Bad connection?
#Noamory
In Germany and many other European countries, the telephone code 112 is precisely the number that can be used to make an emergency call. I therefore consider it very appropriate that my 112th Entry ventures into territory that concerns the fainter and louder alarm signals in the otherwise happy realms of ethical multiple relationships.
Because just as there are of course many good and even wonderful reasons for the emergence of such multiple partnerships, there are unfortunately also some that are unfavourable or even potentially destructive in the medium term.
As with all close romantic relationships, multiple relationships are fundamentally about connection between people. Therefore, it is already important to pay attention to precisely this basis: How do these connections look like – and why do we enter into them – or why is it that sometimes we don’t?
Concerning this subject, significant scientific findings have been available since 1940, when the British child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby laid the foundation for what later became known simply as “attachment theory“, a concept that has been repeatedly expanded and refined by numerous psychologists and behavioural researchers right up to the present day. Bowlby himself documented his most important findings – which will also be the subject of this Entry today – between 1969 and 1980, and these became established as authoritative primarily because at about the same time the American-Canadian developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth succeeded in confirming his conclusions on the basis of practical observations in interpersonal relationships.
John Bolby was a paediatrician and child psychiatrist, just as Mary Ainsworth was a field researcher investigating the importance of the mother-child connection. Both personalities initially investigated human attachment behaviour at its literal basis, the very first relationship that every human being enters into, even before birth, so to speak: the bond with the mother.
However, the fact that we are reading about their findings here today on a bLog about ethical multiple relationships and that the knowledge they gained has not been exclusively reserved for medical and paediatric experts is due to the fascinating fact that we humans are “learning beings”. Learning beings, as Bowlby and Ainsworth recognised, who, by means of this “first of all attachments”, would internalise essential principles with regard to each of their subsequent relationships.
To be specific (and as joyful as it is scary): The nature of the early caregiver-child bond* significantly influences our entire relationship behaviour in later life.
After this sentence, I thought for a while about whether I should include the following disclaimer right here or at the end of today’s Entry. I believe that after a statement like this, it’s a good idea to reduce the tension a little – so I would like to add two things straight away:
On the one hand: Continued research has shown that in average human biographies numerous hybrid types and nuances may arise, adding several facets to the subsequent theory so that a particular attachment type does not represent a lifelong judgement.
Because on the other hand – and this is certainly the really good news: attachment behaviour can undergo transformation and whats more, it can be actively changed – under the important prerequisite of becoming aware of our current (acquired) attachment behaviour and its consequences in the first place.
When it came to adults, attachment theory has for many years been one of the tools used by scientifically open-minded couples therapists and relationship coaches. In monogamous relationships, their services were and still are mostly activated in the case of difficulties – or as I wrote at the beginning of this Entry, in an emergency situation. Analysing the complaints of those affected or by own observations of the dynamics the way concerned parties interact with each other, it was and is possible to attribute eventual problems within a relationship to the respective attachment behaviour of the participants. In this way, therapists and coaches – as well as researchers – were also able to identify certain patterns that have become well known by now: Why certain patterns are regularly repeated both in behaviour and in the choice of partner – and in this way sometimes would lead to a recurring experience of seemingly identical conflicts.
But where and why do multiple relationships, Oligo- or Polyamory, come into play here? Surely if in such arrangements relationship problems were about to arise, one could simply turn to a support person who would be open to the corresponding relationship model?
Or do multiple relationships offer further challenges that transcend a mere monogamous war of the roses?
In my opinion as the author of this bLog, yes, although I don’t think the word “challenges” is entirely appropriate, and therefore I would describe it primarily as an effect of the extended dimension inherent to multiple relationships.
Because it is precisely this “extended dimension” that does not usually exist in monogamy: “whether“ or “why” a couple gets together is rarely questioned, especially once the two main participants have obviously successfully started out together.
Such a “starting out” may also occur in multiple relationships, for example when a mutual yearning arises among several participants at roughly the same time with regard to all the others who might become also involved in a joint subsequent relationship.
However, there is also the even more likely case that there is already at least one couple or group that at some point may be joined by one or more other individuals.
