Non-Monogamy as "Internalized Capitalism"

Or: is there anything that transcends the value of individual autonomy?

A friend of mine recently asserted that monogamy is a capitalist construct which was invented extremely recently, that it’s a social structure designed to make people submit to material exploitation. I think something like the exact opposite of this is true: it is non-monogamy that represents an internalization of capitalist values. Further, I think that capitalist values are good in their proper domain, which is dealing with strangers in a pluralist society, and that capitalist values become bad when applied to the domain of intimacy and family. I’m going to assert and defend these ideas below, and I welcome any feedback you might have. 

When I say “capitalism” I mean “a system of voluntary exchange between independent and legally-equal adults, where people work as much as they choose and receive as much as others choose to give them”. 

Individuals are completely separate and collaborate through temporary contracts, agreements which are in place only as long as both parties agree that the relationship is of mutual benefit. People interact like billiard balls, bouncing off of each other and altering each other’s trajectories without changing anything about each other’s fundamental nature.

If you want society’s resources then you have to collaborate with people to get them. Success in capitalism goes to those who are the most empathetic and other-centered, those who connect best with the needs of their customers and the needs of their fellow collaborators. The “competition” of capitalism is “cooperation” - we are all competing to find better and better ways of cooperating together. If you are extremely lazy and want to do nothing but get drunk and watch TikToks all day then you still have to do some work for someone somehow in order to enable your lifestyle. If you are extremely status-driven and want to have a thousand times more wealth than anybody else then you can’t raise an army and pillage the neighbors to get it, you have to found an extremely successful business that creates lots of jobs and lots of products that people want to buy. The work you do could go to anyone, irrespective of whatever social identity they have - you don’t have to worry about a democratic majority turning against you and voting your rations away. 

This isn’t to say that capitalism is without issues, just that it actually does have benefits and actually does solve problems that as far as I see can’t be solved any other way. The deeper problems come when we apply its prime virtue, “individual autonomy”, to the domain of intimate relating.

“Traditional” monogamy is oriented towards the ritual of marriage, where two people stand in front of the community and publicly commit to a shared identity that is permanent and distinct and new. They are no longer the same people that they were before. When the relationship becomes frustrating or unsatisfying - not if, but when - they commit to working it out together rather than discarding the other for someone new who hasn’t disappointed them yet. They can go forth into the world knowing that there is someone at home who always has their back, no matter what they choose or how they are chosen in the free world beyond. 

Love discloses a new foundation for existence, when you find it. The individuals take on a new identity through the new “Us”. Prioritizing individual autonomy cuts off access to this foundation. 

Non-monogamy treats relationships as temporary agreements between individuals who remain distinct from one another, much like relationships on a marketplace. Nobody is deeply committed to meeting anyone else’s needs - if you need more than what I have or what I feel like giving you then go get it somewhere else. Everyone is on their own, with nobody committed to unconditional availability. Relational commitments are limited by the commitments made in other relationships. I’ll be there for you if you need me, unless something comes up with another one of my partners. If one partner is unavailable then just turn to another one of your partners, unless they’re with another one of their partners. You’re never with another person, rather you’re with the entire constellation of other people they’re with. If your love and desire for one person outgrow what they can commit to you, too bad! Spread your love and desire out as much as you can. Love and desire are abstract internal individual needs, able to be met in one part-time relationship as much as another part-time relationship. One embrace is equivalent to any other, just like one bottle of gatorade is the same even if you buy it in a different convenience store. The relational abundance you experience is the abundance of choosing gatorade flavors, where they all cost the same and are just a matter of what you feel like having that day. Love becomes a consumer choice among consumer choices. Sex and love have shed their transcendence, even their specialness. Physical intimacy is just a complicated handshake. 

Non-monogamy presents abundance while generating deprivation, presents depth while generating shallowness, presents freedom while generating constraint, presents connection while generating isolation. 

A lot of people get into non-monogamy because of a terrible experience in a committed relationship and devote their lives to creating the exact opposite of what they experienced. They preserve their suffering in its negation - getting away from it is NOT getting over it. They relate to each other primarily through their non-monogamous identity rather than through their individuality - people love relationships not because of what’s possible within it but because of what’s possible outside of it. 

Perhaps the same sort of thing is true for me - I had a lot of terrible experiences in non-monogamy, and am grateful to have a relationship that calls forth a new dimension of being for me. I am grateful to not have to bounce from partner to partner to get my needs met, grateful to not have to check with anyone else before making plans together, grateful to not have to deal with new disappointments and new breakups, grateful to be with someone who I can be completely myself with and who also calls forth the best of me at the same time. I am generally grateful for my life, which makes me less interested in finding something fundamentally wrong with society to explain my suffering. Love has turned out to be far bigger than anything I could ever have predicted or explained.