Two by two

Many of us have absorbed the story of Noah's Ark along with mother's milk. The animals went in two by two, one male one female. After the flood, it was merrily understood that the pair that survived lived happily ever after and bred, shall we say, like rabbits. This is despite that fact that it is not in the nature of lions, walruses or frogs to pair off. These species have quite different social or copulatory arrangements, such as harems or what might pass for casual sex. Noah's story ignores this and pretends that the male-female pair is the unquestioned ideal. Here then is just one example of how in the western tradition, the concept of the 'couple' is propagandised.

You will notice my qualifier, "in the western tradition", because I doubt if other cultural traditions elevate the 'couple' to such an ideal. For centuries, polygamy have been widespread in the Sinic, African or Islamic tradition, and their idea of a happy family is very different in structure from the contemporary western notion.

This is not to say that polygamy is such a great idea, or that such amorphous families were genuinely happy (but then is the average contemporary nuclear family any happier?), but I wanted to point out that through human history, we have had many different types of family and social arrangements. We should not assume that the 'couple' is such an ideal or natural arrangement.

One might argue that the nuclear family is the best possible arrangement for rearing children, or even in the absence of children, the love-bonded pair offers the highest degree of emotional security to the adult psyche. I wonder sometimes if there is any good evidence for this, or even if there is, whether the conclusion is sort of self-fulfilling. By this I mean, if we are conditioned to think of the pair as ideal, then any other arrangement would seem inadequate, wouldn't it? I have a sneaky suspicion that if we took another culture, wherein people are not similarly conditioned, we may find children just as well-adjusted, or adults just as comfortable with cluster families of surprising sizes and configurations. It may be all a question of expectations and the inculcated norm.

It becomes even more poignant if we overlay this 'constructed' ideal onto gay men. If we are all taught to believe that happiness is found in a life-long pairing, yet if the reality is that our relationships reach out in various directions at the same time, then boy, have we a problem!

I have come across too many gay men moaning about how they're not attached, or how they seem unable to keep a partner more than a few months. They suffer a yearning that is very real. On the other hand, there are others who appear quite happy going solo. Certainly, people are emotionally different, but is that the whole explanation? When, as so often, even those who are content to be single admit to it with an undertone of apology, I suspect our view of life is heavily coloured by an idealised picture of a life-long romance. Imbibing this idea as a norm may have the deleterious effect of making people feel more lonely and inadequate than they ought to be. Furthermore, in the search for the blissful state of being coupled, they may unconsciously shut out other possibilities for love, care and fulfillment.

These could be varying cluster arrangements underpinned by commitment, companionship and support. The sexual relationship may or may not be an important element. There are examples before us: Children and adolescents feel very secure in their families comprising parents, siblings, sometimes grandparents and step-parents, and they do not have two-by-two relationships. Two generations ago, the black-and-white samfoo amahs -- remember them, the spinster maids? -- developed their own surrogate families right through old age. For examples from the gay community, you could read Frank Browning's book, The Culture of Desire, particularly the chapter Reconstructing the Extended Family.

Basically, what I am saying is that we should be very careful not to imprison ourselves within the norm of a life-long pairing, imported from heterosexual society. For two reasons: firstly, the norm is culture-defined, it is not the only possible arrangement for humans, as can be seen from a wider historical perspective; and secondly, it has been constructed to serve the needs of heterosexual, child-rearing situations. From both these angles, it is not necessarily appropriate for most gay people. Of course, if you happen to have someone with whom you are sharing a happy and committed life-long relationship, then fine, but if you don't, then there is no need to beat your breast and feel miserable about it.

Nor should we allow others to say, "You see, gay men are promiscuous. They live floating, unattached, unstable lives." Some activists respond to this by saying either, "No we don't, there are plenty of examples of stable relationships among gay men and women", or "But society is structured in such a way as to make it difficult to sustain gay relationships." Both positions are valid and certainly have their uses in the public debate, but it may do us good to remember that by taking these positions, we concede the centrality of the 'couple'. We concede it in the public debate, and too often, we concede it within ourselves as a measure of our own self-esteem.

In short, we are measuring ourselves by an artificial heterosexual yardstick, the same stick that is being used to beat us with.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None