Anyway, this is precisely where the special case of the “multiple” relationship lies: is it possible to love more than ONE other person and be romantically involved with each of them at the same time?
Once more, the obvious answer on this bLog is of course “yes” – however, its emotional, rational and social justification is rather different from the one that applies to the normative and socially established two-person relationships of monogamy – where the mere “joining together” alone is usually not a fact to be questioned.
For ethical multiple relationships, however, precisely this question also arises – and the people involved, believe me, occasionally ask it themselves: Are we allowed to do this? And if so, what motivates people like us to pursue several romantic relationships at the same time?
The best answers to this would certainly be “Of course!” and “Obviously: For love’s sake!” or “Well, because they all want to be together with one another!”
Even Mr Bowlby and Mrs Ainsworth would be highly satisfied with these answers, as we shall see. But.
But the possibility of engaging in multiple relationships – and the courageous people who allowed themselves to be involved in this experience – gradually revealed that there were still more answers hidden in the romantic thicket of interpersonal affairs.
Because ever since the feminist Morning-Glory Zell Ravenheart first established the word “polyamorous” for ethical, non-monogamous relationships in 1990, more and more people finally gave themselves permission to follow her example and actually engage themselves romantically and intimately in “multiple” relationships. Over the years, some of them may even have worked with Bowlby’s attachment theory at workshops or other type of community meeting.
However, as far as I know, it was the American author Jessica Fern who in her 2020 book “Polysecure” ¹ was the first to emphasise the importance of our acquired attachment behaviour specifically for the polyamorous context. And in particular with regard to the above stated question of “why”, which can have a considerable impact on the arrangement of a multiple relationship network.
So, enough of the colourful context, but in order to remain comprehensible, here are the four “attachment types” according to John Bowlby as a super-concise short summary:
• Securely attached (according to Bowlby type B)
A securely attached child experiences sufficient sensitivity in its first years of life when its attachment behaviour system is activated. Its attachment behaviours were perceived and correctly interpreted by the attachment figure(s), whereupon prompt and appropriate action was taken. This means that the attachment figure is memorised as reliable by the infant, with the result that the child can largely predict the behaviour of its attachment figure. In the event of strong emotions such as separation, the child will show clear attachment signals such as crying, calling, etc. If a reunion occurs, the child will greet its attachment figure(s) and seek out their company, e.g. to calm down through physical contact. However, after a short time, a securely attached child will return to its original activity (playing etc.).²
Adults with this acquired attachment behaviour feel secure in relationships and are well able to balance closeness and autonomy. They have a fundamental trust in other people and can both give and receive emotional support. They perceive conflicts and differences of opinion as normal and resolvable.³
• Dismissive-avoidant attachment (according to Bowlby type A)
Such a child has not experienced its attachment figure(s) as sensitive during the first years of life. It has experienced that its attachment behaviours were either perceived and interpreted too late, not at all or incorrectly. As a result, the child begins to express attachment signals less and less frequently as it wants to avoid further disappointments. As a result, it is increasingly dependent on regulating itself in the event of strong emotions. When the caregivers leave the room, the child may look after them briefly, but will soon return to its own activities. In some cases, own strong emotions are compensated for with an increased urge to explore. When reunited, an dismissive-avoidant child does not seek closeness. If the caregiver takes the initiative and picks the child up, it will quickly make it clear that it wants to be put down again by turning its head away and changing its body posture: due to previous bad experiences, this child avoids openly expressing its attachment stress on a behavioural level.²
Adults with this acquired attachment behaviour tend to distance themselves emotionally and avoid more intense closeness. They may even find closeness/intimacy uncomfortable and often maintain a certain distance in relationships. They may have difficulty trusting their own emotional needs or relying on others.³
• Anxious-ambivalent attachment (according to Bowlby type C)
This child does not know how its attachment figure will react when its attachment behaviour system is activated. In everyday life, it experiences its caregivers inconsistently – sometimes sensitively and sometimes not. Due to this inconsistency, the child is unable to develop reliable expectations regarding the reaction of its attachment figure(s). The child therefore constantly seeks closeness to the caregiver(s), which has a negative effect on its exploratory behaviour: such a child will be reluctant to engage in other activities and reacts stressed, irritated or even irritable when separated from the caregiver(s). This can lead to very heterogeneous behaviour, especially when reunited. The child may strive for contact with the attachment figure, but at the same time show signs of anger and rage or even reject the attachment figure altogether.²
