Introduction
Amatonormativity is the term that describes how social systems prioritize romantic love and assume that it is desirable to be in a coupled relationship (Brake 2012). The term was first introduced by Elizabeth Brake in her 2012 book Minimizing Marriage, and it reveals how this assumption is embedded within social power structures. Amatonormativity is related to dominant hegemonic narratives about sexual practices such as heteronormativity and mononormativity, which in turn manifests in various social institutions (Brake 2012; De las Heras 2019) as well as constructing couple privilege (Budgeon 2008).
This essay discusses the development of social theories of sexualities in reference to amatonormativity and presents an argument for how the concept applies to theories on sexualities. I demonstrate how amatonormativity is a useful framework that contributes to and reframes theories of sexuality. Additionally, ideas similar to amatonormativity have been present in theory historically, just unnamed. The first section of this essay defines amatonormativity by carefully analyzing Brake's work. In the second section of this paper, I examine how amatonormativity is compatible the development of social theories of sexuality. The third section of this paper examines some of the limitations of amatonormativity.
Amatonormativity and the theories discussed in this paper were developed in the global north. The cultural positionality of these theories informs the context in which this standard is applied. Despite this, the term can be used as a foundational framework to understand the hegemonic narrative regarding normative sexualities in these social contexts.
Part I - Amatonormativity
Before examining the role amatonormativity has played in the development of sexuality theory, I first define amatonormativity, concepts linked to amatonormativity, and the explicit association that Brake uses when connecting amatonormativity to sexuality. The concept denotes how historically and in contemporary societies there is an expectation for romantic relationships to take precedence over other forms of relationships, for example friendships or colleagues (Brake 2012). Brake (2012:88-89) defines amatonormativity as the assumption that “a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative”, indicating that there is primacy for these relationships and trying to form such relationships. The amatonormative assumption exists in every stratum of culture, from policy to individual choices (Brake 2012).
People who do not fit this model of prioritizing a central, exclusive, and amorous relationship are marginalized (Budgeon 2008; Brake 2012). This idea is reinforced by how “single”-ness is pathologized, as it is seen as being undesirable and there being something wrong with the single individual (DePaulo 2007; Budgeon 2008). Further, cultural expectations and social processes are set up to benefit people who are amatonormative (Brake 2012). There is a compulsory element to be amatonormative because various economic and cultural institutions benefit those in coupled relationships (Brake 2012). Examples of this include economic benefits for married couples, ability to co-parent, and avoiding the stigmatization of singleness (Budgeon 2008).
As suggested by her title, the focus of Brake’s work is on marriage. However, amatonormativity is not exclusive to marriage, rather amatonormativity is a conceptual framework that signifies the “the couple” as the ideal relationship form. Marriage is the social processes that anchors amatonormative structures (Brake 2012). The relationship escalator model is useful here; it suggests coupled relationships normatively follow a standard progression, beginning from attraction to dating and eventually to marriage (Gahran 2017). Sexual involvement is an additional expectation in the relationship escalator (Gahran 2017). This model is implicitly amatonormative because it traces the development of the couple, and is further emboldened by heteronormative notions. Brake argues that amatonormativity is attached to heteronormativity because the “exclusive dyadic relationships are a heterosexual ideal” (Brake 2012:80). While it is not necessary to be heterosexual to be amatonormative, power structures, such as gender inequalities, that are built by heteronormativity are reinforced by amatonormative notions. Those who are coupled within an amatonormative system exude couple privilege, just as those who are heterosexual claim hetero-privilege (Budgeon 2008). In short, amatonormativity frames the romantic couple as the most desirable and privileged relationship type within a social system.
The emphasis on romantic love is embedded in all strata of culture. For example, the default conception of “love” is understood to be romantic love, and this is reflected in cultural mass media such as movies and music (Brake 2012). Marriage is the amatonormative ideal in terms of cultural expectations, and marriage is both formed and produced by the amatonormative conceptual framework (Brake 2012). Couple culture further dominates the expectations of how people ought to live their lives, those who do not want to be in couples are perceived as lacking in some way (Budgeon 2008). Amatonormativity has a real-world effect as the assumption to be monogamously coupled limits individuals’ connections and benefits state and capitalist social institutions (De las Heras 2019).
