SOC344 2020 Tut4 – Monday 12.30pm

With the diversification of society and a rise in individualism, love and intimacy have undoubtedly transformed overtime. Cootz (2005), addresses love as an emotion that emerged as a ‘pre-requisite for marriage in the 18th century, buried among many other functions – economic, procreative, property-related. As stated in the lecture, late modernity bought a rise in technology, the opening of informal economy (women in the workforce) and a decline in modern institutions. According to Giddens (1994), the transformation of intimacy stemmed from the rise in the importance of lifestyle and increased freedom and flexibility – sexuality was no longer confined to hetero nuclear orientation, but options widened and ‘pure relationships’ were introduced. However, when analysing Gidden’s work, Jamieson (1999) proposes that such transformation carries potentially profound consequences for gender politics and the wider social fabric. He concludes that intimacy and inequality continue to coexist in many relationships. After reading other blog posts, I wonder whether people still search for the companionate form of love, or whether people are determined to protect themselves from heartache or search for constant ‘fun’ where they resort to a sexualised form of love. But can these two forms co-exist?

Lynn Jamieson provides a strong critique of Giddens’ idealistic theories of “the pure relationship” and the development of “plastic sexuality”. Jamieson point out that while Giddens believes that mutual self-disclosure is the key to intimacy in the “pure relationship’ empirical evidence does not support this. She stresses the importance of actions that symbolise love and care (2013, p85). She correctly points out that more attention must be given to structural gender inequalities. Same sex couples are also impacted by social forces due to often negative and hostile attitudes. Giddens believes high rates of relationship breakdown is a result of the difficulty sustaining mutual trust with the belief relationships have a limited life span. Jamieson argues strongly that it is more likely “a consequence of the tension between strengthen cultural emphasis on intimacy, equality and mutuality in relationships and the structural supports of gender inequalities” (2013, p86). Jamieson acknowledges significant shifts in attitude that “appear” to acknowledge gender equality and diverse sexual practice (2013, p83) but points out mixed messages are given by society. There is still “a phallocentric view of heterosexual sex” and gender issues can compromise both sex and intimacy (2013, p84). The conclusion is that “pure relationships” seem “a real impossibility” in both domestic and parent-child relationships due to financial and other outside factors impacting on the relationship.

In the Victorian Era, women were groomed to be wives, mothers and homemakers. A woman’s life was not complete without being married, marriages often began loveless (Hughes, 2008). Unlike today’s culture, we rely on love and intimate relationships to protect us against feelings of loneliness (Holmes, 2016). In line with Bauman’s theory that love is a consumer endeavour, it is evident that relationships are transactional. To elaborate, marriage used to serve as a means of preserving power, forging alliances, and acquiring land (The Week, 2012). Today, feelings of desire are offered in exchange for commitment (Bauman, 2003). On the other hand, Giddens (1992) argues that in today’s modern world, pure relationships are constantly being pursued. They are sustained by ‘mutual self-disclosure’ and by appreciating and trusting the person for who they are. The pure relationship exists solely for any benefit the relationship can offer each individual. Basically, love and intimate relationships in today’s modern world are what people make of it, no one relationship is the same nor should it be.

Love has definitely changed over time and will continue to change based on normalities and societal structures. Giddens (1994) expresses this when he says, “modernity destroys tradition”. Traditionally, marriage was a lifetime commitment and whilst it may have been built on ‘the pure relationship’, the main goal was procreation. By the 1960’s when the concept of love was evolving, divorce rates in the US almost doubled and the overall attitude to divorce drastically changed (Illouz 2012). This also led to a distinction between love and sexuality in which sexuality became more responsive and creative, not solely for the purpose of procreating. Over time love and/or intimate relationships have become more easily accessible with resources such as online dating, something that was impossible many years ago. Resources like this show how much the concept of love and intimacy has strayed from the traditional definition.

