Hierarchy Aware not Non Hierarchical
Thoughts and Tools for Reflection on Framing Spaces and Relationships
If as writers, we are best positioned to write from our own experiences then I feel exceptionally well positioned to speak about non-monogamous relationships and progressive spaces.
I struggled a lot with the language of use to speak about a specific type of space that I've found myself occupying. To say organizing spaces would be to include spaces that are deeply institutional or mostly social into an organizing mandate. To say NGO or non-for profit would institutionalize many spaces that I've been in that do not have the resources, support or autonomy of institutions. So, the best I can do is sort of lump them all together under the definition of spaces that endeavor to create positive outcomes for their community and try to operate from an anti-oppressive stance. The words endeavor and try are key here.
I do not have a problem with aspirational labels as a rule. At its root the label of spaces and relationships as non-hierarchical is aspirational. However, I think that we can run into a problem of loosing sight of the work involved in moving towards a goal when we take on aspirational labels, and decide that we have already arrived at the destination. When aspirational labels begin to be interpreted as descriptive - they can be used to deny the experiences of the people they are failing.
Non Hierarchy in Non-Monogamy
Many people identify themselves as being a person who practices non-hierarchical non-monogamy. For many the aim of non-hierarchy in polyamory and non-monogamy is to create a structure in which one person or relationship is not automatically prioritized over all others. In ideology, non-hierarchical non-monogamy not only speaks to prioritization of partners but also prioritization of romantic and sexual relationships – though in practice this is often only extended to romantic and sexual partners.
I myself have identified as a person who practiced non-hierarchical non-monogamy all while navigating, being hurt by and hurting others with hierarchies that were very present. In some cases, the desire for these hierarchies not to exist and the subsequent denial of their existence while their impact was being felt by all those involved caused problems. In other cases, we would acknowledge that hierarchies existed but disagree on whether they were harmful or whether we should try to compensate for their existence – this also caused problems.
In non-monogamy there are two general types of accepted hierarchies: prescriptive and descriptive. Prescriptive hierarchies refer to hierarchies that are intentionally enforced within relationships often through rules. Practices like relationship vetoes, a partner putting a time limit on how much time you can spend with other partners or pals, or limits on overnight visits are all examples of rules that are put in place to maintain relationship hierarchies. These rules are usually put in place to maintain a hierarchy between primary and secondary partners or partners and non-partners. Descriptive Hierarchies refer to hierarchies that are implicit to circumstances. They describe a hierarchy . This can look like living with one partner but not others, having children with one partner but not others, or even being with one person for substantially longer than others. Descriptive hierarchies occur naturally as people form relationships with others and sometimes desire to move up through a relationship escalator. However, descriptive hierarchies can become prescriptive when people within a relationship decide to create rules that entrench their descriptive roles.
What I found to be lacking in most discussions about these hierarchies was how one goes about mitigating or counteracting descriptive hierarchies if they are truly invested in moving towards a model ethical of non-monogamy. Because of this those who practice non-monogamy are often left with the impression that descriptive hierarchies are unavoidable and something they just have to live with. Or conversely that they shouldn’t engage in relationships or dynamics with people who have descriptive circumstances that they do not like. Similarly, people who are currently in relationships with these descriptive hierarchies can become complacent with the ways that this impacts their other relationships – not because they want to hurt anyone, but because they have accepted these hierarchies (and their resulting impact) as fixed.
Non Hierarchy in Spaces
Spaces, organizations, and collectives that take on the label of non-hierarchy usually do as a means of creating an environment where decision making occurs horizontally instead of vertically. Non-hierarchical spaces often do away with structures of vertical decision making or ascribe less value to the vertical structures.
The pre-occupation with horizontal decision making can often obscure elements that are still at play that create hierarchies, influence decision making, and silence those who would like to critique the system. Organisations and spaces often do not make use of the language of prescriptive and descriptive hierarchies in the ways that non-monogamous relationships do. And would likely be better off if these mechanisms of analysis were applied to investigating and critiquing organisational structures. Often the non-hierarchy of an organisation stops at their lack of prescriptive hierarchies. They get rid of management and make all employees equal parts of the team, or everyone on the team has supposedly equal say in organisations’ decisions and the workload they take on.
