I often write about controversial topics, and sometimes people don't like what I write and unsubscribe. They don't usually tell me why, but with this last article on polyamory one of my unsubscribers did. I thought they made some important point about prostitution, so I asked if they'd be willing to share their thoughts with everyone here in the comments, but unfortunately they haven't replied back so I'm going to share them instead (I'm retracting their name in case they want anonymity). I've also included my reply to their message so you can get a better sense for my thoughts on what they shared.
~ ~ ~
You apparently haven't heard of or considered the Nordic Model as a legal framework to deal with the issue of prostitution: i.e. decriminalisation of sellers and criminalisation of buyers and provision of funding for exit services for the overwhelmingly female victims. It has been implemented with a good degree of success in various countries round the world.
If you inform yourself of the research of academics such as Melissa Farley you will find:
Prostitution is a form of gendered violence: the majority of sellers/sold are female and the overwhelming majority of buyers are male.
Studies have shown 90% of women/girls in prostitution worldwide are under the control of a pimp.
A very high percentage of those in prostitution begin as minors: so to condone/legalise prostitution is to do so for child prostitution.
Women in prostitution have higher rates of PTSD than military veterans and higher rates of murder than any other civilian group.
Women and girls in prostitution (and porn) have very high rates of childhood sexual abuse and rape compared to the rest of the female population: this experience 'grooms' them to see themselves as worthless sex objects- a kind of training for prostitution.
Men who use prostituted women are more likely to be partnered than single: the prostitution use is a form of infidelity therefore, and the self reported motivation of buyers is commonly to have the opportunity to do things to a woman that their partner would object to.
I'm letting you know that I'm unsubscribing to your substack on the basis of the unexamined and offensive misogyny and classism I feel you have displayed through your inability to condemn the social evil (I believe demonic and asuric beings are involved) of pornography and prostitution in this piece. You are almost certainly protected from being used in prostitution due to your (male) sex and class privilege: you appear only to have thought about prostitution from the perspective of a buyer, due to these privileges.
Those who haven't developed spiritually to the degree they are capable of seeing women in prostitution as deserving of the freedom to be able to survive financially without being raped for money, and that EVERYONE deserves to live a life free of suffering from the massive attendant physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence from the men who use prostituted women, I feel, can have little to offer me. In my view such a understanding represents a relatively low bar of moral development. It is also in no way a coherent Christian/anthroposophical position to take. (Do unto others as you would wish to be done unto you).
Best wishes
_________
~ ~ ~
And my reply...
~ ~ ~
Thanks so much for your message, it brings up a super important issue that I did treat in a very shallow, cursory way in my article. I agree with all the points you make, and I'll try to explain my own understanding so that you get a better understanding of why I wrote about prostitution in the way I did. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
First off, I haven't heard of the Nordic Model, but that sounds like a good legal framework to address some of the issues you brought up. And I am generally aware of many of those issues. I know that most prostitutes are women and that they're forced into it, either through sex slavery (being sold by their parents or tricked into it) or because of poverty (another clear form of coercion). And I know that the term "sex worker" has become popular in recent years among liberals who think it's more empowering, but that many prostituted women have pushed back against it and said, "We're not doing this because we chose to. We're being forced into it. So let's not make it sound healthy and good." (There's a similar movement in the disabled community, trying to reclaim the term disability.)
So, I'd say that I ENTIRELY agree with you that "women in prostitution [deserve] the freedom to be able to survive financially without being raped for money, and that EVERYONE deserves to live a life free of suffering from the massive attendant physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence from the men who use prostituted women." Yes. So then the question for me is, How does one do that?
First, I think it's important to recognize two different things here. One is that there's a clear human rights violation - there's the element of coercion, of force (whether economic or physical), as well as the brutality and violence of prostitution. And then there's the element of having sex with another person as a so-called "service." I think it's possible to disentangle these two things, as is clear from my earlier example - there are some women who prefer to use the term "sex workers" because they feel they HAVE chosen the profession, because they feel they do have agency. If that is the case - if someone really hasn't been forced into it, but wants to be a sex worker - do you think society should say they can't?
Maybe that sounds a bit convoluted. After all, the reality is as you described it. But the reality also has to shift, and what will that shift look like? For instance, there is the argument that if prostitution was legalized then prostituted women would be able to have the same protections that are afforded to all other workers. If we imagine that happened, then my hypothetical isn't so strange. If it was an above board, legally recognized profession and there wasn't the same coercion or brutality, could you imagine it being alright for some people to do it?
I certainly have my doubts about the above argument. I could definitely imagine that it would only encourage more prostitution, and maybe much more. And on top of that, I could also imagine that much of it would still be happening illicitly. And even if that wasn't the case, there would still be the issue of economic coercion. If nothing else changed, if we still had the same dog-eat-dog capitalist system, then most women would still only be doing it because they had to.
But this just points to the fact that we need to deal with this issue of economic coercion across ALL of society, prostitution is just the most extreme example. We need to change the economy in a fundamental way. We need to separate work and income so that no one has to sell their labor. It makes people into commodities, and puts all the power in the hands of the employers (this is something I've written a bit about in a couple articles - "Welcome back to work. Now please hold still while we put your collar and leash back on" and "Your work is not a commodity, it's your reason for being here." In an economic system that actually addressed these fundamental inequities, people would have far more agency in choosing their work.
In such a system, I could imagine prostitution actually becoming "sex work," and being a helpful, perhaps therapeutic profession. When I was younger, I met a man who slept with prostitutes. He was an incredibly awkward person - had a very hard time connecting with people - and he described that prostitutes were a life-saver for him, that otherwise he felt he would have been driven mad because of the lack of intimacy in his life. I don't think sex workers are the long-run solution for his particular dilemma, I think we should be trying to create a society where people can enter into committed relationships in a healthy way, but I could also imagine that there might always be some people who are challenged in this particular way, and that sex work might be a step on a person's particular path of development.
That's the only way I can really imagine sex work playing a healthy role in society. I assume it would be a much rarer activity than it currently is, and that people would be doing sex work out of their own free will, without any coercion. When I point to prostitution in my article, I'm assuming these things - I'm assuming, for instance, that the human rights aspect of prostitution is being addressed (and to some extent it would obviously have to be, otherwise how could it become legal?) If it is addressed, and people still want to do it (even for much less healthy reasons than I've outlined above) I do think they should be able to. If it's not violating their rights, if they're two or more consenting adults, then I don't think other people should get in the way.
But yeah, I recognize that there are a lot of "ifs" there. And I recognize that I didn't really put any of them in my article (though I do think they're somewhat implied...). So yeah, it was pretty thoughtless of me, and I apologize for being so flippant about the whole thing. Anyways, I hope that clarifies things. Thanks again for bringing up this incredibly important issue. Would love your further thoughts on it.
I think more and more human beings are recognizing that freedom is intricately connected to responsibility for other human beings, for our humanity, and its survival as a whole. In the coming 6th epoch, the spirit of brotherhood will reign and we will not be able to find peace if another, or other human beings, are suffering. No doubt personal bodily satisfactions will become less important than care for the healthy raising of children and family life in whatever constellations that takes. Our human evolution is moving us away from physical satisfactions to spiritual ones that value all of humanity.
Hey Mary - thanks for these thoughts. I agree that the spirit of brotherhood, solidarity, will grow in significant ways in the future. It will intensify... but only because we're able to intensify it within us. Human beings have to be free. I don't think bodily satisfactions are going to become less pressing, less important, on their own (I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not), but only because we're able to overcome them, purify them, and cultivate spiritual satisfactions in their place. Hope you're well!
Thanks, Seth, you have stated it better than I did. Yes, "only because we're able to overcome them, purify them, and cultivate spiritual satisfactions in their place". We are always evolving. I'm guessing some of that takes place in the time between death and rebirth. Maybe we have to arrive there with a certain sense for freedom, as in "ethical individualism".
I can imagine you will find support for your cause, and that what I will offer will stand in bitter contrast to such sweet reception. Nevertheless, here it is.
A community that is in bed with one another, cannot and will not foster the development of the free spirit. What “help” it will be fated to “give" will fall under the same category as all the other regressive forms that provide the resistance individuals must overcome in order to break through to the living spirit.
It is a sad state of affairs in our time and in anthroposophical circles that the intimate exchange of being, called brotherhood, is so rarely experienced and is even less understood.
A spiritual community founded on the “I” of Christ, is created by individuals who consciously endeavor to intensify and raise their consciousness towards one another in such a way that they stand before one another as pure activity before their fellowman. The level of intimacy such encounters engender is beyond what most are willing to imagine!
World evolution presses MANY souls towards this kind of encounter, but the adversarial powers stand ready in the wings to subvert the newly budding capacity to meet Ego to Ego. The adversaries are at work in our lower sheathing and as a response to such close encounters, sexual forces will inevitably be stirred (etheric forces), or romantic feelings of “falling in love” (astral forces) will enter the inner life. To souls unprepared to meet these temptations, they will STOP SHORT of the REAL experience of communion and instead, become enamored by all the intrigues that exist for the lower members of our sheathing.
Such developments are not progress, they are regressive. Because people are, in the age of Individuality and Freedom, more inclined to test these waters surging in to our evolution, all kinds of variations on the theme are possible. A panoply of possibilities will appear on the scene, ready to dispense with the “old” and welcome in the “new,” but none of these will produce the truly New Society, but rather they will suck dry the forces that are being made available to build the New Society.
It is important to face the humble position most of us really are in. We can rationalize so well all the many developments afoot in the social life, but few of us, and infrequently, are actually capable of penetrating to spiritual scientific insights as a result of intuitive thinking. As of now, it seems as if the all too common standard of intuitive thinking amounts to groping about in a shadowy haze of passing thought-forms and mental images until we strike a groove that connects a few of these thought-forms and images well enough in order that we feel things are beginning to make some sense.
The real experience of intuitive thinking and of spiritual insight come about through a transformation in the thinking life, such that etheric forces become active within the soul in no uncertain terms. Such activity ultimately engenders the light of the spirit, and the “shadows” of thought disappear, replaced by a real spiritual world occupied by beings.
Why does intuitive thinking matter in regard to the sexual conduct of individuals living in a “spiritual community?”
This is because it becomes dreadfully, and I mean that in the most serious of implications, difficult to rise to an intuitive level of consciousness unless the sexual has been overruled by the Ego. If an individual is constantly open to new sexual partners or no form exists (i.e., Real Marriage), to contain those forces, then etheric forces flow out heedlessly into others and into the natural world process in such a way as to become lost to the purposes of cognition.
Thus, a community who chooses to live out their lives with rotating bedmates, becomes a community of people incapable of amassing the moral strength to unite themselves with the genuine in-streaming forces of the divine-spiritual hierarchies.
People can experience, in the “poly lifestyle," all sorts of configurations and dramas and pleasures and lessons with one another, but none of these will amount to the kind of “progress” being striven for in genuine anthroposophy. It is better for such individuals to leave anthroposophy alone than to meddle haphazardly with it.