Romantic relationships framed by amatonormativity are required to be monogamous, thereby amatonormativity includes compulsory monogamy (De las Heras 2019). Consequently, non-monogamous relationship styles, such as polyamory, are marginalized and stigmatized (Klesse 2007). As Perel (2017) discusses, relationships and marriages are often disturbed by acts of cheating and affairs; this disruption is evidence that monogamy is the dominant discourse around romantic relationships. Exclusive monogamy fits a heterosexual ideal which limits the experiences of those who identify as polyamorous (Klesse 2007) and negatively affects bisexual people who, under compulsory monogamy, only experience one facet of their sexuality due to monogamous confines (Klesse 2018).
Brake (2012) argues that amatonormativity situates the moral boundaries in which sexuality can occur without social condemnation. There is a linkage between sex and amatonormativity, such that amatonormativity relegates normative sexual practice to coupled relationship formations (Brake 2012). An example of this is how there are certain relationships in which “having sex” is implied as part of the nature of the relationship: “boyfriend” and “wife” are constructed coupled relationships that propose sexuality as an implicit aspect of the relationship. In contrast, the relationship “friend with benefits” needs the sexual qualifier of “benefits” because the normative construction of friend exists without a sexual element. The language of the relationship implies sexual engagement. Brake (2012) also argues that religious structures and constructions of morality enforce the ideal of sex within marriage; the Christian ideal of “waiting for marriage” is an explicit indicator that in some social contexts marriage and sex are inseparably linked. Amatonormativity is deeply embedded in power structures and hegemonic systems of sexuality.
Part II - Amatonormativity and Theory
The previous section described the amatonormative framework. This section discusses the development of social theories of sexuality with direct reference to amatonormativity. While amatonormativity is a relatively new concept, there have been ideas akin to amatonormativity in past social theories which can be better explained by the explicit usage of the amatonormative framework. This essay argues that amatonormativity can be better understood through the development of social theories of sexuality, but can also re-frame and strengthen past theories.
Brake (2012) emphasizes that sexuality is socially regarded within the confines of the amatonormative couple. Foucault’s work in A History of Sexuality: Volume 1(1978) provides a conceptual framework through a historical tracing process for how sexuality came to be constructed through knowledge. I argue that Foucault’s discourse can contribute to a more complete understanding of amatonormativity. Foucault (1978) traces how sexuality became constructed through power structures in changing patterns over time; he argues that sexuality became strategically produced in certain domains, and one way this was done was through the socialization of procreative behavior by means of the Malthusian couple (Foucault 1978).
The frameworks of deployment of alliance and deployment of sexuality are prominent in understanding how the sexuality theories developed in reference to amatonormativity. The deployment of alliance is the system in which marriage and kinship are used to link and structure social bonds whereas the deployment of sexuality is the amorphous system that is linked to the body and pleasure (Foucault 1978). While the two systems are distinct, Foucault (1978) argued that as sexuality became constructed, the deployment of sexuality became intertwined with the deployment of the alliance. Foucault (1978:108) states “‘sexuality’ was…born of a technology of power that was originally focused on alliance”, indicating the alliance, specifically the family unit informed by the married Malthusian couple, became the primary system in which sexuality was deployed. In other words, knowledge regarding sexuality was constructed within the social boundaries of marriage.
Amatonormativity enlightens Foucault’s work as it is a conceptual framework for how sexuality became constructed, maintained, and socially permitted through the family. The deployment of sexuality existed in conjunction with the Malthusian couple as the married husband/wife axis of the family endured with the social expectation to reproduce (Foucault 1978). Sexuality’s dependency on the alliance has still not changed, as sexuality has always relied on the deployment of alliance for support, the terms systemically linked (Foucault 1978). Foucault's deployments are echoed in Brake (2012), where she claims the amatonormative couple is the domain in which sexuality is most socially recognized as morally legitimate.
