Учредитель – Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Founded by the Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg (CISR)
РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ
Александр Бикбов
Елена Богданова
Вероника Давидов
Константин Иванов
Олеся Кирчик
Анна Парецкая
Софья Чуйкина
EDITORIAL BOARD
Alexander Bikbov
Elena Bogdanova
Veronica Davidov
Konstantin Ivanov
Olessia Kirtchik
Anna Paretskaya
Sofi a Tchouikina
РЕДАКЦИЯ
Шеф-редактор
Редактор отдела
рецензий
Редактор
Корректор
Верстка
Дизайн
Оксана Парфенова oparfenova@soclabo.org
Софья Чуйкина
tchouikina@soclabo.org
Светлана Николаева
Елена Тараканова
Елена Тараканова
Татьяна Загоскина
РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ
Ольга Бредникова
Майкл Буравой
Виктор Воронков
Михаил Габович
Оксана Запорожец
Елена Здравомыслова
Оксана Карпенко
Бруно Латур
Елена Омельченко
Хилари Пилкингтон
Олег Паченков
Мишель Ривкин-Фиш
Михаил Рожанский
Ирина Тартаковская
Лоран Тевено
Анна Темкина
Центр Мориса Хальбвакса, Париж
Центр независимых социологический исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Университетский Колледж Лейдена, Гаага
Институт истории естествознания и техники РАН, Москва
Высшая школа экономики, Москва / Центр исследования социальных движений,
Школа высших социальных исследований, Париж
Новая школа социальных исследований, Нью-Йорк /
Университет Висконсина, Мэдисон
Центр российских, кавказских и центрально-европейских исследований,
Париж / Университет им. Блеза Паскаля, Клермон-Ферран, Франция
Centre Maurice Halbwachs, Paris
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Leiden University College, The Hague
Institute for the History of Science and Technology,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
Higher School of Economics (Moscow), Centre d'étude des mouvements sociaux /
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris)
New School for Social Research, New York / Univeristy of Wisconsin–Madison
Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen, (Paris) /
Blaise Pascal University, Clermont-Ferrand, France
EDITORS
Managing editor Oksana Parfenova
Reviews editor Sofi a Tchouikina
Layout
Design
Copy editors
Elena Tarakanova
Tatyana Zagoskina
Barbara Andersen
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Калифорнийский университет в Беркли
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Эйнштейновский форум, Потсдам
Самарский государственный университет
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Институт политических исследований, Париж
Научно-исследовательски центр «Регион», Ульяновск
Уорвикский университет
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Университет Северной Каролины в Чапел-Хилл
Центр независимых социологических исследований и образования, Иркутск
Институт сравнительных исследований трудовых отношений, Москва
Школа высших социальных исследований, Париж
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
© 2011 Laboratorium
Стр.1
Илья Утехин
Сергей Ушакин
Олег Хархордин
Марк Эли
Алексей Юрчак
ADVISORY BOARD
Olga Brednikova
Michael Burawoy
Marc Elie
Mischa Gabowitsch
Oksana Karpenko
Oleg Kharkhordin
Bruno Latour
Elena Omelchenko
Serguei Oushakine
Oleg Pachenkov
Hilary Pilkington
Michele Rivkin-Fish
Mikhail Rozhansky
Irina Tartakovskaya
Anna Temkina
Laurent Thévenot
Ilia Utekhin
Viktor Voronkov
Alexei Yurchak
Oksana Zaporozhets
Elena Zdravomyslova
КОНТАКТЫ
Россия, Санкт-Петербург, 191040,
а/я 193, ЦНСИ
info@soclabo.org
Тел./факс: +7 (812) 718-37-96
Электронная версия: www.soclabo.org
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Принстонский университет
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Центр российских, кавказских и центрально-европейских исследований, Париж
Калифорнийский университет в Беркли
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
University of California, Berkeley
Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen, Paris
Einstein Forum, Potsdam
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
European University at Saint Petersburg
Institut d’études politiques, Paris
Region Center, Ulyanovsk
Princeton University
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Warwick University
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Centre for Independent Social Research and Education, Irkutsk
Institute of Comparative Labor Studies, Moscow
European University at Saint Petersburg
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris
European University at Saint Petersburg
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
University of California, Berkeley
Samara State University
European University at Saint Petersburg
CONTACTS
Russia, St. Petersburg, 191040,
P.O.B. 193, CISR
info@soclabo.org
Phone/fax: +7 (812) 718-37-96
Online version www.soclabo.org/eng
Журнал выходит три раза в год в печатной и электронной версиях.
По вопросам подписки и распространения обращаться в редакцию.
Издается при финансовом содействии Центра независимых социологических исследований (ЦНСИ)
и Фонда Джона Д. и Кэтрин Т. Макартуров
Laboratorium is published three times a year in print and electronic versions.
Please contact the editors regarding subscriptions and sales.
