Love Stories

Someone on Twitter shared an article about amatonormativity recently. I read it, and found it interesting. The article posits that our society places too much of an emphasis on the supposed virtues of romance, monogamy, and generally romantic and sexual coupling, to the detriment of the healthy and deeper development of platonic friendships. Indeed, it would seem to put a stigma on being single and alone (or "self-partnered," as the Harry Potter grown-up-kids prefer to call themselves). 

From the article:

"Amatonormativity is, essentially, "the assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in the sense that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types," according to Elizabeth Brake."

This is one of those scenarios where I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, but have doubts about what comes afterward. Should people who choose to be alone (or are at least happy with that situation) be made to feel lesser about their lot in life? Of course not. If consenting adults choose to be polyamorous, more power to them. Should a set of friends feel close to one other, feeling as though a romantic relationship is unneeded for each of them, that's great. And, if a person does not desire romance, that is, of course, absolutely fine.

Where I'm left scratching my head (at least, based on this one article), is where that leaves the rest of us? Are we to feel guilty for wanting or being in romantic relationships? If we desire to spend our lives with just one person, shouldn't the flexible and non-judgmental nature I expressed in the previous paragraph be provided in return? The gist of what I get from the article (and opponents of amatonormativity in general) is that people only think they want monogamous, romantic, lifelong relationships because they've been brainwashed or coerced by society to think that is what's right.

I dunno. This could be so much misguided claptrap, but I think that there's something beyond societal influence that drives people toward the sort of romance and relationships vilified by anti-amatonormative folks. For one, it could be argued that the two-parent unit is beneficial to the upbringing of kids. Of course, there are those who raise children as single parents and do splendidly, and there are those who choose to surround their kids with a metaphoric village, friends and family who share and help with the upbringing. That's great.

What we need to be cognizant of are the devices and desires of the human heart. I would argue that it is hardwired to seek out someone special, to want to spend more time with them than with others, and to build a life together with them. Friends are notoriously unreliable. Opponents of amatonormativity would likely argue that is because society has trained them to be that way, that such a hierarchy has been dominated by romantic relationships as to deaden our senses to the wonders and intimacy of friendship. Dunno. Perhaps. But that's an enormous obstacle to overcome, if so.

There are some truths to the basic idea of the article. We are quietly hostile to the notion of being perpetually single, of valuing friendships at the same level we value romantic relationships, and that we tend to stigmatize those who do not conform to the mold of monogamous relationships. Those are all criticisms of method, however, not of concept. In other words, it doesn't detract from the norm, more so how it interacts with the atypical.

Perhaps the majority of people prefer singular, romantic relationships because of plethora of positive factors that have very little to do with societal pressure? Maybe it's simply what they want? To that end, we should be looking at a better way to co-exist and respect each other's differences, not crafting an argument where one side is basically victimized, while the other is demonized. That doesn't seem very persuasive.