A marriage of a man and a woman, Ego to Ego, and without priestly mediation, is in fact a newly emerging possibility for our age. Before God and their fellow human beings, avowed men and women can demonstrate their fully conscious relationship to one another by the power of decision, of purpose, and of responsibility toward one another and to humankind at large, by ordering the fabric of karma and destiny. Outside sexual intrigues are set aside with conviction, thus rendering the social fabric free from stray influences that would hinder the higher order exchanges attainable in a New Society.
Spiritual marriage is a form equal to the higher capacities of the Ego, as it places the sexual in its proper place, surrendered to the process of spiritualization, which will in time lead to the transfiguration of the sexual force completely, into the future, frontal spinal column of self-mastery and into the Logos power of productive speech.
I leave you with the following words from Rudolf Steiner, because you know, don’t take my word for it…take His!
"The effect in the evolution of humanity would be that certain instincts connected with the sexual life would arise in a pernicious form instead of wholesomely, in clear waking consciousness. These instincts would not be mere aberrations but would pass over into and configure the social life, would above all prevent men—through what would then enter their blood as the effect of the sexual life—from unfolding brotherhood in any form whatever on the earth, and would rather induce them to rebel against it.”
"And what do you suppose the scientific experts will say when such instincts come into evidence? They will say that it is a natural and inevitable development in the evolution of humanity. Light cannot be shed on such matters by natural science, for whether men become angels or devils would be equally capable of explanation by scientific reasoning. Science will say the same in both cases: the later is the outcome of the earlier ... so grand and wise is the interpretation of nature in terms of causality! Natural science will be totally blind to the event of which I have told you, for if men become half devils through their sexual instincts, science will as a matter of course regard this as a natural necessity. Scientifically, then, the matter is simply not capable of explanation, for whatever happens, everything can be explained by science. The fact is that such things can be understood only by spiritual, super-sensible cognition.”
"would experience such satisfaction in obeying certain aberrations of the sexual impulses that he would regard them as evidence of a particularly high development of superhumanity, of freedom from convention, of broad-mindedness! In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. Nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being.”
Rudolf Steiner from “The Work of the Angel in Man’s Astral Body"
Many thanks for expanding and re-focusing this topic with anthroposophy. Many readers are probably not anthroposophists (some of us are). So part of my pleasure in following Seth comes from the way he is able to present anthroposophical thought to a more general public - to plant small seeds of ideas that can get a conversation started.
You have brought up a whole, very important, perspective and it has been a pleasure to read your observations, all of which many of us ponder and work on. At the end of the day each person has to go through his own trials of initiation, of confronting evil, fear and low instincts. Humanity as a whole, composed as it is of all of us, individuals, has to go through trials. The quotes of R.S. at the end describe well our present times. So does The Karma of Untruthfulness lecture cycle and much more.
I guess what I wanted to express here was my gratitude to Seth for presenting spiritual science ideas to the wider public and helping anthroposophy reach more people. Your contribution is a pleasant dive into the crux of the matter and - at least for me - offers rich material to the general topic of transformation over time.
Thank you Ati for sharing the context of readership relevant to this platform. Seth linked this article to an anthroposophical Facebook group to which I am a member and the link led me here. It is not my aim to discourage anyone from seeking those experiences to which they are drawn, yet when the name of anthroposophy is invoked to bear upon such matters, it is fair to the spirit of anthroposophy and to those who would come to learn of it for it to be represented in a light as close to its nature as one is able to convey. Upon Seth’s invitation for thoughts from his reader, stated in the post which I came across, and upon my personal relation to anthroposophy I hope my contribution will have been made in good taste even if its points are more stringent than are the normal fare in this marketplace of ideas.
Hey Anthony - thanks so much for your comment. I definitely appreciate your willingness to dive in and share the pictures that you shared. And I agree, in substance with many of them, but they also raised some questions that I'd love your thoughts on.
You started off by saying "I can imagine you will find support for your cause" and I was wondering what you thought my cause was? Here's how I would describe it: The point of The Whole Social is to start conversation, to get people thinking about our social life in deeper ways, ways that can lead towards health. Then, in relation to this particular article, I wanted to start that conversation by showing how important increasing individuation is (what Steiner calls "the fundamental sociological law") and how it can illuminate the phenomena around us. I think with this law in mind, one can see more clearly the movement that needs to take place from unconscious to conscious, and from selfish to selfless. That was my main goal, but I think maybe you saw something different, and I'd be interested in what that was.
You also described how the only help that can come from "a community that is in bed with one another" will come because, like all other "regressive forms" it can only "provide the resistance individuals must overcome in order to break through to the living spirit." I have two questions here.
First, I wonder if that's not a kind of dismissal of the role of oppositional forces. Everything is done in relation to oppositional forces. They're working with us and are essential to our development. You must know that Steiner often lamented the fact that anthroposophists would try to avoid those forces and stay pure, when really the work is to actively counter-balance those forces.
Second, I wonder if what you wrote above is not an over-simplification of things? It seems to me that everything is a mix of healthy and unhealthy forces, though of course some things weigh much heavier on the side of the healthy or unhealthy. But can you really see so clearly what something is from its outer form alone? And should you just stay clear of it once you've identified it as unhealthy?
For instance, I listened to "hardcore" music when I was younger (it's related to punk and metal, but still completely different). From the outside, I can imagine it looked totally unhealthy to my parents and teachers. The music was super heavy. The singers didn't sing, they screamed. The dancing was a mosh pit that was all punching and kicking. Some of the bands had names like Vision of Disorder, 25 ta Life, Hatebreed. Some of the albums had titles like "Bloodlust Revenge."
But just because some bands emphasized being vengeful or hateful, I never felt those things. And just because the music was a kind of fire in your blood and was full of rage and passion, nonetheless it was super inspiring. There were also bands like Earth Crisis and Ignite that were talking about environmental destruction. There were bands like Indecision that were asking religious questions. There was a whole straight-edge scene, where the kids didn't smoke or drink or do drugs. There were even Hare Krishna bands talking about God ("Krisnacore"). It was the most thoughtful music scene I've ever experienced and it played a significant role in my development, in me becoming a philosophy major in college and later working with anthroposophy. But is that scene worthless because of the things I first mentioned about it? Or is it possible that it was absolutely essential for my spiritual development? Would it really have been better if I listened to classical music in high school and college? Of course, I could imagine an even healthier version of the hardcore scene, but no one created that. And anyways, the one that I experienced got a lot of things right. It had real integrity and earnestness and a sense of brotherhood that was incredible.
I wonder if it's not the same with polyamory? Isn't it possible that it's a necessary and healthy step for some people, depending on where they're at on their path of development? The first time I heard about it, I was 22 and living with friends. We had a study group and one of the guys who came was polyamorous. He was incredibly earnest and thoughtful (he led us in a study of feminism, and the harms that men perpetrate on women) and the way he described polyamory, it required so much more time and communication and consciousness then I had any capacity for (I've always found it hard enough to make one relationship work). So I can definitely say that he was far more relationship-conscious than I was. But was I right for being monogamous, and he was wrong for being polyamorous?
You also say that it's better for people who are polyamorous "to leave anthroposophy alone than to meddle haphazardly with it," but is that really so clear to you? If so, what aspects, exactly, should keep people away from anthroposophy? Is it because they're romantically involved with more than one person? Could you imagine Steiner saying that a polygamist shouldn't touch anthroposophy, or that anthroposophists shouldn't work with and into polygamist cultures around the world (of which there are over a thousand)?
Or is that people are having sex without being married? Or having sex at all? Or that they're moving from one relationship to another? Or is it really just the concurrent, over-lapping relationships that are the problem? Is that the real line that's being crossed?
I just can't imagine Steiner being so dismissive of people's struggles, and strivings, and failures. Can you imagine him really ever telling a person they should leave anthroposophy alone because of their lifestyle?
And do you think there was no polyamory during Steiner's time? Steiner was alive during the Roaring 20s. Western culture was full of sexual adventure and drama, full of affairs and divorces. And certainly he was aware of how widespread polygamy was around the world. So is it really so obvious that the quote you shared is about our time? Are things really that different from Steiner's time? I agree there has been a progression and an intensification, but I just don't know that we're really there yet. (And even if we are, I don't see the work being rejecting these things so much as asking how they can be brought around to consciousness).
Anyways, those are my main questions. Again, thanks so much for adding your voice to the conversation. It's great to take up these things and to actually try to look at them in a deeper way together!
You have brought the idea of polyamory to the fore in this article, in an attempt to find for it, a context, both historical and developmental, that is, to find an explanation for it from out of the past and from out of the future. This is the “cause” to which I alluded. The explanation you offer is also a rational justification for it, stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community.
To find an explanation for polyamory is a worthy exercise. I have merely added what I could to that explanation. I think it IS true that the longing for spiritual community grows in many hearts in our time, and that this phenomena is related to current developments afoot in human evolution.
That people would seek to form relationships to others on the basis of common ideas, rather than find themselves bound to one another on the basis of race, class, or traditionally prescribed dogma, is a sign of the times.
What I attempted to convey is the fact that this world of Ideas, from which we could draw to “found” such spiritual communities, is a world we must RISE INTO through inner activity.
Communities can form themselves based on all sorts of things, peace, love, land stewardship, vegetarianism, punk rock, nudism, psychedelics, sharia law, and even polyamory…
Some of these communities would assuredly claim to be “spiritual.” What such communities would have to offer the individual may very well suit various individuals, and it is not my intent nor place to dissuade anyone from what they are impelled to do.
The weaving of karma and destiny is a very intimate matter, and each individual is uniquely positioned within these forces. Nevertheless, should that individual meet me and meet what I would have to say in relation to anthroposophy, he will find again, something to contend with in his destiny.
Am I here to promote and advance everything that exists in the world by simple virtue that it exists?
To say that unhealthy and healthy forces co-exist is surely a sound observation, but their coexistence is not as warm and friendly bedfellows. Spiritual science reveals that these forces are at War with one another, as is depicted between Michael and the Dragon, Christ and Anti-Christ. There are forces that seek to tear mankind away from his True Destiny, and they are not FOR the human being. To abandon people to such forces without offering the light of spiritual scientific facts which could strengthen them in their effort to overcome adversarial powers is the epitome of lovelessness.
What I have said about communities who are in bed with one another not being able to rise to the higher order exchanges striven for in a true anthroposophical community, is born not only out of a comprehension of the relevant facts but out of personal experience and observation.
There are very fine people to be found everywhere, even in polyamorous circles; that’s not the issue. We can learn something from anyone. People demonstrate qualities ever and again which can are indeed admirable, no matter what kind of social arrangement they are positioned within.
