Polyamory in Black: A Companion Justification for Minimal Marriage

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Justin L. Clardy
{"title":"Polyamory in Black: A Companion Justification for Minimal Marriage","authors":"Justin L. Clardy","doi":"10.1111/japp.12749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A number of Black writers have cast Black marriage in a state of emergency – Black folks are not getting (or staying) married like they used to. Yet in seeking to address the Black marriage problem many have left marriage's ‘monogamous‐only’ condition unexamined. In this article, I take a different approach. I draw on a long‐standing prevalence of <jats:italic>de facto</jats:italic> non‐monogamy among those marked Black and argue that the numerical constraint making marriage between two people violates equal treatment. To make the case, I show how anti‐non‐monogamy attitudes have been racialized in ways that are expressive of anti‐Blackness. In my view, the effects of this racialization include ongoing and disproportionate impacts on an already burdened group – Black polyamorists. A failure to reform the monogamous‐only condition of marriage tacitly endorses anti‐non‐monogamous attitudes of the past where Black intimate relationships were thought inferior and therefore deserving of an inferior social standing. Finally, I look to an account of minimal marriage as a site of possibility for establishing a marriage institution that is more just in relation to equal treatment and a site of repair for racialized non‐monogamists whose historical denial to accessing marriage has had the effect of accumulated social and political disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12749","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A number of Black writers have cast Black marriage in a state of emergency – Black folks are not getting (or staying) married like they used to. Yet in seeking to address the Black marriage problem many have left marriage's ‘monogamous‐only’ condition unexamined. In this article, I take a different approach. I draw on a long‐standing prevalence of de facto non‐monogamy among those marked Black and argue that the numerical constraint making marriage between two people violates equal treatment. To make the case, I show how anti‐non‐monogamy attitudes have been racialized in ways that are expressive of anti‐Blackness. In my view, the effects of this racialization include ongoing and disproportionate impacts on an already burdened group – Black polyamorists. A failure to reform the monogamous‐only condition of marriage tacitly endorses anti‐non‐monogamous attitudes of the past where Black intimate relationships were thought inferior and therefore deserving of an inferior social standing. Finally, I look to an account of minimal marriage as a site of possibility for establishing a marriage institution that is more just in relation to equal treatment and a site of repair for racialized non‐monogamists whose historical denial to accessing marriage has had the effect of accumulated social and political disadvantage.
黑色多角恋最低限度婚姻的配套理由
一些黑人作家将黑人婚姻置于紧急状态--黑人不再像过去那样结婚(或维持婚姻)。然而,在寻求解决黑人婚姻问题的过程中,许多人对婚姻的 "一夫一妻制 "条件未加审视。在本文中,我将采取不同的方法。我从黑人中长期普遍存在的事实上的非一夫一妻制出发,论证了二人婚姻的数量限制违反了平等待遇。为了证明这一点,我展示了反一夫一妻制的态度是如何以反黑人的方式被种族化的。在我看来,这种种族化的影响包括对黑人多配偶者这个本已负担沉重的群体造成持续且不成比例的影响。如果不改革一夫一妻制的婚姻条件,就会默认过去的反非一夫一妻制态度,认为黑人的亲密关系低人一等,因此理应享有低下的社会地位。最后,我将最低限度婚姻的论述视为建立一种在平等待遇方面更加公正的婚姻制度的可能性场所,以及种族化的非一夫一妻主义者的修复场所,他们在历史上被剥夺了获得婚姻的机会,从而造成了累积的社会和政治劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信