![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was recently emailed by someone asking about polyamory as a subculture but the position was that it was not. My initial reaction was "of course it is", but I thought about it for a few days before I responded. And my answer hasn't really changed, but here are some of my thoughts about polyamory as a subculture. This will be a bit rambly, as I'm using this post to think through this topic, sort of my "Introvert's" version of "thinking out loud".
People often refer to polyamory as a "lifestyle", and that's a buzzword that I don't feel comfortable using, for reasons I'm not entirely clear about, but I'll take a stab at it. If I have to use a buzzword, I prefer the term "relationship orientation", because I feel as though my poly-ness is something innate, something inherent in who I am, akin to a sexual orientation. But, because the focus is on the emotional connection and the philosophy that my relationships should be allowed to develop naturally, with no arbitrary and artificial limitations on each relationship, I am not comfortable using the term "sexual orientation" to describe it either, which, I think, completely avoids the issue of loving connections and focuses the attention on the sex. But I wholeheartedly believe that my "preference" for poly relationships is as innate and "natural" as my "preference" for heterosexual relationships.
I put the term "preference" in quotes for a reason. The term "preference" implies that there is a choice in the matter, as in "I prefer chocolate ice cream, but I'll take vanilla if there isn't any chocolate". And there is a choice - in my actions, but not in my motivations or desires. Gay people can choose to engage in heterosexual relationships if they are sufficiently motivated to do so. But I can engage in waste management if I am sufficiently motivated to do so too, it doesn't mean I like it. Throughout history, gay people have been forced to behave in heterosexual manners to avoid persecution, totally regardless of what actually gets their motor revving. This, is the primary reason why I do not use the sexual orientation terms to describe *behaviour*, but instead I reserve it for motivation and enjoyment. I would not call a gay man "bi" if he lived in the 1950s in the Bible Belt and would have been beaten to death had he not married a woman and did whatever he had to do mentally to at least attempt to produce a few kids, and I wouldn't call him "bi" because he isn't *attracted* to that woman, he is merely acting in a manner contrary to his nature to avoid being killed. There are an awful lot of things I would be willing to do, begrudgingly, if sufficiently motivated by threats of death or promise of money, but none of those things would I actively want to do (otherwise, I wouldn't need the threat or reward to do it) and they all would be contrary to my "nature".
Poly as a "lifestyle" is too much like the word "preference" in that it implies more choice than I believe truly exists. I do not think I *chose* to be polyamorous, I think I *chose* to *behave* openly polyamorously. But I think I have no choice in being polyamorous.
Now, some people are more flexible in their relationship orientations, much like in the very broad spectrum of sexual orientations, but, again, I do not think of it as "choice" when it comes to their attractions, motivations, desires, needs, whatever. Their natural inclinations simply have a broader range than mine do. We choose our actions, but many times those actions are contrary to our nature. We use birth control, which goes against one of the strongest natural drives humans have, just as an example.
But I'm digressing. Poly as a "lifestyle" is not a word I like to use because of the possibly incorrect implications of choice. But, that word does include another implication that I think "relationship orientation" misses, which is the sense of community.
When I hear the word "lifestyle", I think of an activity that encompasses a person's whole life, something that bleeds over into many or all aspects of who that person is. This would be something that influenced friendships, careers, homes, worldviews, philosophies, etc. For instance, the first non-sexual example that comes to mind when I hear the word "lifestyle" is that of a rock climber.
There are some people, like me, who enjoy rock climbing and might occasionally get to the gym once or twice a year. It's fun, but I don't have the shoes or the gloves or the harness. I have a chalk bag, but it's never seen chalk - I use it to carry the stuff in my pockets when I'm in the air at work so my change doesn't fall out and hit someone on the head.
