Anarchist+Non-Monogamies

=**Anarchist Subcultures**= toc

**Introduction**
Anarchism refers to political philosophies that advocate for stateless societies. Song (2012) further describes anarchism as a radical ideology and movement for "resisting institutionalization, hierarchy, and complete or partial assimilation into the state" (p.3). While there are many political and theoretical variations, most organizing communities that share the affinity of an anarchist identity lean toward collectivist or communist articulations. Portwood-Stacer (2010) argues that an anarchist identity is “constructed and communicated through the adoption of lifestyle practices and visible body performances” (p. 480). Sexuality is one of these performances. While each individual who identifies as an anarchist “experiences and enacts the identity in their own unique way, … there is enough coherence around the term for it to be a meaningful object of analysis” (Portwood-Stacer, 2010, p. 480). In other words, anarchist subcultures exist in all parts of the world, and each individual experiences both the ideology and identity in their own way. While there may be cross-cultural differences, the politics and and lifestyles inherent to anarchist communities make it a subculture worth examining as a whole.

**Non-Monogamies Among Anarchists**
Many historical anarchist thinkers, who have arguably influenced contemporary anarchists, were known to practice non-monogamy, including Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Voltarine de Cleyre (Shannon & Willis, 2010, p. 436). As early as 1910, Goldman compared the institution of marriage with the tyranny of capitalism in her writing. Portwood-Stacer (2010) elaborates on this concept, stating that “monogamy is particularly ideologically suspect to anarchists because of its ties to capitalism, patriarchy, and the state” (p. 483).
 * Ideology**

The anarchist tradition of non-monogamy is in many ways very different from more mainstream polyamorous communities. “In theory, anarchists' opposition to institutionalized monogamy is less about advocating for particular sexual desires (more multiple partners, say) than it is about a radical commitment to people's freedom to determine the nature of their own sexual practice, without coercion by the market or the state” (Portwood-Stacer, 2010, p. 484). Portwood-Stacer (2010) argues the dominant poly literature “fails to take into account the systems of domination that enforce hegemonic norms, particularly where those systems exert unqual pressure on different kinds of bodies” (p. 485). Instead, anarchists theorize and practice polyamory as “individual practice //and// social critique.”

Some classic anarcha-feminists, including Goldman and de Cleyre, advocated for non-monogamy as a way to empower women and deconstruct oppressive gender roles. Some more recent dialogue, however, has questioned whether or not non-monogamy is actually beneficial for women. Kreutzer (2004), for example, sees it as harmful, arguing that women are treated as “sexual chattel to be passed back and forth between brothers in arms” (p. 40).



**Praxis**
According to Portwood-Stacer, polyamory is the most common form of or term used for non-monogamy among contemporary anarchists in North America. Information and practical advice for non-monogamy can be easily found in anarchist literature. For example, CrimethInc., an organization that publishes and distributes materials that are widely accessible, includes chapters on sex and non-monogamous relationships. Acceptance and practice of non-monogamy may exhibit regional differences among anarchist circles. For example, two of Portwood-Stacer's (2010) interviewees agreed that in general polyamory is the norm for anarchists living in Washington, DC. One interviewee, however, felt that it was not as acceptable after moving to Los Angeles.

One common area of question for poly folks is their handling of jealousy. One of Portwood-Stacer's (2010) study respondants noted that “individuals who attempted to practice polyamory were ashamed when they found themselves experiencing feelings of possessiveness or jealousy, as if these emotional reactions jeopardized their identities as 'good' anarchists” (p. 489). Among Portwood-Stacer's (2010) research interviewees, some did identify as monogamists or as sometimes practicing monogamy. However, those who did were frequently reluctant to identify as such (p. 484).

References[[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/RadicalRelationsHeart.svg/972px-RadicalRelationsHeart.svg.png width="286" align="right"]]
Goldman. E. (1910). Anarchism and other essays. New York, NY: Mother Earth Publishing Association. Kreutzer, K. (2004). Polyamory on the left: Liberatory or predatory? //Off our Backs, 34//(5), 40-41. Portwood-Stacer, L. (2010). Constructing anarchist sexuality: Queer identity, culture, and politics in the anarchist movement. //Sexualities, 13//(4), 479-493. doi: 10.1177/13634607103710370653 Shannon, D. & Willis, A. (2010). Theoretical polyamory: Some thoughts on loving, thinking, and queering anarchism. //Sexualities, 13//(4), 433-443. doi: 10.1177/1363460710370655 Song, S. (2012). Polyamory and queer anarchism: infinite possibilities for resistance. In //The Anarchist Library//. Retrieved from http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/susan-song-polyamory-and-queer-anarchism-infinite-possibilities-for-resistance.pdf