Originally this blog post was going to be about how teams navigate risk together. Then it was going to be about complex decisions and the role of trust and relationships. And I realised that a lot of my own relationship to risk, complexity and trust stems from my personal life, and a lot of people might not have those experiences to draw upon. It got me wondering about the role of intimacy if we truly want to transform governance practices, and how the conditioning within our hierarchical romantic lives impacts our capacity to be fluid and responsive in our communities or within our working lives. So, inspired by Louise Armstrongs post about a polyamorous relationship to work and leadership I wondered if there is something here that runs deeper than a metaphor when it comes to the ways we love and how that influences the way we work.
A relationship anarchist as “someone that rejects traditional relationship structures like monogamy and hierarchy, instead prioritizing individual autonomy and treating all relationships (romantic, platonic, etc.) with equal importance and flexibility, without rigid rules or labels” feels like it could be describing many of the beliefs and principles that underpin the work of those involved in shifting organisations towards more collective forms of leading, organising and decision-making in response to our increasingly complex societies and systems. But in my experience the deep personal work required to make this shift within organisations is often repeatedly overlooked in favour of tools and processes.
There are five things that being a relationship anarchist has forced me to practice day in day out within my most intimate relationships, and it is these experiences that I believe make me more ready to create deeper changes within the work I do.
Understanding the complex interplay of desires, needs and norms
With no labels and the freedom to design and redesign relationships in a way that works for you it might seem liberating but it actually reveals how easy it is to fall back into patterns of thinking that are shaped by societal conditioning. And not only that but everyone else you are relating to in this space is also engaging with this complex interplay to varying degrees, with varying levels of self-knowledge and varying levels of understanding about the forms of oppression that are still present in the system regardless of whether you have the freedom to choose a different relationship style. The same could be said for when a group embarks on more fluid forms of organising or non-hierarchical decision-making. Every single person in that group needs the knowledge, confidence, and space/time to be able to engage with the complex interplay of the historical system and the new system you are trying to build together.
I can’t tell you how many times a week I have to sit with my insecurities in response to a partner expressing their love in ways that don’t fit my narrative. Or how many times I feel frustrated at all the ways the systems outside of my relationships, from housing to healthcare, force me to deprioritise the people I love and centre in my life. Or the time that I have to commit in order to nurture the intimate connections that I value with very few blue prints for how to do that. How do those of us working in transformational governance make the same space and grace for when insecurity shows up (likely again and again in spite of what you thought you’d committed to as a group)? How do we acknowledge that a decision-making process might feel one way to those of us who have designed it but will be entirely disregarded by other dominant forces outside of it? How do we commit time to create a new system while existing in a time poor late capitalist society?
In addition, when we lose hierarchy we lose the clear route through which we prioritise and advocate for needs. Invisible hierarchies might form as a result of those who have more confidence to advocate for themselves, or due to past dismissive experiences other people might assume their needs are whims or desires rather than core to their being. And within a networked system it’s also very hard to design processes which truly take account of the knock on effect of whose needs are or aren’t being met. It requires individuals to be able to meet each other where they are at and advocate on one another’s behalf.
Learning and reforming your boundaries
Alongside understanding to more deeply connect to your needs and desires beyond the societal norms and narratives, the spiky moments in an anarchist approach to relating repeatedly offer me an opportunity to really feel what are my boundaries. This is particularly important for me as an autistic person who generally finds a lot of things in life overwhelming but can discard that feeling because everyone else seems to be okay with it.
For example, knowing that I have complete freedom to define my relationships in a way that feels good to me means I’ve become attuned to the different kinds of boundaries that are important to me personally. The message we are taught in society is that sex and desire is at its best when it’s heated and spontaneous, and yet even when I have entire freedom to have sex with anyone without consulting others I learnt that that scenario still doesn’t feel good to me. As an autistic person lots of upfront communication is required for me to feel turned on. So even though I have no restrictions relating to who I can sleep with based on my other relationships, I have learnt new restrictions based on the feelings in my body, and developing my own edges backed up by my own reasons feels good.
In a traditional governance setting we don’t generally get taught how to feel into our own boundaries. Governing is a role that is historically steeped in the shepherding of other people’s work, making decisions that affect other people’s lives, and creating structures that we think will make things make sense/ be more streamlined/ solve more problems on behalf of a wider audience than those in the room. And in the worst case scenarios there are those in power who believe they are navigating that objectively and taking their own feelings out of it.