But then there are other people. These climbers have the shoes. These climbers have the harness, but they also spend as much time free-climbing as they do belaying. These climbers feel a sense of spiritual freedom when they reach the top and they spend their vacation time and extra money travelling all over the world to experience The Climb. These climbers commune with their version of god in their climbing. This activity affects their diet, how they see the world, how they relate to other people, even what type of work they do (whether they choose a job in the rock climbing field, or they choose one that allows them time to climb). They have their own lingo, their own fashions, their own art, and, of course, their own circle of climbers, who are automatically part of their "family" just for participating in the same activity, having the same language, wearing the same clothes, even if they've never met before.
There's a shared camraderie, built on mutual experiences, expressed through exclusive language, and similar perceptions of the internal reaction to the activity. This is a subculture.
There are lots of things that will bring people together in this manner. Athletes in general are a subculture, but specific sports have their own sub-subculture. People in the horse industry have their own subculture, and there's yet more divisions between the breeders, the traders, and the jockeys, as each aspect has its own unique qualities.
Music is notorious for creating subcultures, most notably the goth and punk groups. Ballroom dancing is another subculture. My own industry of entertainment technicians is a subculture, which is further divided by stagehands vs. technicians, freelancers vs. union, audio vs. lighting vs. video vs. rigging.
For all of these examples, one can dabble, one can appreciate, one can be interested, and yet not be part of that subculture. Or one can be so fully immersed in that subculture that one can base his *identity* on his inclusion into that subculture. I, for example, do not say my "job" is a stagehand, I say I *am* a stagehand because I identify as one in such a way that it encompasses all other areas of my life.
I view myself as sort of an abstract watercolor painting (ironic, for someone who really doesn't like abstract art, but linear categories just don't quite cover it). There are some blotches over here of one color, and some blotches over there of another color, but several of them overlap, creating whole new colors where the original colors merge. When the broad fan-brush of a color is swept across the page, the paint bleeds into the texture of the paper and splays out in a Mandlebrot-like splotch when it comes in contact with another color. Here and there are a couple of lines drawn in wax, so the watercolor wash runs away from those spots like water beading up on and running off a highly-polished car, but those pure, untouched areas are few, and far between (and if you look closely, there is a slight tint to the wax from the color that didn't quite wash away).
There are a couple of most prominent colors, that give the picture of me a theme, a tone, an atmosphere. These are the ones that represent the subcultures I am a part of, polyamory, entertainment tech, geek, atheism.
Wikipedia defines subculture as: "a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong", which sounds pretty much like the poly community to me. There may need to be a distinction made between "poly community" and "polyamory", but, seeing as how polyamory requires more people, it's a little difficult to be polyamorous without forming some sort of poly community, even if you only count your own little family. But the poly community is a group of people with a philosophy of non-monogamous relationshps that differentiates them from the larger, monogamous, culture to which they belong.
Wikipedia goes on to say: "As early as 1950, David Riesman distinguished between a majority, "which passively accepted commercially provided styles and meanings, and a 'subculture' which actively sought a minority style ... and interpreted it in accordance with subversive values" and "Hebdige argued that subcultures bring together like-minded individuals who feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of identity" which, again, sounds a lot like the poly community and its struggles with the monogamous paradigm in our culture.
Actually, I don't think these statements could better reflect the poly community had they been written specifically for it.
Polyamory, as a community, as a subculture, brings together like-minded individuals, many of whom feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of identity. Polyamorous people distinguish themselves from a majority which passively accepts a concept of monogamous relationships as The One True Way, by actively seeking out an alternative relationship style more in accordance with what feels natural, whether it contradicts the majority assumption or not. Maybe it's because I just came from our first OrlandoPoly meeting today, but I just can't come up with a way to re-write that statement to be more accurate when referring to the poly community specifically.
Being such a public figure, I've been hearing from the isolated polys in the area ... people who are married or single who are trying to reinvent the wheel, people who want to "open their relationship" but are doing it totally on their own. Some people come to these arrangements by way of cheating and not wanting to lose either partner. Some people read Heinlein once. Some people tentatively visited a swingers club or a BDSM club or an SCA event and heard of someone else who does poly, and are now trying to figure out how to explore this strange new concept without damaging their pre-existing relationship all alone with no support structure.
So, they reach out to me, and people like me, who are public and easy to find. "Wow, there are other people who do this?" I was just told today how much the discussion group was appreciated by these very type of people. Often, they feel lost, floundering among a sea of mistakes and emotions and social programming. But when they heard there was terminology to describe what they are thinking, whole new worlds opened up! When they learned there were other people who wouldn't condemn them, or automatically blame the relationship style for any negative experiences, or who could simply understand where they were coming from, suddenly these isolated people feel liberated, unburdened, loved, and accepted.
When a person lives in a society that appears to universally condemn whatever it is that a person likes, feels, thinks, wants, it's a demoralizing experience. But finding a group of people who are like-minded, and that sense of unity that comes from the shared feeling of neglect, or persecution, or judgement can be a very powerful and empowering feeling.
Especially in a society like the one I live in, which has such incredibly strong negative values on sex and non-monogamous relationships, finding others who share those unusually positive values is extremely important to a lot of people. And banding together based on a shared "subversive values", or values that are contrary to/different from the main culture, tends to create its own culture. How else do people express themselves and share their thoughts with each other when the culture they came from either has no experience with these strange sets of values or outright condemns them?
By creating new language. And new art. And new fashion. And the symbolism attached to this new language and art and clothing and music and even affectations not only gives us a medium through which to express ourselves and to share experiences, but it also gives us a method by which we can identify ourselves and each other.
Look at the poly community so far. We have the heart/infinity symbol, the parrot, the poly flag, the purple mobius. We have our own lexicon that requires its own dictionaries. We have even co-opted some terms and redefined them to suit ourselves. We have jewelry and t-shirts and bumper stickers. We have music and tv shows and even fictional books!
We have history, with notable historical figures. We have art. We have language. We have symbolism. We have an identity as a group and we have individuals who identify as part of the group. We have community leaders and meetings and retreats.
The poly community is the epitome of a "subculture" and I think that's fantastic to have reached the point where it could be called a "subculture". I think the term "subculture" is just about everything the poly community stands for - shared ideals and a sense of community and of belonging, in opposition or in contrast to the main culture from which we came.
People often refer to polyamory as a "lifestyle", and that's a buzzword that I don't feel comfortable using, for reasons I'm not entirely clear about, but I'll take a stab at it. If I have to use a buzzword, I prefer the term "relationship orientation", because I feel as though my poly-ness is something innate, something inherent in who I am, akin to a sexual orientation. But, because the focus is on the emotional connection and the philosophy that my relationships should be allowed to develop naturally, with no arbitrary and artificial limitations on each relationship, I am not comfortable using the term "sexual orientation" to describe it either, which, I think, completely avoids the issue of loving connections and focuses the attention on the sex. But I wholeheartedly believe that my "preference" for poly relationships is as innate and "natural" as my "preference" for heterosexual relationships.
I put the term "preference" in quotes for a reason. The term "preference" implies that there is a choice in the matter, as in "I prefer chocolate ice cream, but I'll take vanilla if there isn't any chocolate". And there is a choice - in my actions, but not in my motivations or desires. Gay people can choose to engage in heterosexual relationships if they are sufficiently motivated to do so. But I can engage in waste management if I am sufficiently motivated to do so too, it doesn't mean I like it. Throughout history, gay people have been forced to behave in heterosexual manners to avoid persecution, totally regardless of what actually gets their motor revving. This, is the primary reason why I do not use the sexual orientation terms to describe *behaviour*, but instead I reserve it for motivation and enjoyment. I would not call a gay man "bi" if he lived in the 1950s in the Bible Belt and would have been beaten to death had he not married a woman and did whatever he had to do mentally to at least attempt to produce a few kids, and I wouldn't call him "bi" because he isn't *attracted* to that woman, he is merely acting in a manner contrary to his nature to avoid being killed. There are an awful lot of things I would be willing to do, begrudgingly, if sufficiently motivated by threats of death or promise of money, but none of those things would I actively want to do (otherwise, I wouldn't need the threat or reward to do it) and they all would be contrary to my "nature".
