The choice is mine!
Just the other weekend in June the European elections were held. And no matter how each of us may judge the outcome of this election, there were certainly three issues that played an important role, which also permeate the dynamics of our ethical multiple relationships like a root network.
These concern the values of freedom, participation and responsibility.
Both curse and opportunity of these three values, however, is that they are huge concepts of enormous scope which, nevertheless, have no crystal-clear external definition boundary – accordingly, their specifications usually occupy several screen pages in the vast majority of online encyclopaedias.
Perhaps we therefore should stick to the basics when it comes to our relationships.
For I believe that the connecting anchor word of the three terms is “participation”.
And freedom, on the other hand, we need if only to be able to openly declare ourselves as belonging to an identity or lifestyle of ethical multiple relationships (regardless of whether we are already part of such a relationship or not!) – which for example would not be possible or permitted in several autocratically governed states.
In this country, eyebrows are certainly still raised – or we’re told the stereotypical “… well, if it works out for you – but that’s nothing I would consider…” – nevertheless, in our society in the Federal Republic of Germany, we are free to be romantically involved with as many partners as we want at the same time.
So, by now, we are quite used to this degree of freedom for our individual decisions – it’s almost like breathing.
Indeed, the freedom of the individual: precisely because our legal system in this country attaches such great importance to it, we can be concerned with such non-conformist philosophies of life and partnership models as Poly- and Oligoamory at all. This is because romantic (loving) relationships are considered personal privacy in this country (according to Wikipedia: “…the non-public area in which a person exercises their right to free development of personality, undisturbed by external influences.”).
In this respect, however, our ambitions regarding multiple relationships also have limits: as of today, for example, we are not allowed to marry more than one of our favorite people and officially authorize this with a federally legitimized contract. This is where our freedom (still) reaches a legal limit: where our private sphere passes into public domain.
However, the same public domain in turn attaches great importance to our freedom of opinion and the free development of our personality. If we proclaim out loud on the streets that we love Fritzi, Luka, Renée and Robin and that we are currently in a romantic relationship with all of them with mutual knowledge and approval, then that’s ok (except for the aforementioned raised eyebrows…) – and we are free and entitled to do so.
Even more: If we (and Fritzi, Luka, Renée and Robin) don’t necessarily insist on a official ceremony followed by the signing of a civil contract at the registry office in order to feel that we belong to each other, then we also have a large deal of freedom when it comes to the way we arrange our relationship. So large that I even refer to this freedom in Entry 28 as a privilege (ask someone from Rwanda or Myanmar what freedom concerning multiple relationships looks like in those countries…).
And because individual freedom is a privilege, freedom also has exactly the same shadow that every privilege has: “the thing that you own – but are not aware that you own it”. And in this way, freedom is once again similar to our breath: we perform it constantly – even when we sleep – and normally never have to give it a single thought in order to be aware of it.
But when it comes to relationships at last, our attitude of great personal freedom may become difficult if we regard it as an “absolute” asset that no circumstance can or may diminish.
Because with participation (!) in a relationship, responsibility suddenly enters the field.
The German philosopher and professor Michael Pauen wrote: “A responsible person is considered to be someone who […] can make a deliberate decision and also realize it through an action, even though they could have acted differently. According to this view, a free action takes place without coercion and is not random. In this view, freedom is the condition for the possibility of human self-determination.” ¹
Ah! So my freedom has enabled me to choose whether I want to participate in a particular relationship – a decision that I could have denied myself to that extent…
The German philosopher, theologian and educator Georg Picht went even further: “Therefore, responsibility is first and foremost a claim on oneself and for oneself. The individual is both the subject of his or her own responsibility and the authority to which he or she must answer.” ² And in my opinion, this sentence is quite splendid, as it does not require a dogmatic system, state authority or religion as a justification – and is therefore also valid on an anarchist or atheist basis.
Thus, responsibility arises out of my freedom due to my desire for participation (in a relationship) – and then my free choice of actual participation.
This is an important conclusion for me, because in the world of multiple relationships, the freedom of those involved is often very strongly emphasized – and frequently in this way, as I wrote in Entry 87, »“freedom” is used as a kind of “defensive right” against any perceived paternalism, against any supposedly unjustified liability – but therefore, unfortunately, sometimes also too lightly against some real responsibilities.«
This is precisely why it is important for me to show once again that “responsibility” is not imposed on us from outside, as if a heavy cloak is laid over our shoulders by our loved ones, but rather that it is an accompanying co-pilot of our own individual freedom.
In contrast to other types of non-monogamy and open relationships, this is why the basic values of “commitment” and “continuity” are so strongly emphasized in Poly- and Oligoamory.
Let me outline this briefly: Of course it’s also possible to show commitment in a short-term relationship, for example by sticking to a given promise. Yet real commitment is based on a sum of such experiences that my loved ones share with me – and I with them – because commitment as a perceived attribute requires the observation of predictability and reliability – qualities that call for a longer period of time in order to fully develop.