Again, I am not casting a moral judgment on the personal lives of others, I am pointing to a clear and observable fact; if one would dare use the term “spiritual community” to refer to a community of people striving for, among their individual members, an Ego relationship to the Divine, Guiding Powers of Humanity, these individuals will need to have made progress in overruling the sexual forces such that they do not interfere with the chaste and hallowed “crossing over” exchanges of the New Society. Inwardly radiant soul-spiritual exchanges between the higher members of one another's sheathings consummate the union that comprise the spiritual communions of the New Society. To unfold how these purely spiritual exchanges make possible mankind’s true destiny could become the quest of many a worthy contemplation and conversation.
The merging of two or more Individualities becomes a purely spiritual event, one that nevertheless creates effects in the lower members of man’s organism. If individuals are unwilling to wield the death force to not only subdue but to extinguish the sexual forces, the conditions for this higher communion are impossible. When a man and a woman confront one another and neither dare to chasten themselves, then as they grow near, engendering an intimate atmosphere, unfolding their heart's contents, the sexual forces will inevitably be stirred, and within a community of people “open” to an ever re-constellating of sexual partners, the tender buds of spiritual exchange will be overshadowed or outright consumed by sensual gratification.
The possibility for this new kind of community exists, a community that seeks to become a Grail vessel, whose requirements are chastity and fearless devotion to Truth.
There is a whole wide world out there that all of us are free to explore or settle down somewhere in. For those who would seek “spiritual” community in the highest sense of the word, will find in anthroposophy what they need as help in overcoming “the ways of the world.”
It is vitally important to recognize the difference between possessing a speculative interest in anthroposophy, which is the purview and prerogative of anyone, and giving birth to new social forms from out of the anthroposophical spirit, which can only belong to those truly striving to unite themselves with that spirit.
Anyone who attempts to justify and advance the cause of expanding the domain of sexual activity and encourages it to flow out into a community as its cohesive force cannot really have arrived at a genuine comprehension of what anthroposophy would seek to offer mankind.
One could say that it is up to individuals to discover and to decide in what way anthroposophy will be advanced in the future. And how true that statement is. Whether anthroposophy, as a living spiritual being, will enter the forms mankind gives it or not, will reveal itself to those equipped to observe such developments.
The reading of Steiner’s “The Work of the Angel in Man’s Astral Body,” provides ample content to chew on. It outlines three regressive developments possible in our evolution and three progressive developments possible for our evolution. These developments are opposed to one another. Where a regressive development rules, a progressive development fades. Where a progressive development rules, a regressive development fades. Good is destined to transform evil. Grey and Black Magic are not concerned with the transformation of evil, they deal and wallow in it for egotistic purposes. White Magic never condones the egotistical absorption into evil conditions or purposes, it sets before itself, ever and again, the redemption of evil for the salvation of souls who have become ensnared within it.
May the call for chastity and truth clash against and disturb those powers who would lull human beings to sleep. May it sound an awakening and ennobling call, full of hope and promise, to the human heart yearning to set upon the path of attaining real freedom and of attaining its true human form.
And I would like to clarify one more thing. I think the study of anthroposophy can meet anyone who would engage it with earnest interest. So I would not suggest that people steer clear of it just because they are positioned personally or socially in some particular way. When I stated that people should not meddle haphazardly with it, I mean two things. One, that anthroposophy should not be used to legitimize social forms that do not arise out of anthroposophical insight, and second, that those who would seek to represent anthroposophy in the world or to form communities devoted to the spirit of anthroposophy should leave it alone if they are unwilling to fulfill the kinds of requirements I have outlined. If someone approaches anthroposophy as a matter of destiny and are drawn to it by an individual representing it from within an anthroposophical community, if they find instead, a new sexual affair with that representative, and if such happenings are the accepted norm, there is simply no ground for the progressive spiritual forces to be present within such a community.
Hey Anthony - I really appreciate these additional contributions. Thanks for sharing.
One thing that's still unclear to me is what you're addressing in the article I wrote, and what you're speaking about generally and also our of your personal experience in relationship to anthroposophical community?
It's clear from what you wrote that you think I'm offering "a rational justification for [polyamory], stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community." I wouldn't say I've done that, and that definitely wasn't my intention. That makes it sound like I'm saying, "Go for it, it all leads to spiritual community eventually." My point was that significant aspects of it are unhealthy - the ways that it potentially spreads us thinner and makes our relationships more superficial, as well as the ways that it's used to satisfy our self-gratification. Period. That's all I concretely said about it.
I also didn't say anything positive about polygamy or pornography or AI relationships, or any of the other things I mentioned. But I did say that such things can be understood, that it makes sense that they're arising in humanity (because of the "fundamental sociological law," because of increasing individuation, and also because of oppositional forces) and that we don't actually have to freak out about them, we can see them as oppositional forces that are pointing us to what needs to be developed, calling on us to develop our consciousness, calling on us to develop inwardly.
That's also what you're saying, that we need inner activity, that we need to develop spiritually, but it seems like the main place you disagree with me is that you think I'm being irresponsible for saying that I think these developments are "for the good, even though it will lead (and is already leading) to greater suffering." It seems like you think I'm taking these things too lightly. And that makes total sense. I can see that.
I've been told that I'm perhaps overly optimistic, that I always see a "silver lining." And maybe that is irresponsible. Maybe it doens't give the things their proper weight. I also wrote an article about ChatGPT last year, and I basically said the same thing - that all these developments are wounding the human being, but they're also pointing to what we need to develop consciously. But maybe that's not the right way to look at it? I do think it's better than what I normally see people do though, which is to generally freak-out and to call on the government to outlaw these things, and to take away people's freedom. Some laws might make sense in relation to some of these phenomena, but I think we have to be really careful.
Whenever and wherever we can, we should be educating, not legislating. For instance, Steiner said that movies were definitely not a healthy development for humanity, but that we shouldn't try to outlaw them. Instead, we should be developing healthy art forms in their place. That's similar to what I was trying to say in my article about polyamory, but maybe I didn't hit the target so well...
It also seems like perhaps you think my use of the term "spiritual community" is irresponsible. If you look back at how I used it, I definitely wasn't talking about forming intentional communities or anthropsophical communities, but just the community of two people who are consciously trying to overcome themselves and meet each other selflessly.
I recognize that that means taking hold of one's sexual instincts. Again, it's what I say in the article, though I don't go as far as you do. I never say that chastity is required. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean abstinence, pure and simple? And do you think that it's a prerequisite for walking the path of spiritual development, or something that one let's go of as one walks? Should one not bother to enter into relationship if one is still struggling with it? I've never encountered, or at least I don't remember, Steiner having the same emphasis on it as you have (for instance I don't remember him mentioning it at all in Knowledge of Higher Worlds). What do you think?
thank you for this article, Seth. there is so much here to reflect upon and discuss. I particularly appreciate how your disenchantment with what is lost through individuation's detrimental effects on human relationships is balanced by a positive assertion that this is all part and parcel to the greater ultimate good of human spiritual evolution (if I may clumsily summarize). as I am in an untraditional, though deeply committed, long-term family/partnership that is - by admittedly anecdotal evidence - generally more solid, content, loving and peaceful than the majority of my friends' marriages, I have many thoughts on this topic, too many to share in a comment. I will say this - there are many shades of polyamory, which has broadly taken on an almost sit-comical image of complex nuanced arrangements and drifty multiple commitments. not that you are presenting it this way, but it merits emphasis that traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary.
I do foresee that some simpler shades of grey in this arena may persist beyond the "trend" of it all, and may also come with fewer detriments. for example, the agreement of ethical non-monogamy within marriages and longer-term partnerships. to me this reflects a move to update the old "French" model where it may be generally socially acceptable to have an extramarital lover, with implicit agreements that one does not abandon the primary partner nor humiliate them with public indiscretion. in the "poly" version, the clandestine and unspoken elements are replaced with clear agreements, transparency, open communication, and (in cases where it is desired) reciprocity. I honestly think many of the sexless, resigned modern marriages I see suffering through their externally honored original agreements would actually strive and be reborn through such limited freedoms. this does, however, require a significant level of relational capacity, commitment to shared ideals and inner work. I've known a few friends who have moved through such stages and returned to monogamy with less resentment, some who have stuck with the "open" model, and others who are full-on swingers (and still going strong, bless them!)
Hey Dan - great to hear from you. A couple things you said sparked questions for me: Can you say more about why you think that "traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary"? It seems like there's a pretty clear line between being exclusive, or not, with one person. I can see some shades - for instance we often "cheat" on our partners in our hearts, as Christ said on the Sermon on the Mount "everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Is that what you mean?
Also, I'm wondering about your characterization of healthy and unhealthy relationships. It seems like you're pointing to healthy ones being loving and peaceful, and unhealthy ones being resigned, resentful, and sexless (and so, presumably, not so loving and peaceful). I guess I wonder what you think leads to unhealthy relationships? It seems like the main thing you're pointing to is that honoring one's original agreements, and not giving each other more freedom (by which I assume you mean the freedom to be romantically involved with others), can lead to resignation, resentment and sexlessness. Is that right? I guess I wonder if you think that anything is lost by giving up on those original commitments? Do you think there's anything that's only possible in a monogamous relationship, and that's not possible in a polyamorous one?
thanks for probing further, Seth. re the binary: I'm saying there is a spectrum here, and if for you the center point (or the hinge, or the crucial threshold is monogamy vs anything else) I still would not lump everything to either side of it into two categories. you may have one couple (good luck finding one) where both partners are physically monogamous and never look upon another person with lust or desire...that would be the extreme end of the monogamy part of the spectrum, and presumably Jesus' ideal. On the other end of the monogamists, a couple wherein either or both partners openly and unreservedly lust after others (through porn, fantasy, flirting) and yet never cross the line of physical monogamy...and in that group there may be couples who are deeply affectionate with one another and have active, satisfying sex lives, and others who are sexless with each other, unaffectionate and even resentful of their monogamy commitment. In some marriages I know, one partner thinks masturbation is a betrayal. For some masturbation is ok, but not porn. in some, there is a presumption that fantasy, whether in coitus or during masturbation, should in every moment exclusively involve the committed partner, and never stray to another. that strikes me personally as unrealistic, but maybe some people get something out of striving for that?
on the extreme end of the non-monogamy gang, you might have a couple who is married but actively, physically non-monogamous. (I actually know a couple who have been non-monogamous for the past 8 years of their 10 year marriage, happily having sexual relationships with other individuals and couples. They have a deeply loving and commitment relationship. It's not my cup of tea, but these are two honest, emotionally and psychologically balanced and compassionately communicative people with what seems to be a thriving relationship - including 4 kids from their respective previous marriages). Having been to a couple of polyamory "meet-ups" (essentially interest group cocktail parties) I spoke with a pretty wide variety of people and couples, some of whom just seemed to be finding ethically supportable ways of sustaining their own sex addictions (for example, people who expressed a "need" to have three or four lovers at a time).
