Undoing Monogamy: The Politics of Science and the Possibilities of Biology

by Angela Willey

In Undoing Monogamy Angela Willey offers a radically interdisciplinary exploration of the concept of monogamy in U.S. science and culture, propelled by queer feminist desires for new modes of conceptualization and new forms of belonging. She approaches the politics and materiality of monogamy as intertwined with one another such that disciplinary ways of knowing themselves become an object of critical inquiry. Refusing to answer the naturalization of monogamy with a naturalization of nonmonogamy, Willey demands a critical reorientation toward the monogamy question in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The book examines colonial sexual science, monogamous voles, polyamory, and the work of Alison Bechdel and Audre Lorde to show how challenging the lens through which human nature is seen as monogamous or nonmonogamous forces us to reconsider our investments in coupling and in disciplinary notions of biological bodies. 

 


 

Genres: Nonfiction, Relationships, Polyamory, Queer, Feminism, Science, Gender

216 pages, Paperback

First published May 13, 2016

Reviews

[tiago. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Undoing Monogamy may be dry at times, but it has the worldview-redefining aura of great science books. Those who are interested on the science underlying love, monogamy and human relationships will find themselves destabilized in the best way possible.

Willey starts by (very convincingly, might I add) disproving the biological scientists that have backed the biological dogma of the naturality of monogamy, analysing the cultural preconditioning that led to such scientific discoveries. But this is only the start of her argument: she continues by arguing that discourses on nonmonogamy, as they establish themselves in opposition to the dogmas of monogamy, have played into those same cultural preconditionings, based on 19th century racist eugenics. Her point is a larger one: that biologizing explanations for sexual behavior are always necessarily reductive, unable to account for the complex nature of human sexuality. She thus proposes the substitution of the biologic for the biopossible: the letting go of essentialism in favor of potential.

Taking examples from dyke culture, she goes on to present an ethics of friendship and community valuation that decenters sex as an alternative to debating the naturalness and efficacy of monogamy and nonmonogamy. But even though this perspective takes a relatively central place in her work, what I mainly take from this little wonder is a rather radical proposal of relinquishing dogma in favor of embracing the full potential of human relations. A world of possibilities is yet to be open, for those who are adventurous enough to break away from their most rooted beliefs.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are looking for a how-to book on actively pursuing nonmonogamy or polyamory, look elsewhere.

This is a queer feminist onto-epistemological cross-disciplinary normative study into the presumptions underpinning the science of monogamy studies, and consequently a deconstruction of the compulsory status of monogamic relating. It is very philosophical and highly cited. It is a research book, if that isn't your jam, then this will be somewhere between a headscratcher and a headache.

This was a fascinating read in general. It does meander some from where the title would suggest, but in a completely logical way that sidesteps the conversation surrounding monogamy as the defacto manner of relating to others. Willey effectively dismantles the preconceptions surrounding the approach to science on monogamy and relating in general. She first does this by acknowledging the patriarchal norms and forces which historically govern and define monogamy as a means for men to control women's bodies and reproduction. And this then informs her reading of scientific approach to research into monogamy. She creates a basis for an "ethics of friendship and community valuation that decenters sex as an alternative to debating the naturalness and efficacy of monogamy and nonmonogamy." Which I think delves into the larger discussion surrounding issues of toxic monogamy and polyamory in general. This antimonogamy is at the core of her argument from my reading and is a less problematic approach to discussions surrounding open relating than presumptions of the universality of nonmonogamy or compulsory monogamy. She uses sapphic-queer culture viewed through the lens of the 20 years running comic strip "Dykes to Watch Out For" to frame this community refocus. My one issue is the amount of time spent on this analysis. It made sense, and there may have been no other way to do this as relational dynamics in the sapphic queer community is likely underresearched, but as someone who has not viewed the comic it was a lot of blind analysis based on a single authors perspective on a large and fractured culture. I admit this is a shortcoming of mine, but worth noting for other potential readers.

4.25/5 because the thread got lost a few times, and could have stayed on topic a little better, also could have done with some more concise and less redundant language. But all in all an interesting queer feminist take on non/monogamy. There is a lot in this short volume, definitely recommend for the right kind of reader.

[Danae · Rating 3 out of 5]

Todas deberíamos ser anti-monogamia

[Brian Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

this may be one of the best and more important books I have ever read. indeed, I believe that this will be one of the most important theory books of this decade

[Anya · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Undoing Monogamy” is one of the most fascinating reads I’ve have the pleasure & privilege to indulge. Though the introduction is a bit jargon-y, it becomes an easier read as Willey solidifies the central argument and relies less on terminology. The reader might find it helpful to have a background in Freudian psychoanalysis, particularly concerning his definition of “libido”, as it works nicely in tandem as Willey engages Audre Lorde’s definition of “erotica.” Willey does not parse out her allusions to Freud, though the connection is implied. Reading this has gotten me heavily invested in queer/poly theory. A must-read for those curious about polyamory/non-monogamy and even those fed up with the societal expectation of serial monogamy!

