By the fire of the ancestors
A -koo-chee-moya. We are far from the sacred places of our grandfathers. We are far from the bones of my people. But I ask, on this day of sorrow and uncertainty, that the wisdom of my father find me and help me understand my dilemma. Speak to me, Father. Speak to me in my dreams.
This is what Commander Chakotay – who has indigenous roots – 1st officer in the US science fiction series “Star Trek: Starship Voyager“ (Season 2, Episode 26: “Basics Part 1” ), invokes – and in this way asks for a vision and inner guidance.
At present, there appears to be relatively little talk about ethical multiple relationships such as Oligo- or Polyamory. No comparison to the time just over 5 years ago, for example, when much more regular (admittedly sometimes sensationalizing) press articles and television reports kept our way of life more present on the media stage than at the moment.
The latter in particular does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. If the public waves of attention no longer rise that high, then this might be a sign that some things have settled down since then. That the former unsteady “goldfeverish mood” with all its uncertainties and efforts towards permanent reinvention has subsided somewhat. And for many people involved in ethical multiple relationships, this in turn could mean that they are simply going about their everyday relationship life at this very moment, reasonably contentedly and largely free of trouble.
Which is to be wished for all of you – and I do so from the bottom of my heart!
At the same time, in such quieter times, the worry occasionally creeps in that this is precisely not the case.
For example, the social pendulum has been swinging back in a more conservative direction since the COVID-19 pandemic (at least in Germany). The much-cited “younger people” of our demographic statistic are regularly surveyed scientifically – and lo and behold: surprisingly traditional ideas emerge there, especially when it comes to the pursuit of monogamy with the search for “the one” life partner – and the desire towards a rather straightforward nuclear family…
In other words, was the break-up of conventional cohabitation models from the 1990s onwards just a kind of belated “experimental phase”? A kind of delayed last flowering of the bohemian 70s and the tawdry 80s, which attempted one last time to celebrate the unbiased flow of love and a way of more open-minded togetherness?
That might have been the case – especially compared to our present crisis-ridden times, with worldwide trouble spots such as in the Middle East or in the Ukraine, the resulting price and energy crisis, global climate change and a resulting mistrustful fear of pandemics still lurking, which could be carried around the globe by streams of refugees all too soon.
After all, currently there seems to be hardly any room left for love and togetherness; people tend to focus on themselves and first and foremost on their immediate surroundings. Because once again, it is our ever-scarce resources to which we must pay attention; tight resources that seem to dictate the order of the day…
Like Commander Chakotay above, at such a time, it may be opportune to gather around the fire of one’s ancestors – and contemplate, for a more hopeful vision, for perspective.
What would it be that the “ancestors of ethical multiple relationships” might bestow upon us?
And who would these “ancestors” even be…?
Well, here first of all I can think off the courageous people of the Kerista commune in San Francisco, who were the first to coin the term “Polyfidelity” in 1984¹ (that is: polyamorous fidelity and loyalty among several participants in a closed group) and, of course, the great lady of Polyamory, Mornig-Glory Zell-Ravenheart, who first coined the word “polyamorous” ² as a term for ethical multiple relationships in 1990.
First of all, these “ancestors” would probably draw our attention to the fact that their own path and their own vision did not exactly emerge in harmonious times of world peace either.
In 1984, for example, the first Soviet nuclear missiles were deployed in the former GDR, the troop withdrawal agreement between Israel and Lebanon was terminated (today, as back then, striking similitudes in the unholy holy land…), in the months of July and August alone there were four major airplane hijackings by politically and/or spiritually motivated terrorists, and in Germany the forest inventory report already declared 50% of the trees to be incurably damaged.
And in 1990, the Soviet Union disintegrated into individual states in a highly volatile process, in August the Gulf War with Iraq began (best known for “Operation Desert Storm” led by the USA), in Germany the terrorist attack on the Minister of the Interior Wolfgang Schäuble took place and in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam the world-famous painting “The Night Watch” by Rembrandt was vandalized by an attack with sulphuric acid…
So even back then, there were plenty of reasons to “take cover” from the rest of the threatening world and take refuge in the petty details of once own private life.
And nonetheless, in 1984 the Kerista commune experimented with a new form of coexistence in a group that contained several people who were romantically and erotically deeply attached to each other. And since the Kerista commune had already been active since its beginnings in 1956 and had undergone another internal transformation in 1971, its members were strong enough in their practiced nonconformity to even record this process and ultimately derive the first successful idea of multiple loyalty and faithfulness – “Polyfidelity” – from it.
About the neopagan priestess Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, who was also a longtime member of the liberal spiritual movement “Church of All Worlds“ (CAW) since 1974, I have already written in detail in my “History of Polyamory” [Parts 1 | 2 | 3 | 4], especially in Part 3 (Entry 49). Morning Glory endeavored to create a practically viable, ethical foundation for multiple participants who were romantically as well as erotically bonded. In addition to a social alternative, it was also important for her to emphasize entitlement, commitment and honesty – as well as trust towards the dependability of such an arrangement for its members.
