Hierarchy in Polyamory

Sustainable Relationships

Understanding Hierarchy in Polyamory

In polyamory, hierarchy refers to the prioritization of one relationship over others, either through explicit agreements or unspoken dynamics that elevate certain partnerships. Hierarchy can take different forms, sometimes characterized by the concept of a “primary” relationship – one that holds more significance or influence than other relationships. While hierarchy may offer some people a sense of clarity or stability, it often creates constraints that shape the dynamics of every relationship involved.

Hierarchy introduces a ranking system that positions relationships in order of importance. This structure can influence how individuals relate to one another, how decisions are made, and how time, emotional energy, and resources are allocated. Whether explicitly stated or subtly implied, hierarchy affects relationships, often in ways that prioritize one connection while limiting others.

Intentional Hierarchy

Intentional hierarchy occurs when relationships are explicitly structured to prioritize one partnership over others. This may involve agreements, labels, or rules that establish a clear ranking of importance. Some common mechanisms of intentional hierarchy include:

• Hierarchical Labels

  Relationships are assigned hierarchical titles such as “primary,” “secondary,” etc.; those with “higher” titles are given priority in decision-making, time allocation, and emotional commitment. Secondary partners may be less central or subject to conditions set by the primary relationship.

• Veto Power

  Veto power allows a partner to influence or terminate their partner’s other relationships. This veto may be overt, such as a direct request to end a relationship, or subtle, where pursuing another connection leads to emotional consequences – such as guilt, withdrawal, or conflict – within the primary relationship. In either case, veto power places significant control in the hands of one person, often at the expense of others’ autonomy.

• Rules

  Intentional hierarchy often involves rules that govern how other relationships can unfold. These rules are often disguised as agreements and might include guidelines about how much time can be spent with other partners, what types of activities are allowed, or even how emotions are shared. While framed as protective measures, these agreements frequently serve to reinforce the primary relationship’s dominance.

Intentional hierarchy introduces a structured framework that explicitly limits how relationships can evolve.

Inherent Hierarchy

Inherent hierarchy arises in the dynamics of some relationships. It is not necessarily the result of explicit agreements but rather a byproduct of shared circumstances, proximity, and alignment. Common factors that contribute to inherent hierarchy include:

• Shared Resources

  Partners who share significant resources, such as housing, finances, or parenting responsibilities, often find their relationship holding more practical influence. This prioritization is not always deliberate but stems from the logistics of shared life circumstances.

• Couples Privilege

  Long-term, cohabiting, or legally recognized relationships benefit from societal and relational advantages, often referred to as couples privilege. For example, these relationships may naturally default to greater time allocation, decision-making power, and social legitimacy, sidelining non-cohabiting or less entangled partners.

• Alignment and History

  Relationships built on years of history, emotional closeness, and shared networks often take on a central role simply due to familiarity and alignment. This inherent prioritization may not be explicit but can still shape how other relationships are valued and treated.

Inherent hierarchy’s effects on relationships can be impactful. Partners may feel excluded from decisions, undervalued in comparison to more enmeshed relationships, or constrained by logistical realities. Without intentional effort to address these dynamics, inherent hierarchy can create significant inequity.

How Hierarchy Limits Autonomy

Autonomy – the ability to make independent choices and shape one’s relationships without undue influence – is a cornerstone of polyamory. However, hierarchy innately limits autonomy by imposing structures and dynamics that prioritize one relationship over others. Whether intentional or inherent, hierarchy creates conditions where individuals’ freedom to connect, grow, and participate equitably is constrained.

Rigid Frameworks

In hierarchical structures, relationships can be confined to roles and expectations that limit their ability to evolve. 

• Intentional hierarchy often involves rules and agreements that define what is permissible in other relationships. These rules enforce a ranking system that curtails the freedom of other partners.

• Inherent hierarchy may be less formalized but still creates default prioritization based on shared resources or life circumstances. This dynamic may prevent relationships from reaching their full potential, as they are shaped by the pre-existing conditions of another relationship.