Participation, which according to Wikipedia can also be read as “involvement, partaking, co-determination, co-decision, inclusion”, therefore automatically entails responsibility – which actually becomes obvious when you read these terms again.
But why do we still too often believe that this responsibility is imposed on us by the other parties in the relationship?
Because once we are part of a relationship, it is very easy to shift our point of view – our perspective on what has happened.
In Entry 9, I wrote about the “mysterious emotional contract” that would emerge invisibly the moment people entered into a relationship.
What was that again…?
The “implied acknowledgement and agreement – as a result of a mutually established emotional close-knit relationship – regarding the totality of voluntary yielded obligations, self-commitments and care which have been reciprocally contributed and are potentially enjoyable by all parties involved.”
Once again “Ah!”: I have entered into a relationship, as shown above, out of free will and free choice, – also for the reason that I can “enjoy” something in it; something that contributes to my “cocktail of needs”.
And to “enjoy” something that does not come from myself, I need to have it contributed by other people.
The scientists S. Cohen, L.G. Underwood and B.H. Gottlieb added very precisely to this in 2000:
Contributing to this perception is trust (the expectation that partners can be counted on to respect and fulfil important needs) and acceptance (the belief that partners accept one for who one is).
Empathy is also relevant because it signals awareness of an appreciation for a partners core-self.
Attachment also contributes to perceived partner responsiveness, notwithstanding its link to interdependence and sentiment, because of the fundamental role of perceiving that one is worthy of and can expect to receive love and care from significant others.”
[For detailed information and source see Entry 14]
The German-American philosopher Hans Jonas called this relational experience somewhat complicated:
“Responsibility, for example for the welfare of others, not only ‘sifts’ given intentions to act for their moral permissibility, but also obliges to acts that are not intended for any other purpose.” ³
Oh boy – I’ll try to interpret that for you to some extent:
Responsibility in a relationship does not arise because it is imposed on me from outside, e.g. by moral authorities (law, church, state, “the good”, at the request of other partners, etc.) – and then I “must” or “should” act in this way, but rather by the very fact that I am actually part of a relationship, since enjoying the well-being of all those involved (and contributing to it) is already the main purpose of the relationship out of its own accord, so to speak.
By which Hans Jonas also implies that a relationship is only truly a relationship if the parties involved not only merely “consume”, but also “provide” voluntarily.
In short, neither a “responsibility light” nor a “participation light” can exist in committed romantic relationships. Both would be contradictory, although I have regularly heard the desire for the two, especially in multiple relationship contexts.
Yet if we are serious about our desire to share in a (loving) relationship, then responsibility is also immediately involved right from the start – personal responsibility and also responsibility for the well-being, the “state of health” of the relationship.
The playwright and lyricist Bertold Brecht expressed this connection very wisely in his short poem “To Read in the Morning and at Night“:
My love
Has told me
That (s)he needs me.
That’s why
I take good care of myself
Watch out where I’m going and
Fear that any drop of rain
Might kill me.
I am not sure whether we literally “need” each other – Marshall Rosenberg, the father of “Nonviolent Communication“, suggested the somewhat gentler expression “contribute to each other”, which I personally appreciate very much. Because hand on heart: if there wasn’t something in the relationships we entered into that we wanted to “enjoy” – as mentioned above – we probably wouldn’t be in them in the first place…
Freedom, that quality of being able to choose and decide between different options without coercion, therefore remains a privilege – particularly with regard to the specific relationships we enter into and the choice of our underlying relationship model.
Only freedom enables us to participate in a way that is worthy of the name; enables us to really get involved in our romantic relationships and to actively shape “the totality of voluntary yielded obligations, self-commitments and care“ out of our own free will.
Let us therefore no longer treat the responsibility associated with this as an annoying by-product of the trials and tribulations concerning our relationship housekeeping.
We should assign it the same significance as our desires for freedom of life and participation in love, because the three are inextricably linked.
So let’s apply to it the same level of passion, idealism and conviction that the next time it comes down to it – and we have a choice – we can welcome it just as well:
“Responsibility? Sure – that’s (also) me!”
¹ Michael Pauen: “Freedom, guilt, responsibility. Philosophical considerations and empirical findings.” In: Gunnar Duttge (ed.): “The self and its brain” Göttingen 2009, p. 78.
² Georg Picht: “The Concept of Responsibility.” In: “Truth, Reason, Responsibility. Philosophical Studies.” Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1969 / 2004, p. 321.
³ Hans Jonas: “The Principle of Responsibility. An attempt at ethics for technological civilization.” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1979 (new edition 1984, pp. 174-175).
Thanks to Jon Tyson on Unsplash for the photo!
Looking for more about Europe? Then read Entry 10!