This internet discussion List is about the wider implications of TCS theory.
Existing forms of relationship, such as employer-employee, husband-wife, parent-child, involve promises not to develop in certain ways. Moreover, they involve a promise to interact with each other according to a certain fixed pattern which has certain fixed roles in it, and not to deviate from those roles, such as husband, employer, employee, mother, and so on.
The autonomy-respecting relationship is a hypothetical relationship which I hope can exist, in which people don't promise or expect to fulfil a predetermined role for the duration of the relationship, but instead expect to be able to get along with each other in such a way that each party is trying to make the other have the best possible life.
For example, the marriage (or marriage-like relationship) is a contract (whether explicitly so or not), and as such, an example of a non-autonomy-respecting-relationship. By “autonomy” I don't only mean that the relationship should be freely entered into. That is not the point. “Autonomy” in this sense refers to the psychological state of being free of intractable internal conflicts – of acting from one's own intrinsic motivations rather than extrinsic ones. An “autonomous” person is a free-thinker, one who is not hobbled by fixed roles and other coercion-inducing obligations and expectations. (Our definition of coercion makes precise the idea of being compelled to act against one's own will. See below.)
Is it right for people to expect to give and receive obligations that, when they come to carry them out, will not be the best thing for them? Obviously this is a good thing in the market, where the relationships are ones that don't involve people caring about each other closely as individuals. If you pay the plumber to put in a new shower, you expect the shower to be put in even if at the time he comes to install it, it is more inconvenient than he thought it would be. But in an autonomy-respecting relationship, you would not expect the analogous thing to hold – you would not expect people to do things despite not wanting to. When people say “I gave him the best years of my life,” the implication being that he is not paying his side, then, setting aside whose fault that is, the question is: is it right to enter into a relationship of that form? That is, “First I'll give you the best years of my life, and then you will do X to make up for this”? I'd say that that is a bad agreement to enter into even voluntarily. And it is certainly not an autonomy-respecting relationship.
Current relationship institutions (the family, exclusive coupledom, employer-employee) are problematic in that they are coercive, but how can they be improved or replaced without destroying the valuable inexplicit knowledge they embody? The purpose of the Autonomy-Respecting Relationships List is to find ways of improving upon existing relationship forms, from the point of view of psychological autonomy, and to consider how current forms of relationship institution might evolve in autonomy-respecting ways and away from their current inherently coercive structures.
This List is, amongst other things, trying to explore ways in which relationships can be good/close while still respecting autonomy and freedom of action, including but not restricted to sexual partner freedom. In a sense this sounds close to the “open relationship” or even “free love” ideas of the 1960s but in fact it is quite different because this List is trying to find ways not of throwing away existing patterns but improving upon them, and it is not trying to promote any particular way of life, but is trying to find ways in which people can find their own ways of life.
First note that we use the term “theory”
broadly. We use it to describe much more than just
“scientific theory”, or
“epistemological theory”, say. See
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Theory
for further information.
To find out what we mean by “consent” see
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Consent
For the definition of “common preference” see
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Common_preference.
Our definition of “coercion” makes precise the idea of being
compelled to act against one's own will. See
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Coercion
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Coerce
and
http://curi.us/tcs/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html#Coercive
for further information.
If you do not like the way we use these terms, please substitute made-up words rather than changing the meanings. It is the meaning that counts, not the word.
For further important TCS terminology, please read the Short Glossary on our WWW site.
Posts on the subject of autonomy-respecting relationships – what they are, how to improve relationships of all kinds by making them autonomy-respecting, and how current relationship institutions (which do not respect autonomy) might be replaced in the future and by what – are welcome. For example, you might want to write about the hierarchical employer-employee relationship institution, which tends not to respect the autonomy of the employee. How could the employer and the employee change things so that both were getting what they want? The solution of this problem could have profound implications for work relationships in the future. Or you might want to write about the implications of Popperian epistemology for relationship institutions. Or you might seek help in solving a live problem in your own life.
As an example, here is a 1997 post from Sarah Fitz-Claridge.
I'd like to discuss the following (criticisms most welcome) –
The institution of monogamy contains an inherent conflict, which is a problem for the growth of knowledge: it requires that growth in directions which threaten to take one partner away from the relationship be curtailed or avoided; but where does one draw the line between completely avoiding all outside activities or interests (since any such interest might develop in ways that might threaten the relationship), and pursuing one's own growth of knowledge? All creativity involves risk, and the risk-free life is no life at all. Since one can't predict new knowledge, by definition, and one can't predict how one's own knowledge will grow, one can't predict which activities and interests will be a threat to the relationship.
But suppose that both partners are convinced by the argument for freedom, and it is agreed that the relationship must be open in every sense. If one pursues one's interests, and the growth of knowledge, then however much one's partner may agree that that is what one should do, he or she will fear the loss of the relationship – and this will affect his or her actions and the way he or she interacts. S/he will make preparations for loss... which means that potential growth of knowledge within the relationship may be lost.
