Jealousy & The Other

Investigating Ethical Non-Monogamy through Levinas’s Face-To-Face

E Sailer Sklar
Jul 10, 2017 · 10 min read

If you don’t agree with the following statements, you’re probably not going to get much out of this essay, so please feel free to search elsewhere if you find these flummoxing, rattling, or generally unrelatable:

  1. We change often and personal growth shouldn’t end with adulthood.
  2. Honest communication requires consistent effort.
  3. Intimacy and sex CAN be linked, but aren’t dependent on one another.
  4. Jealousy is toxic and should never be validated.
  5. Romantic love is ephemeral. Caring is not.
  6. Fear undermines our best intentions.
  7. Loneliness is not tragic.

I. Introduction

If you live in any densely populated area and are nearing an age at which your peers are considering (or vehemently NOT considering) marriage, you have probably been exposed to the philosophy of ethical non-monogamy, which is related to (but not actually interchangeable with) polyamory. The difference is that polyamory, by its basic definition, does not require that anyone treat each other in any particular fashion. Also, polyamory is kind of a gross word (author’s opinion). Ethical non-monogamy is both more specific and less icky and will thus be the preferred term.

You may also have been exposed to further distillations of this philosophy surrounding gender (queer/feminist theory), race (western monogamy as a form of colonization), biology (evolution supporting multiple partners), and the general structure of society (anarchist, socialist, communist, and all theories seeking to upend western capitalism) or any combination of these sub-genres. These are all fascinating and important splinters but for the purposes of this discussion I would like to address what I perceive to be the core of the theory regardless of it’s various extrapolations- that all relationships are meaningful and we should be free to explore the many facets of intimacy outside of partnerships so long as we prioritize safety and communicate honestly with everyone involved.

Please note that when I refer to intimacy, I do not mean sex, but I am aware that for some people sex is a form of intimacy. Also, some people are actually able to compartmentalize sex entirely, so it is NOT a form of intimacy even though it factors into their decision making about relationships. Sex is, of course, the entire reason certain people need to explore ethical non-monogamy, but I would argue that for them the sex first and the ethics are a necessary tool to avoid harm regardless of how sex and intimacy work for them, so it is not important to distinguish whether or not intimate relationships are sexual, especially because for some people it doesn’t factor in any degree.

If you have not ever heard of ethical non-monogamy then this essay will either be ESPECIALLY interesting to you, or not interesting at all. If I haven’t convinced you to read on by the end of this section feel free to go make yourself a sandwich instead.

My goal is not to support or refute the practice, but rather to investigate some of the curiosities and contradictions that create tension surrounding it. I intend to do so through the lens of Phenomenology, specifically through the writings of Emmanuel Levinas on the theory of the face-to-face. Phenomenology is a dense philosophical field, but the central beliefs I will concern myself with today are that meaning is derived from ones own consciousness, and that a reciprocal communion with that which is outside of oneself (The Other) is the only way to activate ones ethics.

II: Face-to-Face: Intimacy and The Other

In his writing Levinas explores the assertion that we need to enter into a face-to-face with the Other in order to enter into an ethical relationship with humanity. The face-to-face is to see the Other in it’s most naked, vulnerable state. The definition of the Other shifts a lot depending on context, but here we can assume it is any other person who is not intrinsically linked to our own consciousness.

The face resists possession, resists my powers.

The being that expresses itself imposes itself, but does so precisely by appealing to me with its destitution and nudity–its hunger–without my being able to be deaf to that appeal. Thus in expression the being that imposes itself does not limit but promotes my freedom, by arousing my goodness — From Totality and Infinity

When Levinas talks about being face-to-face with the Other, he is typically referring to it in the context of war, in which the Other was presented as being so fundamentally different that they deserved to die, and how seeing the face of the Other is what halts us from being able to destroy them, because the face-to-face is the embrace of the common humanity between us, and therefor the beginning of ethics. Without knowing the face of the Other you cannot have ethics.

I think is it fair to assume that the closest most of us come to being asked to kill anyone is to be asked to know someone intimately- to take on all of their insecurities and fears and give the same away of yourself. In this exchange we are giving someone else the power to destroy us and assuming the power to destroy them as well. We refer to heartbreak flippantly, but what we really mean when heartbreak is real is that a person violated our trust and expectations to the extent that our sense of meaning in life is shattered and we are no longer able to experience joy. It is a bleak and devastating thing. Luckily it is rarely permanent, but if it has happened once many of us can never enter into that kind of intimate exchange again, or at least not for a very long time.

From what I have observed, many people who practice or experiment with ethical non-monogamy do so either because they find the excitement and power of the intimate face-to-face so intoxicating that they cannot possibly limit themselves to experiencing it with only one person, or they do not posses the capacity to do so at all either due to a past destruction or due to a deeper issue with intimacy. Either might have one stable partner and the freedom to explore outside of that partnership, or might avoid any partnership in favor or keeping all relationships equal and open. This is only important to note insofar as it illustrates the vastly different experiences one can have within the practice.

III. Ethics as an End to Suffering

Levinas also equated ethics to being related to God. I believe his works are relatable in a secular context if you substitute God with the attempt to reduce suffering. When we enter into relationships and seek commune with the Other, what we are really doing is attempting to ease our own suffering.

