what attachment theory can tell us about polyamory

Let’s talk psychology.

In my last post, I attempted to dismantle a common claim against polyamory. But, as I was alerted by an astute reader, my response was largely subjective. Why not throw in this psychology article? he asked. I agree. Let’s get out of the armchair and into the lab.

The authors of this article noticed that even though monogamy is not the norm for human relationships around the globe, people just assume it’s the ideal. So we have plenty of research on attachment styles in dyadic (couple) relationships, but none on anything else. This leads to a void in the literature. The authors wanted to fill that void by answering a simple question: how do polyamorous people score on measures of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety?

First, let’s talk about what these terms mean. Attachment anxiety is when you’re obsessed with “the availability of [your] romantic partner” and feel extreme jealousy when you think that “availability” might be in jeopardy. Attachment avoidance is when you try not to get close to your romantic partner in order to avoid pain.

One common hypothesis among monogamists is that polyamorists are simply rationalizing an avoidant attachment style. But let’s see what study has to say about that.

The study had two parts.

• Study 1, which involved 1,281 heterosexual, monogamous respondents, showed that those who approved of polyamory
• Were more likely to have an avoidant attachment style
• Were less likely to have an anxious attachment style
• Study 2 (which involved 1,308 participants: 73% female, 85% currently in a monogamous relationship, and 15% currently in a swinging or polyamorous relationship) showed that, aside from reporting being “happy, satisfied, and in love,” people in polyamorous relationships tended to have
• lower levels of avoidance
• higher levels of trust
• lower levels of jealousy

So, yes, people who approved of polyamory had higher levels of avoidance. This says something about the polyamorous philosophy; it appeals to people who tend to avoid intimacy. However, people who were actually in polyamorous arrangements had lower levels of avoidance. So, it seems like the monogamist hypothesis is onto something, but still mostly wrong. People in polyamorous relationships usually do have secure attachment styles.

The authors conclude that their findings “provide important new evidence that people can exhibit aspects of security (i.e., low levels of avoidance) without sexual exclusivity.”

Therefore, to the monogamist who tells the polyamorist that he or she is “just using polyamory as a way to justify her avoiding intimacy,” we can confidently say that there is at least one study that showed that polyamorous people were less likely to have an avoidant attachment style.

We can also say that polyamorous people tend to have, as I speculated in my last post, higher levels of trust.

In other words: “Nope. Science.”

"YOU'RE ONLY POLY BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID OF TRUE INTIMACY"

A week ago, I polled a group of polyamorous people for the best arguments they had heard against polyamory as a lifestyle or as a philosophy of love. In this post and in following posts, I will respond systematically to the claims made against the philosophy of “many loves.”

Claim #1: You're only doing the polyamory thing because you want to avoid true intimacy.

This is essentially an argument from psychology. People who take this position think that polyamory is a psychological defense mechanism rooted not in trust but in an absence of trust. By keeping oneself open to the possibility of loving more than one person, one must keep a slight distance between oneself and even one’s most intimate lovers. Furthermore, there is a better and truer kind of intimacy that one can only achieve in monogamy, and it requires that one essentially subordinate all other sexual-emotional, or romantic, ties to that one supreme relationship. Polyamory can therefore be called a desperate clinging to one’s autonomy at the price of true, rewarding intimacy.

At least, that's what the argument says.

My Response, Part 1: The argument is well-intentioned. Hooray!

There is no doubt that opponents of polyamory make this argument out of a genuine concern for their polyamorous friends. They believe that they are helping their polyamorous friends to understand a truth about themselves of which they are simply in denial. And, in the case of certain self-destructive behaviors like addictions, this kind of confrontation is good and even necessary. But the argument at hand does not imply that the practice of polyamory is self-destructive; it merely implies that it puts a cap on the level of intimacy that the polyamorous person can achieve. Polyamory limits rather than destroys. And this again reveals the goodwill of the person making the argument; in the best case, they hope that their polyamorous friends can realize their subconscious blunders and achieve greater happiness in their relationships.

In order to assess the argument, though, we have to determine whether its central claim is true—whether polyamorous intimacy is in fact stunted by being non-exclusive. This is hard to do because intimacy is such an individual, subjective experience. Besides, seeking a relationship that meets one’s own needs and caters to one’s own temperament is an individual responsibility. What we can ascertain, though, is whether a problem with intimacy is actually damaging to the philosophical position of polyamory. This, after all, is the main question we’re after.

My Response, Part 2: Surprise! A problem with intimacy is not necessarily a problem for polyamory.

Polyamorous people in healthy relationships will no doubt claim that they feel close to their partners. But if they feel distant from them, I think it is fair to say that this is not necessarily a mark against non-exclusivity per se but rather against a particular relationship. For if a monogamous couple suffered from a lack of intimacy (as many monogamous couples do), one would not deduce that exclusivity per se was the cause of the problem but rather poor communication, a lack of quality time, a bad match, or some other thing that people consider damaging to intimate relationships. The openness or closed-ness of the relationship would not even enter the discussion.

Why, then, does the non-exclusivity of polyamorous relationships appear to monogamists as their fatal flaw? It may be simply that the monogamist, lacking a justification for monogamy, can only affirm monogamy by negating its opposite. After all, non-monogamy is the one thing that definitively distinguishes polyamory and monogamy.

Justifications for monogamy usually assume at the outset some premise that polyamorists would deny at the outset; they usually appeal to some essential feature of human relationships, be it theological (God created erotic love for couples) or biological (the human animal naturally forms pair-bonds; and since nature is our model for everything, triadic or other bonds can’t be as good). But good justifications for monogamy (a) will only make assumptions that both monogamous and polyamorous people could accept and (b) will deduce a pro-monogamy conclusion from those shared premises. No polyamorous person would accept, for instance, that humans are necessarily pair-bonders or that God created erotic love for couples; therefore, these and other essentialist arguments (those arguments having to do with some inherent feature of human relationships) can’t give monogamists much confidence in their own position. Negating polyamory, for them, especially with an essentialist argument, might serve as a defense mechanism against the possibility of uncertainty and ambiguity.

That said, here is an argument for polyamory that succeeds where these arguments for monogamy fail.

My Response, Part 3: An argument for polyamory based on common assumptions.

Our assumptions, which are probably shared by monogamous and polyamorous people alike:

1. Let’s assume that healthy relationships require good communication.
2. Let’s also assume that good communication builds intimacy.
3. And let’s also assume that when something is generally understood, there is less of a need to talk about it.  

Are we all on the same page? OK, let’s begin.

When something is normal, its rules, though they are unspoken, are generally understood. Polyamory, as a deviation from the unspoken rules of “normal relationships,” requires a greater degree of communication in order to function well. Therefore, for a polyamorous relationship to thrive, its members must communicate honestly and deliberately about their needs, desires, boundaries—they will decide how their relationship is going to work. In order to be able to communicate honestly about such personal things, people must become vulnerable. Therefore, a healthy polyamorous relationship, like a healthy monogamous relationship, creates all the intimacy that it needs in order to thrive. Furthermore, if a person is looking to avoid intimacy, the last thing he or she should pursue is a polyamorous relationship, because with all that communication, you’re going to get real close, real quick.

If you would like to submit an argument for or against polyamory, please send me an email! In a week or so, I will take a look at another argument against polyamory and come up with a response to it.

WHAT DAOISM CAN TEACH POLY

Asian philosophies are trendy right now, but that’s not why I’m starting with Daoism.  I’m starting with Daoism because it’s flexible—you can live like a Daoist no matter what religion you follow, what kind of relationships you like, where you live, or what you do for a living.  It’s deeper than all of that.   Also, it comes with a lot of positive energy and a huge emphasis on being true to yourself.  So, lots to work with here.