Moreover, the (coercive) institution discussed here is an evolved tradition embodying knowledge, and replacing it is no simple matter. The solution is not at hand. We don't know what the answer is. Open relationships were tried in the sixties and were a disaster. Is that failure a figment of the lack of knowledge at the time, or is the problem more fundamental? Many folks living polyamorously appear not to have rejected exclusivity at all, but merely to have widened the exclusive relationship to admit one more. Thus, all the same problems of coercion remain.
Sarah Fitz-Claridge
If you wish to ask a question or otherwise contribute
to the List, first read the
Autonomy-Respecting Relationships List Posting
Guidelines below, then send your message to
[email protected].
The List is moderated. However, not all messages are treated by hand, so the appearance of a message on the List does not imply the approval of the moderator(s).
If you send a message to the List and it does not appear on the List, and you do not hear from the moderator, please first check that it has not appeared, by looking in the relevant archive, then write to the List Owner at
including a copy of the message you think went missing. It is our policy not to reject messages without writing to the poster, so in most of these cases, the message has never reached the moderator at all.
Do not assume that the moderators will pick up your mistakes in posting! There are times when there is effectively no moderation at all, so please take care to ensure that you post in accordance with these guidelines:
Do not assume that the moderators will pick up your mistakes in posting! There are times when there is effectively no moderation at all, so please take note of the following points:
We are trying to retain a very friendly, supportive feel on the List, while simultaneously seeking and valuing criticism. We consider criticism a gift because it is through criticism that one learns. We value friendly if heated argument, and do not take criticism as an attack but a sign that someone has spent some effort thinking about the issue we are interested in. I do hope you will see it in this very positive light too. If you do not, you might prefer to subscribe to a different List.
There is, in our culture, a strong taboo against so-called “impoliteness” and this taboo is harmful because it prevents criticism and is associated with psychological strategies for self-exculpation which are integral to most patterns of coercion. When we go along with this self-exculpation, we become implicated ourselves. On this List, we value *open* discussion on topic, so we do *not* welcome posts whose purpose is to invoke this taboo.
Meta-discussion of any kind (discussion about the discussion instead of about how children should be treated) is off-topic and you may not try to use group intimidation to silence posters or to shame them into changing their posting styles. This “no meta discussion” rule keeps the discussion of substantive, relevant issues, flowing.
Another unusual feature of this List is that we take consent and privacy very seriously. Please do not violate privacy when posting. For example, if you want to quote private email or email from another List, always get permission to quote it before you post, and state in your post that you are posting it with the author's permission.
If asking for advice about a problem in a relationship, do not post personal information about people that they would rather keep private. It is usually quite easy to pose a question in a form which does not violate privacy. Phrasing posts in more hypothetical or theoretical and less personal way will increase the chance of receiving replies on the List. If you prefer, you could send your post to the List owner to post for you, without your name.
In order to maintain the high quality of discussion subscribers expect on this List, please bear in mind when posting that quality is better than quantity, and that it is best to post one interesting, subtle message per day than half a million messages lacking thoughtful content. 8-)
If you use Netscape Messenger or Microsoft Outlook or Exchange to send email, you may be unaware that your program is automatically sending annoying attachments whenever you send a message. This feature has to be turned off. If you have not turned it off, please do so. Such attachments contain absolutely unnecessary duplicate messages in HTML coding. We do not accept messages with these attachments, so please follow the instructions below to turn off this feature of your email program or switch to an email program that does not send attachments unless you tell it to.
To stop Netscape Messenger from sending a duplicate message in HTML coding at the end of your normal message, go into Edit, choose Preferences, then choose Mail and Newsgroups. Click on the +, then from the resulting List choose Formatting. You'll see two possibilities near the top: “use HTML editor to compose messages” or “use plain text editor to compose messages.” Be sure to choose the plain text editor. You might also check the second option below that: “convert the message into plain text.”
Also, go into Identity (also under Mail and Newsgroups) and be sure that the bottom option ("Attach my personal card to messages as a vCard") is unselected.
To stop Microsoft Outlook Express from sending its version of an HTML attachment, please heed the following instructions:
You look under Tools, Options, Send, Mail Sending Format: check the box that says “Plain Text” (instead of “html”).
To stop Microsoft Exchange from appending a WINMAIL.DAT binary attachment, go to the Microsoft site and consult the Knowledge Base article entitled “Preventing WINMAIL.DAT Sent to Internet Users.”
The Autonomy-Respecting Relationships List is handled by automatic mailing List software. You control your subscription by mailing commands to the List server. Note that this is not the same as the address used for posting messages.
To subscribe, send a blank message to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
[email protected]
You can also visit the eGroups web site to modify your subscriptions.
To the page about the Autonomy-Respecting Relationships (#ARR) Chat Room
Last modified February 10, 2003 by Sarah Fitz-Claridge.
Copyright © 1997, 2002, 2003 Taking Children Seriously