Poly as a "lifestyle" is too much like the word "preference" in that it implies more choice than I believe truly exists. I do not think I *chose* to be polyamorous, I think I *chose* to *behave* openly polyamorously. But I think I have no choice in being polyamorous.
Now, some people are more flexible in their relationship orientations, much like in the very broad spectrum of sexual orientations, but, again, I do not think of it as "choice" when it comes to their attractions, motivations, desires, needs, whatever. Their natural inclinations simply have a broader range than mine do. We choose our actions, but many times those actions are contrary to our nature. We use birth control, which goes against one of the strongest natural drives humans have, just as an example.
But I'm digressing. Poly as a "lifestyle" is not a word I like to use because of the possibly incorrect implications of choice. But, that word does include another implication that I think "relationship orientation" misses, which is the sense of community.
When I hear the word "lifestyle", I think of an activity that encompasses a person's whole life, something that bleeds over into many or all aspects of who that person is. This would be something that influenced friendships, careers, homes, worldviews, philosophies, etc. For instance, the first non-sexual example that comes to mind when I hear the word "lifestyle" is that of a rock climber.
There are some people, like me, who enjoy rock climbing and might occasionally get to the gym once or twice a year. It's fun, but I don't have the shoes or the gloves or the harness. I have a chalk bag, but it's never seen chalk - I use it to carry the stuff in my pockets when I'm in the air at work so my change doesn't fall out and hit someone on the head.
But then there are other people. These climbers have the shoes. These climbers have the harness, but they also spend as much time free-climbing as they do belaying. These climbers feel a sense of spiritual freedom when they reach the top and they spend their vacation time and extra money travelling all over the world to experience The Climb. These climbers commune with their version of god in their climbing. This activity affects their diet, how they see the world, how they relate to other people, even what type of work they do (whether they choose a job in the rock climbing field, or they choose one that allows them time to climb). They have their own lingo, their own fashions, their own art, and, of course, their own circle of climbers, who are automatically part of their "family" just for participating in the same activity, having the same language, wearing the same clothes, even if they've never met before.
There's a shared camraderie, built on mutual experiences, expressed through exclusive language, and similar perceptions of the internal reaction to the activity. This is a subculture.
There are lots of things that will bring people together in this manner. Athletes in general are a subculture, but specific sports have their own sub-subculture. People in the horse industry have their own subculture, and there's yet more divisions between the breeders, the traders, and the jockeys, as each aspect has its own unique qualities.
Music is notorious for creating subcultures, most notably the goth and punk groups. Ballroom dancing is another subculture. My own industry of entertainment technicians is a subculture, which is further divided by stagehands vs. technicians, freelancers vs. union, audio vs. lighting vs. video vs. rigging.
For all of these examples, one can dabble, one can appreciate, one can be interested, and yet not be part of that subculture. Or one can be so fully immersed in that subculture that one can base his *identity* on his inclusion into that subculture. I, for example, do not say my "job" is a stagehand, I say I *am* a stagehand because I identify as one in such a way that it encompasses all other areas of my life.
I view myself as sort of an abstract watercolor painting (ironic, for someone who really doesn't like abstract art, but linear categories just don't quite cover it). There are some blotches over here of one color, and some blotches over there of another color, but several of them overlap, creating whole new colors where the original colors merge. When the broad fan-brush of a color is swept across the page, the paint bleeds into the texture of the paper and splays out in a Mandlebrot-like splotch when it comes in contact with another color. Here and there are a couple of lines drawn in wax, so the watercolor wash runs away from those spots like water beading up on and running off a highly-polished car, but those pure, untouched areas are few, and far between (and if you look closely, there is a slight tint to the wax from the color that didn't quite wash away).
There are a couple of most prominent colors, that give the picture of me a theme, a tone, an atmosphere. These are the ones that represent the subcultures I am a part of, polyamory, entertainment tech, geek, atheism.
