Global implications of dynamic interweaving of polyamory and polyanimosity

Global Civilization through Interweaving Polyamory and Polyanimosity? (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The argument here suggests that the nature and patterns of bonding between chemical elements -- whose complexity remains a challenge to comprehension by science -- together offer a metaphor of requisite complexity for a precautious exploration of psychosocial bonding.

The simplicity of the legal contract of marriage can then be seen to obscure the mystery of bonding experienced in love -- and in the dislike and intensity of hatred frequently associated with failure of that contract and divorce. Both are more readily experienced as subtle field effects rather than as depicted in simplistic relational diagrams.

There are then a number of suggestive metaphorical threads towards a more fruitful comprehension of the dynamics of polyamory (polyempathy?) and polyanimosity (polyantipathy?), both in society world wide and at a global level.

Challenging reframing of binary relationships: The current focus on sexual harassment of women by men has significantly reinforced the radicalization of feminism. Arguably this is now sustaining an emergent culture of polyanimosity of women toward men -- potentially matched by a corresponding culture of polyanimosity of men toward women.

This current framing emerges from a long-standing culture of disparagement of women by men -- despite the paradoxically powerful attraction of women as experienced by men. The corresponding attitude of women has long been tinged by a degree of fear associated with a culture of abusive dominance. This has not prevented either from endeavouring to render themselves attractive to the other, however perverse the circumstances in which this is done

Clues from the LGBT pattern of relationships: As previously explored, there is the intriguing possibility that the distinctive LGBT relationships might offer further clues in relation to polyamory and in contrast to any conventional binary marriage contract (Encompassing the "attraction-harassment" dynamic with a notation of requisite ambiguity? 2017).

As noted in the latter, it is useful to see the 4-fold LGBT distinctions more generally, with the sexual connotations as only a potential specific instance in each case of: female-female bonding, male-male bonding, male-female bonding, and bonding transcending any gender focus. They might better be understood as indicative of a set of modes of self-reference of a "higher" order -- beyond that of second-order cybernetic feedback processes (third order? fourth order?).

4-fold LGBT distinctions understood more generally

In contrast with any abstract binary symbolism, these qualitative dimensions add to its simple "positive/negative" distinction an as yet unresolved sense of what is "right" or "wrong" ("good" or "evil") -- variously distinguished through "shades of grey", as with the problematic distinction "overt/covert". Whether within the LGBT context, or with respect to it from a binary perspective, various degrees of like/dislike are typically evident -- clearly including both intense love and hate.

It is of course notable that women continue to be framed -- by men of some religious persuasions -- as more closely associated with "evil". Arguably this is now being reciprocated by radical feminists. The charged nature of the basic distinction continues to play out in the distinction between "right" and "left" -- especially in many political contexts. The complexity of such associations is evident with respect to "Alt-Right" and "Alt-Left" -- and the unreasonableness of the arguments of each with respect to the other.

The relevance of a fourfold reframing of polyamory/polyanimosity is notably suggested by schooling behaviour of birds and fish, as argued by Jamie Davies (A Closed Loop, Aeon):

We still have much to learn about how schooling works, but it seems obvious that each fish can't have a detailed choreography stored in its head, nor a detailed map of the location of every other fish in the school. Instead, each individual seems to base its behaviour on purely local influences: most importantly, the distances and speeds of its immediate neighbours. Computer models produce quite convincing schooling behaviour when their constituent fish -- all the same, with no special leader in charge -- have four basic behaviours: attraction (closing up to another fish), repulsion (increasing the distance from another fish), alignment (altering direction to swim parallel to a neighbour) and searching (looking for a school of fish). Searching happens only if a fish finds itself isolated. Repulsion is strong at short distances and attraction kicks in at larger ones, which tends to keep fish an optimal distance apart, and they reorientate to swim in the average direction of their various neighbours. [emphasis added]

"Polygamy" and "polyandry" understood in terms of valency: A periodic table can be seen as evoking the possibility of valency -- of one-to-many bonds and many-to-one bonds. This can be explored in terms of the number of partners a person finds meaningful and the role cultivated in that partnership.