To answer whether love has changed from the 18th Century I believe that the answer is both yes and no. I believe that the true feeling and emotions that one experiences whilst in love have stayed the same within 'pure relationships', however, the way we view and react to this has changed. This concept is explored when Giddens explains how the process of social change, involving the "transformation in the nature of social identity and intimacy".Other aspects have changed throughout time involving love and relationships such as the introduction of more public intimacy as in the 18th century it would not have been acceptable to kiss or even hold hands in public setting, this is seen to be a form self exploration and moral construction.

Late modernity has impacted relationships and love within more recent times. In the 18th century, Hughes (2008) states there were many literatures to help courtships for multiple parties (the lovers, the parents) but there also many hidden literatures that did not live up to the etiquette of the time were considered “perverted desires and practices”.But within texts such as Giddens and Illouz, show the changes of living in a post-traditional society and how love has changed. Giddens (1994, pp. 74-75) explains that when it comes to modern relationships, there is “no choice but to choose how to be and act” despite the book being linked to politics and tradition. Whereas Illouz (2012, pp. 106-108) explains that there is more fairness to love and sex these days as there is a sense of freedom as individuals are able to choose their freedom of their commitment or not to do so. It shows that women are able to have more freedom on their sexuality, relationships and identity whilst men also experience the same but tend to have develop a commitment phobia to relationships, which is developing into a cultural problem. References Giddens, A, 1994, ‘Living in a post traditional society’, In U. Beck, A. Giddens & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernisation, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 56-110. Hughes, K 2008, ‘The secret love lives of the Victorians’, The Guardian, 15 February, viewed 12 April 2020, < https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/14/7> Illouz, E 2012, 'Commitment phobia and the architeture of romantic choice', in Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation, Cambridge, pp. 59-108

Anthony Giddens promotes the "transformation of intimacy" whereby heterosexual couples now strive for an egalitarian relationship (Jamieson 1999, p. 477). This encompasses the "pure relationship", requiring equal contributions from both partners (Jamieson 1999. p. 478). However, Jamieson (1999, p. 477) reveals that inequalities still exist between genders within a partnership. For example, men still possess greater power than women within relationships, with men having the ability to easily determine their engagement in "domestic work and child care" (Jamieson 1999, p. 484). Hookway et al. (2019, p. 84) discusses the changes in relationships in late modernity, with reference to Bauman and Illouz, regarding the individualised and consumeristic nature of relationships, whereby individuals are vulnerable to being "upgrad[ed]", creating anxiety within relationships. Is this hedonic treadmill, evident within one's career and material consumption, now filtering through their relationships, with individuals now rotating through partners until they find "the one"? Thus, has this "voluntary nation of the union" now caused higher expectations of one’s "dream partner" or possibly led to greater "commitment issues" (Hookway et al. 2019, p. 85)?

The modern tensions and expectations of relationships introduced in late modernity have indeed transformed the ways ‘romantic love’ and intimacy are considered, in comparison to 18th century etiquette and rules of courtship. With modern relationships, love has become more centred on the individual with people seeking the best for themselves and placing their own needs and feelings foremost, as suggested by Bauman (2003) and the theory of liquid love. This theory argues that love no longer involves the dedication and commitment to the other as it previously has been in history, with a brutal reality of individuals constantly seeking another partner which is better suited for themselves. The ways which love and intimacy are expressed have also certainly changed across time, as relationships are made public through social media and forms of affection are often shown as likes on a social media posts rather than offers of dancing which were made in the Victorian Era, although both can be seen as public attempts of flirtation. Nonetheless, the focus on individual satisfaction in modern relationships can be seen as a positive development of love, with Taylor (1992) claiming honesty and the goal of ensuring individual fulfilment would create a more genuine connection with a partner. Another welcomed change of love is the relaxed rules of selecting a partner, with people increasingly gaining the ability to be with whomever they choose as opposed to the restrictions of past relationships which required appropriate class, wealth, and respectability of a possible partner, as mentioned by Roger Patulny. Has the transformation of relationships actually altered conceptions of ‘love’? Could feelings of ‘love’ ever be changed or is this a universal emotion able to withstand the reshaping of society?

