There's been a trend in the last
several years, in mainstream polyamorous culture – be it the most
popular blogs, or podcasts, that is increasingly dogmatic – that
there's a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do polyamory.
This dogma is also increasingly restrictive and as a result,
exclusionary. A lot of this dogma started out as what was actually
very good advice on how to build successful poly relationships based
on the kind of poly relationships the advice-givers themselves engage
in, and what they personally need and desire in relationships. Which
is great – for them. It's become a huge problem in the community
for those who fall outside that particular box.
At it's heart, polyamory simply refers
to the idea that people can have romantic relationships with more
than one person at a time. This basic premise leads to a nearly
infinite number of different relationship models, from the dreaded
polyfi triad of the “unicorn hunters” (in which a preexisting
couple attempt to find a bisexual woman to join their and only their
relationship) to a completely open structure of any number of people
with almost no rules or guidelines allowed and everything inbetween.
What's been happening, however, is that anything that resembles the
triad model is increasingly seen as the “wrong” kind of poly, and
countless articles and podcasts are focused on trying to convince
preexisting couples to move to practicing poly in as open and
rule-free a way possible. To resist this, the mainstream poly
culture says, is an exercise in the laughable notion of “couple
privilege”
Lately there's a concept that's been
gaining a lot of ground in what I'll just refer to as “mainstream
polyamorous culture” as defined by the most popular and well-read
blogs, articles, and forums, and most-listened to podcasts. This
insidious injustice is referred to as “couple privilege.”
“Privilege” is a concept that comes
out of what's generally referred to as the social justice community,
and was specifically a concept first used in terms of how racism in
the United States gives unearned, hidden privileges to white people,
leaving people of color at a disadvantage that white people often
don't realize or understand. The concept was quickly used by
feminists, who coined “male privilege” and gay activists, who
coined the term “straight privilege.” It then continued to
expand in usage in social justice circles, with “cis privilege”,
“passing privilege”, “neurotypical privilege” “thin
privilege” and other uses, some of them appropriate and necessary,
others misplaced.
The basis of the privilege concept is
oppression. In the U.S., people of color experience oppression, and
lack privilege based on the color of their skin and/or race. (This
isn't really up for debate here at SoT). Women experience oppression
in relation to men, who automatically receive male privilege on the
basis of their gender. Privileges and oppressions intersect – a
white woman does not receive male privilege, but she is granted white
privilege.
“Couple privilege” doesn't work as
a concept. You are not born as a couple. You are not guaranteed to
remain a couple for the rest of your life. Being in a couple is a
conscious choice. A gay person may not be out, but they still are
not recipients of straight privilege, because the nature of anti-gay
bigotry affects their internal sense of self, their ability to be out
in the first place is a decision that largely results from anti-gay
oppression. The analogy doesn't work. Coupledom, as a choice
people make, doesn't function in a similar way at all to inborn
traits that lead people to be privileged or oppressed.
One of the problems with the
popularization of social justice ideas and lingo outside of the
rigorous academic setting in which it originated is that complex
concepts are often reduced to simplistic, black and white thinking by
people who don't have a good understanding of the basics behind how
oppression and privilege function. Anything that confers social,
legal, or other benefits on a group is seen as a privilege, and any
negatives that result from being part of a group is thereby
explicitly or implicitly understood to be an oppression – when
often it's not.
For instance: I completely agree with
the idea, behind couple privilege, that “our” (U.S., western,
etc) society encourages couple-based relationships. For that matter,
so do the vast majority of other cultures and religions. Most
societies have expectations that a coupled relationship –
preferably legally and/or religiously sanctioned, with children
resulting from the union, until someone in the relationship dies –
is what everyone should aspire to. It's just expected. It's a clear
socio-cultural norm.
Furthermore, being in a couple
confers all kinds of benefits on the people in the relationship.
Social approval, pooling of resources, and if legally sanctioned, a
vast number of economic and social benefits. There is a reason,
after all, why same-sex couples want marriage rights.
Based on that, it seems reasonable to
say that couples are privileged. And if the people using the term
“couple privilege” were basing their arguments on these clear
social benefits, I'd be more inclined to take the term seriously,
although even with this model there are still problems. Most
legitimate uses of the privilege term as described above are based on
inherent truths about yourself that you cannot change – your
race/ethnicity, your sexual orientation, your gender (understanding
that most trans people say they were always the gender they identify
with – the issue of non-binary trans people is beyond the scope of
this post). Whereas couplehood is far more complex and based more in
choice than any of these other identifiers. Almost anyone can choose
to be part of a couple, if coupledom is what they seek. (Whether
they can find the ideal partner is another matter, but it is not
difficult for almost anyone to find another lonely soul with low
expectations who wants to be in a relationship. Think of some of the
most awful people you know who happen to be married.)