I've known several married couples who have various types of "open" agreements - from "don't ask, don't tell, don't compromise my health and don't embarrasss me" to "you can do anything you want but I want to know every detail". Some of these have worked, some have not, though none have ended in divorce as yet. The most damage I've seen done is when there was clandestine infidelity that was discovered. There are also partnerships and families that are formed for different reasons. My own family and partnership was never based on an agreement of monogamy (neither physical nor otherwise), but on the commitment of raising a child together. We have clear agreements and have grown and thrived in this relationship for 10 years of living together (preceded by 12 years of being intertwined in various forms), including 5 years with a child. When most of my monogamously married friends compare their 10plus year relationships to ours, the vast majority characterize ours as more loving, more mutually respectful, more stable and "healthier". A few are in various stages of divorce. it's not a label we identify with, but our relationship would fit your definition of poly, and certainly non-monogamous.
There may be generational differences. I know many people/couples in their 30's who are doing more of a burning-man, free-love ethical non-monogamy thing with complex structures and terminology, some with good results and some not so much. I'm not in any way disparaging the old monogamy model. I strived and hoped for that kind of marriage into my mid 40's, and I was never physically unfaithful in any of several long term monogamous relationships to that point. I did find that that particular ideal is really hard to achieve in this day and age (for reasons you discuss, mostly). giving up on finding that for myself and the openness to other arrangements is what I have to thank for the great pleasure, challenge and privilege of being both a father and a devoted partner now, albeit with "new rules".
I do think it is easier to live with more open agreements if they are established from the beginning than to change them mid-stream, but everything is possible. some people make monogamy work and feel the sacrifices are worth it in the long run. Something is likely lost by giving up on a marital commitment of monogamy, but I think for some couples, what is gained may outweigh the loss. I think there may be levels of intimacy or ...safety?...trust? possible in monogamous relationships that are unique. on the other hand, the level of trust that those swingers friends I mentioned have had to summon to literally watch each other have sex with someone else and feel good about it is pretty extraordinary, too.
all this to say, I believe that this age of individuation is not only spawning increasingly individuated individuals, but also an infinite number of combinations and couplings of those individuals, and that therefore this stark line of this-or-that may not be as useful as the case-by-case analysis. I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to. you never know what situation karma will land you in. I was always a romantic (monogamy-idolizing) looking for an ideal, committed marriage. I found that life had different, deeply rewardingly unconventional plans for me, and this has opened my mind and heart to the consideration of emergent new forms in many realms...I appreciate the work you are doing to assess those and see what is worth supporting and what is worth questioning. I feel this is the dialogue of evolution!
Hey Dan - sorry to take a hot minute to get back to you. It's been busy over here. Just wanted to say thanks. There are a lot of rich pictures in here, and a lot to mull over.
One of the things that most struck me was your picture of a healthy relationship: "I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to."
That makes sense to me. I appreciate the emphasis on social process - on transparency, communication, and follow through. But I also really appreciate putting ideals and values at the center. Then it becomes a question of what are people working towards. I don't think there is one right thing to work towards, people are at varied points on the path, but I do think that the path leads to higher and higher ideals.
I remember studying Plato in college, and he had a vision of human development that led from discovering physical beauty (through sexual desire), and then to discovering it more and more in other things, in the forms of social life, the laws we create for ourselves, in philosophy, in pure ideas, in the spirit. I think this makes sense, and as we strive for higher ideals, the lower ideals also fall away, or can even, at times, actively hinder us.
As I point to in the article, there's a distinction between entering into relationship for one's own gratification vs entering into relationship out of an interest in the other. Of course there's all sorts of gradations in there, but the striving towards the higher, towards selflessness, ultimately nourishes us in a far greater and healthier way than constantly striving for the satisfaction of our sexual desires, which ultimately just kind of leaves us feeling lonely and hollow...
Seth, I think you really hit the groove about 2/3 of the way through the article when you brought up the different views of freedom. It seems helpful to me to distinguish between "freedom to" and "freedom from." Most of these discussions involving relationships and sexual conventions center on the freedom to explore, express, and so on in ways that may be more "fulfilling" than what's typically sanctioned. What's usually missing, and you had the insight to point out, is the value of freedom FROM-- not just from the constraints of society but from compulsions or desires that sometimes seem more urgent than our need for growth as human beings and as beings of spirit.
It should be obvious that we do not exist to serve relationships for their own sake (e.g., the institution of monogamous marriage), rather that they should serve us. But there's a reason we have these strange arrangements called relationships, and it's much more than simply getting our needs or desires taken care of. As R. Steiner says, human morality is the sum total expression of our moral intuitions. Something in our nature needs and requires relationships, and we need to understand why that is. They are not to be understood just in terms of power dynamics or evolutionary advantages, etc.
The way those relationships are structured will undoubtedly change in the future, and the trend toward individuation will continue, but if we come to understand the value of relationships in spiritual terms (not just as cultural artifacts or evolutionary advantages) we may advance toward real freedom. This would be the freedom for each of us to progress in spirit, with courage for our own progress and respect for that of others.
"Douthat describes the modern evolution of this question in broad terms. He starts with monogamy. For centuries it was the ideal, and still is for most people (especially conservatives)" This is both cringingly ahistorical and western-centric. What happened before those "centuries" in western culture? And what happens in most non-western cultures? It was Christianity which brought monogamy to other cultures. Previous to Christianity, almost all other cultures were either polygynous or omnigamous (a few polyandrous, but I'm not sure that they weren't really omnigamous), the former practiced by patriarchal agricultural societies, and the latter by egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies. Even wealthy patriarchs had other sexual partners.
And just because this Christian ideal took over, does not mean the past has nothing to teach us and that we are somehow superior to our ancestors because of our monogamy (a mistake often made by new agers who don't understand Darwinian evolution). In the same way that guns, germs and steel conferred an evolutionary advantage to Christian cultures, monogamy did too, as Henrich et al have convincingly shown comparing pre- and post-monogamous agricultural societies (or pre-monogamous to modern societies). It was group-, as opposed to individual- selected.
I agree that the real issue with modernity, is not sexual freedom, but the loneliness crisis. I don't share your optimism about spiritual communities. The data does not support the hypothesis that communities that are more individuated do better as far as longevity (and probably turnover, though I am not familiar with the latter). Religious (not new age spiritual) intentional communities do better than secular ones, but that supports the constraints hypothesis: constraints (not just synergy) lead to cohesion of groups at all levels (not just families, tribes, ICs and villages, but nations, companies, individual humans as collections of psychological parts, individual humans as collections of organs, organs as collections of cells, and cells as collections of organelles and organic molecules), and emergence of new properties that confer evolutionary advantages.
But as far as humans are concerned, we need all 3: constraints which allow us to be psychologically integrated individuals, constraints which allow our families, tribes/villages/companies/nations/UN to exist, and some freedoms from these higher levels that allow us to be different and unique and creative. We need friends to deeply connect with, a sense of belonging to and communion with something bigger than our individual selves, a sense of stability and security both in our integrated selves and our families/communities and also some novelty and creativity. The proportion with which different people need these things varies.
The problem with monogamy is that it isn't just sexual monogamy, but often leads to a form of social monogamy (especially when combined with other modern innovations like overwork, working with people who are not culturally and values-aligned, large distances to friends and extended family, destruction of villages/tribes, etc) where the couple is effectively isolated from other social connections. Perhaps this is a bigger problem for men than women. Some of the reasons for that is the sparseness of emotionally available men for men to socialize with, a jealousy of their partner if they socialize with attractive females, and the reticence of females to socialize with monogamously partnered men, wanting to protect that relationship from emotional competition.
Part of the solution would be to have families with multiple adults, though pair sexual monogamy could be maintained in such an arrangement if everyone had a sexual partner. Or else to reinstate small villages and tribes, but also to maintain the lower level of family. The reason is that part of what these higher levels do for us is reduce internal competition, because everyone feels like the welfare of other individuals is ultimately, at least in the long run, beneficial for all. We should not conflate sexual and emotional fidelity to a partner with the ability of both partners to have other deep emotional (and possibly sexual, though I think that is fraught with difficulties) relationships, but that works best within a higher level, constrained entity that one is fidelitous to.
Hey Luval - great observations, thanks for sharing them.
Concerning your first critique, I think my language was pretty accurate - I was only talking about recent "centuries" in terms of starting with monogamy, and I later said that it was "of course a superficial treatment of things." Even a cursory glance at the literature shows that monogamy is a relatively new development (especially championed by the Romantics) and that plenty of other cultures practice relationships very differently. But that doesn't negate the general trend that I describe. Earlier non-monogamous relationships were all determined by society / tribe / family. None of it was "free love" (I've read articles where describing how even early hominids probably had distinct mating/realtionships rituals that couldn't be broken). And yeah, though I didn't explicitly say that my viewpoint was Western-centric, I assume most of my readers know that. And I did later refer to non-Western cultures, so that makes it pretty obvious.
I hear what you're saying in terms of monogamy bestowing an evolutionary advantage on the groups that practice it, but I wonder how you imagine the significance of it being group-selected? Doesn't that just mean that groups who became monogamous had a better survival rate, which means, in turn, that they could grow and reproduce better than their "competitors." That's kind of interesting, and imagine it's correct, but I don't see how it contradicts what's happening with individuals - i.e. that at the same time they're experiencing the need for greater and greater individualization and freedom. It's not an either/or proposition.
By "spiritual communities" I didn't mean intentional communities, I just meant conscious relationships. I can see how that could be a bit unclear. Sorry about that.
Do you think the solutions you mention will overcome the loneliness crisis? Will plural families really make a dent? And do you think it's possible to "reinstate small villages and tribes"? Or to institute more outer "constraints" without people pushing back? To me the tendency towards individualization is too strong. We can do some of these things, and I'm sure we will, but I think we'll continue to roll on in the same direction (with more and more non-Western societies joining us). To me it seems to beg for something new, which is what I try to describe in a brief way at the end - that we need to learn to form healthy relationships consciously, in freedom. I think there are certainly societal supports that can help this process (that's what I think all of threefolding is), but they're only supports. We'll have to develop these capacities out of ourselves.
As far as monogamy being a group-selected trait, I agree that doesn't contradict individual desires for more individuation and freedom. It's unusual though that when higher levels of organization emerge, that lower ones keep their agency and evolvability (roughly equivalent to freedom). It appears that hunter-gatherers had more freedom than agriculturalists with the latter's emergence of larger groups like villages and nations and empires. Industrialists may have had even less freedom at the beginning than agriculturalists with their cities and bureaucracies, but with the advent of the enlightenment freedom once again resurfaced. And us post-industrialists are also vying for more freedom. I just hope that the kind of freedoms we ask don't further erode families, villages, small companies and tribes, and that on the contrary, we can rehabilitate those in a synthesis of post industrialist freedom and agricultural and hunter-gatherer communities. Sexual freedom is especially incendiary and has the potential to create chaos and erode these higher levels (which is why it is so highly regulated in most societies that are relatively stable). That doesn't necessarily mean monogamy, but it certainly means no free love.
I don't think ANYTHING will overcome the loneliness crisis unless it can also outcompete capitalism, including what I proposed...
