Drawing on biographic narrative interviews with self-identified lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or queer polyamorous people in Portugal, this article explores the contradictions and opportunities involved in living as a relationally diverse LGBTQ intimate citizen in Southern Europe. The article starts by unpacking citizenship in relation to dominant sociolegal expectations around monogamy. In this section, it is suggested that the mononormative underpinnings of law and social policy restrain intimate citizenship. The second part of the article explores the legal and cultural meanings attached to coupledom, suggesting the notion of relational performativity as an analytical tool for interpreting cultural norms and expectations around partnering. The last section discusses citizenship and coupledom in light of the biographic narratives produced by LGBTQ polyamorous participants in the INTIMATE study in Portugal. Based on thematic analysis of these narratives, it is argued that the framework of intimate citizenship is not fixed, and the notion of relational citizenship is offered. Arguably, relational citizenship enables a gradual detachment from the strictly monogamous underpinnings of citizenship studies, hence offering an opportunity for further intellectual engagement with intimacy and diversity in the 21st century.
AhmedS (2006) Queer Phenomenology. Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
AnapolD (2010) Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
3.
AndreottiAGarciaSMGomezA, et al. (2001) Does a Southern European model exist?Journal of European Area Studies9(1): 43–62.
4.
BarkerMLangdridgeD (2010) Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities13(6): 748–772.
5.
ButlerJ (1990) Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In: CaseS-E (ed.) Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 519–531.
6.
ButlerJ (2004) Is kinship always already heterosexual? In: ButlerJ (ed.) Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, pp. 102–130.
7.
CardosoDMartinsIRCoelhoS (2013) Debating polyamory as research: An auto-ethnographic account of a round-table on polyamory and lesbianism. LES Online5(1): 20–34.
8.
DeriJ (2015) Love’s Refraction: Jealousy and Compersion in Queer Women’s Polyamorous Relationships. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
9.
EmensE (2004) Monogamy’s law: Compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. Public Law Working Paper no. 58. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
10.
Erickson-SchrothLMitchellJ (2012) Queering queer theory, or why bisexuality matters. In: AlexanderJAnderlini-D’OnofrioS (eds) Bisexuality and Queer Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 105–123.
11.
FerreraM (1996) The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy6(1): 17–37.
12.
GabbJ (2008) Researching Intimacy in Families. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
GiddensA (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14.
GuerreiroMDTorresALoboC (2009) Changing families: Configurations, values and recomposition processes. In: GuerreiroMTorresACapuchaL (eds) Welfare and Everyday Life (Portugal in the European Context, Vol. III), CIES, ISCTE-IUL. Lisbon: Celta Editora, pp. 7–35.
15.
GusmanoB (2018) Coming out in an intersectional perspective: Narratives of bisexuality and polyamory in Italy. Journal of Bisexuality18(1): 15–34.
16.
GustavsonM (2012) Bisexuals in relationships: Uncoupling intimacy from gender ontology. In: AlexanderJAnderlini-D’OnofrioS (eds) Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges. New York: Routledge, pp. 215–238.
17.
HalsaaBRoseneilSSumerS (eds) (2012) Remaking Citizenship in Multicultural Europe: Women’s Movements, Gender and Diversity. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
HantriasLLetabilerMT (2014) Families and Family Policies in Europe. New York: Routledge.
19.
HaritawornJLinCJKlesseC (2006) Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities9(5): 515–529.
20.
KingAAlmackKJonesRL (2019) Intersections of Ageing, Gender and Sexualities: Multidisciplinary International Perspectives. Bristol: Policy Press.
21.
KingAAlmackKSuenY-T (2018) Older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans People: Minding the Knowledge Gaps. New York: Routledge.
22.
KlesseC (2007) The Spectre of Promiscuity: Gay Male and Bisexual Non-monogamies and Polyamories. Aldershot: Ashgate.
23.
KlesseC (2010) Paradoxes in gender relations: [Post] feminism and bisexual polyamory. In: BarkerMLangridgeD (eds) Understanding Non-Monogamies. New York: Routledge, pp. 109–120.
24.
KlesseC (2011) Notions of love in polyamory – Elements in a discourse on multiple loving. Laboratorium3(2): 4–25.
25.
ListerR (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
ListerRWilliamsFAnttonenA, et al. (2007) Gendering Citizenship in Western Europe: New Challenges for Citizenship Research in a Cross-national Context. Bristol: Policy Press.
MonroS (2015) Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories (Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
Pallotta-ChiarolliM (2006) Polyparents having children, raising children, schooling children. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review (International)7(1): 48–53.
30.
PhelanS (2001) Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
31.
PieperMBauerR (2005) Polyamory und Mono-Normativität. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie über nicht-monogame Lebensformen. In: Méritt, Laura; Bührmann, Traude; Schefzig, Najda Boris (Hg.): Mehr als eine Liebe - Polyamouröse Beziehungen. Berlin (Orlanda), S. 59–69.
32.
PlummerK (2003) Intimate Citizenship: Private Discussions and Public Dialogues. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
33.
RambukkanaN (2015) Fraught Intimacies: Non/Monogamy in the Public Sphere. Toronto, ON, Canada: UBC Press.
34.
RichardsonD (2004) Locating sexualities: From here to normality. Sexualities7(4): 391–411.
35.
RichardsonD (2018) Sexuality and Citizenship. Cambridge: Polity Press.
36.
RobinM (2014) Queer BDSM Intimacies: Critical Consent and Pushing Boundaries. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
RoseneilSCrowhurstIHellesundT, et al. (2012) Intimate citizenship and the tenacity of the couple norm: A cross-national analysis. In: Paper presented during the politics of location revisited: Gender@2012, 8th European feminist research conference, 17–20May, Budapest.
38.
RoseneilSCrowhurstIHellesundT, et al. (forthcoming) The Tenacity of the Couple Norm. Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
RoseneilS (2004) Why we should care about friends: An argument for queering the care imaginary in social policy. Social Policy and Society3(4): 409–419.
40.
RoseneilS (2010) Intimate citizenship: A pragmatic, yet radical, proposal for a politics of personal life. European Journal of Women’s Studies17(1): 77–82.
41.
SantosAC (2013a) Are we there yet? Queer sexual encounters, legal recognition and homonormativity. Journal of Gender Studies22(1): 54–64.
42.
SantosAC (2013b) Social Movements and Sexual Citizenship in Southern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
SantosAC (2016) ‘In the old days, there were no gays‘: Democracy, social change and media representation of sexual diversity. International Journal of Iberian Studies29(2): 157–172.
SimpsonPWilsonCBrownL, et al. (2018) ‘We’ve had our sex life way back’: Older care home residents, sexuality and intimacy. Ageing and Society38(7): 1478–1501.
46.
TorresACoelhoBCabritaM (2013) Bridge over troubled waters: Family, gender and welfare in Portugal in the European context. European Societies15(4): 535–556.
47.
TrifilettiR (1999) Southern European Welfare Regimes and the worsening position of women. Journal of European Social Policy9(1): 49–64.
48.
WarnerM (2000) The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
WengrafT (2007) Guide to BNIM biographic-narrative interpretive method: Interviewing for life histories, lived situations and ongoing personal experiencing.
50.
WoodwardAEBonvinJMRenomM (eds) (2011) Transforming Gendered Well-Being in Europe: The Impact of Social Movements. Farnham: Ashgate.