But often, non-profits and are required to have Boards of Directors or some sort of vertical management/decision making structure that makes prescriptive hierarchies unavoidable. In instances such as this, I think it is particularly dangerous to call a space non-hierarchical. Not only because it’s factually inaccurate, but because the ability for people who exist at the bottom of the hierarchies exist in limbo. They are best served by ignoring hierarchies in these spaces because to call attention to it opens it up for abuse and subsequent denial of that abuse happening. While ignoring it puts them in a space of vulnerability, wherein they do not ask for care that they are owed under these structures. In spaces where labor takes place, we have acknowledged that hierarchies create space for mistreatment, asymmetry, misuse of power and abuse – and have created worker driven mechanisms of counteracting these hierarchies and advocating for ourselves. In spaces that call themselves non-hierarchical whilst holding on to all of the pitfalls of hierarchy, workers are less likely to access or think of accessing these mechanisms for recourse because they have been fed a narrative that they exist on the same level as the person(s) that are using the hierarchy against them.
This isn’t to say that non-hierarchical spaces for work and organising are impossible to create or maintain. But I think that the spaces with this aim must think beyond surface decision making or employment structures. It must also think about larger spaces and institutions that they exist within and whether they will mandate and enforce hierarchies for them to exist. Finally, it’s worth asking whether a space calls itself non-hierarchical as a guiding praxis for how it functions and hopes to function moving forward or if that label obscures overwork, underpayment, abuse of power and/or internal critiques.
Why Hierarchy Aware?
There is the necessity in being transparent about the ways we are subverting hierarchy and the ways that we feel they are functional. To be aware is to acknowledge that they exist and open the door for questions and critique.
In non-monogamous relationships opening the door for questions, critique, shared definitions, and shared aspirations is key. This is true for romantic relationships, platonic relationships, sexual relationships plus everything in between and beyond. Similarly, critique within organisations allow us to challenge the systemic forms of oppression that we have internalized into our own organisational structures. They allow us decide what works for us, and what doesn’t, what we view as an interim measure until we meet certain goals etc.
I don’t believe that hierarchies in relationships nor communities and organisations are inherently bad, and I will admit that it has taken me some time to come to that belief. I think that hierarchy can serve a function, when they are hierarchies that we have all opted into with consent and ample information. Hierarchies become harmful when they are imposed upon us by others with very little or no regard for our autonomy or our wellbeing.
The most dangerous hierarchies are the ones that we pretend don’t exist – the ones that we want to ignore because they were imposed upon us and our relationships, and our organisations by forces and systems beyond our control. This can look like hierarchy of desirability or relationship status impacting non-monogamous relationships. It can look like hierarchy such as Boards of Directors that are required to have a not-for-profit recognised, or a white man’s voice being given greater credence at a community forum. We didn’t choose these hierarchies, and in many cases, we actively reject them – so it often feels unfair that they impact the things we love and are passionate about. In relationships or spaces that we have decided that we want to be non-hierarchical, it can sometimes be easiest to decide that because it’s we all we have already reached that goal. And this decision is silently made without any consideration for the work it takes to counter hierarchies that are often built into every social and organisational practice we have.
Fixed and Shifting Hierarchies in Spaces and Relationships
I think that being hierarchy aware comes from assessing our own positionality in every relationship, space, and moment we occupy. This also comes from acknowledging that our place within hierarchies is not fixed. We often feel the pressure and prevalence of hierarchies and larger systems of oppression that inform them in our relationships and the spaces we occupy – however, assessing positionality also requires thinking about context. It requires acknowledging ways that social processes that are not as always paid attention to such as: desirability, fatphobia, colourism, sanism etc. impact our ability to actively advocate for ourselves and be heard when we call hierarchies into question. It also requires being aware of material and political conditions beyond identity such as employment status, access to familial or generational wealth, connections and networks, immigration status, language comprehension, etc. that can be similarly limiting. When we think about being hierarchy aware it is critical that we are thinking about all the advantages and resources and supports that we are bringing into relationships, conversations and spaces, not only as visible or invisible privileges, but as resources and points of access that can be shared instead of hoarded. Recognizing hierarchy as deeply contextual begs us to consistently ask ourselves what we need in any space to fully show up with the most amount of autonomy and access to decision making while remaining curious about what we can give to ensure that that same goal is met for others.
Putting Work Behind Aspiration
I think it is very likely that many people do not want non-hierarchical relationships, spaces, and organisations. Working towards that goal starts with taking stock of all the hierarchies that currently exist within the relationship, space or organisation.
Some questions to begin reflecting on for spaces and organisations
Do we have an explicit or codified chain of command?
YES? ok! You’ve identified a hierarchy that you like. Speak with yourself and your organisation members about what the benefits of that chain of command are. Are there ways that the structure is currently abused or misused? What are the ways that you can maintain those benefits while mitigating the structural harms? Are you open to removing the chain of command if the harms are implicit to the system?
NO: ok, so it looks like you are hoping to create a space that works against hierarchy – but are you doing the work. Reflect on the next couple of questions:
o Is there an implicit hierarchy that operates in the same way an explicit one would?
o Are there safeguards in place to ensure that people are not being overworked or disproportionately taking on more labour?
o Do you see the same people delegating and the same people carrying out tasks/work over time?
o Do some people’s ideas, thoughts, or visions dominate the space or organisation?
Some questions to begin reflecting on for relationships:
Do I want my partnered relationships to take priority over my platonic, familial, sexual, other romantic relationships?
YES: ok! You’ve identified a hierarchy that you like. Speak with yourself and your partners about what function that hierarchy serves in your life and theirs and the expectations and aspirations of that hierarchy.
NO: ok, reflect on the next couple of questions. Are you putting in work to ensure that that hierarchy is actively countered?
o Do I put aside intentional time for my partner(s) but not family, friends, sexual or romantic pals?
o Do I make long term plans with my partner(s) with no input from my family, friends, sexual or romantic pals?
o Do I meet the needs and wants of my partner(s) above my friends, family, sexual, or romantic pals?
Do I want my romantic/sexual relationships to take priority over relationships that do not have a romantic or sexual component?
YES: ok! You’ve identified a hierarchy that you like. Speak with yourself and the people you are involved with sexually and/or romantically about what function that hierarchy serves in your life and theirs and the expectations and aspirations of that hierarchy.
NO: ok, reflect on the next couple of questions. Are you putting in work to ensure that that hierarchy is actively countered?
o Do I prioritise plans with people I am sexually/romantically involved with over people that I am not involved with?
o Do I feel that the opinions, validation, or care from people I am sexually/romantically involved with are more valuable to me than those I am not involved with?
Do I want my relationships with people that I am biologically connected to, to take priority over relationships with those I am not?
YES: ok! You’ve identified a hierarchy that you like. Speak with yourself and the people you are biologically related to about what that prioritization looks like and the care, support and reciprocity that is expected within that prioritization.
NO: ok, reflect on the next couple of questions, are you actively working to subvert that hierarchy ?
o Do I show more patience and forgiveness towards biological relatives over chosen family, partners, or pals?
o Am I willing to let my biological relatives make people I am not biologically related to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in my life?
o Do I believe that biological parents, or those who have biologically participated in pro-creation’s relationship with children are more important than any other adults in their lives?
I don’t want prescriptive hierarchies in my partnered relationships, but descriptive hierarchies are part of being in relationships and I am okay with them.
YES: ok! You’ve identified a hierarchy that you like. A lot of descriptive hierarchies materialize naturally based on things like time and life circumstances. Ensure that all partners and non-partners also feel the same way about this approach to hierarchies and that you all agree that you do not want to counteract descriptive hierarchies or their impacts on your relationships.
No: ok, reflect on the next couple of questions, are you actively working to counteract the impact of descriptive hierarchies on your relationships?
o Do you have a partner(s) that has met your family, friends, or loved ones and a partner(s) that hasn’t because of the different lengths of your relationship? Have you made efforts to have your partner(s) that you have been with for less time build relationships with the people in your life?
o Do you have partner(s) that you live with and a partner(s) that you don’t? Have you made efforts to ensure that your non-nesting partner(s) feels welcome in your home?
It’s ok if you answered no, and then when you reflected further you realised that you either weren’t doing the work to counter that hierarchy or didn’t want to. If you found yourself not wanting to – maybe adjust your answer from no to yes or maybe. You might have identified a function in some hierarchies. Be honest and up front about that to yourself and the people around you. And if you found that you aren’t doing that work but really want to – think about tangible actions that will result in those changes. Speak to the people in your life about what your goal is and the ways that these shifts in actions may impact the amount of time they spend with you, your plans for the future, the commitments you make etc.
I want us to live in a world where we have found ways to boldly bring our visions of imaginative, loving, compassionate and joyful non-hierarchical relationships and spaces to fruition. But there’s a lot of work to be done; so lets start with where we’re at.