[Matteo Saxena Rossi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Willey's book is one of the best that I've seen written about monogamy as a historical, cultural, and political structure. Her writing is thorough and points us toward a new and more radical direction as we critique the heterosexual monogamous couple and it's absolute dominance over daily life and social formation. Willey builds on the work of other great feminist thinkers who are looking toward a horizon where all relationship forms are valid, where our lives are not governed by authoritarian norms, and where our orientation is one of possibility and becoming.

[Shannon Cox · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reads like a dry academic paper. Could not get through it.

[Sarah Inman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is well-written & researched, but you should just know what you’re getting into which is a very academic take on monogamy (its colonial history and the ways science has “naturalized” it as a biological and social ideal) and its others. Following scientific and feminist discourses as well as through ethnographic work on the laboratory science around discovering the so-called ‘monogamy gene’, Willey theorizes compulsory monogamy. In painstaking detail, she illustrates the detailed ways in which scientists measured and quantified things like 'love', 'coupling', etc.. in prairie voles, and the binary definitions of gender that facilitated these clear delineations.

Later in the book, she analyzes feminist counter narratives to monogamy which argue for polyamory. She critiques these alternatives arguing that polyamory posed as monogamy's logical opposite capitulates to the naturalization of monogamy and thus, she suggests we develop new non-monogamous alternatives. She turns away from a common question “are we or are we not wired for monogamy?” And instead asks: “what is the relationship between how we imagine social belonging and how we understand human nature?” interrogating the naturalization of monogamy. Ultimately, it seems less about monogamy vs. something else and more about how you define attachment, love, and desire.

The critique that I align with most is the questioning of science as always providing the central, authoritative knowledge about the body and instead noting the ways that norms are socially produced. This seems an insight that extends beyond critiques of monogamy. Nice academic perspective on a personal topic of interest - non-monogamy is not for me but I hear the case for it loud and clear. And I appreciate this quote at the end of chapter 2 which offers a more expansive view of relationships:
"Breaking down barriers between these naturalized categories has the potential to radically reshape how we understand the importance of sex to human nature. It calls us to rethink the pervasive cultural privileging of sexual relationships over other types of connections. It begs that we rethink the relationship of 'falling in love' and 'getting attached' to sex. Further, my analysis illustrates the dissonance between 'science' and 'the body'. It suggests the vital importance of embedding our curiosity about embodiment within a critical approach to science" (p. 72).

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

The introduction and the first three chapters were pretty good, interesting, and well-formulated. She interacts most with "the politics of science" in the second chapter, which includes her ethnography at the lab studying the "monogamy gene."

In the fourth chapter, I think she gets bogged down in summary of Bechdel's work to the point that it obscures her "dyke ethics" of friendship/antimonogamy. She seems to do a lot of the critical work for this through Bechdel, so the summary is necessary; but, it still made the reading more difficult for me personally. The ethic she proposes seems to dispersed.

I wish she would have also discussed her idea of "biopossibility" more, especially since I think this could have important implications for (queer) feminist study of the body (in science) and materialism. She's also often vague about certain racial implications. I don't think it was detrimental to my reading, but I just wish she had given it more time and better back up these peripheral claims.

Nonetheless, the books is a necessary reminder that science is embedded within the political moment, and that we "challenge the locus and authority of claims about the material body in the sciences" (127).

[Wenjing Fan · Rating 4 out of 5]

第一次读这个主题的作品。有一些比较启发的地方，比如明确了单偶制是和异性恋、种族、阶级、民族问题同构的；也很认同作者提到的，多边关系的本质也是以性缘/浪漫爱为中心的，并没有跳出单偶-多边的框架；以及要认识到人类的核心连接可以不以性缘为中心，应该看到更多不同的联结形式（如友情）。对于行文里比较多书写的“生物”（科学）领域应用单偶制所造成的偏见，有点不明白为什么要用那么多笔墨；以及用Dyke Ethics（拉拉伦理）来描述一种不以性缘为中心的人际联结方式我感觉有点怪怪的……不过或许把Dyke Ethics放在lesbian feminism的框架下面倒挺不错？

[Yilin Wong]

Too theoretical! Ahhhh... what am I reading?
quitting, if someday i wanna do poly i'll come back i guess ><