The other day we talked about Relational Anarchy with a psychologist and practitioner of this relationship model. Today, we speak with Noelia García, a general clinical psychologist, about the alternatives to monogamy and your opinions as a professional in this regard.
We leave you here the interview about Relational Anarchy.
Alternatives to monogamy: interview with a psychologist
The defenders of traditional relationships assure that “men and women need to maintain exclusive ties to guarantee the continuity of the species, and there is no reason why this should not be the case, no matter how much the way in which we understand ties has advanced. loving”. What is your opinion on this statement?
As an argument it seems to me poor, reductionist and far from the human social/affective reality. I think that when we decide to connect with other people, we mostly do it driven by how those people make us feel, by the pleasure of their company and other actions that are stimulating, not with the main and only objective of reproducing ourselves.
Something that also bothers me is the term “need”. Healthy affective relationships are established around preference or choice, never necessity. In any case, and taking reproduction as an argument, I don't see how this can be exclusive or incompatible with other forms of bonding such as open relationships, polyamory or even relational anarchy.
Do you consider that monogamy is natural or intrinsic to our nature?
Not at all. In fact, most mammals practice polygamy. Human beings were not always monogamous (polygamy has been practiced for a long time and in multiple cultures) and this change in the way we relate to each other had to do with the consolidation of Christianity and its ethical-religious values in society. If it were intrinsic in our nature, would there be so much infidelity?
What do you think determines whether a person tends towards monogamous relationships or decides between alternatives to monogamy?
Of the education received, open-mindedness, critical thinking regarding the norms, standards imposed as arbitrary and not necessarily good or preferable for everyone, previous sexual-affective experiences, models of parental bonding, knowing or being in contact with other people who practice or relate from another model of love, etc.
People who consider themselves polyamorous or relational anarchists tend to “drown” within normative monogamous relationships. What is this about?
First of all, clarify that there is differences between polyamory and relational anarchism. In polyamory there is still the concept of a couple and its differentiation with other types of ties (hierarchical or non-hierarchical) while relational anarchy seeks to blow up all that imposed social structure to deconstruct the beliefs we have and assume about ties or relationships.
I think the key is in the experience. That is, a non-monogamous person (whether polyamorous or another option) can choose at a given time to maintain an exclusive relationship with another person, but based on choice or preference. It would be very different if your partner, society or yourself imposed it. In the end and in the words of a friend "you would not be living and practicing love as you conceptualize and feel it" and this can materialize not only in a feeling of suffocation, but also guilt, reproach, confinement, apathy, etc.
Is it possible that a person who considers himself monogamous can have a relationship with a person who is not?
Might. That is, as in the previous example proposed, it is possible that a non-monogamous person decides at a certain moment to have exclusivity with a monogamous person. It is true, and in my opinion, that if the circumstances change and it is decided to open a relationship or maintain multiple ties with others, if the monogamous person experiences this as something negative, with which he does not agree and generates discomfort, very possibly the relationship would end up dissolving.
It is explained that Relational Anarchy "does not hierarchically differentiate someone with whom you relate romantically from someone with whom you relate non-romantically." What does this really mean?
Relational anarchy seeks to blow up the entire social structure imposed to deconstruct the beliefs we have and assume about ties or relationships. It does not effectively differentiate between romantic and non-romantic ties. Each link is different and is built based on the people who make it up, circumstances, etc. The labels "friend" or "partner" disappear but the affective responsibility remains in these relationships.
In order to have alternative relationships to monogamy, do you need some kind of learning?
In the same way that, for example, people are not born "machista", but rather we become when we come into contact with society and its values, in this case the same thing happens. No one is born an anarchist, polyamorous or monogamous, it is built. In terms of guidelines, they would be the same for any type of relationship, whatever its structure: self-knowledge, communication and a lot of emotional responsibility, among others.
To what extent are insecurities related to the desire to have a monogamous relationship? Do confident people tend to look for alternatives to monogamy?
I think there can be secure and insecure people in both relational models. However, secure people may be more likely to rethink relationships, especially the term needs and limits, compared to the insecure ones and this may lead, perhaps, to a greater criticism of romantic love, the hegemonic sex-affective system and relational models and frameworks. In other words, being more confident and aware of what you need and want allows you to be more critical of certain structures and models.
How should jealousy be managed? Is it an intimate management or as a couple?
Jealousy is a normal emotional reaction that is there to inform us of something. jealousy can be adaptive, as long as they inform us, they help us to understand what is behind them and this allows us to solve them or maladaptive/dysfunctional if we fail to manage them well. Therefore, the problem is not in experiencing jealousy at a given moment, but in what we do with this jealousy (good or bad emotional management). As for its management, it must be your own and also that of your partner, bearing in mind that communicating how we are feeling will help increase the feeling of understanding, support and intimacy with the other person.
Guidelines: Choose to normalize and not judge ourselves for experiencing certain emotional reactions, investigate the reasons why I may be feeling jealous (increase our self-knowledge) and communicate to the partner how we are feeling in the face of controlling the partner, prohibiting, etc.
Another of the premises that AR stands for is that “radical relationships must have conversation and communication as their central axis, not as a state of emergency that only appears when there are “problems”. Shouldn't all relationships be like this? Why are there so many communication problems between normative couples?
Indeed, this should be a universal premise and the way to proceed par excellence in all types of relationships, monogamous or not. Many couple relationships end up failing, among other factors, due to the lack of communication or the maintenance of dysfunctional communication patterns, which, beyond tackling the problem, become the problem itself. Therefore, knowing how to communicate is important, but knowing how to do it well, with respect and assertiveness, is essential.
As a conclusion: more emotional education is needed that allows us to identify emotions both in ourselves and in others, anticipate, regulate ourselves emotionally.
To start talking about these alternatives to monogamy as a couple, what should we do?
First of all, say that there is no "magic" phrase or better than another with which to promote a conversation. The one I usually use is “(name of the person), I would like us to talk about what happened”. Conversing or discussing about a certain topic is not difficult, what is complicated is doing it correctly in a timely manner.
Communicating assertively, that is, speaking in the first person, from emotion and not from the behavior of the other, criticism or reproach, usually minimizes the risk that the other person will take the conversation as a personal attack and therefore close to dialogue. Respecting your own time and that of your partner when talking is also essential, as well as being aware of our level of activation when talking. If we are very nervous, angry or flooded with emotion, it is most likely that we will not be able to communicate effectively.
Going to psychological therapy can be a great option to learn and/or improve social skills, as well as to treat couple problems when solutions have previously been tried without success.