***AN IMPORTANT NOTE ON PROSTITUTION
I often write about controversial topics, and sometimes people don't like what I write and unsubscribe. They don't usually tell me why, but with this last article on polyamory one of my unsubscribers did. I thought they made some important point about prostitution, so I asked if they'd be willing to share their thoughts with everyone here in the comments, but unfortunately they haven't replied back so I'm going to share them instead (I'm retracting their name in case they want anonymity). I've also included my reply to their message so you can get a better sense for my thoughts on what they shared.
~ ~ ~
You apparently haven't heard of or considered the Nordic Model as a legal framework to deal with the issue of prostitution: i.e. decriminalisation of sellers and criminalisation of buyers and provision of funding for exit services for the overwhelmingly female victims. It has been implemented with a good degree of success in various countries round the world.
If you inform yourself of the research of academics such as Melissa Farley you will find:
Prostitution is a form of gendered violence: the majority of sellers/sold are female and the overwhelming majority of buyers are male.
Studies have shown 90% of women/girls in prostitution worldwide are under the control of a pimp.
A very high percentage of those in prostitution begin as minors: so to condone/legalise prostitution is to do so for child prostitution.
Women in prostitution have higher rates of PTSD than military veterans and higher rates of murder than any other civilian group.
Women and girls in prostitution (and porn) have very high rates of childhood sexual abuse and rape compared to the rest of the female population: this experience 'grooms' them to see themselves as worthless sex objects- a kind of training for prostitution.
Men who use prostituted women are more likely to be partnered than single: the prostitution use is a form of infidelity therefore, and the self reported motivation of buyers is commonly to have the opportunity to do things to a woman that their partner would object to.
I'm letting you know that I'm unsubscribing to your substack on the basis of the unexamined and offensive misogyny and classism I feel you have displayed through your inability to condemn the social evil (I believe demonic and asuric beings are involved) of pornography and prostitution in this piece. You are almost certainly protected from being used in prostitution due to your (male) sex and class privilege: you appear only to have thought about prostitution from the perspective of a buyer, due to these privileges.
Those who haven't developed spiritually to the degree they are capable of seeing women in prostitution as deserving of the freedom to be able to survive financially without being raped for money, and that EVERYONE deserves to live a life free of suffering from the massive attendant physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence from the men who use prostituted women, I feel, can have little to offer me. In my view such a understanding represents a relatively low bar of moral development. It is also in no way a coherent Christian/anthroposophical position to take. (Do unto others as you would wish to be done unto you).
Best wishes
_________
~ ~ ~
And my reply...
~ ~ ~
Thanks so much for your message, it brings up a super important issue that I did treat in a very shallow, cursory way in my article. I agree with all the points you make, and I'll try to explain my own understanding so that you get a better understanding of why I wrote about prostitution in the way I did. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
First off, I haven't heard of the Nordic Model, but that sounds like a good legal framework to address some of the issues you brought up. And I am generally aware of many of those issues. I know that most prostitutes are women and that they're forced into it, either through sex slavery (being sold by their parents or tricked into it) or because of poverty (another clear form of coercion). And I know that the term "sex worker" has become popular in recent years among liberals who think it's more empowering, but that many prostituted women have pushed back against it and said, "We're not doing this because we chose to. We're being forced into it. So let's not make it sound healthy and good." (There's a similar movement in the disabled community, trying to reclaim the term disability.)
So, I'd say that I ENTIRELY agree with you that "women in prostitution [deserve] the freedom to be able to survive financially without being raped for money, and that EVERYONE deserves to live a life free of suffering from the massive attendant physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence from the men who use prostituted women." Yes. So then the question for me is, How does one do that?
First, I think it's important to recognize two different things here. One is that there's a clear human rights violation - there's the element of coercion, of force (whether economic or physical), as well as the brutality and violence of prostitution. And then there's the element of having sex with another person as a so-called "service." I think it's possible to disentangle these two things, as is clear from my earlier example - there are some women who prefer to use the term "sex workers" because they feel they HAVE chosen the profession, because they feel they do have agency. If that is the case - if someone really hasn't been forced into it, but wants to be a sex worker - do you think society should say they can't?
Maybe that sounds a bit convoluted. After all, the reality is as you described it. But the reality also has to shift, and what will that shift look like? For instance, there is the argument that if prostitution was legalized then prostituted women would be able to have the same protections that are afforded to all other workers. If we imagine that happened, then my hypothetical isn't so strange. If it was an above board, legally recognized profession and there wasn't the same coercion or brutality, could you imagine it being alright for some people to do it?
I certainly have my doubts about the above argument. I could definitely imagine that it would only encourage more prostitution, and maybe much more. And on top of that, I could also imagine that much of it would still be happening illicitly. And even if that wasn't the case, there would still be the issue of economic coercion. If nothing else changed, if we still had the same dog-eat-dog capitalist system, then most women would still only be doing it because they had to.
But this just points to the fact that we need to deal with this issue of economic coercion across ALL of society, prostitution is just the most extreme example. We need to change the economy in a fundamental way. We need to separate work and income so that no one has to sell their labor. It makes people into commodities, and puts all the power in the hands of the employers (this is something I've written a bit about in a couple articles - "Welcome back to work. Now please hold still while we put your collar and leash back on" and "Your work is not a commodity, it's your reason for being here." In an economic system that actually addressed these fundamental inequities, people would have far more agency in choosing their work.
In such a system, I could imagine prostitution actually becoming "sex work," and being a helpful, perhaps therapeutic profession. When I was younger, I met a man who slept with prostitutes. He was an incredibly awkward person - had a very hard time connecting with people - and he described that prostitutes were a life-saver for him, that otherwise he felt he would have been driven mad because of the lack of intimacy in his life. I don't think sex workers are the long-run solution for his particular dilemma, I think we should be trying to create a society where people can enter into committed relationships in a healthy way, but I could also imagine that there might always be some people who are challenged in this particular way, and that sex work might be a step on a person's particular path of development.
That's the only way I can really imagine sex work playing a healthy role in society. I assume it would be a much rarer activity than it currently is, and that people would be doing sex work out of their own free will, without any coercion. When I point to prostitution in my article, I'm assuming these things - I'm assuming, for instance, that the human rights aspect of prostitution is being addressed (and to some extent it would obviously have to be, otherwise how could it become legal?) If it is addressed, and people still want to do it (even for much less healthy reasons than I've outlined above) I do think they should be able to. If it's not violating their rights, if they're two or more consenting adults, then I don't think other people should get in the way.
But yeah, I recognize that there are a lot of "ifs" there. And I recognize that I didn't really put any of them in my article (though I do think they're somewhat implied...). So yeah, it was pretty thoughtless of me, and I apologize for being so flippant about the whole thing. Anyways, I hope that clarifies things. Thanks again for bringing up this incredibly important issue. Would love your further thoughts on it.
I think more and more human beings are recognizing that freedom is intricately connected to responsibility for other human beings, for our humanity, and its survival as a whole. In the coming 6th epoch, the spirit of brotherhood will reign and we will not be able to find peace if another, or other human beings, are suffering. No doubt personal bodily satisfactions will become less important than care for the healthy raising of children and family life in whatever constellations that takes. Our human evolution is moving us away from physical satisfactions to spiritual ones that value all of humanity.
Hey Mary - thanks for these thoughts. I agree that the spirit of brotherhood, solidarity, will grow in significant ways in the future. It will intensify... but only because we're able to intensify it within us. Human beings have to be free. I don't think bodily satisfactions are going to become less pressing, less important, on their own (I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not), but only because we're able to overcome them, purify them, and cultivate spiritual satisfactions in their place. Hope you're well!
Thanks, Seth, you have stated it better than I did. Yes, "only because we're able to overcome them, purify them, and cultivate spiritual satisfactions in their place". We are always evolving. I'm guessing some of that takes place in the time between death and rebirth. Maybe we have to arrive there with a certain sense for freedom, as in "ethical individualism".
Hi Seth Jordan,
I can imagine you will find support for your cause, and that what I will offer will stand in bitter contrast to such sweet reception. Nevertheless, here it is.
A community that is in bed with one another, cannot and will not foster the development of the free spirit. What “help” it will be fated to “give" will fall under the same category as all the other regressive forms that provide the resistance individuals must overcome in order to break through to the living spirit.
It is a sad state of affairs in our time and in anthroposophical circles that the intimate exchange of being, called brotherhood, is so rarely experienced and is even less understood.
A spiritual community founded on the “I” of Christ, is created by individuals who consciously endeavor to intensify and raise their consciousness towards one another in such a way that they stand before one another as pure activity before their fellowman. The level of intimacy such encounters engender is beyond what most are willing to imagine!
World evolution presses MANY souls towards this kind of encounter, but the adversarial powers stand ready in the wings to subvert the newly budding capacity to meet Ego to Ego. The adversaries are at work in our lower sheathing and as a response to such close encounters, sexual forces will inevitably be stirred (etheric forces), or romantic feelings of “falling in love” (astral forces) will enter the inner life. To souls unprepared to meet these temptations, they will STOP SHORT of the REAL experience of communion and instead, become enamored by all the intrigues that exist for the lower members of our sheathing.
Such developments are not progress, they are regressive. Because people are, in the age of Individuality and Freedom, more inclined to test these waters surging in to our evolution, all kinds of variations on the theme are possible. A panoply of possibilities will appear on the scene, ready to dispense with the “old” and welcome in the “new,” but none of these will produce the truly New Society, but rather they will suck dry the forces that are being made available to build the New Society.
It is important to face the humble position most of us really are in. We can rationalize so well all the many developments afoot in the social life, but few of us, and infrequently, are actually capable of penetrating to spiritual scientific insights as a result of intuitive thinking. As of now, it seems as if the all too common standard of intuitive thinking amounts to groping about in a shadowy haze of passing thought-forms and mental images until we strike a groove that connects a few of these thought-forms and images well enough in order that we feel things are beginning to make some sense.
The real experience of intuitive thinking and of spiritual insight come about through a transformation in the thinking life, such that etheric forces become active within the soul in no uncertain terms. Such activity ultimately engenders the light of the spirit, and the “shadows” of thought disappear, replaced by a real spiritual world occupied by beings.
Why does intuitive thinking matter in regard to the sexual conduct of individuals living in a “spiritual community?”
This is because it becomes dreadfully, and I mean that in the most serious of implications, difficult to rise to an intuitive level of consciousness unless the sexual has been overruled by the Ego. If an individual is constantly open to new sexual partners or no form exists (i.e., Real Marriage), to contain those forces, then etheric forces flow out heedlessly into others and into the natural world process in such a way as to become lost to the purposes of cognition.
Thus, a community who chooses to live out their lives with rotating bedmates, becomes a community of people incapable of amassing the moral strength to unite themselves with the genuine in-streaming forces of the divine-spiritual hierarchies.
People can experience, in the “poly lifestyle," all sorts of configurations and dramas and pleasures and lessons with one another, but none of these will amount to the kind of “progress” being striven for in genuine anthroposophy. It is better for such individuals to leave anthroposophy alone than to meddle haphazardly with it.