Foucault’s framework is not fully compatible with the amatonormative framework as he does not discuss the concept of the amorous relationship. While Foucault (1978:108) does state that “the family has become an obligatory locus of affects, feelings, and love” and confirms the mononormativity of marriage by arguing extramarital affairs constitute confession, the emphasis on the primacy of amorous relationships goes understated. Foucault's (1978) historical tracing describes marriage primarily as an economic alliance that holds society together through the socialization of procreative behavior within coupling. The conceptual synergy of love and marriage arose more recently.
To show how the concept of marriage changes over time, Perel (2017) traces the development of marriage from being primarily an economic alliance to something that had the social expectations of love and romance. Over time and due to changing social processes, marriage developed from being primarily an economic alliance, to a union based on compassion and intimacy (Perel 2017). This newer conception of marriage still carried traditional standards such as monogamy and defined gender roles (Perel 2017). The standard narrative argues that non-married romantic couples are expected to conform to these norms as amatonormative couples are, in theory, preparing for marriage through the relationship escalator (Gahran 2017). While the alliance has historically been linked to marriage, in contemporary culture, the construct of the romantic couple is regarded as an alliance.
Amatonormativity, thereby, produces a form of alliance within the couple in which sexuality is deployed. The couple is no longer exclusively driven by the social requirement of reproduction, however, the relationship escalator (Gahran 2017) suggests that children are a part of the normative relationship narrative. Despite this, the deployment of sexuality still supplants the deployment of alliance and therefore sexuality is still constructed and hegemonically regarded inside the boundaries of the coupling structure.
The previous paragraphs argued that the modern amatonormative couple is a deployment of alliance in which sexuality is deployed and because of this historical tracing the heterosexual couple still exists as the dominant domain in which sexuality is understood. Amatonormativity can contribute to further development of social theories around sexuality as it intersects with the power structure of heteronormativity.
Brake (2012) compares amatonormativity’s dominant narrative directly to Rich’s (1980) conceptual framework of compulsory heterosexuality. Compulsory heterosexuality, the expectation that there is the default standard to be heterosexual, renders the existence of non-heterosexual peoples invisible (Rich 1980). The idea of compulsion within sexuality is a significant development in social theory, as it does two things: it indicates what the dominant narrative of cultural expectation is and it marginalizes those who do not meet that expectation (Rich 1980). Rich’s model has been used to inform other forms of compulsory sexuality in theory such as compulsory able-bodiedness (McRuer 2006) and compulsory monogamy (Klesse 2007). Amatonormativity can be best understood as compulsory coupledom. The compulsory heteronormativity model shows how people who do not fit the standard compulsory expectation are rendered invisible. People who are single are often ignored, stigmatized, and stereotyped as being less happy and less successful compared to people belonging to couples as depicted through cultural narratives (DePaulo 2007). Additionally, compulsion forces people to conform to a certain standard, even if it is not their personal preference or because social narratives and power dynamics force one to fit a standard (Rich 1980; Budgeon 2008; Brake 2012). Brake (2012) notes that amatonormativity might compel someone to be in a couple that they might not be compatible with because it is socially advantageous to be coupled than single.
Compulsory heterosexuality exists as a systemic social institution as it is codified in laws, expectations, family structures, and gender performance (Rich 1980). Brake (2012) compares amatonormativity to heteronormativity as they both rely on the ideal narrative of dyadic heterosexual ideals. The two reinforce one another but remain distinct; amatonormativity sets an expectation for coupledom (Brake 2012) whereas heteronormativity sets an expectation for heterosexual practice and desire (Rich 1980). These power systems do intersect in that they contribute to the dominant hegemonic sexual narrative.