Both forms of hierarchy reduce the ability of individuals to shape their relationships organically, instead binding them to predetermined structures designed to uphold the existing order.

Self-Censorship and Suppression of Needs

Hierarchy often pressures individuals to adjust their behavior to avoid disrupting the pecking order.

• Partners may hesitate to ask for more time, affection, or commitment, fearing they will be seen as overstepping boundaries or destabilizing another relationship. This can lead to relationships that feel stunted or one-sided.

• Even those within so-called prioritized relationships often find their autonomy reduced. A partner might want to deepen a connection with someone else but feel unable to do so without upsetting their partner or violating agreements. This can happen within intentional and inherent hierarchy.

  • In intentional hierarchy, agreements or rules designed to “protect” the primary relationship may prevent a partner from pursuing new connections freely. For instance, they may need to inform their partner before engaging in certain activities with another partner, or they may face restrictions on how much time or emotional energy they can devote to someone else. While these agreements are often framed as mutual, they can create a sense of obligation or guilt, limiting the autonomy of both partners within the relationship.

  • In inherent hierarchy, these limitations may arise more subtly, often tied to shared life circumstances. For example, a cohabiting partner might avoid inviting another partner to their home, knowing it could disrupt the household dynamic. Or a partner might hesitate to plan a vacation with someone else because of expectations about shared responsibilities in the home.

Uneven Emotional Landscapes

Hierarchy can limit autonomy by creating imbalances in how emotions are prioritized:

• The feelings of one partner may be given more weight than another. Jealousy, discomfort, or insecurity within one relationship may take precedence over the joy or growth experienced in another connection.

• The emotional needs of a cohabiting or shared-life partner may dominate decision-making because of the logistics and shared routines of the relationship.

These uneven emotional landscapes force individuals to adjust their behavior and emotional expression to avoid upsetting the hierarchy, limiting their ability to fully advocate for their needs.

Loss of Freedom Within the Prioritized Relationship

A common misconception is that hierarchy benefits those in so-called prioritized relationships by giving them greater security or control. However, hierarchy significantly reduces the autonomy of those within the prioritized relationship as well. 

• Partners who live together may feel obligated to consult each other about decisions involving other partners, such as whether someone can visit their shared home, attend a family gathering, go on a vacation, etc. This can create a dynamic where each person’s autonomy is constrained by the other’s expectations and comfort.

• Shared resources like finances or parenting responsibilities may force partners to compromise on decisions that would otherwise be independent, reducing their ability to engage freely with other partners.

The Illusion of Stability

Hierarchy is sometimes framed as a way to provide stability in relationships, but this stability is illusory. The rigid frameworks of hierarchy may temporarily create a sense of order, but they cannot prevent relationships from evolving or changing. In fact:

• Hierarchical structures often exacerbate instability by fostering dependency, suppressing autonomy, and creating resentment among both prioritized and non-prioritized partners.

• Relationships governed by hierarchy are more fragile and conditional, as they rely on maintaining control and order rather than embracing flexibility and adaptability.

This illusion of stability often comes at the cost of relational freedom, reducing the ability of individuals to engage authentically with one another.

Hierarchy Can Be Multi-Faceted

Different types of hierarchies can coexist within the same relationships, further complicating autonomy and equity.

• A deeply enmeshed partner might inherently hold more practical influence due to shared resources and proximity but the emotions of a less enmeshed partner may be prioritized. This could happen if there is a strong emotional connection to the less enmeshed partner and a desire to reassure them of their importance, leading to the complex dynamics of competing prioritization.

• Intentional and inherent hierarchies can operate simultaneously, amplifying the constraints on autonomy. A relationship might have explicit rules about time management (intentional) while also including the natural prioritization that comes with cohabitation (inherent). These overlapping hierarchies can make it challenging for partners to navigate their relationships without feeling confined by multiple layers of influence.

• Hierarchies may shift depending on the context. A partner might feel inherently prioritized in everyday decisions like finances or parenting but less prioritized when it comes to emotional support or romantic gestures, which are given priority in another relationship. These shifts in prioritization can create confusion and feelings of inequity for everyone involved.