Adults with this acquired attachment behaviour often feel a strong dependency on others, long for closeness – and at the same time are afraid of rejection. They often worry intensely about whether their needs are being met and whether they are really important to others. They can quickly feel insecure or overwhelmed if they feel they are not getting enough attention.³
• Disorganised/disoriented attachment (according to Bowlby type D)
Such a child has either been neglected, abused, mistreated or traumatised by their attachment figure(s). The person who is supposed to offer the child security and protection is also the person who frightens it. Children with a disorganised attachment style are notable for their rapid succession of contradictory, incomplete or confused behavioural strategies. This means that the child may approach the caregiver, but then suddenly stops from one second to the next. If the caregiver is absent, the child may show direct signs of anxiety, but then rather seeks out the proximity of strangers instead of the caregiver. Another possible behaviour may even be a kind of “petrification“ as long as the caregiver is in the same room.²
People with this acquired attachment behaviour also show contradictory behaviour as adults. Although they long for closeness, this can also trigger fear or mistrust. They often avoid closeness or alternate between strong impulses to move closer and withdraw, as their early relationship experiences were characterised by insecurity and perhaps even trauma. This can be reflected in intense, chaotic relationships and, due to their traumas, they themselves often feel internally fractured and therefore frequently have difficulty establishing stable relationships at all.³
Enough of all the creepy stuff! (ok, except for the solid, secure attachments) – I would like to call out – but the thought-provoking impulses for successful or unsuccessful ethical multiple relationships start right here. With a little help from Wikipedia, I’d therefore would like to look at the effects of the attachment experiences listed above on us in adulthood – including the way we approach intimate romantic relationships.
►First, let’s look once more at the secure attachment as an “accident-free” and healthybehaviour pattern, since such a secure attachment style is evident in people who have internalised a positive self-image and a positive image of others – which is ultimately fundamental for establishing relationships of any kind.
Securely attached adults tend to agree with the following statements:
“It’s relatively easy for me to get emotionally close to others.”
“I feel comfortable relying on others and having others rely on me.”
“I don’t worry about being alone or others not accepting me.”
Securely attached adults therefore generally have a positive attitude towards themselves, their loved ones and their relationships. They often report greater satisfaction and involvement in their relationships than adults with other attachment styles. Securely attached adults feel comfortable both with intimacy and independence.
Okay. What else can I say? I think that such a person would feel at home in any type of relationship, whether mono, oligo or poly – and would probably also be well liked and appreciated. Of course, their relationships might also fail – but if they do, it won’t be because of the type of attachment.
►An insecure dismissive-avoidant attachment style is found in people who have a rather positive view of themselves but a negative view of others. They therefore tend to agree with the following statements:
“I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.”
“It is important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient.”
“I prefer not to depend on others or for others to depend on me.”
Adults with this attachment style usually desire a high degree of independence. They see themselves as self-sufficient and cannot imagine themselves as part of a close, day-to-day relationship. Some even see close relationships as relatively unimportant. People with this attachment style sometimes try to suppress and hide their feelings, and they tend to deal with perceived rejection by distancing themselves from the sources of rejection (e.g. their attachment figures, loved ones or relationships). Nevertheless, they still show strong physiological reactions to emotionally charged situations and content, which they then often try to divert and channel by concentrating on other topics.
In the world of ethical multiple relationships, the so-called “Solo Polyamory” comes to my mind in this section: People who cultivate several individual relationships with different people, but which in turn are not connected to each other. “Solo polys“ often live alone and socialise with their partners in a selective way, e.g. at weekends, at events, for certain activities or in special places.
Questions that arise accordingly would be, for example, why we would separate ourselves from our loved ones in this way, or why we want to keep them at a distance because of the chosen relationship model.
