Relationship anarchy

A framework where no relationship is ranked above another by default. Romantic, sexual, platonic, and caregiving relationships are all valid on their own terms, with commitments designed by the people in them rather than inherited from cultural scripts.

Also known as RA, Relationship anarchist.

What relationship anarchy actually covers

The term was coined by Swedish writer and activist Andie Nordgren in a 2006 pamphlet, Relationsanarki i 8 punkter (Relationship Anarchy in 8 Points). The English translation landed on Tumblr in 2012 and has been circulating ever since.

The core principles Nordgren laid out: love is abundant and loving one person doesn't deplete what you can give another; don't rank relationships and cherish each one for what it is, not where it sits in a hierarchy; one person doesn't need to be named your "primary" for the relationship to be real; organize relationships around desire to meet and explore each other, not around duties, demands, and disappointment when those aren't met; design your own commitments and don't inherit them from what society says a relationship of a given shape "should" include.

The radical move is that last one. Most frameworks for thinking about relationships tell you that if X, then Y. If you're romantic partners, then you should be sexually exclusive. If you're married, then you should cohabit. If you're best friends, then you shouldn't share finances. RA rejects the if/then. You negotiate each commitment individually with each person. Shared finances with a close friend? Fine. Separate homes with a romantic partner? Fine. The shape of the relationship follows the needs, not the other way around.

RA is distinct from non-hierarchical polyamory, even though they overlap. Non-hierarchical poly removes the ranking inside romantic relationships (no primary, no secondary). RA goes one step further and removes the ranking between romantic and non-romantic relationships. A deep friendship can be as central as a romance. It often is. RA calls the default assumption that romance automatically trumps friendship amatonormativity, and rejects it.

Wikipedia notes that RA is "commonly, but not always, non-monogamous." The framework doesn't require multiple partners. Some relationship anarchists practice effectively monogamous romantic lives because that's what fits. The point isn't how many partners. It's the refusal to accept the default script.

Where people get it wrong

RA isn't "no commitment." Nordgren's manifesto is explicit about this: "Relationship anarchy is not about never committing to anything. It's about designing your own commitments with the people around you." The commitments are opt-in rather than inherited. That's a different thing from absent.

RA isn't a fancy word for "casual." Relationship anarchists can and do build life-long entanglements, raise kids, buy houses together. They just don't assume those things come as a package because they're romantically involved.

RA isn't the same as non-hierarchical polyamory. Non-hierarchical poly still privileges romantic relationships as a category. RA doesn't. A friend can be your most important person. A romantic partner can be peripheral. Both are equally legible.

RA isn't "anti-monogamy." Some relationship anarchists are functionally monogamous by current choice. The framework is about where structure comes from (designed vs inherited), not about partner count.

Related terms you'll see

• Non-hierarchical polyamory

  Shares RA's rejection of primary/secondary ranking within romantic relationships, but usually keeps romantic relationships as their own distinct category.

• Relationship escalator

  The default cultural script that says relationships must progress through fixed stages. RA rejects the script entirely.

• Solo polyamory

  Overlapping but not identical. Solo poly people often keep romantic relationships as their primary category; many relationship anarchists do not.

Frequently asked questions