of abusive, controlling and codependent relationships that called themselves "ethically non-monogamous." I've seen plenty of monogamous married couples who feel wholly satisfied and autonomous. 

The only difference, very practically, is the number of sexual and romantic partners you can have consensually. So, if your desire is to have more than one (and not lie about it), then yes, you will feel more free in polyamory.

—

CONCLUSION: It's hard to draw specific conclusions about all poly people, just as it would be for all monogamous people. We are varied in every way, including our propensity for social activism.

Poly is not inherently revolutionary. And to be fair, Goldhill lays out how our communities can still be as racist, sexist, classist, ableist and ageist as any other type of community.  (It's interesting though, that she views white-run poly spaces as problematic, but doesn't see her own disproportionate coverage of white spaces as problematic.)

While Goldhill/Quartz' piece is surprisingly more thorough than most poly-based articles on pop culture websites, her conclusions are too often weak, broad and under-supported. TBH, I'd rather have zero poly coverage, than have a monogamous person's flawed research be front-and-center in the conversation.

—

I'd love to know your thoughts, including any reactions to my reaction.

With love, Morgan