It also raises the fundamental question of whether we permit ourselves a choice of partners with this kind of “poly-Amory”, so that we obtain “a suitable pet for every plaisir” – thereby creating the possibility for us to quickly change the field of activity if the tension within a particular relationship increases – which is why we pursue all our relationships with a maximum degree of non-network parallelism anyway… What’s more, would there be any indication that we might start exploring new relationships when we can no longer stand the intensity in the established ones? And how do the pending partners feel about this? Do they feel sufficiently seen and valued by us – or are they at risk of only ever receiving a part-time investment from us?
►An insecure anxious-ambivalent attachment style is found in people who have a negative image of themselves and a rather positive image of others. They therefore tend to agree with the following statements:
“I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close to me as I would like.”
“I feel uncomfortable when I don’t have close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.”
Adults with this attachment style seek a high degree of intimacy (yes, this also includes speedy or intense sexuality), approval and responsiveness from their loved ones They sometimes value intimacy so much that they may even become overly dependent on such an attachment figure. Compared to securely attached adults, such people tend to have a less positive self-assessment. They can develop a feeling of anxiety that only subsides when they are in contact with a attachment figure. They often doubt their value as an individual and blame themselves for a perceived lack of attention from their partners. In their relationships, they can sometimes display a high degree of emotionality, anxiety or overcompensation.
I know this attachment style best myself, because unfortunately it is my own starting point. Within ethical multiple relationships such as Oligo- and Polyamory, it isn’t particularly rare rare because, in case of doubt, it is precisely the possibility of winning over a number of intimate attachment figures due to the increased need for closeness that makes multiple relationship models interesting for people of this disposition.
The problem with this attachment style from the outset is the endeavour to achieve the greatest possible closeness and emotional merging, so that the ‘impact energy’ is usually quite intense when getting to know each other – and often attempts are made to bring about this desired compatibility, e.g. by means of early-initiated sexuality. That way, the “groundwork” of a thorough getting-to-know-each-other process with the exploration of mutual preferences or dislikes can thus fade into the background, which can lead to potential problems if the relationship continues. Additionally, the NRE (“New Relationship Energy”) can be particularly powerful as a result, which can be rather unsettling for existing partners if everything else is dropped entirely for the sake of a new love.
Furthermore, such a high degree of closeness and attachment within multiple relationships occasionally leads to a blurring of individual boundaries, so that at some point it can be difficult, both objectively and emotionally, to work out which aspects of a situation can be attributed to whom, which has an unfavourable effect on the overall dynamics of the relationship. Insecure, ambivalent people tend to be particularly unhelpful in this respect by occasionally lapsing into a kind of “micromanagement” due to their inner dilemma, in which they try to put on a strained hybrid performance of “Wait, I’ll fetch you the stars from the sky…” and overbearing nagging (“No, no, we have to do it THIS way….” ) for their partner(s).
►Disorganised attachment patterns are exhibited by people who have an unstable and fluctuating view of themselves and others, which is predominantly negative in both cases. Losses or traumas (e.g. abuse) in childhood and adolescence can lead to agreement with the following statements:
“I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others.”
“I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to completely trust others or to depend on them.”
“I sometimes worry that I will get hurt if I allow myself to get too close to other people.”
Individuals with an anxious-preoccupied attachment style are characterised by a strong desire for closeness and intimacy in their relationships, but often experience a high level of anxiety and insecurity about the accessibility and responsiveness of their attachment figures. They therefore tend to feel uncomfortable with increasing emotional closeness. These feelings are linked to sometimes unconscious, negative views of both themselves and their loved ones. As a result, they often consider themselves unworthy of attention from their attachment figures and at the same time often lack trust in their partners’ intentions. Similar to the dismissive-avoidant attachment style, disorganisedly attached adults seek less closeness to their parters and often suppress and/or deny their feelings. For this reason, they find it much more difficult to express affection. Individuals with this attachment style tend to have a negative self-image and a volatile or split view of others, which can contribute to interpersonal dysfunction.
A disorganised attachment style poses the toughest challenges for any form of genuine, intimate connection, yet unfortunately I have also found some traits of this type of attachment within myself.