A marriage of a man and a woman, Ego to Ego, and without priestly mediation, is in fact a newly emerging possibility for our age. Before God and their fellow human beings, avowed men and women can demonstrate their fully conscious relationship to one another by the power of decision, of purpose, and of responsibility toward one another and to humankind at large, by ordering the fabric of karma and destiny. Outside sexual intrigues are set aside with conviction, thus rendering the social fabric free from stray influences that would hinder the higher order exchanges attainable in a New Society.
Spiritual marriage is a form equal to the higher capacities of the Ego, as it places the sexual in its proper place, surrendered to the process of spiritualization, which will in time lead to the transfiguration of the sexual force completely, into the future, frontal spinal column of self-mastery and into the Logos power of productive speech.
I leave you with the following words from Rudolf Steiner, because you know, don’t take my word for it…take His!
"The effect in the evolution of humanity would be that certain instincts connected with the sexual life would arise in a pernicious form instead of wholesomely, in clear waking consciousness. These instincts would not be mere aberrations but would pass over into and configure the social life, would above all prevent men—through what would then enter their blood as the effect of the sexual life—from unfolding brotherhood in any form whatever on the earth, and would rather induce them to rebel against it.”
"And what do you suppose the scientific experts will say when such instincts come into evidence? They will say that it is a natural and inevitable development in the evolution of humanity. Light cannot be shed on such matters by natural science, for whether men become angels or devils would be equally capable of explanation by scientific reasoning. Science will say the same in both cases: the later is the outcome of the earlier ... so grand and wise is the interpretation of nature in terms of causality! Natural science will be totally blind to the event of which I have told you, for if men become half devils through their sexual instincts, science will as a matter of course regard this as a natural necessity. Scientifically, then, the matter is simply not capable of explanation, for whatever happens, everything can be explained by science. The fact is that such things can be understood only by spiritual, super-sensible cognition.”
"would experience such satisfaction in obeying certain aberrations of the sexual impulses that he would regard them as evidence of a particularly high development of superhumanity, of freedom from convention, of broad-mindedness! In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. Nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being.”
Rudolf Steiner from “The Work of the Angel in Man’s Astral Body"
Many thanks for expanding and re-focusing this topic with anthroposophy. Many readers are probably not anthroposophists (some of us are). So part of my pleasure in following Seth comes from the way he is able to present anthroposophical thought to a more general public - to plant small seeds of ideas that can get a conversation started.
You have brought up a whole, very important, perspective and it has been a pleasure to read your observations, all of which many of us ponder and work on. At the end of the day each person has to go through his own trials of initiation, of confronting evil, fear and low instincts. Humanity as a whole, composed as it is of all of us, individuals, has to go through trials. The quotes of R.S. at the end describe well our present times. So does The Karma of Untruthfulness lecture cycle and much more.
I guess what I wanted to express here was my gratitude to Seth for presenting spiritual science ideas to the wider public and helping anthroposophy reach more people. Your contribution is a pleasant dive into the crux of the matter and - at least for me - offers rich material to the general topic of transformation over time.
Thank you Ati for sharing the context of readership relevant to this platform. Seth linked this article to an anthroposophical Facebook group to which I am a member and the link led me here. It is not my aim to discourage anyone from seeking those experiences to which they are drawn, yet when the name of anthroposophy is invoked to bear upon such matters, it is fair to the spirit of anthroposophy and to those who would come to learn of it for it to be represented in a light as close to its nature as one is able to convey. Upon Seth’s invitation for thoughts from his reader, stated in the post which I came across, and upon my personal relation to anthroposophy I hope my contribution will have been made in good taste even if its points are more stringent than are the normal fare in this marketplace of ideas.
Hey Anthony - thanks so much for your comment. I definitely appreciate your willingness to dive in and share the pictures that you shared. And I agree, in substance with many of them, but they also raised some questions that I'd love your thoughts on.
You started off by saying "I can imagine you will find support for your cause" and I was wondering what you thought my cause was? Here's how I would describe it: The point of The Whole Social is to start conversation, to get people thinking about our social life in deeper ways, ways that can lead towards health. Then, in relation to this particular article, I wanted to start that conversation by showing how important increasing individuation is (what Steiner calls "the fundamental sociological law") and how it can illuminate the phenomena around us. I think with this law in mind, one can see more clearly the movement that needs to take place from unconscious to conscious, and from selfish to selfless. That was my main goal, but I think maybe you saw something different, and I'd be interested in what that was.
You also described how the only help that can come from "a community that is in bed with one another" will come because, like all other "regressive forms" it can only "provide the resistance individuals must overcome in order to break through to the living spirit." I have two questions here.
First, I wonder if that's not a kind of dismissal of the role of oppositional forces. Everything is done in relation to oppositional forces. They're working with us and are essential to our development. You must know that Steiner often lamented the fact that anthroposophists would try to avoid those forces and stay pure, when really the work is to actively counter-balance those forces.
Second, I wonder if what you wrote above is not an over-simplification of things? It seems to me that everything is a mix of healthy and unhealthy forces, though of course some things weigh much heavier on the side of the healthy or unhealthy. But can you really see so clearly what something is from its outer form alone? And should you just stay clear of it once you've identified it as unhealthy?
For instance, I listened to "hardcore" music when I was younger (it's related to punk and metal, but still completely different). From the outside, I can imagine it looked totally unhealthy to my parents and teachers. The music was super heavy. The singers didn't sing, they screamed. The dancing was a mosh pit that was all punching and kicking. Some of the bands had names like Vision of Disorder, 25 ta Life, Hatebreed. Some of the albums had titles like "Bloodlust Revenge."
But just because some bands emphasized being vengeful or hateful, I never felt those things. And just because the music was a kind of fire in your blood and was full of rage and passion, nonetheless it was super inspiring. There were also bands like Earth Crisis and Ignite that were talking about environmental destruction. There were bands like Indecision that were asking religious questions. There was a whole straight-edge scene, where the kids didn't smoke or drink or do drugs. There were even Hare Krishna bands talking about God ("Krisnacore"). It was the most thoughtful music scene I've ever experienced and it played a significant role in my development, in me becoming a philosophy major in college and later working with anthroposophy. But is that scene worthless because of the things I first mentioned about it? Or is it possible that it was absolutely essential for my spiritual development? Would it really have been better if I listened to classical music in high school and college? Of course, I could imagine an even healthier version of the hardcore scene, but no one created that. And anyways, the one that I experienced got a lot of things right. It had real integrity and earnestness and a sense of brotherhood that was incredible.
I wonder if it's not the same with polyamory? Isn't it possible that it's a necessary and healthy step for some people, depending on where they're at on their path of development? The first time I heard about it, I was 22 and living with friends. We had a study group and one of the guys who came was polyamorous. He was incredibly earnest and thoughtful (he led us in a study of feminism, and the harms that men perpetrate on women) and the way he described polyamory, it required so much more time and communication and consciousness then I had any capacity for (I've always found it hard enough to make one relationship work). So I can definitely say that he was far more relationship-conscious than I was. But was I right for being monogamous, and he was wrong for being polyamorous?
You also say that it's better for people who are polyamorous "to leave anthroposophy alone than to meddle haphazardly with it," but is that really so clear to you? If so, what aspects, exactly, should keep people away from anthroposophy? Is it because they're romantically involved with more than one person? Could you imagine Steiner saying that a polygamist shouldn't touch anthroposophy, or that anthroposophists shouldn't work with and into polygamist cultures around the world (of which there are over a thousand)?
Or is that people are having sex without being married? Or having sex at all? Or that they're moving from one relationship to another? Or is it really just the concurrent, over-lapping relationships that are the problem? Is that the real line that's being crossed?
I just can't imagine Steiner being so dismissive of people's struggles, and strivings, and failures. Can you imagine him really ever telling a person they should leave anthroposophy alone because of their lifestyle?
And do you think there was no polyamory during Steiner's time? Steiner was alive during the Roaring 20s. Western culture was full of sexual adventure and drama, full of affairs and divorces. And certainly he was aware of how widespread polygamy was around the world. So is it really so obvious that the quote you shared is about our time? Are things really that different from Steiner's time? I agree there has been a progression and an intensification, but I just don't know that we're really there yet. (And even if we are, I don't see the work being rejecting these things so much as asking how they can be brought around to consciousness).
Anyways, those are my main questions. Again, thanks so much for adding your voice to the conversation. It's great to take up these things and to actually try to look at them in a deeper way together!
Hello Seth,
You have brought the idea of polyamory to the fore in this article, in an attempt to find for it, a context, both historical and developmental, that is, to find an explanation for it from out of the past and from out of the future. This is the “cause” to which I alluded. The explanation you offer is also a rational justification for it, stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community.
To find an explanation for polyamory is a worthy exercise. I have merely added what I could to that explanation. I think it IS true that the longing for spiritual community grows in many hearts in our time, and that this phenomena is related to current developments afoot in human evolution.
That people would seek to form relationships to others on the basis of common ideas, rather than find themselves bound to one another on the basis of race, class, or traditionally prescribed dogma, is a sign of the times.
What I attempted to convey is the fact that this world of Ideas, from which we could draw to “found” such spiritual communities, is a world we must RISE INTO through inner activity.
Communities can form themselves based on all sorts of things, peace, love, land stewardship, vegetarianism, punk rock, nudism, psychedelics, sharia law, and even polyamory…
Some of these communities would assuredly claim to be “spiritual.” What such communities would have to offer the individual may very well suit various individuals, and it is not my intent nor place to dissuade anyone from what they are impelled to do.
The weaving of karma and destiny is a very intimate matter, and each individual is uniquely positioned within these forces. Nevertheless, should that individual meet me and meet what I would have to say in relation to anthroposophy, he will find again, something to contend with in his destiny.
Am I here to promote and advance everything that exists in the world by simple virtue that it exists?
To say that unhealthy and healthy forces co-exist is surely a sound observation, but their coexistence is not as warm and friendly bedfellows. Spiritual science reveals that these forces are at War with one another, as is depicted between Michael and the Dragon, Christ and Anti-Christ. There are forces that seek to tear mankind away from his True Destiny, and they are not FOR the human being. To abandon people to such forces without offering the light of spiritual scientific facts which could strengthen them in their effort to overcome adversarial powers is the epitome of lovelessness.
What I have said about communities who are in bed with one another not being able to rise to the higher order exchanges striven for in a true anthroposophical community, is born not only out of a comprehension of the relevant facts but out of personal experience and observation.
There are very fine people to be found everywhere, even in polyamorous circles; that’s not the issue. We can learn something from anyone. People demonstrate qualities ever and again which can are indeed admirable, no matter what kind of social arrangement they are positioned within.
Again, I am not casting a moral judgment on the personal lives of others, I am pointing to a clear and observable fact; if one would dare use the term “spiritual community” to refer to a community of people striving for, among their individual members, an Ego relationship to the Divine, Guiding Powers of Humanity, these individuals will need to have made progress in overruling the sexual forces such that they do not interfere with the chaste and hallowed “crossing over” exchanges of the New Society. Inwardly radiant soul-spiritual exchanges between the higher members of one another's sheathings consummate the union that comprise the spiritual communions of the New Society. To unfold how these purely spiritual exchanges make possible mankind’s true destiny could become the quest of many a worthy contemplation and conversation.