Hegemonies dictate what is considered standard within a social system. Heterosexuality thereby is the dominant system that affects individuals and groups within a system but also comprises other standards such as monogamy (Klesse 2007). Hegemonic narratives not only have a normalizing effect, but they also depend on the suppression of alternative ways of being (Smith 1994). Compulsory heterosexuality is the institution that negates the experience of queer people (Rich 1980), as such, amatonormativity suppresses the experience of asexual, polyamorous, and single people (Brake 2012). Sexual relationships are always formed within the confines of the hegemonic heterosexual discourse, so queer, non-monogamous sexual relationships challenge the dominance of sexuality because they disregard both compulsory monogamy and compulsory heterosexuality (Klesse 2007).
The hegemonic discourse of amatonormativity relegates socially preferred sexual practice to the domain of the couple (Brake 2012). An example of how amatonormativity manifests as the hegemonic narrative can be found in Rubin’s (1984) charmed circle. In this model, Rubin (1984) demonstrated which sexual practices were socially acceptable (inside the circle) and which practices were stigmatized (outside the circle) in her cultural context. Amatonormativity’s couple ideal is present in the charmed circle as three of the binary sectors: Married/In Sin, Coupled/Alone or in Group, and In a Relationship/Casual. This model serves as an example of how the couple has been part of the hegemonic discourse within Rubin’s positionality, thereby stigmatizing singleness and group relationships.
Amatonormativity can further illuminate power configurations linked to sex, sexuality, and gender within the heteronormative matrix. The heteronormative matrix is the interplay between gender, sexuality, power structures, institutions, and cultural expectations that develop and reinforce sex, sexuality, and gender binaries (Butler 1990). Butler (1990) emphasizes the role that compulsory heterosexuality has in the social construction of sexuality and gender as they are constructed so that they reinforce one another through regulatory fictions. As such, Butler (1990) suggests gender is an embodied performance and ongoing discursive practice which is determined by multiple social forces which shape and reinforce these performances.
Butler (1990) argues that because the hegemonic narrative about what sex looks like is patriarchal and heterosexist, regulatory fictions are utilized to reinforce gender binaries. Further, heteronormative institutions rely on there being a distinct difference between the construct of the masculine and the feminine; heterosexuality requires a binary (Butler 1990). Amatonormativity enforces the heteronormative institution because the couple perfectly reproduces gender binaries through the coupled gender roles of the husband and wife. This conjecture of gender, sex, and sexuality all intersect with one another, building an interwoven power structure that is the heteronormative matrix (Butler 1990); the couple and institution of marriage are embedded in this matrix because gender roles, sexualities, economic incentives, are all enforced by the compliance to be in a monogamous, amorous, heterosexual relationship.
Amatonormativity aids in the construction of the heteronormative ideal. Amatonormativity can elucidate the heteronormative matrix by setting narrative confines for how sexed bodies are constructed to interact within a heteronormative system. Butler (1990:13) notes “limits are always set within the terms of a hegemonic cultural discourse predicated on a binary structure that appears as the language of universal rationality”. This universal rationalism is central in Brake’s (2012) work because she argues the amorous relationship is constructed as a universal desire and that structures such as monogamy are rational within the confines of the heterosexually hegemonic system. Heterosexual desire intersects with amatonormative desire. The universal rationality is based upon the construct of Foucault’s (1978) gendered alliance; sexuality has been understood through this initial deployment of sexuality through alliance, and since then the heterosexual matrix of sexualities and gender has kept power dynamics constant through compulsory heteronormativity and amatonormativity.
Amatonormativity can reframe the development of recent theoretical work on the topic of asexuality. Sexual normativity is implied within the amatonormative system because coupledom is the domain where sexuality is deployed. Because there is the expectation to be coupled, there is the expectation to be sexual. Sexusociety is the conceptual term that suggests sexual expectations are ingrained in every part of the contemporary world (Przybylo 2011). Sexusociety and amatonormativity are conceptual frames that intersect as they reinforce each other and both marginalize those with asexual identities.Sexuality is the result of repeated behaviors, where certain repetitions are favored and therefore considered “good” within the Sexusociety: heteronormative, coupled, and valued (Przybylo 2011). This is linked to the Butlerian sense of performativity, in that sex is performed by the actors in society (Butler 1990); gender binaries, and sexualities are reinforced and repeated by performative behavior. Przybylo (2011) argues that the favored repetitions enforce the idea that sexuality should be valued. Sexusociety’s discourse suggests sexuality ought to be a part of the lived experience of people's lives and that not valuing sex is an indicator of pathology. Wanting to have sex is normative because it is the result of repeated, favored actions within the boundaries of the heteronormative matrix (Przybylo 2011).
