Abstract
Our research sits at the intersection of communication studies, sociology, cyberculture, and political philosophy and theory. In 2014, a 10+-min segment on polyamory aired on Portuguese open-access national television, during the prime-time newscast, and was viewed by several million people, according to official reports. The news piece was also advertised and shared online, especially via Facebook, by the network’s official page. Moreover, the piece was aired within the context of a segment that celebrated the 40-year anniversary of the 1974 liberal revolution that overthrew the right-wing dictatorial regime that ruled Portugal for more than half of the twentieth century. This context served to frame polyamory (alongside other topics) as explicitly political by presenting them as freedoms seized by that liberal revolution. This study used a mixed-method approach to the analysis of online comments on Facebook made with respect to the referred news piece, by deploying both content analysis and critical discourse analysis to try to understand how the political nature of polyamory is negotiated (affirmed or disavowed), and what ideal of the “political” is mobilized in that negotiation, in connection with other elements of intimate citizenship and modes of systemic discrimination. Through this analysis, we will deepen our understanding of how lay people construe the “political” and the (non-)politicalness of polyamory. It also helps advance contemporary understandings of how polyamory is represented in mainstream media, understood by audiences, and how media—and debates on online social networks—can both amplify and help fight against harmful stereotypes of minorities. Through this research, we contribute to political theory by opening up new ways of conceptualizing the realm of the political as an open-ended definition that must encompass changes in modes of sociality, including a politics of relating as a sub-field, likewise to the study of social movements, and their strategies, around consensual non-monogamies. Overall, results show that the recognition of the validity of polyamory is not the same as the realization that relationship orientation is a political issue in itself and that a privatized mode of understanding politics seems prevalent as well as the default framework used in the comments we analyzed. In addition to that, and as other research has already noted, incivility and hate speech was prevalent in online comments and discussions, further dampening the political potential of dissident modes of existence, especially given that incivility is also deployed by those speaking in favor of Othered identities and experiences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
The original source was available through the Google Groups service after its acquisition of the Usenet mailing list service, but it has since been marked as containing spam and not readily available; its latest known URL was https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.config/xjKoQN_MWvs/discussion.
Quoting the authors defining heteronormativity: “(…) we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent-that is, organized as a sexuality-but also privileged” (Berlant & Warner, 1998, p. 548).
We sought to retain the registry in which the comments were made and adapt that into English, including typos and slang.
References
Arendt, H. (2005). La condición humana. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.
Aviram, H. (2010). Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco Bay Area. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 87–93). London: Routledge.
Aviram, H., & Leachman, G. (2015). The future of polyamorous marriage: Lessons from the marriage equality struggle. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 38, 269–336.
Barker, M.-J. (2018). Re-writing the rules: An anti self-help guide to love, sex and relationships (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex in public. Critical Inquiry, 24(2), 547–566.
Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty (pp. 166–217). London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published 1969)
Bonthuys, E. (2016). A patchwork of marriages: The legal relevance of marriage in a plural legal system. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(6).
Cabrera, A. (2017). A imprensa portuguesa no Estado Novo. In J. P. Sousa, H. Lima, A. Hohlfeldt, & M. Barbosa (Eds.), Uma história da imprensa lusófona (pp. 311–384). Lisboa: Media XXI.
Cardoso, D. (2011). Poliamor, ou Da Dificuldade de Parir um Meme Substantivo. Interact. Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://interact.com.pt/17/poliamor/.
Cardoso, D. (2014). My Spivak is bigger than yours: (Mis-)representations of polyamory in the Portuguese LGBT movement and mononormative rhetorics. LES Online, 6(1), 45–64.
Cardoso, D. (2015). Del amor a la amistad: La política de las relaciones. In S. Cendal (Ed.) & M. Pérez (Trans.), (H)amor2 (pp. 53–66). Madrid: Continta Me Tienes.
Cardoso, D. (2017). Amores plurais situados—Para uma meta-narrativa socio-histórica do poliamor. Tempo Da Ciência, 25(48), 12–29.
Cardoso, D. (2019). The political is personal: The importance of affective narratives in the rise of poly-activism. Sociological Research Online., 24(4), 691–708.
Cardoso, D., Martins, I. R., & Coelho, S. (2013). Debating polyamory as research: An auto-ethnographic account of a round-table on polyamory and lesbianism. LES Online, 5(1), 20–34.
Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P. M., & Rosa, P. J. (2020). Facing polyamorous lives: Translation and validation of the attitudes towards polyamory scale in a Portuguese sample. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1549361.
Carter, I. (2016). Positive and negative liberty. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition).Retrieved August 2, 2016 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/liberty-positive-negative/.
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658–679.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2011). [Prevalence of consensual non-monogamy in general samples]. Unpublished raw data.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467087.
Crenshaw, K. W. (2008). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against Women of Color. In A. Bailey & C. J. Cuomo (Eds.), The feminist philosophy reader (pp. 279–309). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Eley, G. (1992). Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth century. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 289–339). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Emens, E. F. (2004). Monogamy’s law: Compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 29, 277. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.506242.
Ferrer, J. N. (2018). Mononormativity, polypride, and the “mono–poly wars”. Sexuality and Culture, 22, 817–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9494-y.
Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Garcia, J. L. (2009). Sobre a Censura em Portugal. In J. L. Garcia (Ed.), Estudos sobre os jornalistas portugueses: Metamorfoses e encruzilhadas no limiar do século XXI (pp. 47–61). Lisboa: Instituto Ciências Sociais.
Giddens, A. (1993). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gonçalves, J. (2018). Aggression in news comments: How context and article topic shape user-generated content. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(5), 604–620.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published 1962)
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haritaworn, J., Lin, C., & Klesse, C. (2006). Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515–529.
Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2016). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43, 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675.
Heinlein, R. (1961). Stranger in a strange land. New York: Putnam Publishing Group.
Hurson, M. (2016). Networks of many loves: A history of alternative media in the polyamory movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved September 3, 2018 from https://scholar.colorado.edu/jour_gradetds/34.
Jones, M., & Diment, K. (2010). The CAQDA paradox: A divergence between research method and analytical tool. Faculty of Commerce—Papers (pp. 82–86). Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/777.
Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Rains, S. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47, 795–814.
Klesse, C. (2013). Poly economics—Capitalism, class, and polyamory. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 27(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9157-4.
Klesse, C. (2016). Marriage, law and polyamory Rebutting mononormativity with sexual orientation discourse? Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(6), 1348–1376.
Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ksiazek, T. (2015). Civil interactivity: How News Organizations’ commenting policies explain civility and hostility in user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 556–573.
Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T.-C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among U.S. adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1439–1450.
Martins, C. (2012). A infidelidade está no ar. Revista, 2083, 36–42.
McCrosky, R. (2015). Experiences of stigma during sexual healthcare visits: A qualitative study of non-monogamous women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida. Retrieved October 12, 2019 from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1150/.
Mint, P. (2008). Polyamory is not about the sex, except when it is [Blog]. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from Freaksexual website: http://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/polyamory-is-not-about-the-sex-except-when-it-is/.
Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “The Couple” increased over time? The Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4, 9–27.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
Papacharissi, Z. A. (2011). A private sphere. Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Pérez Navarro, P. (2017). Beyond inclusion: Non-monogamies and the borders of citizenship. Sexuality & Culture, 21(2), 441–458.
Pieper, M., & Bauer, R. (2005). Polyamory und Mono-Normativität. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie über nicht-monogame Lebensformen. In L. Méritt (Ed.), Mehr als eine Liebe: Polyamouröse Beziehungen (pp. 59–69). Berlin: Orlanda.
Pitkin, H. (1988). Are freedom and liberty twins? Political Theory, 16(4), 523–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591788016004001.
Plummer, K. (1995). Telling sexual stories: Power, change and social worlds. New York: Routledge.
Policarpo, V. (2011). Sexualidades em construção, entre o privado e o público. In J. Mattoso (Ed.), História da Vida Privada em Portugal: Os Nossos Dias (pp. 48–79). Maia, Portugal: Temas e Debates.
Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62–78.
Rambukkana, N. (2015). Unmappable subjects: Intimacy, privilege and polygamous women in Canadian public sphere discourse. Keynote Speech presented at the 1st Non-Monogamies and Contemporary Intimacies, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas. Retrieved September 27, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZBuhUc0Zi8.
Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers. An approach from critical discourse analysis. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richardson-Self, L. (2018). Woman-hating: On misogyny, sexism, and hate speech. Hypatia, 33(2), 256–272.
Rodrigues, D., Fasoli, F., Huic, A., & Lopes, D. (2018). Which partners are more human? Monogamy matters more than sexual orientation for dehumanization in three European Countries. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(4), 504–515.
