Anarchy and Polyamory

by Dystophia 1

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics

Unknown Binding

Reviews

[Emory · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm giving this book 3 stars for numerous reasons explained below
1) the lack of queerness in this book is simply baffling to me. Polyamory and anarchy are inherently queer subjects which intersect and interact with each other constantly; anarchy is queer and queerness is anarchy.
2) the binary view on gender and the general cishetero assumed position of most of the authors was disappointing and l felt detached from the authors experiences compared to my own because of this
3) the emphasis on primary and secondary partners was a massive red flag to me. Polyamory should not involve hierarchy and people should work at deconstructing their hierarchies as in anarchy

[Annsky · Rating 2 out of 5]

The stars are for some of the texts like the one by Emma Goldman. But I expected more of the book, especially regarding queer topics and intersectionality. Some of the text I disagree with to such an extend that I cannot give more than these two stars.

Some texts are even problematic in my opinion, for example the text "a green anarchist project on freedom and love" uses a lot of ableist language. The fact that I don't agree with some basic ideas of anarcho primitivism set aside. (Is dysophia generally anarcho primitivism?)

An example of such a statement from the text mentioned above: "[...] nobody can stop their loved one loving or f***ing another. They can only choose to believe they can which to me suggest a form of mental illness" (p. 96).
As far as I understand the argumentation the text ist about not having rules, not having restrictions in relationships and to go after ones desire. This argumentation and wording is not helpful in my eyes and very unsympathetic. Since many of us grow up in a monogamist society it is hard to unlearn those patterns. People might be jealous and deal with serious strong emotions, so why trigger them on purpose by kissing another person in front of a partner, like the author suggests at another page? Why not have some kind of restriction or rather agreement and go kiss the person in another room to make the situation more comfortable for everyone and still fulfill ones desire? For me this has something to do with empathy and care - jealousy can slowly be unlearned or at least lessened, one can learn to feel safer and have less fear. It's a process.
For me it is important and not counter revolutionary or anti libertarian to find ways to deal with the current situation, that might include agreements as part of the process towards an anarchist society. For me anarchy implies finding ways of building relationships, finding ways of living in the here and now that help unlearn the patterns of our current society and those ways are multiple and diverse. I am not against monogamist or closed relationships, I critique heteronormativity or mononormativity, the discrimination and regulationsl of lives and ways of living that "differ from the norm" (what ever that is). So if people choose to live monogamous and openly communicate that desire, it is their choice to do so. Not everyone has the capacities to live a polyamorous life (emotional, time wise (-> care work, labour) can't/doesn't want to do the work of communication,...).

The text I used as an example is from 2004, the version of the book I have is a reprint from 2023, published 2020. I wonder why texts haven't been reworked or commented more or why they didn't add some new texts/published another work as a reaction/critique to this one. I am sure that there have been some useful critiques... So as you might have noticed I am slightly disappointed and had high hopes on an anarchist book on polyamory since I couldn't find many about this topic.

[marta · Rating 2 out of 5]

⭐⭐1/2. Allora alcuni capitoli molto interessanti, belle le storie personali, alcuni un po' troppo aggressivi e "normativi". Alcuni capitoli hanno un linguaggio espressamente abilista e altri invece usano un linguaggio molto gerarchico. Non so mi aspettavo di più

[Maja Fluffy · Rating 2 out of 5]

So much talk about primary and secondary partners, it feels weird that hierarchy should be such a big topic. And so little discussion of queerness. So many direct insults to people who think differently or question the idea of polyamory. It was definitely interesting to get an insight into some texts written on this topic but oh wow did I disagree with most of them

[Liselot · Rating 1 out of 5]

dit boek klinkt alsof het gemaakt is voor mij, maar het was een fucking nachtmerrie. ik kan niet stoppen met klagen over dit boek. ik ben vrij serieus aan het overwegen om het te vernietigen. ik heb nog nooit zo vaak fuck you op een pagina geschreven, of hele paragrafen door moeten kruisen omdat ze zo slecht zijn.

wie is de doelgroep? wat is het doel? who hurt you?

bespaar jezelf dit

[aj ☆ · Rating 3 out of 5]

not a terrible collection, but could definitely be improved upon. it felt like there weren’t enough discussions on queerness, considering how queer polyamory tends to be, and the focus on primary/secondary relationships was questionable at best. didn’t hate it, didn’t love it either.

[chicadecuero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es un fanzine que me compré en una tienda anarquista escondida por Londres, y me ha sorprendido a bien.

Me ha gustado tanto leer conceptos e ideas que ya conocía como aprender sobre nuevos puntos de vista. Como anarquista relacional, me ha gustado poco que en muchos de los relatos se hablase únicamente de “pareja principal” y del poliamor jerárquico.

