Theories of Intimacy and Relationships in Modern Britain

Introduction: The Changing Landscape of Intimate Relationships

Intimate relationships have changed in contemporary Britain for a variety of social and economic reasons. In the past, marriage made economic sense for both men and women. Today, however, a combination of social factors — from the sexual revolution of the 1960s to the Women's Movement of the 1970s (which helped women to establish themselves independently of men), to the advent of contraception (liberating sex from procreation), to the proliferation of pornography (thanks to liberal ideals and technological advancements such as the Internet) — has diminished the idea of matrimony as an expression of economic dependence. The concepts of monogamy, virginity having value, and sex being linked to marriage, family, and community have by and large given way to more liberalized notions in which intimacy is linked with pleasure and self-satisfaction, without social, economic, or personal responsibilities necessarily being part of that equation.

The rise of the idea of romantic love in modern society has led to the pursuit of intimacy in relationships outside of marriage and in different forms than those traditionally accepted. As the rate of marriage has declined over the past century and the rate of divorce has risen, it can be surmised that society's attitudes towards intimate relationships have substantially changed to effect this long-term trend. There is now more diversity and variation in intimate relationships than in centuries past. This paper analyzes the theories and concepts of Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim, Zygmunt Bauman, and Eva Illouz to provide some ideas on why intimate relationships have changed, and to explain which theories are most useful and why.

Anthony Giddens and the Transformation of Intimacy

Giddens' (1992) view on intimacy is that the impact of modernity on the self and one's sense of identity has led to a transformation in how intimate relationships are formed. Depending on how an individual constructs his or her identity, sex, relationships, marriage, children, self-fulfillment, and society will all carry a value informed by the effects of modernity on the individual's sense of identity. Giddens notes that in post-traditional societies, the self is more than social interactions: the self represents a psychological construct developed to produce psychological security for the individual in the face of declining traditional social structures. In a risk society, old-world customs and institutions — such as the family and marriage — have been deconstructed, and the idea of the autonomous, independent, self-serving self has been elevated. In this sense, self-identity is reflexive and constantly monitors the highly fluid and dynamic society in which it finds itself.

The self recognizes that current trends in social practice will determine future life outcomes. Seeing that divorce rates are rising and marriage rates are falling, it perceives less social pressure to marry. As a result of this constant self-monitoring of relationships, the aspirations of the self with respect to intimacy alter and transform: the self indulges in self-help literature to try to understand the point or aim of intimacy, seeking answers to questions such as, "Is intimacy supposed to satisfy a desire within me?" or "Is there another purpose to intimacy than what I am gleaning from my self-monitoring of society and shifting cultural values?" Giddens (1992) provides the example of the "rule book, drawn up in a self-help manual aimed at helping women to develop more satisfying heterosexual relationships" as an indicator of the problematic approaches to intimacy that the self faces in the modern era (p. 192).

Through this process of self-monitoring, a variety of relationship forms are constructed, each representing a variation of self-actualization — that is, identity construction that is self-made. The first form Giddens examines is the so-called pure relationship, which is based on the concept of sexual and emotional equality within the relationship. Intimacy provides mutual satisfaction for both partners, and the union exists purely for its own sake — there are no commitments, expectations, vows, or matrimonial obligations. Either person is free to end the relationship at any moment should it cease to be satisfying. The pure relationship thus stands in direct contrast to the traditional concept of marriage and the expectation of "till death do us part."

Giddens also examines plastic sexuality, in which sexual liberation is increased, sex is linked solely to pleasure with no connection to reproduction — an outcome of the sexual revolution — and represents a self entirely centered on self-satisfaction. Then there is confluent love, which is active and contingent, distinct from the ideal of romantic love; it is inherently unstable because of a tension within the relationship between a desire for commitment and a desire for autonomy, and the main outcome is typically divorce. Finally, Giddens examines the democratization of intimacy, which has resulted in the sexually autonomous female (a product of the severed connection between sex and reproduction) and the flourishing of homosexuality among both men and women.