If we are concerned with ethics, than we should be concerned with easing suffering overall, which means we must consider that which is outside of ourselves. We must see how all of our actions are linked, and how the way we treat each other on an intimate level is the most basic ethical choice we make. Whether we end up loving them or not, if someone gives us the power to destroy them it is our ethical duty to do everything in our power to avoid doing so. This means being kind and treating someone with respect even if you have no great affection for them in the aftermath of intimacy.

One Phenomenological argument, then, for ethical non-monogamy, is that if we take a single monogamous partner, that partner becomes an extension of our own experience- the continued relationship blocks further opportunities for face-to-face intimacy and the couples capacity to inflict harm on others and increase worldly suffering is actually increased. It should not be impossible for someone in a monogamous relationship to continue to have intimate exchanges outside of it, but there is an enemy within us that makes it very difficult- one that is extremely toxic and yet very few people take any real measures to curb. That enemy is jealousy.

III: Jealousy: Enemy of Ethics

Jealousy is a fear of being abandoned that has been compounded by petty pride and concern over one’s reputation. Jealousy is often so basic that it overrides trust and destroys our attempts to give someone else the same freedom we desire for ourselves.

Jealousy is pointless, hurtful, and stupid, and yet we are easily manipulated by it. That manipulation is possible because of our capacity for guilt. Guilt is meant to protect us from hurting each other, but more often than not it just enables the worst among us to hold us hostage with jealousy.

Jealousy tells us that our intimacy with another person is threatened if they have intimacy with someone else as well, but this is just our ego working in overdrive to protect its potential progeny. It is important not to accept jealousy in yourself or in others if it is your intention to act ethically. There is intersection between jealousy, guilt, and ethics, but the relationship is not causal. Jealousy wants us to be selfish, and it doesn’t care about suffering.

A jealous person will trick you into believing that doing what they want is the right thing to do because it will ease their suffering, even if it causes more overall both for you and for others. A jealous person wants less happiness for everyone else and more comfort for themselves. There is great power in embracing discomfort.

IV: Perspective: Anecdotal Evidence!

Given the Phenomenological emphasis on trusting one’s own perception in order to create meaning, I will offer you some intimate information about myself.

I first came into direct contact with polyamory in 2014, when I was 25 and dating for the first time after getting out of a 6 year monogamous relationship. In that relationship I had always privately considered that being cheated on wouldn’t have bothered me so long as it wasn’t dangerous to my health or indicative that he was looking for a way out. Unfortunately I was never brave enough to bring this up, though ultimately our issue was that we became less compatible as we transitioned from adolescence into proper adulthood and I don’t think it would have mattered.

I think I could have been very happy in an open relationship under the right circumstances, though what I have found since then is that the nature of all-consuming life-merging relationships no longer lines up with my goals or core beliefs. I am pretty good at tempering any jealous instincts but I definitely have a problem with intimacy, despite how important I perceive it to be. I really like meeting new people though and it’s much easier for me to get near intimacy when there’s a potential romantic or sexual connection, even if it ends up being a fleeting one.

What this means is that I’ve done a lot of searching. One of the first people I met who I felt at ease with was someone who self-identified as polyamorous, and later expanded upon ethical non-monogamy. He was interested in my experience and in what we had to offer each other rather than only what I had to offer him. We didn’t end up staying in touch for a number of reasons (he was busy working at a non-profit, of course) but he never treated me in a way that made me feel unvalued or undeserving of his attention, even when he didn’t have much attention to give.

I’ve had casual, sexually open friendships where there was never any hint of a larger trajectory, I’ve dated men who have had primary partners (and even children they raise with those partners), and I’ve carried on for months without any definition and been OK with it. I’ve spent a lot of time alone and rarely allowed anymore to become too entangled with my day to day existence. I prefer it this way.

I’ve spent a lot of time questioning the nature of my feelings and what they’re trying to tell me about my own ethical intentions towards humanity at large.

I have felt the most desperate for approval and at odds with myself when dealing with someone who represents a polar opposite, or who I believe has something to teach me, or who possesses traits I view as being lacking in myself. These kinds of relationships never leave me feeling warm and fuzzy, in fact they tend to sort of wreck me because I don’t always choose people who value the kind of intentional communication I’ve come to rely upon in order to feel heard and respected, but they do illuminate aspects of my characters that I didn’t realize were so woefully at odds with my ethical intentions.

The face-to-face doesn’t always feel good, and it can even feel a little like heartbreak that’s happening in advance. The intimacy isn’t always productive on a personal level so far as reducing suffering goes, but I believe the trying is worth it.

V. Closing

Ethical non-monogamy is not new, nor is it in any way a product of intellectual privilege even if many of its proponents are found in the hyper-educated and/or autodidactic leftist circles. You don’t need to have read this essay or any other essay to know what works for you and what doesn’t. In a pure state it is meant to simplify our attempts at reconciling loneliness while trying to endow our lives with efficient emotional freedom. It is meant to challenge the assertion that we need to disappear into another person in order to love them.

For some this means breaking down all barriers and living in a fluid emotional state. For others it means a vigorous creation of definitions through communication and ethical restraint. Others still may never know what it means but need to treat their life as a constant journey as opposed to a continual slide into “settling down”. Either way, it is clear that many of us are burdened by expectations that we don’t fully understand, and much of this comes simply from a lack of intimacy, no matter what the context. Through a phenomenological investigation of ethics, I believe we have more power to understand the weight of our actions, and what is really at stake in the way we treat one another.

On twitter: @SklarchEnemy insta: @irrelevantcontent.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade