Beyond the non/monogamy system: fluidity, hybridity, and transcendence in intimate relationships

ABSTRACT

While the traditional understanding of monogamy and nonmonogamy as polar opposites has been deconstructed, the conceptual and experiential territory beyond the non/monogamy system (and attendant mono/poly binary) has not been systematically discussed. This article considers three plural relational modes – fluidity, hybridity and transcendence – that disrupt and arguably outdo the non/monogamy system. Moving beyond the mono/poly binary opens up a fuzzy, liminal and multivocal semantic-existential space this article terms nougamy. After describing several transbinary pathways, the article concludes by sketching a critical pluralist approach that eschews universal sequences or hierarchies among monogamy, nonmonogamy and nougamy, as well as provides tools for the making of qualitative distinctions both within and among relational styles.

KEYWORDS:

• Monogamy
• nonmonogamy
• polyamory
• non/monogamy system
• nougamy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Nonmonogamy is a more encompassing term than polyamory. Whereas the former includes any type of nonmonogamous relationship (e.g. open marriage, swinging and promiscuity), the latter is normally used to refer to the consensual, long-term maintenance of more than one romantic, sexual and/or emotional bond (see Barker & Langdridge, 2010a, 2010b; Haritaworn, Ling, & Klesse, 2006, 2006; Sheff, 2006). For the purposes of this article, however, I equate movement beyond the non/monogamy system with the overcoming of the mono/poly binary.

2. The question of whether monogamy and nonmonogamy (or polyamory) should be considered sexual or relational identities, orientations or choices has been debated in the literature (e.g. Barker, 2005; Klesse, 2014; Robinson, 2013). In this article, I opt to bracket a definitive answer to this question and leave open a plurality of interpretations (for discussion, see Ferrer, 2017a).

3. I write as a White, middle-class, cisgender, mostly heterosexual male who has lived long periods of both monogamy and polyamory, but who has not felt identified with – and has actually felt oppressed by – these categories for more than a decade. A personal sense of frustration animates the present efforts to think beyond the binary and bring forth relational spaces wherein, to put it bluntly, I (and perhaps many others) can feel more at home.

4. Although developed independently, these three modes largely correspond to Brubaker’s (2016) important categories and subcategories of trans of between and trans of beyond, devised to account for a variety of transbinary gender and racial novel identities. Brubaker’s tripartite scheme also includes what he called trans of migration, in which individuals permanently shift from one gender or racial identity to another.

5. Note that although the notion – originally put forward by Hazan and Shaver (1987) – that infant-caregiver dynamics influence adult romantic attachment styles seems uncontroversial (see Feeney & Noller, 1990, 2004; Hazan & Diamond, 2000), the overall validity of the attachment model to understand romantic relationships has been empirically refuted (against popular belief); not all romantic relationships are attachment relationships in that not everybody relies on their partners as a ‘safe haven’ in times of distress or ‘secure base’ for exploration (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). In addition, the entire literature on attachment and romantic relationships is limited by its mononormative focus on pair-bonding (see Brandon, 2010; Conley et al., 2012).

6. For most of these sources, I am indebted to Woolever’s (2010) notable essay, ‘When God Had Sex: The Practice of Spirit Marriage in Ecstatic Spirituality’.

7. In Brubaker’s (2016) taxonomy, the third type of trans of beyond is called post-categorical and refers to the political account of a society in which individuals have transcended the gender or racial binary.

8. Two caveats are here in order. First, as Thurer (2005) pointed out concerning the overcoming of the gender binary, one potential drawback of these relational possibilities is that too much fluidity or hybridity may result in a lack of coherent identity and consequent psychological fragmentation. Nevertheless, relational identity is arguably not as essential to selfhood as gender, and transgender narratives have demonstrated that moving beyond established binaries can actually strengthen (vs. fragment) individuals’ sense of authentic identity (e.g. Bornstein & Bergman, 2010). By more fully embracing their inner diversity, complexity and dynamism, people can foster their personal individuation – even if some may face psychological confusion and social stigma as they deviate from dominant mononormative strictures (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012; Grunt-Mejer & Campbell, 2016). Second, the emphasis on autonomous individuation in relationships has been characterised as ‘the triumph of narcissism over family solidarity’ (Stacey, 2011, p. 9). Whereas this article has not addressed the implications of these emerging relational modes for family life, available evidence suggests that non-traditional lifestyles like polyamory can have a positive impact on families; for example, by providing larger systems of support for both parents and children (Conley et al., 2012; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Sheff, 2014). Alternative relational paradigms, other authors have argued, may also counter the current epidemics of broken families and single-parent households intrinsic to the prevalent serial monogamy paradigm (Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010; Haag, 2011; Ryan & Jethá, 2010).

9. Space does not allow me to explore the thorny question of how to distinguish freer from more conditioned relational choices, especially in a cultural context in which monogamous values have been, after centuries of socially enforced monogamy, deeply internalised psychologically (see Dabhoiwala, 2012).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jorge N. Ferrer

Jorge N. Ferrer, PhD, is Core Faculty at the Department of East-West Psychology, California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), USA. He is the author of Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (SUJNY Press, 2002) and Participation and the Mystery: Transpersonal Essays in Psychology, Education, and Religion (SUNY Press, 2008), as well as the coeditor (with Jacob H. Sherman) of The Participatory Turn: Spirituality, Mysticism, Religious Studies (SUNY Press, 2008).