For the Kerista people and Morning Glory, the greatest possible degree of acceptance and inclusion was important in their approach, as exclusion – and precisely the drawing of boundaries so often prevalent in the outside world due to small-scale particular interests – would have poisoned the emergence of any communal spirit in the bud.
These visionary “ancestors” therefore placed their confidence in the power of the human community and its solidarity. I say confidence here because they had all experienced first-hand in their close (multiple) relationships what I usually call the phenomenon of “more than the sum of its parts” on this bLog.
In my Entry from last month, I mentioned the American psychologist Steven Hayes³, whose clinical experience emphasizes how important it is for us as individuals to be well attuned to our personal values. Periods of insecurity caused by our everyday lives and our environment can weaken this connection, or even cause us to lose it completely at times. In this way, external stress is joined by a literal inner turmoil in which it quickly seems to us – and we are talking about multiple relationships here – as if Oligo- and Polyamory were dead, or at least “very ill”: Multiple relationships were probably just a kind of “phase” after all, we ourselves probably only chose this model because we wanted to patch up some other kind of inner hole in ourselves, everyone (!) else would only be looking for monogamous partners anyway (and if we didn’t identify ourselves as such, we would be “unattractive” or “off the market”). “…); indeed: functioning, ethical multiple relationships based on honesty, commitment and the idea of long-term stability wouldn’t actually exist anywhere, at least we don’t know even a single one for miles around, so what’s the point at all…?
A-koo-chee-moya.
By the fire of our ancestors, we can confess our inner feelings of confusion and insecurity.
By the fire of our ancestors, however, we may also recognize in the light of its flames, which push back the darkness, that the basic values behind good relationship management are neither dead nor relativized by a sometimes indifferent world.
That this was not the case when they first emerged, just as it is not the case today.
For me, that is the beautiful and comforting thing about ethical multiple relationships. It’s that little word “ethical” that tells us: there are values here.
These values are sometimes edgy, annoying, difficult to adhere to, they sometimes lead us into justifications and discussions.
At the same time, they are constant. And they reflect something that has obviously always been intrinsically and deeply important to us. Otherwise we would not have been attracted to this particular fire, because in the warmth and brightness of its flames and its glow we sensed a like-minded mirror of our own inherent spark…
This is precisely what is important, because this glow leads us back to the set of our own inner values, which the psychologist Hayes emphasizes in his explanations. Values that are independent of external threats and turbulence, as they have been with us for much longer than these. Values that therefore endure even when the Christopher Street Day parade through Bautzen or Frankfurt/Oder has to be protected by police forces. Values that nevertheless endure, even if we are unfortunately not part of an ethical multiple relationship ourselves right now. Or even don’t know a single relationship of that kind for miles around and the silence sometimes seems almost deafening.
A mindset with values such as open-mindedness, integrity, equality, transparency, honesty, commitment, loyalty and sustainability stands for itself. For this, I don’t even have to be part of a close relationship with several people. I already encounter it when I go shopping, interact with my fellow creatures – whether I sign a petition or excercise my right to vote.
As these values nonetheless originate from the “fire of our ancestors”, they also have their own power (of attraction), their own light. And so we are by no means alone, because this light can be perceived and found. By the others in us, yes, certainly that as well. But we can also recognize it vice versa in them and discover it for our own part – since we now know again through our confirmation by the fire what to look for and towards which values we have always oriented ourselves anyway!
Incidentally, the Swiss poet Max Feigenwinter – with his work “Be silent and listen “ * – has put a kind of vision quest into lyrical form for me. Or, to be more precise, it’s nearly a first gentle answer to such a yearning:
maybe in the middle of the night
it dawns on you
maybe you will unexpectedly hear
a new message
maybe you suddenly sense
that peace on earth is possible
maybe you painfully experience
that you have to leave things behind
maybe you feel
that something will change
maybe you will be asked
to get up and leave
be silent and listen
gather your strength and set out
so that you find the place
where new life is possible
¹ The document from the book “Polyfidelity: Sex in the Kerista Commune and Other Related Theories for Solving the Problems of the World, Performing Arts Social Society 1984″ can be found HERE as an original source.
² The document from the magazine “Green Egg” from 1990 can be found HERE as a source.
³ Steven Hayes: “A Liberated Mind: How to Pivot Toward What Matters“, Avery (27. August 2019)
* My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Max Feigenwinter for his personal permission to use his work “Be silent and listen”. The original in German language “Schweige und höre“ stems from the book: “Einander Engel sein” by Max Feigenwinter, Verlag am Eschbach; 1st edition (June 17, 2013) – all rights of use remain with the author.
Thanks to Benjamin Nelan on Pixabay for the photo!