Central Ideas in Daoism

For research, I read two entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, cited below.  Dense stuff—but I was able to pick out the following important terms:

The dao ("DOW") is the way, a kind of underlying natural order and harmony.  The dao is not something you can talk about.  It's something that you observe, and something that you do.  It is, simply, the way.

P'u (like "POOH" with a softer "p") is the concept of things in their natural state.  P'u is essentially the way things were before people established social institutions and restrictions and arbitrary rules.  A person who embodies p'u lives simply, without frills or showiness, and is always true to who she really is.  (Daoism in this way is pretty individualistic.)

Wu-wei ("WOO WAY") means non-action.  Remember when Yoda said, "Do or do not, there is no try."  He was talking about wuwei.  Wu-wei isn't passivity or laziness.  It’s getting so caught up in doing that you do without trying.  It's very Nike: just do it.

Quan (not sure of pronunciation) means wholeness.  It's a concept in the writings of Neo-Daoist He Yan.  This author says that the dao is able to bring everything into being by virtue of being whole and complete.

So, that was informative.  What does this have to do with polyamory?  Here are four lessons.

1. Be whole, then have a relationship.

In Daoism, it’s important to be yourself.  By this I mean it’s important to do what you’re good at, not what you think you should be good at.  You must follow the path of least resistance by living a life that is in harmony with the kind of person you are.  Being yourself, being in harmony with your own nature, allows you to be whole—quan.

This matters in relationships because it’s difficult to have intimate relationships with others when you don’t have an intimate relationship with yourself.  A Daoist would make sure that she’s living authentically, naturally, and wholly before she gets involved with someone else.

2. Stop trying to make relationships happen.

From a Daoist perspective, the best actions are those that come most naturally and effortlessly.  That said, don’t try to pull a horse that don’t wanna go.  Or try to make it drink.  Not only will you piss it off, but you will get kicked in the head.

Following the Daoist principle of naturalness, good relationships will happen spontaneously.  I don’t mean that relationships will continue to exist if you don’t pay attention to them or invest your time. 

But I do mean that, just because you’re putting time, love, attention, and effort into a relationship doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to work.  Sometimes you just have to let go and let the relationship grow (or maintain, or diminish) at its own pace.

We know this from experience, don’t we?  The hardest time to find love is when you’re looking for it, right?  It’s the same with the dao.  If you try to find it, you’ve lost it.  If you try to name it, you’ve confused it.  The Daoist finds love simply by loving.

3. Be a sage: take a step back from your emotions.

If you've been in a polyamorous relationship before, you have probably felt jealousy when your partners spent time with their other partners.  Maybe you were scared that your partner would leave you for someone else, or that they would spend so much time with their other partners that they wouldn't have anything left to give to you.  Whatever the case, jealousy is an emotional reaction that raises "red alert" when someone encroaches on your relationship territory.

Taking a Daoist approach to polyamory requires a look at the Daoist sage, a theoretical character in Daoist writings who embodies the dao in the best possible way.  Daoist writers did not agree all the time on what the sage was like.  For example, sometimes the sage was emotionless, and sometimes the sage was compassionate and empathetic.  In the case of everyday human relationships, we can learn a lot more from the emotional picture of the sage.

According to Wang Bi, the sage wasn't some all-wise robot; he had the full range of emotions understood that all emotions are rooted in self-interest.  If the sage considered jealousy an emotion, he would have said the same of it as well.  By understanding the root cause of emotions, the sage was able to experience all emotions but not be enslaved by them.  He gained freedom from their control and was able to empathize with the feelings of others with unclouded judgment.  This is crucial for polyamorous relationships because sometimes self-interest needs to take a step back and let the needs of the relationship take center stage.  Also, empathy makes it so much easier to feel happy for your partner when she's loving someone else.