Wikipedia defines subculture as: "a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong", which sounds pretty much like the poly community to me. There may need to be a distinction made between "poly community" and "polyamory", but, seeing as how polyamory requires more people, it's a little difficult to be polyamorous without forming some sort of poly community, even if you only count your own little family. But the poly community is a group of people with a philosophy of non-monogamous relationshps that differentiates them from the larger, monogamous, culture to which they belong.
Wikipedia goes on to say: "As early as 1950, David Riesman distinguished between a majority, "which passively accepted commercially provided styles and meanings, and a 'subculture' which actively sought a minority style ... and interpreted it in accordance with subversive values" and "Hebdige argued that subcultures bring together like-minded individuals who feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of identity" which, again, sounds a lot like the poly community and its struggles with the monogamous paradigm in our culture.
Actually, I don't think these statements could better reflect the poly community had they been written specifically for it.
Polyamory, as a community, as a subculture, brings together like-minded individuals, many of whom feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of identity. Polyamorous people distinguish themselves from a majority which passively accepts a concept of monogamous relationships as The One True Way, by actively seeking out an alternative relationship style more in accordance with what feels natural, whether it contradicts the majority assumption or not. Maybe it's because I just came from our first OrlandoPoly meeting today, but I just can't come up with a way to re-write that statement to be more accurate when referring to the poly community specifically.
Being such a public figure, I've been hearing from the isolated polys in the area ... people who are married or single who are trying to reinvent the wheel, people who want to "open their relationship" but are doing it totally on their own. Some people come to these arrangements by way of cheating and not wanting to lose either partner. Some people read Heinlein once. Some people tentatively visited a swingers club or a BDSM club or an SCA event and heard of someone else who does poly, and are now trying to figure out how to explore this strange new concept without damaging their pre-existing relationship all alone with no support structure.
So, they reach out to me, and people like me, who are public and easy to find. "Wow, there are other people who do this?" I was just told today how much the discussion group was appreciated by these very type of people. Often, they feel lost, floundering among a sea of mistakes and emotions and social programming. But when they heard there was terminology to describe what they are thinking, whole new worlds opened up! When they learned there were other people who wouldn't condemn them, or automatically blame the relationship style for any negative experiences, or who could simply understand where they were coming from, suddenly these isolated people feel liberated, unburdened, loved, and accepted.
When a person lives in a society that appears to universally condemn whatever it is that a person likes, feels, thinks, wants, it's a demoralizing experience. But finding a group of people who are like-minded, and that sense of unity that comes from the shared feeling of neglect, or persecution, or judgement can be a very powerful and empowering feeling.
Especially in a society like the one I live in, which has such incredibly strong negative values on sex and non-monogamous relationships, finding others who share those unusually positive values is extremely important to a lot of people. And banding together based on a shared "subversive values", or values that are contrary to/different from the main culture, tends to create its own culture. How else do people express themselves and share their thoughts with each other when the culture they came from either has no experience with these strange sets of values or outright condemns them?
By creating new language. And new art. And new fashion. And the symbolism attached to this new language and art and clothing and music and even affectations not only gives us a medium through which to express ourselves and to share experiences, but it also gives us a method by which we can identify ourselves and each other.
Look at the poly community so far. We have the heart/infinity symbol, the parrot, the poly flag, the purple mobius. We have our own lexicon that requires its own dictionaries. We have even co-opted some terms and redefined them to suit ourselves. We have jewelry and t-shirts and bumper stickers. We have music and tv shows and even fictional books!
We have history, with notable historical figures. We have art. We have language. We have symbolism. We have an identity as a group and we have individuals who identify as part of the group. We have community leaders and meetings and retreats.
The poly community is the epitome of a "subculture" and I think that's fantastic to have reached the point where it could be called a "subculture". I think the term "subculture" is just about everything the poly community stands for - shared ideals and a sense of community and of belonging, in opposition or in contrast to the main culture from which we came.