But what we need is everyone to have the capacity to bring their own feelings into it in a constructive way. And for more space to be made for people to express their red lines, and to be able to rearticulate those as we learn where our edges our. And on the flip side to also know when to let those go when we realise that edge is no longer required in this particular scenario.
Informal, consistent and caring feedback loops
All too often, even in supposedly non-hierarchical organisations, there are fears about honest and direct communication between people, combined with fears of manipulation. In addition in lower stakes environments or within bigger networks it can be easier for people to allow things to go unnoticed and unaddressed. While relationship anarchy hasn’t given me a fool proof system for encouraging consistent and caring feedback loops between everyone, it has created more impetus for it, because the risks of not doing that feel more immediate.
I often get my needs met more frequently in my polyamorous relationship style than I did in a monogamous set up, not because I have more people that care about me but because there are more people providing me with feedback about what they are witnessing within me, as well as my partners and friends giving feedback to each other about what I appreciate or need even if I can’t put words to it myself.
There is a level of trust between everyone I am connected to intimately which means they can also have a direct connection to one another should it be needed. I also have the freedom and trust to form a direct connection with people that are intimate with my partners too. This open flow of communication and belief that we all have one another’s best interests at heart means that we learn rapidly about how to be in relationship with one another, and how to protect one another from toxic forces that might be at play.
It takes time to make yourself open to connecting to people you don’t have to speak to, and to do that in a way that clearly centres the things you collectively care about, knowing that the system is stronger if each individual relationship is stronger.
Assuming abundance
We live in a system built on a scarcity mindset. Which means that at any moment someone could be harboring fears about losing something. Being a relationship anarchist has shown me that when you assume that love is abundant, it allows you to flex in response to your partners and friends needs in ways I might’ve been more rigid about before. It has also allowed me to be braver in my asks of others, because I know that if it goes awry I will find the love and care I need in others. The same goes for time and energy. I’ve had some people argue that love might be abundant, but that time is a finite resource… but as I’ve invested more time in others, they invest more time in me, I discover more about myself, I learn to flex time in ways that work better, and the cycle continues until time feels just as expansive as love.
Working in the equity and inclusion space I get a lot of push back around change due to a lack of time, or around investing money due to a lack of funds. It doesn’t matter what size an organisation is and how many months or years worth of reserves they have there will always be the ‘we are too small’ or ‘we don’t have much funding’ retort to challenges to go bigger with their commitments. And yet if these respective organisations spoke to each other they’d see that actually an organisation double their size with quadruple their funding is still saying the exact same excuse.
The reality is there is abundance in everything if we know how to tune into the energy that drives us, and to allow it to flow through the systems we are trying to create. But many of us are stuck in a space of fear and doubt because the capitalist system thrives on making us feel trapped and incapable of making big change happen, and the cycle continues. And until we get an opportunity to experience abundance for ourselves we cannot replicate that feeling in the spaces we are part of.
Being present
In Practicing New Worlds, Andrea J Ritchie says “The strongest solutions happen through the process, not in the moment at the end of the process”. Which is why I often talk about doing the work as you do the work. But we can only really notice the opportunities within this meta-state if we are being truly present with the process.
There are many monogamous and non-monogamous people alike that struggle with the concept of relationship anarchy because they don’t like having to constantly re-negotiate the terms of their relationships, or don’t like having to feel their feelings in moments of uncertainty. But for me, doing that with my partners is precisely what brings us more deeply together, and brings me closer to the type of connection and vulnerability I desire to share with others. We learn through these moments together, and being present in those moments is what strengthens our relationships.
The best decision-making I’ve ever been part of has never been due to the ultimate decision, or because of a specific method for getting there, but instead because everyone has actively engaged in the process, witnessed each other, understood the tensions and boldly committed to something together even when there are reservations present. And quite often those groups do that because they trust each other’s intentions and they trust that whatever arises they will have each other’s backs. Relationship anarchy is messy, but in some ways it’s really simple and clear. We love and trust each other to make the right choices for ourselves and the people we love, and when doubts or barriers arise we trust each other to work through that together.
If you enjoyed this blog post please consider donating to our housing co-op crowdfunder - the existence of which is modelling the power of different ways of governing and relating.