Mis ensayos favoritos han sido:
-A Personal Perspective (problems of polyamory: power, hierarchy, control, self-reflection & awareness, Care and compassion)
-Let them eat cake: Anarchist polyamory theory and reality
-Emma Goldman on Marriage and Love
-8 Points on Relationship Anarchy
-The Rise of Polyamory: Leftist men’s self-serving cure-all for sexism (el que más me ha hecho reflexionar)

Me lo volvería a leer para interiorizar mejor los mensajes de los diferentes (9) ensayos que conforman este panfleto sobre poliamor y anarquismo.

[Matias · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was capable of enjoying it but only by ignoring the blatant heteronormativity of it all.

The essays in this book fail to address how being queer changes the classical heteronormative hierarchy of relationships. And the book focuses heavily on man/woman relationships.

I agree with some authors more and with others less, as is expected. But I did enjoy it as an overview of the topic and how it interacts with misogyny within leftist spaces.

But felt mostly out of place as a gay trans man. Which is ok, but for a book about polyamory as a whole… it could have taken into account all types of sexuality.

I really liked that they added Emma Goldman’s perspective.

[Tova Cranford · Rating 3 out of 5]

like most anarchist writing, much of this has an absolutist tone that is annoying to slog through. there are though, also, some very challenging and interesting thoughts in this zine. overall glad to have read it, and have a few things within it that I will continue to grapple with but it is CERTAINLY sloppy in the way it talks about polyamory, which I suppose, reflects how it can be to navigate interpersonal relationships, polaym or not

[Renee Eshel · Rating 3 out of 5]

i have a lot of thoughts on this - some bits better than others some slip into rad fem/ biological essentialism. really interesting ideas that i didn’t necessarily agree with but also like did i not agree because i am like indoctrinated or am i just like clever idk babe you tell me ??? did like emma goldmans chapter though

[Skyler · Rating 1 out of 5]

insanely narrow minded book for a book that has two of the most open concepts in its title

insanely cishet centric and just weirdly insistent? what the fuck kind of argument is saying you can’t be an anarchist if you aren’t polyamorous and that you’re actually a bad person if you aren’t polyamorous

[tvhgvc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most texts are quite heteronomative and favour hierarchical polyamory without reflection of why. Others make good points but seem to fall short in their analysis.
I read it with some critical distance and in that way it was quite thought provoking.

[austyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

definitely helped me on my journey but some takes were iffy LMFAO

[eri mrtva · Rating 2 out of 5]

authors tries to gatekeep the one right way to do polyamory, also use of rword?? come on it’s from 2013…

[Lauren tabby cat Wikipedia image · Rating 1 out of 5]

wholeheartedly on board with the concept but the presentation of it was boring asf

[Goni Halevi · Rating 3 out of 5]

i really liked and resonated with a few of this pieces but vehemently disliked others

[shamaya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Feeling extremely lucky to be gay

[Juuliaeve · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting but no queer perspectives

[Thomas Horton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This text is rich with discourse on open relationships and the sociopolitical context(s) of romance.

It markedly does not provide a distinct definition of anarchy on purpose, but equates "anarchist principles" to just two notes. First, "All Shall Be Free and Equal" and second, "Extend Mutual Aid and Solidarity" (extent to how much, how long, etc. TBD). I appreciate this for a couple reasons; first, it allows us to worry not about the ideologies of anarchy and focus on the rest of the content, and it also boils down a massive subject to a really simple and memorable baseline.

It takes the time to equate polyamory to an active rejection of capitalist ideals. Polyamory itself is criticized through a lens of morality whose foundation is of ownership, patriarchy, and economic dominance. A perfect example of the above claim can be witnessed in the following request: Define "Traditional Family Values." Concepts like the nuclear family and family values themselves are ones we are exposed to every day and reinforced as the norm. In so doing, we can infer that society and religion heavily influence these norms consistently. Just as anarchism scrutinizes the power relations of economics, an anarchistic lens of polyamory scrutinizes the power dynamics of relationships. Speaking further on how these norms are replicated and reinforced, we can also conclude that relationships and love are propagandized. This is evident in literally all advertising and marketing. Sex is both a commodity and a goal. Both taboo and a hyper-motivation tool.

These are just some of the many arguments and insights provided in this text; you can also expect heavy criticism of the social contracts of marriage, assumptions about feminine sexual liberation, and patriarchal socialization.

At times, I believe the text is inflexible and harsh in its judgments of the status quo, particularly of those that are not polyamorous, and at other times I believe the straight-forwardness of the claims and discussion of theory to be refreshing.

In general, this is not the text to pick up as a primer to anarchism OR polyamory, but a supplement to an already well-read and proficient scholar in the topics. Someone looking to dip their toes into these topics may be better off with the Ethical Slut.