These four forms of relationships, coupled with Giddens' sense of the self as arbiter of what intimacy means and what it should produce, suggest that while there is variance among intimate relationships as an effect of modernity, modern relationships are broadly similar in being disconnected from the notion that sexual love is primarily a conduit for procreation, and that intimacy between a man and a woman is a foundation for family — which in turn acts as the building block of community and society. Instead, the self in modern culture seeks self-fulfillment through intimacy and neglects or dismisses any sense of duty or obligation to commit to a single stable relationship, reproduce with a partner, and raise families so that society may continue into the future. In other words, the self-serving nature of intimacy in the modern era may actually undermine society's long-term health and ability to sustain itself across coming generations.

Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim: Individualization and the Risk Society

The theory of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) is that a zeitgeist of individualism has turned the once relatively stable concept of intimacy into a chaotic one where there is endless choice when seeking to develop intimate relations — yet no guarantee of longevity, as every option is accompanied by its own set of insecurities in a risk society where "love" is "subject to recall" at any time. While Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) state that "a kind of universal Zeitgeist has seized hold of people, urging them to do their own thing, and its influence goes just as far as their ability to move heaven and earth, to blend their hopes with the reality around them" (p. 3), they also recognize that the Zeitgeist itself is but a response to a previous movement within society that compelled men and women to divorce — and the word they use to describe this movement is "individualization" (p. 4).

Individualization stems from multiple sources: it is the result of changing values emanating from women's employment, the rise in divorce rates, the decline of marriage rates, newly accepted ways of living together (cohabitation) that were once looked down upon by society, and the instability associated with intimate relationships today — the idea that relationships are personal rather than social. Traditionally, marriage was viewed as a social institution: two people made a promise before their community that they would commit to one another and thus ensure that their community would last into the future through the begetting of children.

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim describe a paradoxical state: today's risk society is one where individuals seek relationships in order to feel less isolated and insecure, yet the relationships they seek are unstable and conflicted because of the inherent tension between being free to leave (as divorce is accepted) and being compelled to commit (as a promise was made, or is perhaps desired at some point). This paradoxical state leads to frustration and sterility within the modern relationship. Had divorce never become an accepted norm — prior to Henry VIII's example, pre-Reformation Europe had never sanctioned divorce and had only rarely granted annulments — it is very likely that the concept of individualization would not have become such a major force in the modern era. As marriage promotes the concept of otherness and divorce promotes the concept of individualization, it is not surprising that the sanctioning of divorce by the post-Reformation modern world has resulted in the rise of individualization and the paradoxical, schizophrenic nature of intimate relationships today. With this in mind, the theory of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) is very helpful in understanding relationships as they exist in today's risk society.

Conclusion: Power, Identity, and the Future of Intimacy

The overall implications of the theories presented herein are that power and politics constrain identity, while current ambivalences of culture and politics complicate intimacy. Driven by a multiplicity of unconscious attachments to others beyond the widely accepted social practices, individuals experience tension as they are pulled simultaneously in two directions at once — one way towards the freedom to leave another at any moment, and the other way towards commitment and a pledge to stay forever with the other. Some attempt to resolve this tension by dealing solely in the realm of sentimental emotions, which keeps them from having to confront pain and suffering; others seek alternate modes of intimacy of various forms, though few necessarily lead to the traditional form in which marriage is viewed as a necessary stage for procreation, for the good of society.

The transformation of intimacy, contextualized amid wider social, political, economic, and technological developments, has contributed to the sentimentalizing and individualization of intimacy. The self is bound within a confluence of zeitgeists rooted in materialism, liberalism, and consumerism. The self seeks to understand itself and establish its own identity but struggles to relate to others as a result of the risk society in which it is embedded. It insecurely engages in relationships that it hopes will bring happiness but fears will bring misery. Without a mooring in the traditional concept of intimacy authenticated by commitment and procreation, modern individuals are left to engage in stagnant, sterile, and ephemeral relationships.

References

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Illouz, E. (1997). Consuming the romantic utopia: Love and cultural contradictions of capitalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Illouz, E. (2012). Why love hurts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.