4. Let your lovers be.

This is the last and possibly the most important lesson.  There’s a painting called “the Three Vinegar Tasters” that illustrates this aspect of Daoism.  In this painting there are three men sampling a vat of vinegar.  The first has a sour expression, the second a bitter expression, and the third a smile.  These faces represent Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, respectively.

The meaning of the painting is this.  While the Confucian and Buddhist live as if life is inherently negative and lacking, the Daoist thinks this is a misunderstanding.  For the Daoist, life only appears sour and bitter to an unappreciative mind that doesn’t understand the natural order.  As Benjamin Hoff puts it in The Tao of Pooh, “Life itself, when understood and utilized for what it is, is sweet.”

What does this have to do with polyamory, though?

The point of this is that, in any relationship—poly or not—it’s important to meet your lovers where they’re at.  Know your lovers, know their unique natural strengths, and don’t expect them to be anything other than who they are.  If you expect something other than that, you’ll be disappointed and they’ll feel bad.  It’s like expecting a fish to climb a tree—lots of frustration, no progress. (Trust me, I’ve seen it.)

Summary 

The Daoist approach to relationships (as I’ve described it) emphasizes

1.      Inner harmony

2.      Doing what comes naturally

3.      Understanding your own emotions

4.      Having realistic expectations

In relating an ancient tradition like Daoism to a modern idea like polyamory, which has only existed for the past 50 years (at most), I admit I might have stretched a few ideas.  But it’s in keeping with the dao to accept the inconstancy of the world—including ideas about the world.  Both love and the dao are ever changing.

Sources

• Chan, Alan, "Neo-Daoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/neo-daoism/>.
• Hansen, Chad, "Daoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/daoism/>.

FIRST POST

This is the first post of the blog, so I'll let you know what to expect from it.  First, philosophy.

Philosophy is wanting to understand.

If I had to define philosophy in a phrase, I would say that philosophy is simply wanting to understand.  That's really what "love of wisdom" means.

It's really not that complicated.

But as a philosopher I have to add more words.

Philosophy is for anyone who wants to look into things a little deeper, anyone who wants to peel back the way things appear, and anyone who wants to figure out what life is about, what's true, or what's the best way to live.  Philosophy is "seeking out everything strange and questionable" (Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, I.iii).  Philosophy is a process of questioning the unquestionable that moves forward in logical steps.

Philosophy is not fancy bickering.

What is philosophy not?  It's not a bunch of white men with mustaches sitting around in armchairs talking about the distinction between the beauty of ideas and the idea of beauty.  (But click here for a hilarious video about that.)  It's not trying to be right.  It's not using big words to sound smart.  It's not being pedantic about insignificant differences and talking past one another.  It's not being contrary for the sake of finding something else to talk about.

Philosophy is a genuine effort to get into someone else's way of thinking, to see things from their perspective, and, once you actually get onto the same page, to start picking things apart from the inside.  But the first step to getting anywhere with philosophy is to put aside your own arrogance.

He said, with complete and utter certainty.

Things are not looking good, here.

Polyamory is consensual non-monogamy.

Polyamory literally means "many loves," and it's the practice of sustaining multiple relationships simultaneously with honesty and integrity.  Polyamory, like love, often includes sex but doesn't include it necessarily.  The word was first used in the 1980s.

It's interesting that when you search for the definition of polyamory on Google, you get, "the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time."  So, polyamory is a philosophy.

If I have Google on my side, I'm confident this blog will get at least three hits.

And that's the bare minimum.

Optimism in all things.

This blog talks about how polyamory and philosophy relate.

On this blog, I'll relate polyamory to the thoughts of famous philosophers, sometimes with humor (I'm differently abled and will do what I can), but always with honesty, respect, and a desire to understand what's really going on.

I think that covers it.

On logos

For the discussion of the Greek term, follow this link.

Choosing a logo is important, so let me explain why I picked this one.

1. Red for "love."
2. Heart for "love."
3. Pyramid-eye for "knowledge."
4. Black for contrast.

Tune in for weekly posts!