relationship anarchy
One of my favorite things to think about, discuss, and try to live out is relationship anarchy.
Here's one definition: “Relational anarchists are often highly critical of conventional cultural standards that prioritize romantic and sex-based relationships over non-sexual or non-romantic relationships. Instead, RA seeks to eliminate specific distinctions between or hierarchical valuations of friendships versus love-based relationships, so that love-based relationships are no more valuable than are platonic friendships...another important theme within RA is the resistance to placing demands or expectations on the people involved in a relationship.”
I see posts all the time that attribute sort've magical qualities to romantic love-- wholeness, fulfillment, satisfaction-- as if it is a higher form of human relating. It's not uncommon for me to hear things like "you just can't know yourself fully until you've had this type of relationship." I agree that commitment and intimacy and sharing day-to-day life with people shape you in particular way. But this isn't a realm reserved for romantic partners. Which, as my platonic partner* pointed out is an exclusive idea that some types of relationships are inherently more deep & life changing & growth-orienting than others. (What is the difference in goals people have for romance, for friendship, for care-giving, for family? for the vast ways of relating?) I think these types of discussion about romance ignore that there all types of partnerships, orientations toward community, chosen family, etc. that teach us about love, commitment, and intimacy in different (but equally valid or depthful ways) and not everyone wants or needs a romantic partner. I often wonder what people are actually articulating when they describe this experience... what do people want/need from all types of relationships to feel fulfilled?
Community has always played a large role in my life-- from intentional communities, to co-housing, to maintaining long-distance friendships. I find it troublesome when people describe romance as if it is the highest fulfillment of human relationships. Being non-partnered or non-romantically partnered doesn't mean you're missing out. It doesn't. It's just another type of human experience-- one that is completely valid and fulfilling (just as desiring a romantic partnership is... but, it's worth thinking about how romantic partners/marital partnership is privileged, normalized, & supported by society while other types of partnership aren't.)
A few years ago I was asking everyone I knew this question: who have you been most attracted to in your life? They defined attraction in whatever way they wanted and more people than not included in this answer friends & family members. There are lots of ways people work out the types of relationships they want in their life. Maybe instead of talking so much about love a broader conversation is commitment-- to a person, to people, to a place. What does it look like to prioritize multiple people in doing life together? The unit of community in the US (in my white middle-class context) is often the nuclear family... but the unit of community is far more expansive for many people & cultures. Would you share finances with friends? Are there models of sharing resources that make sense? How do we chose who we are responsible for and how much? How do I express and work out commitments to mutually support, know, and grow with others? What do I want? These are things I like to think about-- expressing expectations and needs and figuring out what it means to have life partners, what is the point (romantic or not?)
That's all for now, folks. I'd love to know what types of questions other people are asking themselves around the priorities of relationships.
xo
__________
* When I say platonic partner I mean: It's a priority, or a commitment for me-- to be connected to this person- to support each other, communicate, process life together, etc. and they're someone I weigh in as far as where I end up geographically because we want our lives to happen in the same space.
Here's one definition: “Relational anarchists are often highly critical of conventional cultural standards that prioritize romantic and sex-based relationships over non-sexual or non-romantic relationships. Instead, RA seeks to eliminate specific distinctions between or hierarchical valuations of friendships versus love-based relationships, so that love-based relationships are no more valuable than are platonic friendships...another important theme within RA is the resistance to placing demands or expectations on the people involved in a relationship.”
I see posts all the time that attribute sort've magical qualities to romantic love-- wholeness, fulfillment, satisfaction-- as if it is a higher form of human relating. It's not uncommon for me to hear things like "you just can't know yourself fully until you've had this type of relationship." I agree that commitment and intimacy and sharing day-to-day life with people shape you in particular way. But this isn't a realm reserved for romantic partners. Which, as my platonic partner* pointed out is an exclusive idea that some types of relationships are inherently more deep & life changing & growth-orienting than others. (What is the difference in goals people have for romance, for friendship, for care-giving, for family? for the vast ways of relating?) I think these types of discussion about romance ignore that there all types of partnerships, orientations toward community, chosen family, etc. that teach us about love, commitment, and intimacy in different (but equally valid or depthful ways) and not everyone wants or needs a romantic partner. I often wonder what people are actually articulating when they describe this experience... what do people want/need from all types of relationships to feel fulfilled?
Community has always played a large role in my life-- from intentional communities, to co-housing, to maintaining long-distance friendships. I find it troublesome when people describe romance as if it is the highest fulfillment of human relationships. Being non-partnered or non-romantically partnered doesn't mean you're missing out. It doesn't. It's just another type of human experience-- one that is completely valid and fulfilling (just as desiring a romantic partnership is... but, it's worth thinking about how romantic partners/marital partnership is privileged, normalized, & supported by society while other types of partnership aren't.)
A few years ago I was asking everyone I knew this question: who have you been most attracted to in your life? They defined attraction in whatever way they wanted and more people than not included in this answer friends & family members. There are lots of ways people work out the types of relationships they want in their life. Maybe instead of talking so much about love a broader conversation is commitment-- to a person, to people, to a place. What does it look like to prioritize multiple people in doing life together? The unit of community in the US (in my white middle-class context) is often the nuclear family... but the unit of community is far more expansive for many people & cultures. Would you share finances with friends? Are there models of sharing resources that make sense? How do we chose who we are responsible for and how much? How do I express and work out commitments to mutually support, know, and grow with others? What do I want? These are things I like to think about-- expressing expectations and needs and figuring out what it means to have life partners, what is the point (romantic or not?)
That's all for now, folks. I'd love to know what types of questions other people are asking themselves around the priorities of relationships.
xo
__________
* When I say platonic partner I mean: It's a priority, or a commitment for me-- to be connected to this person- to support each other, communicate, process life together, etc. and they're someone I weigh in as far as where I end up geographically because we want our lives to happen in the same space.
Comments
Post a Comment