The merging of two or more Individualities becomes a purely spiritual event, one that nevertheless creates effects in the lower members of man’s organism. If individuals are unwilling to wield the death force to not only subdue but to extinguish the sexual forces, the conditions for this higher communion are impossible. When a man and a woman confront one another and neither dare to chasten themselves, then as they grow near, engendering an intimate atmosphere, unfolding their heart's contents, the sexual forces will inevitably be stirred, and within a community of people “open” to an ever re-constellating of sexual partners, the tender buds of spiritual exchange will be overshadowed or outright consumed by sensual gratification.
The possibility for this new kind of community exists, a community that seeks to become a Grail vessel, whose requirements are chastity and fearless devotion to Truth.
There is a whole wide world out there that all of us are free to explore or settle down somewhere in. For those who would seek “spiritual” community in the highest sense of the word, will find in anthroposophy what they need as help in overcoming “the ways of the world.”
It is vitally important to recognize the difference between possessing a speculative interest in anthroposophy, which is the purview and prerogative of anyone, and giving birth to new social forms from out of the anthroposophical spirit, which can only belong to those truly striving to unite themselves with that spirit.
Anyone who attempts to justify and advance the cause of expanding the domain of sexual activity and encourages it to flow out into a community as its cohesive force cannot really have arrived at a genuine comprehension of what anthroposophy would seek to offer mankind.
One could say that it is up to individuals to discover and to decide in what way anthroposophy will be advanced in the future. And how true that statement is. Whether anthroposophy, as a living spiritual being, will enter the forms mankind gives it or not, will reveal itself to those equipped to observe such developments.
The reading of Steiner’s “The Work of the Angel in Man’s Astral Body,” provides ample content to chew on. It outlines three regressive developments possible in our evolution and three progressive developments possible for our evolution. These developments are opposed to one another. Where a regressive development rules, a progressive development fades. Where a progressive development rules, a regressive development fades. Good is destined to transform evil. Grey and Black Magic are not concerned with the transformation of evil, they deal and wallow in it for egotistic purposes. White Magic never condones the egotistical absorption into evil conditions or purposes, it sets before itself, ever and again, the redemption of evil for the salvation of souls who have become ensnared within it.
May the call for chastity and truth clash against and disturb those powers who would lull human beings to sleep. May it sound an awakening and ennobling call, full of hope and promise, to the human heart yearning to set upon the path of attaining real freedom and of attaining its true human form.
And I would like to clarify one more thing. I think the study of anthroposophy can meet anyone who would engage it with earnest interest. So I would not suggest that people steer clear of it just because they are positioned personally or socially in some particular way. When I stated that people should not meddle haphazardly with it, I mean two things. One, that anthroposophy should not be used to legitimize social forms that do not arise out of anthroposophical insight, and second, that those who would seek to represent anthroposophy in the world or to form communities devoted to the spirit of anthroposophy should leave it alone if they are unwilling to fulfill the kinds of requirements I have outlined. If someone approaches anthroposophy as a matter of destiny and are drawn to it by an individual representing it from within an anthroposophical community, if they find instead, a new sexual affair with that representative, and if such happenings are the accepted norm, there is simply no ground for the progressive spiritual forces to be present within such a community.
Hey Anthony - I really appreciate these additional contributions. Thanks for sharing.
One thing that's still unclear to me is what you're addressing in the article I wrote, and what you're speaking about generally and also our of your personal experience in relationship to anthroposophical community?
It's clear from what you wrote that you think I'm offering "a rational justification for [polyamory], stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community." I wouldn't say I've done that, and that definitely wasn't my intention. That makes it sound like I'm saying, "Go for it, it all leads to spiritual community eventually." My point was that significant aspects of it are unhealthy - the ways that it potentially spreads us thinner and makes our relationships more superficial, as well as the ways that it's used to satisfy our self-gratification. Period. That's all I concretely said about it.
I also didn't say anything positive about polygamy or pornography or AI relationships, or any of the other things I mentioned. But I did say that such things can be understood, that it makes sense that they're arising in humanity (because of the "fundamental sociological law," because of increasing individuation, and also because of oppositional forces) and that we don't actually have to freak out about them, we can see them as oppositional forces that are pointing us to what needs to be developed, calling on us to develop our consciousness, calling on us to develop inwardly.
That's also what you're saying, that we need inner activity, that we need to develop spiritually, but it seems like the main place you disagree with me is that you think I'm being irresponsible for saying that I think these developments are "for the good, even though it will lead (and is already leading) to greater suffering." It seems like you think I'm taking these things too lightly. And that makes total sense. I can see that.
I've been told that I'm perhaps overly optimistic, that I always see a "silver lining." And maybe that is irresponsible. Maybe it doens't give the things their proper weight. I also wrote an article about ChatGPT last year, and I basically said the same thing - that all these developments are wounding the human being, but they're also pointing to what we need to develop consciously. But maybe that's not the right way to look at it? I do think it's better than what I normally see people do though, which is to generally freak-out and to call on the government to outlaw these things, and to take away people's freedom. Some laws might make sense in relation to some of these phenomena, but I think we have to be really careful.
Whenever and wherever we can, we should be educating, not legislating. For instance, Steiner said that movies were definitely not a healthy development for humanity, but that we shouldn't try to outlaw them. Instead, we should be developing healthy art forms in their place. That's similar to what I was trying to say in my article about polyamory, but maybe I didn't hit the target so well...
It also seems like perhaps you think my use of the term "spiritual community" is irresponsible. If you look back at how I used it, I definitely wasn't talking about forming intentional communities or anthropsophical communities, but just the community of two people who are consciously trying to overcome themselves and meet each other selflessly.
I recognize that that means taking hold of one's sexual instincts. Again, it's what I say in the article, though I don't go as far as you do. I never say that chastity is required. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean abstinence, pure and simple? And do you think that it's a prerequisite for walking the path of spiritual development, or something that one let's go of as one walks? Should one not bother to enter into relationship if one is still struggling with it? I've never encountered, or at least I don't remember, Steiner having the same emphasis on it as you have (for instance I don't remember him mentioning it at all in Knowledge of Higher Worlds). What do you think?
Thanks for the conversation :)
thank you for this article, Seth. there is so much here to reflect upon and discuss. I particularly appreciate how your disenchantment with what is lost through individuation's detrimental effects on human relationships is balanced by a positive assertion that this is all part and parcel to the greater ultimate good of human spiritual evolution (if I may clumsily summarize). as I am in an untraditional, though deeply committed, long-term family/partnership that is - by admittedly anecdotal evidence - generally more solid, content, loving and peaceful than the majority of my friends' marriages, I have many thoughts on this topic, too many to share in a comment. I will say this - there are many shades of polyamory, which has broadly taken on an almost sit-comical image of complex nuanced arrangements and drifty multiple commitments. not that you are presenting it this way, but it merits emphasis that traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary.
I do foresee that some simpler shades of grey in this arena may persist beyond the "trend" of it all, and may also come with fewer detriments. for example, the agreement of ethical non-monogamy within marriages and longer-term partnerships. to me this reflects a move to update the old "French" model where it may be generally socially acceptable to have an extramarital lover, with implicit agreements that one does not abandon the primary partner nor humiliate them with public indiscretion. in the "poly" version, the clandestine and unspoken elements are replaced with clear agreements, transparency, open communication, and (in cases where it is desired) reciprocity. I honestly think many of the sexless, resigned modern marriages I see suffering through their externally honored original agreements would actually strive and be reborn through such limited freedoms. this does, however, require a significant level of relational capacity, commitment to shared ideals and inner work. I've known a few friends who have moved through such stages and returned to monogamy with less resentment, some who have stuck with the "open" model, and others who are full-on swingers (and still going strong, bless them!)
Hey Dan - great to hear from you. A couple things you said sparked questions for me: Can you say more about why you think that "traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary"? It seems like there's a pretty clear line between being exclusive, or not, with one person. I can see some shades - for instance we often "cheat" on our partners in our hearts, as Christ said on the Sermon on the Mount "everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Is that what you mean?
Also, I'm wondering about your characterization of healthy and unhealthy relationships. It seems like you're pointing to healthy ones being loving and peaceful, and unhealthy ones being resigned, resentful, and sexless (and so, presumably, not so loving and peaceful). I guess I wonder what you think leads to unhealthy relationships? It seems like the main thing you're pointing to is that honoring one's original agreements, and not giving each other more freedom (by which I assume you mean the freedom to be romantically involved with others), can lead to resignation, resentment and sexlessness. Is that right? I guess I wonder if you think that anything is lost by giving up on those original commitments? Do you think there's anything that's only possible in a monogamous relationship, and that's not possible in a polyamorous one?
Thanks for your thoughts. Hope all's well!
thanks for probing further, Seth. re the binary: I'm saying there is a spectrum here, and if for you the center point (or the hinge, or the crucial threshold is monogamy vs anything else) I still would not lump everything to either side of it into two categories. you may have one couple (good luck finding one) where both partners are physically monogamous and never look upon another person with lust or desire...that would be the extreme end of the monogamy part of the spectrum, and presumably Jesus' ideal. On the other end of the monogamists, a couple wherein either or both partners openly and unreservedly lust after others (through porn, fantasy, flirting) and yet never cross the line of physical monogamy...and in that group there may be couples who are deeply affectionate with one another and have active, satisfying sex lives, and others who are sexless with each other, unaffectionate and even resentful of their monogamy commitment. In some marriages I know, one partner thinks masturbation is a betrayal. For some masturbation is ok, but not porn. in some, there is a presumption that fantasy, whether in coitus or during masturbation, should in every moment exclusively involve the committed partner, and never stray to another. that strikes me personally as unrealistic, but maybe some people get something out of striving for that?
on the extreme end of the non-monogamy gang, you might have a couple who is married but actively, physically non-monogamous. (I actually know a couple who have been non-monogamous for the past 8 years of their 10 year marriage, happily having sexual relationships with other individuals and couples. They have a deeply loving and commitment relationship. It's not my cup of tea, but these are two honest, emotionally and psychologically balanced and compassionately communicative people with what seems to be a thriving relationship - including 4 kids from their respective previous marriages). Having been to a couple of polyamory "meet-ups" (essentially interest group cocktail parties) I spoke with a pretty wide variety of people and couples, some of whom just seemed to be finding ethically supportable ways of sustaining their own sex addictions (for example, people who expressed a "need" to have three or four lovers at a time).