The Competitive Nature of Hierarchy

Hierarchy fosters competition among partners by creating a ranking system, i.e. a pecking order. This structure positions partners in a comparative framework, often leading to the perception – whether intentional or not – that love and emotional energy are limited resources that must be allocated based on standing. This is a result of scarcity mindset, which undermines trust, stability, and relational freedom.

When hierarchy establishes clear distinctions between relationships, it often encourages partners to measure themselves against one another. This comparison can lead to:

• Validation seeking: Partners may feel the need to continually prove their worth, going above and beyond to maintain their connection. This might involve suppressing their needs, avoiding conflict, or overcompensating through emotional labor, all to secure their place within the hierarchy.

• Feelings of inadequacy: Partners may question whether they are as important, valued, or prioritized as someone else, leading to self-doubt, eroded self- esteem, and insecurity. This is especially common when overt rules or implicit dynamics seem to favor one relationship over others.

• Fear of replacement: Hierarchy exacerbates the fear that someone else might “take one’s spot.” This dynamic creates an environment of insecurity rather than emotional safety. It can make a relationship transition feel like a demotion or a promotion instead of a natural evolution of the connection.

• Emotional hoarding: Partners may attempt to monopolize their partner’s time or affection, fearing that it will diminish if shared too broadly. This can create tension and resentment among other partners, who may feel shut out or neglected.

• Time gatekeeping: A partner may expect first claim for shared time or activities, leading to rigid scheduling that reinforces the sense of competition for limited resources.

These competitive elements are further fueled by emotional prioritization.

• If a hinge partner consistently prioritizes the emotions or needs of one partner over others, it can foster resentment and amplify feelings of inequity. A partner who is always asked to defer to someone else’s discomfort, jealousy, or preferences may feel undervalued and less important.

• Emotional prioritization can also destabilize relationships when one partner perceives that their connection is being unfairly deprioritized or dismissed. This can lead to conflicts that ripple out, undermining relational harmony.

Hierarchy tends to frame relationships in the very mononormative paradigm of a zero-sum game. Instead of focusing on the unique value that each connection brings, partners may feel caught in a cycle of comparison and anxiety about losing their “place.”

While hierarchy often arises from a desire for stability, its competitive nature ironically tends to destabilize relationships. The constant need to compete for attention, validation, or emotional priority can erode trust and create ongoing tension. 

• A partner who constantly feels undervalued or excluded may withdraw emotionally, leading to a breakdown in connection

• A hinge partner caught in the middle of competing dynamics may experience burnout, frustration, or guilt, weakening their ability to maintain equitable and supportive relationships

• Partners at the “top” of the hierarchy may feel pressured to maintain their status, leading to controlling behaviors that further strain the relationship

These examples show that hierarchy often creates a double bind: while one partner may feel limited in their ability to deepen connections, another may feel burdened by the responsibility of maintaining their “prioritized” position.

Ultimately, the scarcity mindset and competition that accompany hierarchy create a fragile relational ecosystem. Rather than fostering security, hierarchy breeds insecurity by prioritizing control and winning over trust and openness.

Breaking the Cycle of Competition

To move beyond the competitive dynamics of hierarchy, we must challenge the assumptions that fuel comparison and scarcity. 

1. By acknowledging and valuing all relationships as distinct and non-comparative, it’s possible to reduce feelings of competition and focus on the unique contributions of each connection.

2. Reframe love, time, and emotional energy as adaptable resources that can change and evolve, rather than finite commodities that must be rationed.

3. Encourage hinge partners to be mindful of how their emotional prioritization impacts others. Strive to validate all partners’ emotions equitably and avoid defaulting to the comfort of one partner at the expense of others.

4. Instead of relying on rigid structures, prioritize trust and communication as the foundation for stability. Flexible relationships are more resilient than those bound by control or comparison.

By understanding how hierarchy fosters competition and destabilizes relationships, polyamorous people can work toward creating relationships that prioritize freedom and emotional security. The key lies in recognizing the harmful effects of competition and scarcity, and actively cultivating a culture of abundance and equity.

