Lynn Jamieson's "Intimacy, Negotiated Nonmonogomy, and the Limits of the Couple

Lynn Jamieson’s article “Intimacy, Negotiated Nonmonogamy, and the limits of the Couple” (oh look at that—nonmonogamy isn’t a word according to Microsoft Word; neither is classism, by the way) explores case studies of non-secret non-monogamy. Jamieson draws on existing literature and her pilot interviews with four couples—two heterosexual and two homosexual.

In order to place her studies within a historical context, Jamieson offers a brief history of “the couple” from the 1950s to the 1990s. Although the norm of “the married domestic couple who were also the loving sexually monogamous couple” (39) dominated in the 1950s, relationships between two equal adults have taken a variety of forms since then. She introduces the theories of Giddens, and renames Giddens’ concept of “confluent love,” calling it “disclosing intimacy” (40). According to Jamieson, Giddens’ view of intimacy focuses on privilege and exclusion; although Giddens’ theories may leave room for nonmanogamy, they suggest “certain limits to the nonexclusionary possibilities of couple arrangements” (41).

Jamieson discusses challenges and opportunities present in non-monogamy, focusing on the tension between the needs of the couple and the needs of the individual, a tension that Askham identified in the 1980s. According to Askham, exclusivity is a possible point for this tension to emerge; withdrawal and privacy are necessary to retain autonomy, but can be “threatening to the stability of the couple relationship” (41). As she explored case studies of nonmonogamous relationships, Jamieson found that couples emphasized communication about rules, specifically about disclosure and silence. Jamieson also noted the tendency of nonmonogamous couples to label one relationship the most “special,” even when special may refer to emotional rather than sexual intimacy.

The interviewees also discussed nonmonogamy in context of their social worlds and peers. In two of the case studies, close friends of a nonmonogamous couple would become lovers, which had the possibility of “simultaneously generating a sense of open extended family and guarding the primacy of their own relationship” (48). In terms of social support, one couple (Shona and David) said that her friends did not support their decision as much as they could have; it seems that social stigma about nonmonogamous relationships can contribute to their downfall.

I’m particularly intrigued by Jamieson’s view that autonomy is the impetus for nonmonogamous relationships. As she discussed the tension between disclosure and silence in order to keep all partners’ feelings protected, I couldn’t help but think what a strain that would be on an individual, and that the nonmonogamous individual could potentially give up more autonomy that s/he would have in a monogamous relationship. While I think deconstructing the social norm of monogamy is important, I’m interested in these polyamorous relationships’ effects on autonomy and one’s relationship to community, etc.

I’m also curious about how we see these ideas at play in our own immediate social context at St. Olaf. As we discussed with Bauman and Giddens, our campus is probably more on the conservative side in terms of relationship norms. I know of a few couples who negotiate nonmonogamy, but they are definitely outside the prescribed norm for St. Olaf couples (I’m judging this by the incredulity with which most people talk about them). In most relationships that I’ve observed, communication is much more difficult to foster than it seemed to be for the cases in Jamieson’s article. Most couples I know aren’t even comfortable talking about their own sex life, let alone the introduction of new systems and patterns. Do others have similar experiences?