I've known several married couples who have various types of "open" agreements - from "don't ask, don't tell, don't compromise my health and don't embarrasss me" to "you can do anything you want but I want to know every detail". Some of these have worked, some have not, though none have ended in divorce as yet. The most damage I've seen done is when there was clandestine infidelity that was discovered. There are also partnerships and families that are formed for different reasons. My own family and partnership was never based on an agreement of monogamy (neither physical nor otherwise), but on the commitment of raising a child together. We have clear agreements and have grown and thrived in this relationship for 10 years of living together (preceded by 12 years of being intertwined in various forms), including 5 years with a child. When most of my monogamously married friends compare their 10plus year relationships to ours, the vast majority characterize ours as more loving, more mutually respectful, more stable and "healthier". A few are in various stages of divorce. it's not a label we identify with, but our relationship would fit your definition of poly, and certainly non-monogamous.
There may be generational differences. I know many people/couples in their 30's who are doing more of a burning-man, free-love ethical non-monogamy thing with complex structures and terminology, some with good results and some not so much. I'm not in any way disparaging the old monogamy model. I strived and hoped for that kind of marriage into my mid 40's, and I was never physically unfaithful in any of several long term monogamous relationships to that point. I did find that that particular ideal is really hard to achieve in this day and age (for reasons you discuss, mostly). giving up on finding that for myself and the openness to other arrangements is what I have to thank for the great pleasure, challenge and privilege of being both a father and a devoted partner now, albeit with "new rules".
I do think it is easier to live with more open agreements if they are established from the beginning than to change them mid-stream, but everything is possible. some people make monogamy work and feel the sacrifices are worth it in the long run. Something is likely lost by giving up on a marital commitment of monogamy, but I think for some couples, what is gained may outweigh the loss. I think there may be levels of intimacy or ...safety?...trust? possible in monogamous relationships that are unique. on the other hand, the level of trust that those swingers friends I mentioned have had to summon to literally watch each other have sex with someone else and feel good about it is pretty extraordinary, too.
all this to say, I believe that this age of individuation is not only spawning increasingly individuated individuals, but also an infinite number of combinations and couplings of those individuals, and that therefore this stark line of this-or-that may not be as useful as the case-by-case analysis. I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to. you never know what situation karma will land you in. I was always a romantic (monogamy-idolizing) looking for an ideal, committed marriage. I found that life had different, deeply rewardingly unconventional plans for me, and this has opened my mind and heart to the consideration of emergent new forms in many realms...I appreciate the work you are doing to assess those and see what is worth supporting and what is worth questioning. I feel this is the dialogue of evolution!
Hey Dan - sorry to take a hot minute to get back to you. It's been busy over here. Just wanted to say thanks. There are a lot of rich pictures in here, and a lot to mull over.
One of the things that most struck me was your picture of a healthy relationship: "I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to."
That makes sense to me. I appreciate the emphasis on social process - on transparency, communication, and follow through. But I also really appreciate putting ideals and values at the center. Then it becomes a question of what are people working towards. I don't think there is one right thing to work towards, people are at varied points on the path, but I do think that the path leads to higher and higher ideals.
I remember studying Plato in college, and he had a vision of human development that led from discovering physical beauty (through sexual desire), and then to discovering it more and more in other things, in the forms of social life, the laws we create for ourselves, in philosophy, in pure ideas, in the spirit. I think this makes sense, and as we strive for higher ideals, the lower ideals also fall away, or can even, at times, actively hinder us.
As I point to in the article, there's a distinction between entering into relationship for one's own gratification vs entering into relationship out of an interest in the other. Of course there's all sorts of gradations in there, but the striving towards the higher, towards selflessness, ultimately nourishes us in a far greater and healthier way than constantly striving for the satisfaction of our sexual desires, which ultimately just kind of leaves us feeling lonely and hollow...
Seth, I think you really hit the groove about 2/3 of the way through the article when you brought up the different views of freedom. It seems helpful to me to distinguish between "freedom to" and "freedom from." Most of these discussions involving relationships and sexual conventions center on the freedom to explore, express, and so on in ways that may be more "fulfilling" than what's typically sanctioned. What's usually missing, and you had the insight to point out, is the value of freedom FROM-- not just from the constraints of society but from compulsions or desires that sometimes seem more urgent than our need for growth as human beings and as beings of spirit.
It should be obvious that we do not exist to serve relationships for their own sake (e.g., the institution of monogamous marriage), rather that they should serve us. But there's a reason we have these strange arrangements called relationships, and it's much more than simply getting our needs or desires taken care of. As R. Steiner says, human morality is the sum total expression of our moral intuitions. Something in our nature needs and requires relationships, and we need to understand why that is. They are not to be understood just in terms of power dynamics or evolutionary advantages, etc.
The way those relationships are structured will undoubtedly change in the future, and the trend toward individuation will continue, but if we come to understand the value of relationships in spiritual terms (not just as cultural artifacts or evolutionary advantages) we may advance toward real freedom. This would be the freedom for each of us to progress in spirit, with courage for our own progress and respect for that of others.
Well said! Thanks for sharing.
"Douthat describes the modern evolution of this question in broad terms. He starts with monogamy. For centuries it was the ideal, and still is for most people (especially conservatives)" This is both cringingly ahistorical and western-centric. What happened before those "centuries" in western culture? And what happens in most non-western cultures? It was Christianity which brought monogamy to other cultures. Previous to Christianity, almost all other cultures were either polygynous or omnigamous (a few polyandrous, but I'm not sure that they weren't really omnigamous), the former practiced by patriarchal agricultural societies, and the latter by egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies. Even wealthy patriarchs had other sexual partners.
And just because this Christian ideal took over, does not mean the past has nothing to teach us and that we are somehow superior to our ancestors because of our monogamy (a mistake often made by new agers who don't understand Darwinian evolution). In the same way that guns, germs and steel conferred an evolutionary advantage to Christian cultures, monogamy did too, as Henrich et al have convincingly shown comparing pre- and post-monogamous agricultural societies (or pre-monogamous to modern societies). It was group-, as opposed to individual- selected.
I agree that the real issue with modernity, is not sexual freedom, but the loneliness crisis. I don't share your optimism about spiritual communities. The data does not support the hypothesis that communities that are more individuated do better as far as longevity (and probably turnover, though I am not familiar with the latter). Religious (not new age spiritual) intentional communities do better than secular ones, but that supports the constraints hypothesis: constraints (not just synergy) lead to cohesion of groups at all levels (not just families, tribes, ICs and villages, but nations, companies, individual humans as collections of psychological parts, individual humans as collections of organs, organs as collections of cells, and cells as collections of organelles and organic molecules), and emergence of new properties that confer evolutionary advantages.
But as far as humans are concerned, we need all 3: constraints which allow us to be psychologically integrated individuals, constraints which allow our families, tribes/villages/companies/nations/UN to exist, and some freedoms from these higher levels that allow us to be different and unique and creative. We need friends to deeply connect with, a sense of belonging to and communion with something bigger than our individual selves, a sense of stability and security both in our integrated selves and our families/communities and also some novelty and creativity. The proportion with which different people need these things varies.
The problem with monogamy is that it isn't just sexual monogamy, but often leads to a form of social monogamy (especially when combined with other modern innovations like overwork, working with people who are not culturally and values-aligned, large distances to friends and extended family, destruction of villages/tribes, etc) where the couple is effectively isolated from other social connections. Perhaps this is a bigger problem for men than women. Some of the reasons for that is the sparseness of emotionally available men for men to socialize with, a jealousy of their partner if they socialize with attractive females, and the reticence of females to socialize with monogamously partnered men, wanting to protect that relationship from emotional competition.
Part of the solution would be to have families with multiple adults, though pair sexual monogamy could be maintained in such an arrangement if everyone had a sexual partner. Or else to reinstate small villages and tribes, but also to maintain the lower level of family. The reason is that part of what these higher levels do for us is reduce internal competition, because everyone feels like the welfare of other individuals is ultimately, at least in the long run, beneficial for all. We should not conflate sexual and emotional fidelity to a partner with the ability of both partners to have other deep emotional (and possibly sexual, though I think that is fraught with difficulties) relationships, but that works best within a higher level, constrained entity that one is fidelitous to.
Hey Luval - great observations, thanks for sharing them.
Concerning your first critique, I think my language was pretty accurate - I was only talking about recent "centuries" in terms of starting with monogamy, and I later said that it was "of course a superficial treatment of things." Even a cursory glance at the literature shows that monogamy is a relatively new development (especially championed by the Romantics) and that plenty of other cultures practice relationships very differently. But that doesn't negate the general trend that I describe. Earlier non-monogamous relationships were all determined by society / tribe / family. None of it was "free love" (I've read articles where describing how even early hominids probably had distinct mating/realtionships rituals that couldn't be broken). And yeah, though I didn't explicitly say that my viewpoint was Western-centric, I assume most of my readers know that. And I did later refer to non-Western cultures, so that makes it pretty obvious.
I hear what you're saying in terms of monogamy bestowing an evolutionary advantage on the groups that practice it, but I wonder how you imagine the significance of it being group-selected? Doesn't that just mean that groups who became monogamous had a better survival rate, which means, in turn, that they could grow and reproduce better than their "competitors." That's kind of interesting, and imagine it's correct, but I don't see how it contradicts what's happening with individuals - i.e. that at the same time they're experiencing the need for greater and greater individualization and freedom. It's not an either/or proposition.
By "spiritual communities" I didn't mean intentional communities, I just meant conscious relationships. I can see how that could be a bit unclear. Sorry about that.
Do you think the solutions you mention will overcome the loneliness crisis? Will plural families really make a dent? And do you think it's possible to "reinstate small villages and tribes"? Or to institute more outer "constraints" without people pushing back? To me the tendency towards individualization is too strong. We can do some of these things, and I'm sure we will, but I think we'll continue to roll on in the same direction (with more and more non-Western societies joining us). To me it seems to beg for something new, which is what I try to describe in a brief way at the end - that we need to learn to form healthy relationships consciously, in freedom. I think there are certainly societal supports that can help this process (that's what I think all of threefolding is), but they're only supports. We'll have to develop these capacities out of ourselves.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Thanks, Seth, for those clarifications.
As far as monogamy being a group-selected trait, I agree that doesn't contradict individual desires for more individuation and freedom. It's unusual though that when higher levels of organization emerge, that lower ones keep their agency and evolvability (roughly equivalent to freedom). It appears that hunter-gatherers had more freedom than agriculturalists with the latter's emergence of larger groups like villages and nations and empires. Industrialists may have had even less freedom at the beginning than agriculturalists with their cities and bureaucracies, but with the advent of the enlightenment freedom once again resurfaced. And us post-industrialists are also vying for more freedom. I just hope that the kind of freedoms we ask don't further erode families, villages, small companies and tribes, and that on the contrary, we can rehabilitate those in a synthesis of post industrialist freedom and agricultural and hunter-gatherer communities. Sexual freedom is especially incendiary and has the potential to create chaos and erode these higher levels (which is why it is so highly regulated in most societies that are relatively stable). That doesn't necessarily mean monogamy, but it certainly means no free love.
I don't think ANYTHING will overcome the loneliness crisis unless it can also outcompete capitalism, including what I proposed...