I think hierarchies occur naturally. I think a purely non-hierarchical polycule is probably pretty rare, assuming there is commitment in two or more relationships. I would love to see the results.
I know there are some polycules in which all of the participants prefer a hierarchical structure -- "primary, secondary, tertiary" -- for various reasons. And there is no doubt that doing so often provides necessary or useful clarity about roles which works for all involved.
And yet hierarchy becomes highly problematic for other groups of people.
Hierarchy is basically a form of rank, I think. And I think ANY discussion of hierarchy in a polyamorous relationships context should emphasize that there are different particular things which are or can be ranked. A group of people can choose to rank some things while not ranking others -- but there are often connections between things we'd prefer to rank and those which we prefer not to.
Here's a list (not comprehensive) of things people often rank in poly groupings.:
- amount of time spent with partners
- amount of responsibility and/or authority toward children
- use of finances
- degree of involvement and/or commitment
- degree and/or kind of love, affection
- etc.
Obviously, some of these things make very good sense to rank, sometimes -- most especially when not everyone is sharing a household together (which I suspect is
much more common than having all share a household).
And it only gets more complex (and sometimes complicated) from here.
Some prefer to have amount of love/affection rank differently from one companion to another -- and that works for everyone involved. Some want what may be called "light relationships" (few or little expectation/s of time spent, involvement, commitment...) which can work beautifully. Others will feel slighted and excluded by ranking as less important than the domestic partner or spouse (for example). Sometimes the whole group will be decidedly opposed to the very hint or notion of rank/hierarchy in terms of degree or even kind of love and affection. Such hierarchy is anathema to some. And for good reason! Both groupings have good reasons.
I hope that the endless distinctions which do and can unfold from here are obvious enough that they don't all need to be articulated. It should be fairly obvious, for example, that problems can arise when the grouping agrees to non-hierarchy (ranking) with regard to affection, love, involvement, commitment but partakes of ranking in time spent together, for example.
To use a particular example, let's say Sarah and Sam and Sue are in a domestic triad as spice (i.e., spouses). Sam meets John and these two guys eventually fall in love and become lovers. But John lives four blocks away and is not part of the domestic partnership. Sarah and Sam and Sue believe in non-hierarchy with regard to love, so accept John as part of the group/family/or whatever.
Obviously John has something like equal status with regard to how much time he may naturally expect to spend with Sam, right? In other words, he simply does not naturally rank lower in terms of claim to time spent with Sam. And my point is that there are certain basic implicit (implicities?) which connect the different things we may choose to rank and which we may choose not to rank. And these relate to a certain kind of what may be called "emotional common sense" (a phrase I chose to use instead of the more common term "emotional intelligence").
Sometimes ranking is highly offensive. Other times it's pragmatic and utterly non-offensive. And it's all very tricky when folks miss what is implicit in the kinds of relationships which are unfolding. If, for example, Jack and Jill are living together as spouses ... and they meet Hannah ... and they're way into Hannah, and eventually they all move into the same house together as something like a family.... Well, things could be really ugly if Jack and Jill treated Hannah as of a lower rank than the original, married couple in the household. Unless Hannah really preferred to be lower ranking in that particular way -- such as responsibility and authority toward Jack and Jill's teenaged son. Imagine, though, Hannah being ranked lower by Jack and Jill with regard to time spent together? That could get ugly fast if Hannah prefers to have no ranking there.
And this gets to the main point I have to make. Non-hierarchy is simply the absence of rank / ranking. It is not a matter of attributing equal rank. It's the absence of rank altogether -- at least it is such for those who relate in this way (non-hierarchically). So the main point I want to make is that hierarchy / rank does not necessarily "naturally arise" at all.
When we think that rank "naturally arises," as a matter of course in human relationships, well that's an anthropological speculation, not a fact.
Seems like Wicca finally got away.