Rubel, A. N., & Burleigh, T. J. (2020). Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities, 23(1–2), 3–27.
Rubin, G. (2007). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 150–187). New York: Routledge.
Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22(1), 1–23.
Santiago, R. S. (2015). Poliamor e direito das famílias: Reconhecimento e consequências jurídicas. Curitiba: Juruá.
Santos, A. C. (2013). Social movements and sexual citizenship in Southern Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Santos, A. C. (2019). One at a time: LGBTQ polyamory and relational citizenship in the 21st century. Sociological Research Online, 24(4), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780419874080.
Schippers, M. (2016). Beyond monogamy: Polyamory and the future of polyqueer sexualities. New York: NYU Press.
Séguin, L. J. (2019). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory. Sexualities, 22, 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717713382.
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 188–203.
Tsaliki, L. (2002). Online forums and the enlargement of public space: Research findings from a European project. Javnost—The Public, 9(2), 95–112.
van Dijk, T. E. (1995). Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese Discourse, 1, 17–27.
van Dijk, T. E. (2009). News, discourse, and ideology. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 191–204). New York: Routledge.
Vasallo, B. (2018). Pensamiento monógamo, terror poliamoroso. La Oveja Roja.
Zamith, R., & Lewis, S. (2014). From public spaces to public sphere. Rethinking systems for reader comments on online news sites. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 558–574.
Zanin, A. (2013). The problem with polynormativity. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from Sex Geek website: http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/theproblemwithpolynormativity/.
Zell-Ravenheart, M. G. (1990). A bouquet of lovers: Strategies for responsible open relationships. Green Egg, 23(89), 228–231.
Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2020). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, 46(6), 891–920.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical guidelines for research of University of Lusofona’s CICANT research centre.
Informed Consent
No personal data was collected, and all data was collected from publicly available sources where there is no expectation of privacy, therefore according to the ethical guidelines followed, no informed consent was collected or necessary.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: List of Coding Categories Used
Appendix 1: List of Coding Categories Used
-
1.
Politics and Polyamory
-
1.1.
Defining politics—disengagement, negativity
-
1.1.1.
Disconnecting polyamory from the April Revolution
-
1.1.2.
Polyamory as a negative consequence of freedom
-
1.1.1.1.
Abnormality, pathology
-
1.1.1.2.
Exhibitionism
-
1.1.1.3.
Immorality, value crisis
-
1.1.1.4.
Libertinage
-
1.1.1.5.
Trend, fun
-
1.1.1.6.
Sect
-
1.1.1.1.
-
1.1.1.
-
1.2.
Defining politics—solidarity, engagement
-
1.2.1.
Connecting polyamory to the April Revolution
-
1.2.2.
Polyamory as a positive consequence of freedom
-
1.2.2.1.
Informed consent
-
1.2.2.2.
Emphasis on love
-
1.2.2.3.
Individualized freedom/polyamory as a lifestyle
-
1.2.2.1.
-
1.2.3.
Demarcation from negative views and comments
-
1.2.1.
-
1.1.
-
2.
Incivility and hate speech
-
2.1.
Incivility
-
2.1.1.
Arbitrary remarks
-
2.1.2.
Insults, offences, defamation
-
2.1.3.
Irony, sarcasm
-
2.1.4.
Obscene language
-
2.1.1.
-
2.2.
Hate speech and threats against minorities and discriminated groups
-
2.2.1.
Normative views on love
-
2.2.2.
Hypermasculinity
-
2.2.3.
Misogyny
-
2.2.4.
LGBTQ-phobia
-
2.2.5.
Racism, xenophobia
-
2.2.6.
Others
-
2.2.1.
-
2.1.
-
3.
Others/Free categories
-
3.1.
“The children”
-
3.2.
Anti-intellectualism
-
3.3.
Criticism against the male-focus of the news piece
-
3.4.
Criticism against journalism
-
3.5.
Emphasis on the women
-
3.6.
Emphasis on the man
-
3.7.
Auto-biographical exposition
-
3.8.
Undifferentiation between non-monogamies
-
3.1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cardoso, D., Rosa, A. & da Silva, M.T. (De)Politicizing Polyamory: Social Media Comments on Media Representations of Consensual Non-Monogamies. Arch Sex Behav 50, 1325–1340 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01887-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01887-5