Introduction
A recent article published in The Atlantic by Harper, “Polyamory: The Dominant Elite’s New Trend,” criticizes polyamorous relationships within the higher social class. Most recently, through her new article, Harper has described polyamorous relationships as a fad that is a “trendy option only being selected by the rich and powerful individuals, who could care less about the effects of their actions on the whole of society.” This article tends to focus on the ideas and suggestions articulated by Harper. It takes the perspective of these theories and concepts learned by the students of sexuality in our course on the sociology of sexuality. The way Harper depicts polyamory as an absurdity of the ruling elite not only blames them for non-normative sexualities and relationships but also inflicts discrimination against them. Through his observation, he is implying polyamory’s textured homonormative idealization, his classist insults, and his disregard for the intersectionality of lived experiences within polyamorous society, while he is generously pruning the complexity of the potential of polyamory in this binary world.
Literature Review/Theoretical Framing
The paper uses sociological concepts and theories to analyze and criticize Harper’s statements about polyamory and his assumptions. For this reason, they will create theoretical models that will be used to understand the commentary of the broader society regarding alternative sexualities and the power relationships they result in.
Jasmine Pooza, California, renders an essential perspective for exploring the brand of rhetoric of Harper; for Puar (2006), homosexual normativity refers to the assimilation of heteronormative views by LGBTQ+ groups, with the understanding that some of the nontraditional forms of sexual orientation are privileged over the others. The point of this idea is to show how queer identities and practices criticized or accepted are the result of their orientation to revolutionary and regular ideals. Within the framework of Harper’s critiques, this homonormative approach may be revealed in depicting polyamory as a flashy little “fad” or “self-indulgent” creation exclusively for the liberation of people from a single-headed relationship.
Elizabeth Sheff and Chloe Hammers’ research on the poly and kink communities concerning privileges among the circles provides us with critical perspectives. The authors (Goddard et al., 2011) examine the case of non-normative life choices in their study. They consider various factors, such as race, class, and education, which result in victory over stereotypes. On the contrary, this framework is in direct conflict with Harper’s view that polygamy is an elite phenomenon represented by “elites of a particular age, gender, class, and income,” which offers an insight into the complicated lived experiences of the same communities.
Montegary studies the military of homonormalities, which is, even more, the case that shows who has power and who does not. She inquires how “ready, willing, and able” citizens who identify with state interests, ideology, and dominant culture get constructed. This idea reflects the way Harper presents polyamory as a challenge to the traditional view of family structures and also norms of gender, which might result in imposing the regulation of polyamory relationships or even ostracizing them.
Kyla Cotburt’s research on the blending of gender and identity in a people’s perception is similar. Cuthbert (2019) discusses the problem of conceptualizing gender and sexuality in one way, which further results in a confused and much-ignored diversity in these domains. This notion conceives Harper as the one who stated that the very idea of polyamory is an inherent attack on the traditional gender roles, as well as families’ structures, as it highlights the problematic generalization of all the relationship options.
Renee Nelson’s investigation on visualization, women, and security problems of unisexual persons also creates comprehension of the diversity of nonconformal sexualities. In her article (Nelson, 2020), the challenges in discrimination and stereotyping are mentioned, including a single or monolithic portrayal, which is being used negatively. The latter outlook may make them examine in-depth the derisive and condescending position of the author as she draws a monolithic view of polyamory.
The work of Amelia Toft, Anita Franklin, and Emma Langley’s study that looks at the continuation of such narratives in the lives of young disabled LGBTQ+ persons also gives us more understanding about the minority or identity groups that are the most under-represented. They look at how the concept of unconventional sexualities as a phase-only fuels uprising and dismissal (Toft et al., 2019). A statement seems to be a clear reminder of a “fad,” ignoring the realness and value of polyamory.
Finally, Angela Jones, in the end, offers a nuanced perspective on the porn workers’ negotiation of pleasure as a risky or ordinary part of their work. Jones (2016) brings in these persons’ incredible and diverse stories, making the homogenized assumptions and narratives go against the wall. The writer proffered a different take on Harper’s depiction of polyamory as a narcissistic and self-indulgent endeavor, bringing into focus the myriad reasons that fuel unconventional sexual habits.
This is where the sociological concepts and theories take a step higher in offering a sound framework to critically analyze Harper’s assumptions and arguments regarding polyamory. They help elucidate power relations, socio-economic marginalization, and the intersecting influences that govern narratives about nontraditional sexual orientations through an inclusive and elaborative gaze. This allows us to comprehend the nuances that accompany such lived experiences.
Analysis
The theme Harper thought up expressed polyamory as a self-gratifying act to be held only by the elites. Such a manner of posing passively infers a polyamorous society is something of a recent invention. Therefore, a relationship structure of ethical non-monogamy is highly questionable. It tells us that the ability of polyamory to become visible depends on its use and promotion by the elite class. Here, non-privileged polyamorous people’s lives are not being taken into account.
