In the video essay I previously posted - what even IS hierarchy? - by AnRel, AnRel(they/she) claims that there are (among others) prescriptive and descriptive hierarchies in non-monogamous relationship networks. From what I understood:
-
Prescriptive means things like primary/secondary, marriage etc where one relationship might have power over the other relationship via agreements, enforcing rules, vetos etc. This seemingly results in a hierarchy that works through power (one of the 3 main components of hierarchy they propose)
-
Descriptive means putting current structures of relating into words, kinda describing what the current state is (like “I have 2 anchor partners, I spend X amount of time with them, one is also my nesting partner, I also have a comet)” so people are able to choose if they want to enter a relationship with these existing dynamics. They argue, that there is still a hierarchy in play, this time on the axis of priority (another on of the 3 main components of hierarchy they propose). So some relationships have prioritized access to ressources / time / attention etc.
-
The part of the video I am talking about starts at 14:30
AnRel seemed to be opposed to both kinds of hierarchy. While I can easily understand and actively try to dismantle the first one, the second one - “descriptive hierarchy” - is something I can see in my, its hard for me to see how its a negative / authoritarian thing. I struggle to see ways to dismantle it, how it would look without this kind of “ranking of priorities” and how I & my relationship would benefit from it.
Anyone here has some experience to share / opinions on this?
Well, we are relationship anarchists and do our best to dismantle both in the sense that we try to have only temporary priorities and not permenant ones.
We do understand where they are coming from, but agree that it’s not as bad as prescriptive heirarchies, but we should still watch out for them lest they do become prescriptive and/or do not allow us to change said relationships.
We think instead we practise things on a case by case basis and ask for consent, check in etc. Labels tend to be less important to us as what we are okay with and what each person is okay with on moment-to-moment basis, so we think we have actually achieved removing descriptive heirarchy somewhat.
Then again we have never really understood the holding on so tightly to people by defining what they are, more how we relate and what we consent to which we treat as free flowing and possibly ever changing yet don’t take that as a given, just ask and accept whatever they say, from moment to moment, day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year etc.
We hope this makes sense.