If one voluntarily chooses not to be in
a relationship – whether that's because they don't enjoy being part
of a couple, or they are having trouble finding a partner that meets
their standards – they are still choosing to be single, at least
for the time being. There's also the reality that most people are
part of a couple at some points during their life. From my point of
view, the concept of privilege doesn't work well when it's an
attribute that is something nearly everyone on the planet goes
through, or is a result of choice. (This is also why I don't buy
into the idea of “adult privilege” with regards to
children/teenagers as an oppressed group, or “youth privilege”
with regards to older people. There are severe disadvantages in
various societies with being young, or old – and often legal issues
that should be advocated for these groups. That doesn't mean they
fit the oppression model.)
But I'm willing to grant that if a
person is using the term “couple privilege” to refer exclusively
to the important, wide-ranging benefits that couples receive legally,
economically, and socially from the culture at large that my
disagreement with the concept does rest almost entirely on the
semantic argument between “advantages” and “privileges” and a
healthy debate could follow.
But no. If you read the definitions
and descriptions of couple privilege that are routinely linked to and
discussed in the poly community, it becomes clear that the majority
of it is based instead on relationship dynamics. Which is a
preposterous misunderstanding of the concept of privilege.
“Couple privilege” pushers argue
from two fronts: the emotional/practical benefits that couples
receive versus single people, and specifically within polyamory, the
ways that couples can supposedly use their “couple privilege” in
placing the needs of their relationship above that of other partners.
Privilege/oppression is a concept that
functions on large dynamics – things that affect an entire
culture/society. Couple privilege pushers use the term almost
exclusively to refer to things that affect individuals, and
confusingly throw in a few examples of the larger disadvantages
non-couples face in society as justification for complaints that at
their heart, are based entirely on individualistic dynamics.
From the couple vs. single aspect of
“couple privilege”, many people have made lists of what
privileges couples receive that single people do not. Unlike valid
concepts of privilege which rest on irrational, unfair bigotry
against a particular group, much of the “privileges” put forth
are simple issues based in practicality that has little to nothing to
do with seeing singles as an inferior class of people. Examples
include the idea that package travel deals are based on double
occupancy and singles have to pay more – despite the fact that my
single mother takes advantage of such deals for “couples” by
traveling with a friend. Or the idea that larger living spaces are
afforded to couples who can pool resources, ignoring that groups of
people have been choosing to live together to afford nicer places by
pooling their resources since forever. Another one, laughably, was
the fact that single people may be relegated to sleeping on a cot
when visiting family for the holidays, because the bedrooms are
afforded to couples. The idea that this family arrangement is based
on “oppression” is so ridiculous that I shouldn't have to even
mention it, but it makes sense that if two people are willing to
share a bed, they will get to sleep in that space to make more room
for more people! The minor inconveniences that singles face under
these situations are not benefits that only couples can enjoy, but
based entirely in practical space concerns.
The other issue put forth by the
couples versus singles model are emotional. Being part of a couple
means you have someone to rely on for emotional support, to back you
up in an argument, to take care of you when you're sick. But again,
none of these functions are or should be relegated to romantic
couples only. Friends and family can fulfill nearly all of these
emotional roles, if the author had bothered to cultivate and treat
non-romantic/sexual relationships as seriously as romantic/sexual
ones.
It's also worth noting that these
couple privilege checklists don't assess the many downsides of being
part of a couple. If you don't believe me, stay tuned for our single
privilege checklist.
Within specifically the polyamorous
concept of couple privilege, the same individualistic error is
applied. In this context, “couple privilege”, generally, refers
to any action that results from the couple privileging their
relationship above any other romantic/sexual relationships. You can
argue that this is a bad or even “wrong” way to do polyamory
(which I disagree with but that's a matter for another post) but it's
not privilege as is understood within a social justice context. All
a single poly person has to do to avoid couple privilege is to not
enter into relationships with couples! A woman can't escape sexism,
even if she doesn't date men, and a Black person can't escape racism,
even if they don't socialize with white people. Real oppression is
not something you can escape via a simple choice, but couple
privilege, as defined by polyamorous people, can simply be avoided.
Problem solved!
I hope you made it through this rather
pedantic wall of text. I apologize for the dryness of this post, but
when dealing with social justice concepts I prefer to err on the side
of boring clarity rather than entertaining snark. Rest assured that
my next post, which will explore in greater detail the problems with
anti-couple thought in modern poly culture, will be a lot more fun,
both for me to write and for you to read.
Posts
