The anarchist analysis identifies domination as the key problem within human social structures. Domination is seen to engender fear, submission and deception in the dominated, aggression and lack of empathy in the dominator. Hence, in anarchist praxis it is necessary to avoid the psychological states that lead to the myriad problems associated with domination.

Much literature has been given over to the structural models of collectivism for non-hierarchical decision making in groups. However domination at the micro level of one-on-one in intimate relationships has been relatively ignored in anarchist writing.

Psychological literature tends to an explanation of intimate relationships in terms of complimentary parts rather than equality. Hence it is very easy for a dominator-dominated situation to arise which is often accepted as gender-essential. Women are said to be naturally submissive, while men, in the nature of their role as ‘penetrators’ in heterosexuality, are given to be the dominators. This theory is largely based on the work of Freud and then later childhood psychologists Jean Piaget and Margaret Mahler.

In early childhood the child is thought to be unable to differentiate their self from that of their mother. The mother, as sole source of food and comfort, is the extended self from which one must then ‘individuate’. Individuation, as described by Mahler, is a painful process from which perhaps many of us never recover. Psychologists began to recognise the pain of the suffering infant in the alienation of adults from themselves and each other. Anarchists would of course, give a far different interpretation of alienation, but it is useful to see the psychological reasoning that supports the perpetuation of sexual stereotypes in western culture.

Intimate relationships came to be viewed as attempts to reconnect with a sense of self by recovering what was lost in individuation: deep connection and inter-dependency with another human being. So too sexual and relationships ‘problems’ came to be viewed as an inability, a lacking in one or both partners to allow this reconnection to occur. Hence a situation of domination results where the withdrawing partner identifies autonomy in singular oneness, the submissive partner in dual oneness of the original mother-child type. Traditionally these domination-submission roles have also been gendered, but not necessarily so.

The latter, nominally female role, is called the ‘intersubjective view’. This view mainatains that the self grows in and through relationships with others. It recognises the other as different and yet alike, and hence able to share a common mental relationship. This view is commonly espoused by ecofeminists who exhort us to care above all. Ecofeminists also recognise the ills of caring. Too much caring, depicted in our society as self-sacrifice, can lead to abuse and burn-out.

The intersubjective view is also in analogous to the social anarchist’s conception of community. Attention to communal good mitigates the decent into egoistic hedonism that anarchism could otherwise be guilty of. Yet even the most vigilant of anarchists cannot prevent the psychological states that predispose individuals to allowing themselves to be dominated, or to be dominating. The offshoot of this is that in anarchist organising, as in all organising, domination along the stereotypical sexual lines does occur. Vigilance is necessary.

Questions arise as to whether the domination-submission dualism is nothing more than a conceptual tool with which to manipulate us; if it is ok in consensual situations; and lastly, if it can be avoided if it is not.

A myriad of psychological influences tend to make us the lovers/carers we are. The capacity to love and feel compassion is rooted in both our own self-esteem and our ability to identify with others. Detachment from emotional response in interpersonal relationships has been lauded by science and philosophy for millennia as the adjunct to rational thought. The logical man is expected to be largely indifferent to the emotional-compassionate response to situations he finds himself in and so able to make the ‘best’ decisions as more autonomous beings. Corollary to this, emotional bonds are often taken to mean one has lost power over themselves, or is enslaved to another in such a way that is detrimental to oneself. And perhaps this is the case for many people brought up to expect their partners to not be equals. Hence the high incidence of ‘commitment phobic’ men and the high incidence of women who perceive them as such – both reinforcing gender stereotypes and re-enacting the conditions for domination simultaneously.

A state of affairs where one partner is selfless and submissive, the other selfish and dominating the formers behaviour can easily be shown to be detrimental both the development of an ability to care/love and to be autonomous. At base the dominator is afraid to lose the person they dominate so keeps them not by caring but by fear. In the parent-child relationship the ‘spoilt’ child with the over-accommodating parent is less likely to learn the skills of selflessness and sharing necessary for good community than the child who recognises the parents as a valid individual with interests: To identify with the parent as equal and alike rather than slave or master. In recognising the parent as equal, cooperation more often follows for the child learns quickly that others have needs too. Both parties increase their chances of having their needs met in cooperation since it creates the necessary psychological disposition to trust in reciprocity to some extent. Perhaps that is what we all seek in intimate relationships too – equal reciprocity enables a power balance within the relationship. Neither detachment nor self-sacrifice achieve these ends.

In psychological terms, the person who is unable to both share and care and yet meet their own needs can become deeply depressed or delusional. It seems that the ‘complimentary’ theory too easily allows domination to occur. We need to abandon this view of intimate relationships and the gender essentialism that accompanies it to avoid interpersonal domination.

Intersubjective theory offers some solutions. Through our relationship with others, we are given the opportunity to be able to know how to care for ourselves, and then others. Only through this interaction can we learn the skills of care and enable ourselves to love equally. It enables us to distinguish between two individuals recognising mutual interests and similarity from one subject controlling and dominating the other.

There are many aspects of popular culture and social structure that make intersubjective relations difficult. In the western world we are fed a constant diet of gender stereotypes that represent women as subjective objects and men as objective subjects.

In the mass media women are represented largely in terms of their objective physical beauty and their ability (or problem!) to be subjective in their relationships with others and the world so that there individuality blurs into family. Men, on the other hand, are represented as doers, highly individualistic and autonomous (as compared to women’s relative slavery to their relationships – think how soap operas like Neighbours represent women as constantly gossiping over theirs and others relationships). Hence a relationship between them, as represented in popular culture, is both seen to be a compliment of opposites and a situation of ownership or dominance. Women take men’s names in marriage and become their property literally in many cultures. Men lose their autonomy to the ‘ball & chain’. Wives become the butt of jokes, one infamous beer advertisement gloating over the ability of the husband to deceive his wife in order to drink more beer.

The bonds of love as represented by our culture are extremely divisive in terms of achieving actual equality between people. As a couple, partners are thought to have given up their rights to be individuals, to make autonomous decisions about their lives. This is quite the opposite of what intersubjective theory suggests is beneficial to human growth and equality, or what is amenable to an anarchist society.