I have no one more important than my chosen family. Right now I exist for them and as a reflection of them. I fear that the death of my family, would be the death of me, even if logically I know it to be untrue. In the past I have cleaved towards friends whom I considered as important as my family, only to have them demote me–when push came to shove–in favour of blood ties, even blood ties they despised.
All this history has left a legacy in the personality of a Swede. They are more likely to believe in consensus decision making. They are more likely to be highly suspicious of so called democratic coalitions which create an imbalance of power where minority voices might be suppressed. Or where majority vote might enforce violent action. They are less likely to adhere to notions of hierarchy.
After months of reflection, I also have grave doubts about appropriating the term relationship anarchy even though the principles outlined in the short manifesto by Andie Nordgren suit my relationship style.
Relationship Anarchy is apolitical in most of the defining literature I have found. The manifesto for Relationship Anarchy itself carries no inherent politics. Yet the situation today is that the term is often used without reference to the anarchist ideology–clearly because it is fulfilling an important role in discussions about the future of relationships. The question then is, whether this is clumsy exercise of privilege, or a desirable evolution of an idea through broader usage.
Many previously self-defined ‘polyamorous’ folk like me, are examining whether the term ‘relationship anarchist’ suits us better instead, which we feel allows us the freedom – for the moment untainted by media misconception – to build intimate non-hierarchical relationships and potentially a community based on trust, freedom and consent; where sex is only one of many forms of connection… and not by any means, an obligatory one.
Some say that even to be entangled by choice, and maintain that one is an anarchist is a delusion because the adherence to an anarchic relationship philosophy is dependent on the limits of one’s desire. They say, to choose away certain options because you place children’s interests above your own self-interest, is a choice to live with rules, a choice to prioritise certain relationships. Yet to my mind, I do not place my children above my own self-interest. Commitment to my children is not a sacrifice, my commitment to them is in my interest. I choose it.