These raise the question of any inherent constraint on the number of bonds of a particular kind with are viable at any one time (Conceptual clustering and cognitive constraints, 2014). This is a feature of the Dunbar number of 150 -- a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom an individual can maintain stable social relationships. Such a possible constraint can be evoked with respect to:

• Facebook "friends" and "likes"
• Concubines. Most striking are the historical instances of rulers with an extensive harem of wives and/or concubines -- possibly numbering in the hundreds.
• Extra-martial sexual partners (paramours)
• Employees, notably understood as work-slaves. Considerations of span of control have evoked other constraints regarding the number of employees with whom an employer can have an effective management relationship
• Public speaking, namely the number of people a speaker can effectively address -- and presumably from whom questions and comments can be received
• Effective group size identified as the " Spreadthink number" (John Warfield, Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups, 1995). This reflects the fact the inability of groups to reach agreement on complex issue.

The complexity is evident in the degree to which such examples blur into deprecated forms of bondage -- readily to be described as slavery, for which the historical incidence of slavery offers multiple examples. The variety of forms of bondage is clearly a challenge to any framework capable of encompassing the nature of human relationships. Any assumption that the probability of their emergence should not feature in such a framework are more appropriately understood to be naive -- however much the commitment to their eradication.

Presented in this way, there is the question of how a generic understanding of "polygamy" and "polyandry" can be used to distinguish such patterns. Given the relationship of employees to an employer, can this be usefully understood as a form of polygamy -- especially when the employer claims to "love" the employees? What of the complementary condition in which the employees claim to "love" the employer -- as currently the subject of comments with respect to North Lorea?

Where the relationship is characterized by dislike (even hatred), is this the polygamous variant of polyanimosity? Beyond the case of sex workers, can forms of polyandry be distinguished in social bonding -- also framed by polyanimosity?

Can the operation of a team or committee be understood as a form of polyamory? If the group is one of rivals, is this then an instance of polyanimosity?

Coaction cardioid emerging from a generalization of the periodic table: An insightful pointer is provided by Edward Haskell (Generalization of the structure of Mendeleev's periodic table, 1972) through which he proposes a coaction cardioid to distinguish in cybernetic terms the patterns of relationship between a "controlling function" and a "work function", as discussed separately (Cardioid Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart of sustainable relationship, 2005). He notably uses the ecosystemic relationship between species as an example.

Haskell's framework suggests the possibility of applying this to psychosocial relationships -- seemingly ever more highly charged, especially since the implications of "control" and "work" are controversially called into question.

In endeavouring to apply such a framework to patterns of psychosocial bonding, it is curious to note how some of Haskell's terms are indeed familiar as descriptors of some relationship conditions -- especially parasitism and predation. The uses of "mensalism" are themselves significant as a reference to the "table" at which people may meet and eat.

Challenge to recognition of a multiplicity of dynamically emergent conditions: Metaphorical indications, like those above can best be considered, part of a larger set of ways of perceiving love and hate. It is the complementarity of the metaphors in the larger set which offers a form of stereoscopic perspective on the nature of the interweaving of polyamory and polyanimosity which may be fundamental to sustainable psychosocial relationships in a global society -- and to a richer understanding of the "peace" to which so many claim to aspire.

Specifically the argument challenges the lack of articulation of "love" and "hate" by reinforcing the assumption that each is well-defined and fundamentally distinct from the other -- however mysteriously infinite they may be claimed to be (Ann Purcell, The Infinite Depths of Love, The Huffington Post, 18 February 2014). Christianity typically preaches that God "loves the world with infinite love" but "hates sin with infinite hate".

This is seemingly contrary to widespread experience of "shades of grey" and the paradoxical challenge of "love-hate" relationships -- to say nothing of the depths of love and hate which some experience in contrast to forms which cannot be distinguished from the most superficial forms of liking and disliking. Conflating such experiences into singular understanding, however mysterious it is alleged to be, is less than helpful in a society which has to engage with complexity. The same can be said of "peace" contrasted simply with "violence" -- both being equally challenging to comprehension, although this is readily denied (Global Incomprehension of Increasing Violence, 2016).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]