Is Hierarchy Ethical?

Some argue that hierarchy can be ethical if all partners knowingly consent to it and if the structure is revisited regularly to ensure it continues to serve everyone involved. While consent is an important starting point, it is not sufficient on its own. Ethical structures must also prioritize equity and minimize harm. Hierarchy’s innate tendencies toward control, inequity, and scarcity make this a challenging standard to meet.

The ethics of hierarchy depend on whether it aligns with the values of polyamory. If polyamory is rooted in the principles of relational equity, autonomy, and freedom, then hierarchy – by its very nature – falls short. Egalitarian polyamory offers a more ethical approach by centering these values and fostering relationships that are free to flourish on their own terms. For those who strive to practice egalitarian principles, the journey often involves an ongoing commitment to unlearning hierarchical norms and cultivating a mindset of abundance. These individuals work to ensure that each connection is valued for its unique contributions, rather than being measured against others. Striving for egalitarianism requires open and honest communication, a willingness to navigate complex emotions like jealousy and insecurity, and an intentional focus on equity over control. While the process is not always easy, it allows relationships to grow more authentically.

Egalitarian polyamory requires a commitment to dismantling systems of ranking and restriction, creating space for relationships that are rooted in respect, authenticity, and freedom. By rejecting hierarchy and mitigating it as much as possible, polyamory can fully embody its potential as a liberatory and transformative way to love.

In this sense, those who practice intentional hierarchy are better described as ethically non-monogamous rather than polyamorous. Ethical non-monogamy (ENM) is an umbrella term that encompasses various consensual, non-monogamous relationship types, such as open relationships, swinging, and polyamory. These practices share a commitment to honesty and consent but differ in their focus and values. Polyamory, a specific branch of ENM, emphasizes the capacity to form multiple loving relationships. While intentional hierarchy might be consensual and ethical within the broader scope of ENM, it undermines fundamental values of polyamory.

Balancing Autonomy and Connection

The recognition that all forms of hierarchy compromise autonomy is a big reason why many solo polyamorous people choose not to cohabit or deeply entangle their lives with others. Solo polyamory prioritizes individual agency and the freedom to pursue relationships that are not influenced by shared resources, cohabitation, or enmeshment. By intentionally avoiding nesting or hierarchical arrangements, solo polyamorous people aim to create relationships where autonomy remains fully intact and each connection can flourish without interference from external dynamics.

Yes, autonomy is a cornerstone of polyamory, but it is not the sole measure of fulfilling relationships. Dismantling hierarchy is important for unlearning mononormative conditioning, rejecting competition and scarcity, and leaning into the collaborative and abundant potential of love. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that human connection thrives in enmeshed, aligned relationships and shared lives. For many, deeply intertwining their lives with a partner is not just a choice but a profound expression of love and trust.

It is a blessing to wake up beside someone who feels like home, to share the small, mundane moments and the big-life altering ones too with someone whose presence aligns with your deepest desires for connection and companionship. Humans are social creatures, driven by the need to love and be loved, to nurture and be nurtured. This desire for closeness is not in conflict with the values of autonomy or equity. The challenge is to hold space for both deep intimacy with others and personal agency. It is to reject the idea that sharing lives must come at the expense of individual freedom.

The problem with hierarchy is not the desire to build shared lives, but the way it can perpetuate control, scarcity, exclusivity, and competition. We don’t have to reject enmeshment, interdependence, or shared commitments but we should approach them with intentionality and care. It is possible to honor the beauty of deeply connected relationships while resisting the competition and control that hierarchy can introduce. By embracing collaboration, abundance, and equity, we can create relationships full of love that celebrate both individuality and togetherness.

This means actively challenging the scarcity mindset that tells us love and connection are finite resources to be rationed and protected. It means moving away from competition as a foundation for relational security, instead trusting in the unique and irreplaceable value of your relationship. In this framework, enmeshed relationships are not about dominance or exclusivity but about mutual choice and shared intentionality. They can be partnerships where autonomy and connection coexist, where each person’s individuality is honored even as their lives become intertwined.