There are
many courses of action that have been proposed in the wake of the California
shootings and most of them have merit. Gun control, anti-misogyny measures,
better mental health care, setting good examples for our sons, men speaking out
to support women – the list goes on.
However, in
the words of Albert Einstein, “Problems cannot be solved by the same level of
thinking that created them.” By the same token, if patriarchal attitudes are
the root of the problem, we can’t expect a patriarchal society to solve it.
Many people
see the core issue of Elliot Rodgers’ manifesto, and the reason he decided to
act as he did, as being male entitlement to women’s bodies or attentions, which
is just one of the more extreme attitudes that can arise with male privilege in
our patriarchal society. And therein lies the root of the problem with trying
to change prevailing attitudes – we live in a society where men hold the
power. And no, not all men are actively subordinating women, but consciously
and unconsciously enough do that makes any direct change glacially slow, if not
impossible.
To me,
however, there is another fundamental issue this tragedy highlights: the idea that
love between individuals is a commodity, like gold or pork bellies; something
to be gained, held and jealously protected from others who seek to “steal” it
from us. That is the basic premise of traditional monogamy – that all our
romantic and sexual love must reside within our relationship with one and only
one other person. To share that love outside the relationship by definition
invalidates it, and all other romantic attachments are viewed as either leading
to monogamy or viewed as suspect, if not forbidden entirely. This is the model
that most of us grew up with and it works fine for a lot of people. But newer
generations of people are starting to see the concept of love as a lifelong,
exclusive commitment to one other person for what it is – a choice instead of
the rule.
We live in
an increasingly resource-constrained world, and in fact, my day job is helping
to promote renewable energy, something that I’m paid for and proud to do. I
view love as the ultimate renewable resource, as abundant as the sun that
powers millions of my company’s solar panels each day. We as human beings are
capable of loving more than one person, just the way we can love more than one
parent, child or friend. It is only our society that tells us that falling in
love with someone means we must not love, nor be able to love, another.
So what if
we approached our relationships with the attitude that love is not a scarce
commodity, but rather an abundant renewable resource? What if, like ancient
Persian and Sanskrit, we had 80 different words to describe the different
qualities and valences of communal and erotic feeling, instead of just the
single four-letter word available to us now? What if we had titles for people
who make up our intentional family besides husband, wife and spouse?
I've spent
the last six years of my life figuring out the different dimensions of this
idea, and the last four actively crusading for awareness of polyamory and open
relationship styles. I truly believe
that if we can foster more ways to love each other, this world will be a better
place for everybody.
Do I think
polyamory is the answer to preventing shooting rampages? Certainly not in the
short term. In fact, it may cause women more problems by making the “I have a
boyfriend” excuse for deflecting attention a little less effective. But as many
people have said, the whole reason that excuse is effective – that men respect
each other’s “territory” more than they respect a woman’s own agency to decide
for herself – is itself objectionable and a symptom of the greater problem.
My advocacy
for polyamory is playing the long game, imagining how the world might be
different generations from now. Also, I’m thinking about how we can change
things by subverting, rather than directly challenging the patriarchy.
Relationship choice is something that every individual has total control over
without the need to pass laws or change how others behave outside of their
direct interactions with you. You can decide for yourself if you want to change
your own concept of love from one of scarcity to one of abundance.
Polyamorous
relationships are subversive to the status quo because they force you to
examine your own feelings and the motivations behind your behavior toward your
partner. They also require constant, honest communication and are based on
continually obtaining consent from all parties. So instead of relationships
being goal-oriented, poly relationships continuously grow and evolve over time,
possibly including a legal marriage, but also possibly including new partners
and negotiating relationships that are custom-tailored to each individual
situation. In short, polyamory shifts responsibility for personal happiness and
fulfillment away from the relationship itself and puts it on each individual,
giving everyone their own agency to create whatever relationships they desire.
There’s a
reason why many of the leaders in the modern polyamory movement are women.
While the idea of polygamy (one man, many women) has been around for a long
time and is still practiced in some cultures, the idea of polyandry (one woman,
many men) is much less prevalent. So the idea of polyamory (any number of
partners of any gender) is the ultimate expression of sexual equality,
completing the sexual revolution that started with the advent of birth control
by giving women more control over how to satisfy their romantic and sexual desires
in an ethical way.
That’s also why
it’s easier to sell an idea like polyamory on an individual level – people who
struggle with monogamy find the idea appealing, and the divorce rate in this
country suggests that it’s a large population. It’s something that’s actionable
today, as opposed to, say, changing how you raise your sons or fighting
misogyny in general. That’s not to say those things aren’t necessary or
important – we need people fighting on all fronts, for short and long term
goals, to fully address this problem.
As I often
say at the beginning of meetings for
Open Love NY, the group I helped to
establish in 2009, we are not looking to “turn the world poly,” just as the gay
rights movement isn’t trying to turn the world gay (despite what opponents
might say). But simply by making open relationships a visible and viable option
for everyone, we’re striking a blow against the
idea that anyone can “own” another person, or that anyone can
“expect” love from another person, whether they are in a relationship or not.
Today, we
are still working on making it safe for same-sex couples to love one another,
but at least we can see that day approaching. The next step in our society’s
diversity evolution is to make it safe for all forms of love between consenting
adults. Anyone new to the idea of polyamory will probably question how
successful it can be for the general population, and they would be right to do
so.
Poly isn’t
easy. It takes a lot of work, but at least there is the promise of a more
honest and joyful life as an incentive for people to learn about it. And
ultimately, I believe that positivity will be a more effective catalyst for
change than browbeating and shaming people. If we create more ways for people
to find and experience love, then we will be one step closer to a world where
we will never again have to witness senseless acts of violence fueled by hatred
and disrespect.