One of Harper’s strategies to convince readers is noted with words such as “fad” and “self-indulgence,” which are the attributing factors of pieces of homonormative ideas. Polyamory is shown as merely another undue trend that is an outcome of the personal narcissism of the rich rather than a true sense of sexuality and closeness. Similarly, she draws attention to the politics of homonormative narratives that privilege certain kinds of queer identities and practices. In contrast, others are aligned with mainstream normative values such as marriage or family. They become heteronormativity in a novelty wrapper.
What makes her position even more controversial is that it, to a certain degree, is based on class and gender ideas. By using the term “ladies reflected the ruling class,” Harper infers that the social upper classes are correlated with being non-monogamous and rich. Through this whitewashing of working-class and underrated polyamorous communities, the trend of classist stereotypes is brought to the forefront, as well as these people’s intersectional experiences are disregarded. As shown by Sheff and Hammers’ research, the aspect of polyamory and kink in culture complicated the storytelling of race, class, and education, disturbing stereotyped deliveries.
However, Harper also expresses concerns that the polyamorous lifestyle could become more normalized if the cultural elite starts approving of this lifestyle. She claims that “If the ruling class embraces polyamory, it will eventually become accepted in the general public.” This theory illustrates a vertical spreading of norms whereby the ruling class determines guidelines of societal values. Contrarily, this illustration has side-lined marginalized communities’ active opposition to culture production. LGBQT and feminist movements have always been at the frontline of uniting the grassroots and challenging oppressive norms. Hence, Harper can find these movements advocating for an individual and societal existence.
Nevertheless, his criticism is represented as not addressing the variety among the polyamorous communities and the possible obscuration of patriarchal and heteronormative settings. Harper’s modern, mostly class “novel” put down the living life, identity, and political nature of non-monogamous partners. Harper’s classic thinking only helps the process of confusing sexuality with gender, which is under the criticism of Cuthbert. Harper declares, “The recent trend of polyamory is coming directly from the class that rules and aims to crush the gender roles and family structures of the majority.” The implication is that polyamory stands for exclusive affirmation and rigid disapproval of existing gender norms and traditional family structures without taking into consideration the diversity of possibilities within polyamory and how non-monogamy may be used in various ways in many relationships vari
Finally, Harper’s criticism agrees with Montegary’s analysis of militarizing homonormativity, in which the states’ interests and dominant ideologies determine the forms of honor mode of each identity and practice, whether they are tolerated or not. Through her representing polyamory as a challenge to the traditional families to gender norms, she creates a negative image of non-monogamy, which can amazingly be justification or regulation of the same.
Conclusion
Harper’s higher-class-filtered view of polyamory took a self-indulgent approach, discarding the part where proponents could use it to question the social norms of the high-class crowd or society. The examination showed hurtful attitudes and stereotyping discourses embedded in the world’s vision. By fusing polyamory with the notion of the elitist and fetish like a fad, Harper strengthened the homonormative sense for heteronormative ideologies that are related to specific types of sexuality, which are deviant or unacceptable. This depiction enshrined prejudices by rejecting the existing practices of the lovers from the working class. Harper ended up using a one-sided approach to impose norms from above, ignoring that grassroots antagonism and resistance to this imposition exist and that people at the grassroots can shape their cultural identity discourses. Moreover, his estimation of the potential of polyamory to nest the conventional ideas of the genders and the families comprised the confusion about the identity of gender and the sex regarding the diverse situations about human relations.
References
Cuthbert, K. (2019). “When We Talk about Gender, We Talk about Sex”: (A)sexuality and (A)gendered Subjectivities. Gender & Society, 33(6), 841–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219867916
Harper, T. A. (2024, February 1). Polyamory, the Ruling Class’s Latest Fad. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/polyamory-ruling-class-fad-monogamy/677312/
Jones, A. (2016). “I Get Paid to Have Orgasms”: Adult Webcam Models’ Negotiation of Pleasure and Danger. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 42(1), 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/686758
Montegary, L. (2015). Militarizing US Homonormativities: The Making of “Ready, Willing, and Able” Gay Citizens. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 40(4), 891–915. https://doi.org/10.1086/680333
Nelson, R. (2020). “What do bisexuals look like? I don’t know!” Visibility, gender, and safety among plurisexuals. Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 144078332091145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783320911455
Puar, J. K. (2006). Mapping US Homonormativities. Gender, Place & Culture, 13(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690500531014
Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: race, class, and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology and Sexuality, 2(3), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2010.537674
Toft, A., Franklin, A., & Langley, E. (2019). “You’re not sure that you are gay yet”: The perpetuation of the “phase” in the lives of young disabled LGBT people. Sexualities, 23(4), 136346071984213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460719842135
write