Published with the fi nancial support of the Center for Independent Social Research (CISR)
and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
На обложке использована фотография компании «Dreamstime»
Cover photo: © Dreamstime
© 2011 Laboratorium
Стр.2
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
121 Кристиан Клессе. Понятия любви в полиамории:
составляющие дискурса о множественных
любовных отношениях. Резюме
26 Наталья Савельева. «Входя в лифт своего дома,
я уже чувствую себя на работе». Границы между
работой и не-работой в сетевом маркетинге
48 Анна Желнина. «Здесь как музей»: торговый
центр как общественное пространство
ОБЗОР
70 Сергей Соколовский. В ЦЕЙТНОТЕ: заметки
о состоянии российской антропологии
РЕЦЕНЗИИ
Дискуссия о книге Марины Могильнер «Homo Imperii:
История физической антропологии в России»
ARTICLES
4 Christian Klesse. Notions of Love in Polyamory—
Elements in a Discourse on Multiple Loving
128 Natalya Savelyeva. 'When I Enter the Elevator
of My House, I Already Feel Like I am at Work':
Borders between Work and Not-Work in Network
Marketing. Summary
132 Anna Zhelnina. 'It’s Like a Museum Here':
The Shopping Mall as Public Space. Summary
REVIEW ESSAY
137 Sergey Sokolovskiy. In a Zeitnot: Notes on
the State of Russian Anthropology. Summary
BOOK REVIEWS
Discussion of Marina Mogilner's "Homo Imperii: Istoriia
fi zicheskoi antropologii v Rossii."
90 I. Марина Могильнер. Homo imperii. История физической антропологии в России. М.: НЛО, 2008.
Александр Эткинд
94 II. Response to Alexander Etkind's review of Marina Mogilner's "Homo imperii: Istoriia fi zicheskoi
antropologii v Rossii". Vera Tolz
97 III. Реплика по поводу дискуссии о книге Марины Могильнер «Homo imperii: История физической
антропологии в России». Константин Иванов
100 Marion Fourcade. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and
France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Олеся Кирчик
104 Serguei Alex. Oushakine. The Patriotism of Despair: Nation, War, and Loss in Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 2009. Elisabeth Anstett
107 Roger Griffi n, Werner Loh, and Andreas Umland, eds. Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An
International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right. Stuttgart:
Ibidem-Verlag, 2006. Антон Шеховцов
111 Екатерина Деминцева. Быть арабом во Франции. М.: НЛО, 2008. Елена Филиппова
114 Белорусский формат: невидимая реальность / Отв. ред. А.Р.Усманова. Вильнюс: ЕГУ, 2008. Анна Савченко
117 Анна Сидорова. Коммуникативные стратегии и культурные практики в поле литературы. Барнаул: Изд-во
АЛТГУ, 2009. Александра Яцык
145 АННОТАЦИИ
148 ABSTRACTS
150 Информация для авторов и рецензентов 157 Guidelines for authors and reviewers
160 Авторы
162 Authors
Стр.3
4
N
OTIONS 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. c.klesse@mmu.ac.uk.
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.
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
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).
© Laboratorium. 2011. Vol. 3, no. 2:4–25
Стр.4
CHRISTIAN KLESSE. NOTIONS OF LOVE IN POLYAMORY—ELEMENTS IN A DISCOURSE. . .
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 nonmonogamy”
(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 nonmonogamy”.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 historical
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’ Discourse:
Fragments”. For Barthes, the discourse of love cannot be systematised. Zygmunt Bauman
(2003), too, presents a largely non-systematic analysis with multiple entry points.
5
Стр.5
6
ARTICLES
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 nonmonogamous
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).
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 Pallotta-Chiarolli
2004; Noël 2006; Petrella 2007. For a methodological discussion of heterogeneity as a
feature of archives, see Halberstam (1998).
5
4
The term cis-gendered relates to people who neither contest, nor wish to alter the sex which
was ascribed to them at birth.
Стр.6
CHRISTIAN KLESSE. NOTIONS OF LOVE IN POLYAMORY—ELEMENTS IN A DISCOURSE. . .
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.
POLYAMORY—IDENTITIES, COMMUNITIES AND PRACTICES
POLYAMORY—IDENTITIES, COMMUNITIES AND PRACTICES
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 “nonmonogamous”,
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 Ravenhearts
(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.
7
Стр.7
8
ARTICLES
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 (often in computers or counseling/therapy). Most
of her respondents were in their mid-thirties to late fi fties. 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.
Стр.8
CHRISTIAN KLESSE. NOTIONS OF LOVE IN POLYAMORY—ELEMENTS IN A DISCOURSE. . .
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). Polyinterested
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. Polyidentifi
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
(Rubin 2001). 9
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-identifi
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 common
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 ac9
Other
research participants had been part of the commune movement
The common references to neo-paganism, bisexuality, science fi ction
Стр.9
10
ARTICLES
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.
ELEMENTS OF A DISCOURSE ON POLY LOVE
ELEMENTS OF A DISCOURSE ON POLY LOVE
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 nonmonogamy
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, asexuality
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, heteronormativity,
fi nd it easier to question compulsory monogamy. Another explanation highlights shared cultural
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.
Стр.10