Asexuality is disruptive within sexusocity’s matrix because it shows the hollowness of sexuality (Przybylo 2011). Przybylo (2011) suggests that Bauldrillard’s theoretical framework of hyperreality could be applied to sexuality. Hyperreality is the social theory where “the real” is replaced by the repeated constructions of imagined real (Baudrillard 1994) Przybylo (2011) makes sense of this by suggesting sexuality is the result of repeating signs and systems referencing only other repetitions. Asexuality highlights this because it shows repetitions are references without a referent (Przybylo 2011). Amatonormativity enables sexusociety because it sets the culturally approved boundaries to be sexual. The hyperreality of relationships can be paired with the hyperreality of sex as continual repetitions of references without a referent. Amorous relationships are so codified in media, institutions, and social processes, (Brake 2012) and serve as signifiers where the couple and the sexual expectations of the couple are repeated. These repetitions give credence to marriage and the relationship escalator and act as social regulators to support the heteronormative matrix. Using the hyperreality model (Baudrillard 1994), The couple can be understood as a construct without a reference point. Aligned with Przybylo (2011), the repeated actions of sexuality are akin to the repeated actions of the couple, the relationship escalator is held together by the constraint that the couple is the relationship in which to practice sexuality. Just as Przybylo (2011) suggests that asexuality indicates the hollowness of sexual practice as hyperreality, asexuality, the choice to be single, and other forms of non-coupled relationships including relationship anarchy, polyamory, and consensual non-monogamy indicate the hollowness of the couple structure. The couple, in the Baudrillardian sense, exists as simulation, enforced by the heterosexual matrix informed by amatonormativity.
Contemporary developments in theory regarding asexuality and non-monogamies show how the amatonormative system is being challenged. Foucault (1978) discusses how resistance is not one unified movement, but rather a collection of various points within a system of power. As a model for this, Rich (1980) identifies how lesbian existence is a form of dissent from heteronormative power structures. Asexuality challenges sex normativity within the sexusociety (Przybylo, 2011) which disrupts sexual normativity implicit in couples. Further, polyamorous relationship structures disrupt compulsory monogamy (Klesse 2007) which is embedded in amatonormative systems. Bisexual women in heteronormative couples can engage in same-sex practice within polyamory (Klesse 2018) which challenges both the “hetero” in heteronormativity as well as its implied monogamy. Lastly, the development of relationship anarchy questions the hierarchical structure of amatonormativity, as relationship anarchists attempt to keep all relationships at a constant level without prioritization (De las Heras 2019). These contemporary theories suggest points of potential changes in the amatonormative social structure.
Part III - Amatonormativity’s Limitations
Amatonormativity is a useful conceptual framework for discussing the development of theories around sexuality. However, there are limitations within the framework. Amatonormativity is primarily limited by a lack of conceptual clarity. In Brake’s definition, she states that “amorous relationships” are the shared goal. However, the concept of amorous is never fully defined. This limitation is alleviated partially based on what I discussed around Baudrillard, where there is a hollowness in the idea of an amorous relationship as it is the repeating of symbols. Despite this, the concept of “amorous” central to amatonormativity remains ambiguous in the framework. Perhaps removing the concept of amorous and highlighting the construct of “the couple” would be conducive for conceptual clarity.
The assumptions of universality in amatonormativity are further limitations in Brake’s work. Amatonormativity is a framework that can be applied to various social contexts; however, ideas like romance and monogamy might only be relevant within certain cultural contexts. This framework was developed in the global north, so universalizing relationship structures and how people prioritize relationships is coming from this geographic and cultural positionality. Despite this limitation, amatonormativity is a theory that can be helpful in explaining the conditions of the society which is amatonormative.
