University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2017 "There Will Be More Cookies": A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World Stephanie K. Webb University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Webb, Stephanie K., ""There Will Be More Cookies": A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1279. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1279 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. “There Will be More Cookies”: A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World ________________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Social Sciences University of Denver ________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ________________ by Stephanie K. Webb June 2017 Dr. Elizabeth Suter ©Copyright by Stephanie K. Webb 2017 All Rights Reserved Author: Stephanie K. Webb Title: “There Will be More Cookies”: A Discursive Exploration of Polyamorous Identity in a Monogamous World Advisor: Dr. Elizabeth Suter Degree Date: June 2017 ABSTRACT Monogamous romantic relationships are the standard by which to engage in relationships in the United States. Despite the pervasiveness of monogamy, polyamorous romantic relationships are growing. Polyamory is an approach to romantic relationships that includes engaging sexually and emotionally with multiple people simultaneously, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved (Polyamory, 2015). This study explores how individuals who identify as polyamorous construct personal and relational identities in a monogamous world. Using relational dialectics theory 2.0 and queer theory, the study examined self-recorded conversations of 21 polyamorous participants and their partner(s). Participant talk surrounding polyamorous personal and relational identity voiced the discourse of mono-deconstruction and the discourse of poly- production. The discourse of mono-normativity was also present in the data. Participant talk surrounding polyamorous personal and relational identity was dialogically rich, demonstrating interplay and transformative dialogue. Metaphoric transformation is introduced, which is the use of metaphor to create new meanings in communication. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my participants: thank you for letting me into your world. Listening to your stories, your love, and your challenges changed me. This project is for you. Beth, thank you for mentoring me, inspiring me, and sending me words of encouragement when I needed them most. Erin, thank you for showing me that compassion and teaching belong together. Bernadette, thank you for taking the time to foster my critical lens and supporting me, even in my missteps. Leah, thank you for being my Fairy God Leah, for always having practical advice, and for showing me that there is always humor to be found in any situation. Lacey, thank you for your love. Thank you for accepting me when I am soft, strong, or somewhere in between. Salma and Brian, thank you for being a part of my educational foundation; you two challenge me, while aiding my strength. To my partners, past and present: Phil, thank you for your humor and your ability to make me a better writer. Ryan, your patience and commitment to me are unparalleled. I am truly grateful for you and am better with you in my world. Jeremy, you are the best pacer in all of the land; thank you for your wisdom in this process and journey. My lifemate, Christin: you inspire me. You’re my little light when all the world is black. My companion, Lauren: thank you for selecting me as your sister. I am so lucky. Mom and Dad, thank you for accepting me and loving me no matter what I throw at you. You are the reason for my ability to love. Finally, to Dr. Lindsay Byron, also known as Lux ATL, your guidance helped me to complete this task, and your example drives me toward my future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE..................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO...............................................................................................................15 Review of Literature..........................................................................................................15 CHAPTER THREE...........................................................................................................52 Methodology......................................................................................................................52 CHAPTER FOUR..............................................................................................................72 Results Part One: Research Question One Results............................................................72 CHAPTER FIVE...............................................................................................................97 Results Part Two: Research Question Two Results..........................................................97 CHAPTER SIX...............................................................................................................112 Discussion.......................................................................................................................112 CHAPTER SEVEN.........................................................................................................139 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................139 REFERENCES................................................................................................................149 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................163 iv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Relationships are “ways of knowing, and they influence the ways you know the world, what you know, and how you know it” (Duck, 2011, p. 22). Extending Duck’s conjecture, romantic relationships are epistemic ways of knowing, and in United States culture, monogamy has been positioned as the only way in which to engage in romantic relationships (Abbott, 2011; Anderson, 2012; Emens, 2004; McLean, 2004; Schippers, 2016). Monogamy can be defined as sexual and emotional exclusivity between two people (Wosick-Correa, 2010), and it is the cultural ideal for heteronormative romantic relationships in the United States (Abbott, 2011; Anderson, 2012). Monogamy is assumed as “an intrinsically superior characteristic of relationships” (Heckert, 2010, p. 258; Murray, 1995; Norrgard, 1991; Rust, 1993), and there is a conflation between monogamy (Anderson) and relational ideologies that typify romantic relationships, such as love, intimacy, honesty, communication, and commitment (Klesse, 2006). Monogamy is also perceived as the “natural” and “moral” way to engage in romantic relationships (Ritchie & Barker, 2006; Kean, 2015; McLean, 2004). Due to the aforementioned assumption that romantic relationships must be monogamous and the resulting perceptions of monogamous relationships, monogamy influences ways of knowing, what is known, and how it is known. 1 Furthermore, compulsory monogamy1 is a way of knowing that is imbued with systemic overtures of power, which implicate gender, race, class, and sexuality (Rosa, 1994; Schippers, 2016; Willey, 2006), in addition to capitalism, economics (McPheeters, 1999), religion (Stelboum, 1999), and identity politics (Heckert, 2005). Due to monogamy’s prolific influence on both personal relationships and sociocultural infrastructure in Western culture, monogamy does not typically fall under scrutiny in individual romantic relationships or in academic research (Anderson, 2012). Even in theories that work to address power and systemic oppression, such as queer theory, there have been a limited number of “interrogations of how monogamy is implicated in and productive of gender, race, and sexual hierarchies or the role of monogamy as an organizing rationale for regimes of normalcy and social structures of inequality” (Schippers, 2016, p. 0). Monogamy must be addressed as an institution that impacts not only the ways in which individuals choose to conduct romantic relationships, but also how it has influenced and continues to influence systemic power structures and social inequities. One way to address the power of monogamy is to examine how polyamorous identities emerge despite compulsory monogamy. Examining polyamory via communication studies is an exemplary way to interrogate polyamorous identities because “The language around us shapes our self-identities (Burr, 1995) and our understanding of sexual identity depends on the language of sexuality available to us” (Ritchie & Barker, 2006, p. 585). Here, I contend that compulsory monogamy is 1 The term “compulsory monogamy” is adapted from Rich’s (1983) work, which examines compulsory heterosexuality as a “network or system of social beliefs, customs, and practices that compel women into intimate