The modern tensions and expectations of relationships introduced in late modernity have indeed transformed the ways ‘romantic love’ and intimacy are considered, in comparison to 18th century etiquette and rules of courtship. With modern relationships, love has become more centred on the individual with people seeking the best for themselves and placing their own needs and feelings foremost, as suggested by Bauman (2003) and the theory of liquid love. This theory argues that love no longer involves the dedication and commitment to the other as it previously has been in history, with a brutal reality of individuals constantly seeking another partner which is better suited for themselves. The ways which love and intimacy are expressed have also certainly changed across time, as relationships are made public through social media and forms of affection are often shown as likes on a social media posts rather than offers of dancing which were made in the Victorian Era, although both can be seen as public attempts of flirtation. Nonetheless, the focus on individual satisfaction in modern relationships can be seen as a positive development of love, with Taylor (1992) claiming honesty and the goal of ensuring individual fulfilment would create a more genuine connection with a partner. Another welcomed change of love is the relaxed rules of selecting a partner, with people increasingly gaining the ability to be with whomever they choose as opposed to the restrictions of past relationships which required appropriate class, wealth, and respectability of a possible partner, as mentioned by Roger Patulny.

Late modernity entails changes in our relationship with one another, in particular, pure love relationships as explicated by Giddens. In a context of globalisation and les rigid social norms and contracts we find ourselves in a period of self-reflexivity. This reflexivity changes the way we understand themselves and their partners. It allows for individuals to understand their place in the world; with greater access to information, individuals could potentially be overwhelmed, with added difficulties of choice selection. Society is therefore much more sensitive to the world’s affect upon them, complicating the process of understanding themselves & potential partners. Navigating the discursive practice to understanding themselves and partners within a broad societal framework complicates this. Another complication is loneliness—its exponential increase in individuals & the autonomisation ideas posed by Giddens—greater self-reliability—and ‘necessary’ partnership. Autonomisation has shifting thinking–inducing need for self-help/happiness books—and created images of relationships as singular and one-dimensional, without need for a partner. This challenges the formation of ‘pure-love-relationships’ as few people engage in this practice and discursive practices are increasingly influenced by global information and other culture’s practices.

When questioning whether love has changed from the 18th century there are marked differences in societal rules and structures of courtship. In the 18th century the contract of marriage had many functions other than love including economic prosperity, procreative purposes and property acquisition. Eva Illouz argues during this time women used abstinence to prove their virtue and morality awaiting male advances which allowed men to signal their masculinity through self-control when winning over a woman’s affection. Due to social changes taking place associated with late modernity such as female sexual autonomy and the expression of other sexualities, the search for what Anthony Giddens deems the ‘pure relationship’ emerged. This relationship exists for only the purpose of deriving satisfaction from relationship and trust is built through mutual disclosure (Jamieson 1999; Giddens 1992). I would argue although social expressions of love have changed, constraints still exist dependent on an individual’s social context which limit an individual’s ability to experience their sexuality or gender identity in love. These societal constraints are prevalent in discussions of dating while identifying outside one’s assigned gender at birth being littered with language of disclosing one’s ‘true identity’ to a potential partner. I would argue that all is not fair in love and sex these days. Have you felt social constraints on the ways you express love?

The rise of individualism in late modernity has resulted in humans experiencing lives with unprecedented options. As pointed out by Patulny and Olson in this weeks reading, prior to the rise of industrial capitalism, societal class structures meticulously dictated how people would live their lives with a strong sense of duality. For example, a person was rich or poor, healthy or sick, man or woman, the separation of emotions and logic were important in maintaining societal norms through controlling behaviour. As highlighted in the reading, this predictable and expected way of living was revolutionised through industrialised capitalism. People are now constantly asked to evaluate and re-evaluate the life they want to be living, with a constant influx of conflicting messages on how best to experience a human existence. But has this newfound freedom left us so overwhelmed with choice that we have fallen into ambivalence? Is the constant pressure to be ‘living our best lives’ made it impossible to ever be truly happy with a partner, a job, or an outfit?