Brake (2012) also suggests that in the amatonormative structure romantic relationships should take precedence over other forms of relationships. This assumption ignores different life stages. For example, the parent-child relationship might take more of a central role in one’s life while one is raising a child. I do believe the framework is helpful in naming the centrality of the romantic relationship as an overall lifelong expectation, however, there are certain stages in one’s life where the romantic relationship might not be expected to take centrality in one’s life.
A final limitation of amatonormativity is how the framework does not explicitly include the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989). Amatonormativity’s focus does extend to gender and sexualities, but the framework of amatonormativity is narrowly focused on the social marker of relationship status ignoring intersectional experiences such as race, socioeconomic status, and disability. More of an emphasis on incorporating intersectionality into the amatonormative framework would help in theoretical application.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, amatonormativity is a valuable model that contributes to the development of sexual theory. The consequences of amatonormativity are deeply embedded within various institutions and illuminate how couple privilege exists. The narrative that it is better to be in a couple, might force people to be in a couple despite not wishing to be and therefore, people may settle in relationship patterns that do not match individual preference (Budgeon 2008). Further, amatonormativity marginalizes those with non-dominant identities, such as asexual and polyamorous people (Brake 2012; De las Heras 2020). Amatonormativity is an element of the heteronormative matrix that reinforces gender binaries and inequalities. I believe that recognizing how amatonormativity is embedded in power structures and how it benefits the institution of heteronormativity allows one to question cultural assumptions and that it is a valuable tool for acknowledging and challenging dominant narratives of how one should live their life.
This paper discussed how theories of sexuality have developed in reference to amatonormativity and presented an argument for an advanced theoretical approach. I argued that compulsory heterosexuality and the matrix of desire are influenced, normalized, and reproduced through intersections with amatonormativity. Amatonormativity indicates how sexuality is still deployed primarily through the coupled system, and therefore put couples in privileged positions. Amatonormativity is a valuable way to frame and regard social theories of sexuality and should be critically acknowledged for future theories of sexuality.
References:
Baudrillard, J. (1994) Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Brake, E. (2012) Minimizing marriage: marriage, morality, and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budgeon, S. (2008)"Couple culture and the production of singleness”. Sexualities, 11(3), pp. 301-325.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity, New York: Routledge
Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A BlackFeminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139: 139-168. Reprinted in: A. Phillips, ed. 1998. Feminism and Politics Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314-343.
De las Heras Gómez, R. (2019) "Thinking relationship anarchy from a queer feminist approach". Sociological Research Online, 24(4), pp. 644-660.
DePaulo, B. (2007) Singled out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Gahran, A. (2017) Stepping off the relationship escalator: uncommon love and life. Boulder: Off the Escalator.
Foucault, M. (1978) The history of sexuality. vol 1: the will to knowledge. London: Penguin Press
Klesse, C. (2007) The spectre of promiscuity: gay male and bisexual non-monogamies and polyamories. Burlington VT: Ashgate:
Klesse, C. (2018) "Toward a genealogy of a discourse on women’s erotic autonomy: feminist and queer-feminist critiques of monogamy". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 44(1), pp. 205-231.
McRuer, R. (2006) Crip theory: cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New York University Press.
Perel, E. (2017) The state of affairs: rethinking infidelity. New York: Harper Collins
Przybylo, E. (2011) "Crisis and safety: The asexual in sexusociety". Sexualities, 14(4) pp. 444-461.
Rich, A.C. (1980) "Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence". Signs, 5(4), pp. 631-660.
Rubin, G. (1984) ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’, in C.S. Vance (ed.)(1984) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul) pp.267-319; reprinted in H. Abelove, M.A. Barale and D. Halperin (eds.)(1993) The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (New York: Routledge), Chapter 1, pp.3-44.
Smith, A.M. (1994) ‘Hegemony trouble: the political theories of Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Cahntal Mouffe’, in J. Weeks (ed), The Lesser Evil and the Greater Good: The Theory and Politics of Social Diversity, Rivers Oman Press, London, pp. 222-234.
Comments