The main problem especially when it comes to multiple relationships is that the person concerned has the ability to create for itself a mini-universe of several different people there, between whom they can emotionally ‘switch’ (back and forth) as required. For those in their environment, however, this behaviour can appear strangely inconsistent and sometimes even unpredictable – or at least unreliable.
Due to the network character of polyamorous relationships, however, a person with a disorganised relationship can often be “cushioned” for a while – as the diversity of relationships means that the inner conflict and contradictions of the affected person do not become apparent as quickly as it might in a strictly two-person relationship. Nevertheless, at the same time, it is precisely this “imposing” and “enduring” of disorganised symptoms in a multiple relationship that can, in turn, cause great suffering, precisely because of the variety of participants involved, long before the triggering person is ready to face up to their buried traumas. The danger of “disorganisation”, of course, lies in the fact that the effects – as a result of all-sided, sometimes contradictory compromises – may by then have already insidiously and irreversibly fractured the overall relationship for all those involved.
Phew. My conclusion from this important – and now almost too lengthy – Entry:
Additional studies have unfortunately shown that people with insecure or disorganised attachment styles are also more susceptible to psychological problems such as depression and anxiety disorders, they are more likely to have impaired self-esteem, and that it is therefore more difficult for them to develop healthy attachments in adulthood.
Observations have also shown that unfavourable attachment strategies and traumas in relationships even attract each other with above-average frequency – insecure-avoidant and insecure-ambivalent, for example, surprisingly (and despite seemingly quite different needs!) regularly find themselves together in the same “relationship boat”…
On top of that, multiple relationships usually “throw more than just two” people together, which can result in extremely unfortunate compensation strategies, especially if the degree of unconsciousness for one’s own biographical attachment experiences is (still) rather pronounced.
And to emphasise once again: in their early stages, ethical multiple relationships must, if only for reasons of self-preservation alone, very honestly face up to the question of whether the mere desire for “multiple relationships” does not actually stem from a lack of need, which unfortunately three of the four types of attachment covertly carry within them.
Because fear of loss, fear of commitment and possessive behaviour always cause unrest, suffering and drama in any relationship. And that’s something that we, as people who love so much, certainly don’t want to inflict on our favourite loved ones.
Nevertheless, with today’s Entry, which is certainly not just painful to scroll through ot to read due to its length, I would like to urgently sensitise people to reflect on these unhappier aspects of their own potential relationship- and attachment behaviour, very much like the above-mentioned author Jessica Fern. I also encourage you to explore this together with our partners and loved ones, who may be able to provide important impulses for us through their “view from the outside” – even if this kind of realisation will certainly not always be easy for everyone involved.
But it is precisely this process of awareness that can ultimately enable us all to actually change a possibly negative attachment style bit by bit.
In this sense – and in the best, securely attached way: Let it be love, genuine trust and truly feeling safe – and what’s more: because you all want to be together with each other from the bottom of your hearts!
*I write caregiver-child attachment here because it has been proven that in the sensitive phase of the first years of life, it is solely decisive how these main caregivers show affection – regardless of whether it is the mother, father, family members, foster parents, etc.
¹ Jessica Fern „Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Thornapple Press (2020)
² Type descriptions created with references from the Master’s thesis by Nadine Madlen Blaßnig “Bindung im Erwachsenenalter: Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Alkoholkonsum, Mentalisierungsfähigkeit, Selbstwert und Bindung“, 2018 Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt; quotes from Kißgen, J. (2009). “Diagnostik der Bindungsqualität in der frühen Kindheit – die Fremden Situation“; in Julius, H. et al. (eds.), “Bindung im Kindesalter. Diagnostik und Intervention”, Göttingen: Hogrefe (only in German language)
³ Description taken from “Attachment Disturbances in Adults: Treatment for Comprehensive Repair“ by Daniel P. Brown and David S. Elliott, WW Norton & Co (2016)
Thanks to engin akyurt on Unsplash for the photo!
Last but not least: There are numerous tests online to determine your own attachment type. Not all of them work in accordance with Bowlby and Ainsworth – but you can start there for a basic assessment. In any case, I think it is more effective to look directly at the type descriptions (on Wikipedia, for example, or here) and reflect on the relevant characteristics for yourself.