The distribution of power between couples was for a long time determined by cultural and religious beliefs and structures, resulting in a rigid and set delegation of tasks and responsibilities. Especially difficult circumstances characterised by war, inequality, class struggles and inadequate health support and education asked for a clear set of unquestioned rules in order to meet and fulfill the demands of a fragile society. For efficiency’s sake, there were no discussions about who’s taking the role of protector, nurturer or breadwinner. A clear delegation of roles and responsibilities minimised obstacles and challenges at times that were already difficult enough without women and men’s fight for social and sexual liberation, equality and other principles that matter to us today. However, until this day, when a huge chunk of the world is already healthier, wealthier and safer than only a couple of decades ago, the distinct power differences between couples still remain in most parts of the world. They are hugely dependent on factors such as income, status, as well as the influence of society’s definition of gender roles and their expectations of monogamy being the ultimate ideal in relationships. Even in countries that have come a long way in terms of gender equality, there are still legal issues standing in the way of normalising and even enabling equal partnerships. However, despite times of war and political turmoil, gender and class inequality, history has seen power couples that did not fully submit to the rigid structures and rules in relationships that society deemed as necessary. Through their shared passions and goals, they led the way to social progress and the challenge of social norms - and remain to do so until this day.
One of the most notorious power couples are French philosophers Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre. Mostly known for their philosophical work, they were often talked about in regards to the great experiment that was their relationship. Over the course of over 50 years, they pursued their passion for philosophy, politics and frequently read and edited each others’ work. It was arguably a mixture of mutual admiration as well as a shared interest in exercising their freedom to experience that made them stay together for so long. It helped them endure both time spent apart during war and the fact that they engaged in sexual activities with other partners, which they often referred to as their “family” later on. Instead of following the classical model that most couples submitted to, Sartre and de Beauvoir led a lifestyle according to thoroughly discussed and mostly agreed on principles that met their own needs and expectations, instead of those of society’s. Most importantly - the rules in their relationship wasn't a contract between a man and a woman, but rather between an autonomous person and another.
For the two philosophers who amongst other topics discussed existentialism and the duality of being, it was an experiment in living, and a sign of their mutual and equal respect for each other and their work. It was not only about experiencing life itself, but living alongside each other as man and woman in a society that still didn’t deem them as complete and unconditional equals. In de Beauvoir’s most notorious book “The Second Sex”, her focus is placed on women’s position in society, and its comparisons with the norm which was defined by male ideals and characteristics. As unusual as it might have seemed at the time, de Beauvoir went against society’s expectations of a woman in a relationship, as well as a participant in society, to explore the true nature of her being (which can include both feminine and masculine traits). She rejected the role as a passive observer, the “other” or “secondary” next to the man, or men, she was with. Sartre and de Beauvoir chose to be transparent, honest, and most of all equal, in a relationship which enabled both of them to be completely liberated and autonomous in a society that otherwise would have liked to restrict the freedom of their being in the name of social conformity.
Moving to a completely different part of the world, we can find Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera in the history of Mexico’s most provocative artist couples. Despite a turbulent life for both of them, especially Kahlo who discovered her love for painting while she was recovering from a bus accident, they endeavoured to be of support as partners as well as lovers throughout their relationship. Kahlo and Rivera were a couple whose bond was strengthened through pain, whether that was physical or mental suffering as a result of their extramarital affairs. Even in times where there was tension between the two, Kahlo still saw Rivera as her muse, which she often showed in her self-portraits with his face painted on her forehead like a third eye. Her intention to integrate her partner into her physical being instead of showing him standing beside her like in earlier paintings can be seen as an indication that he was more to her than a lover. He had become part of her in a way that it contributes to defining her Self, someone who even after their marital troubles remains a partner for life. After all, they were both politically active and created art that still astonishes and captivates people today. While Rivera challenged politics and addressed workers’ struggles through his paintings, Kahlo documented her life’s tragedies, pioneered a new artistic expressiveness and is remembered as an important icon of Mexican femininity.
It goes without saying that neither of those relationships were far from flawless. There is no recipe for a perfect relationship to be found here, but there are certainly a thing or two we can learn from these two couples’ history. What characterised these relationships was first and foremost a mutual understanding of being free, autonomous individuals and therefore equals in their relationship. The power distribution did not seem to be uneven in the traditional sense, at least not intentionally, where one part was naturally serving the dominant role, whereas the obedient and submissive role was attributed to the other. It’s also fair to assume that their shared passions for philosophy and politics had a huge impact on their connection as lovers and partners, as these two topics were interwoven in both of the couples’ work which they showed much support and admiration for. It could’ve been their common goal, in this case their desire to transform society, as well as themselves, which drove them forward and helped them grow together as individuals in a partnership. This does not mean that every couple should pursue social activism. It rather indicates that partners who help each other grow as individuals are more likely to thrive and come back to each other even after many hardships. Despite affairs and troubles throughout their relationships, it was transparency, honesty, and an equal distribution of power and status in their relationship which saved them, especially in Sartre and de Beauvoir’s relationship in which they both gave each other complete freedom to experience and set no limitations as long as they were honest to each other about their ongoings.
Of course, these examples shouldn’t be praised as perfect guidelines for a relationship, not only because every relationship is different but also because we review history through a filtered lens that prevents us from seeing the full truth. However, the thread of principles which runs through them is still worth noticing, as they can encourage us to challenge to idea of how we want power to be distributed between us and our partners, and be taken and given in a way that it sets both parties free. These couples weren’t successful in their career or relationship simply because of their rebellion against social norms, but because they took the power to choose for themselves how they can use their relationship to enrichen, strengthen and support their lives. The will to support and not take advantage of their partners for their loyalty and emotional support was a big part of what made them have such successful lives together. As soon as power was distributed equally, and a mutual respect for their desires and admiration developed, it was clear for both couples that they weren’t better off alone, but rather stronger together as a team - a power couple.
