“Hierarchical” Polyamory vs. Polyamory “Anarchy”

Non-monogamy map

I recent­ly ran into a thread on one of the polyamory groups I belong to where some­one asked for clar­i­fi­ca­tion as to what “Hier­ar­chi­cal Polyamory” was, and the first answer was to link to this page of Frank Veaux’s polyamory site:

Well, there are some things that Mr. Veaux writes which I think are true, even insight­ful, and oth­er things I dis­agree with, some very strong­ly. What peo­ple miss when some­one like Mr. Veaux writes a book, or authors a site, is that Mr. Veaux is no more of an “author­i­ty” on polyamory than I am… or that Deb­o­rah Taj Anapol was… or that Morn­ing Glo­ry Raven­heart Zell was, or that *ANY* poly per­son is. We each have our own jour­ney, and when we write about our jour­ney, and our per­spec­tive, we’re try­ing to explain a phe­nom­e­non which we are a part of, but which *NONE* of us “owns.” And one of the prob­lems about get­ting an under­stand­ing of “hier­ar­chi­cal” polyamory is that no one I know who prac­tices polyamory who uses labels like “pri­ma­ry”, “sec­ondary”, “ter­tiary”, etc., defines it as a hier­ar­chy or would use the term “hier­ar­chi­cal polyamory” which peo­ple like Mr. Veaux seem to have stuck us with. From my explo­ration of the web­sites being used to explain the phe­nom­e­non, it seems to be pri­mar­i­ly, if not exclu­sive­ly, those peo­ple who have con­struct­ed the term “polyamory anar­chy” who are *APPLYING* that label to peo­ple whose rela­tion­ships they either don’t under­stand, or whose type of rela­tion­ships don’t work for them. That’s about as valid as monog­a­mous peo­ple get­ting to label polyamory as “cheat­ing” or “promis­cu­ity” because they can’t fath­om it, or have tried it and it didn’t work for them.

What peo­ple ignore when they call it “hier­ar­chi­cal” polyamory is that the labels do not imply a hier­ar­chy, because a hier­ar­chy is not estab­lished that implies that some peo­ple are more impor­tant than oth­ers, but sim­ply denotes that some peo­ple in the rela­tion­ship *com­mit* more to a spe­cif­ic “cells” with­in the “pods” (pods is such a good word, but it’s hard to explain when there are group­ings with­in a pod… some­one give me a bet­ter word. Might we use “hearths”?… yes… I’m going to use hearths.) So I’ll amend that to hearths with­in the pod, although peo­ple who see polyamory as rad­i­cal may pre­fer cells.

The way that I, as some­one who has been in a rela­tion­ship that used the term, have always explained the label­ing of “pri­ma­ry”, “sec­ondary”, “ter­tiary”, “satel­lites”, etc. is that the labels indi­cate how con­nect­ed the per­son is to the fam­i­ly. So look­ing at it as a pod, with per­haps mul­ti­ple hearths with­in the pod, the labels indi­cate how con­nect­ed, or com­mit­ted, some­one is to a spe­cif­ic hearth with­in the pod. If one is com­mit­ted to that hearth, i.e., liv­ing in a mar­i­tal type rela­tion­ship, bond­ed per­haps by vows or some oth­er promise, shar­ing resources, etc., *THAT*, that com­mit­ment is what makes them a “pri­ma­ry” with­in the hearth. This is con­sis­tent with how those that I’ve known who have been a part of the poly move­ment since the 60s, before the term was even coined, like the Raven­hearts, have always defined it. And there is, and nev­er was, any­thing which is/was counter to egal­i­tar­i­an­ism in that thinking.

My exam­ple is when I was in a polyan­drous mar­riage, *both* of my hus­bands were “pri­ma­ry” to me. One was “senior” because he’d been there longer, the oth­er was “junior” because he was new­er, but all those labels were was a way to explain to peo­ple some­thing that did­n’t real­ly mat­ter with­in the rela­tion­ship — who was there first.

Sec­on­daries might be peo­ple who did­n’t share resources, but were emo­tion­al­ly com­mit­ted to the hearth. Ter­tiaries might be peo­ple who had lit­tle com­mit­ment to the hearth, but who were emo­tion­al­ly com­mit­ted to one or more peo­ple with­in the hearth. Satel­lites might be peo­ple who were just erot­ic friends of some­one with­in the hearth. Each fam­i­ly deter­mines their cri­te­ria, but *NONE* of that cri­te­ria has to do with who is more “impor­tant” as a per­son, sim­ply who is more con­nect­ed via the shar­ing of resources, or who is more com­mit­ted to the hearth.

So I dis­like the term “hier­ar­chy” because it implies pow­er, and specif­i­cal­ly pow­er over, which isn’t actu­al­ly accu­rate. What is more accu­rate is that the terms sig­ni­fy lev­els of com­mit­ment to a spe­cif­ic fam­i­ly or hearth with­in a polyamorous pod and per­haps with­in an expan­sive polyamorous network.

Posts created 1

2 thoughts on ““Hierarchical” Polyamory vs. Polyamory “Anarchy”

  1. I had­n’t even heard of the term “Hier­ar­chi­cal Polyamory” until this post. The term strikes me as rather silly. 

    But it is love­ly to see a post from you 🙂 *hugs*

  2. Hier­ar­chi­cal polyamory gets a lot of flack in poly cir­cles late­ly, so it’s good to have it explained. This is a guest post by my friend Cat Deville 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top