Intimacy, Pure Relationship and Confluent Love PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline your understanding of the concepts of ‘Intimacy’ (Jamieson) and the ‘Pure Relationships’ and ‘Confluent Love’ (Giddens). How have these concepts been portrayed and how useful are they in explaining contemporary relationships? In what ways are these concepts complementary and in what ways do ...

Description

Assignment 1

Overview 1:

Outline your understanding of the concepts of ‘ Intimacy’ (Jamieson) and the ‘Pure Relationships’ and ‘Confluent Love’ (Giddens). How have these concepts been portrayed and how useful are they in explaining contemporary relationships? In what ways are these concepts complementary and in what ways do they diverge?

Jamieson refers to the concept of intimacy as a relationship that has meaningful bonds and significance (Jamieson, 2011). Historically, this concept primarily focused on physical and sexual relationships, however Jamieson opens up the idea of intimacy and focuses on the closeness in a relationship that does not simply consider familial and sexual couplings, but also friendships (Jamieson, 2011). Thus, intimacy was introduced to move away from the original primary focus, which was on couples and family. This broader understanding of intimacy can help as a theoretical and conceptual tool to explain different ways of living in contemporary times.

However, Giddens (1993) goes further by proposing the idea of the ‘Pure Relationship’, which can be based on the desires, needs and acceptance of two people, whereby the relationship will last as long as both partners gain ‘sufficient benefits’ (Giddens and Sutton, 2017, p. 399). Furthermore this can revolve around characteristics such as equality, self-fulfilment, reflexivity and more (Jamieson, 1999). Similarly, confluent love can be expressed as the ‘active and contingent forms of love’ (Giddens and Sutton, 2017, p. 993). Moreover, the ‘pure relationship’ and

‘confluent love’ are interchangeable (Gillies, 2003). These definitions position themselves as different from the traditional ‘romantic love’ (Giddens and Sutton, 2017). The idea of romantic love is relatively new and suggests that you find a lifelong partner and stay with them however, the pure relationship and confluent love indicates this is not always accurate as in today’s society there is more choice (Gross and Simmons, 2002). For example, choice in who you are with and how long you stay with someone. Therefore, these definitions have been used as a way of explaining high divorce rates, the engagement of individualisation and dedication to own well-being, thus people move on if a relationship does not satisfy or work for them (Giddens, 1993).

However, Jamieson (1999) views shortcomings in Giddens work and in particular, the characteristics revolving around pure relationship. Giddens suggests that individuals can be involved in equal romantic relationships, with even power between partners and that they last as long as they are beneficial for both parties, which also suggests that everyday inequality does not exist. However, this is not always possible, and many relationships do not operate in this way. For Jamieson ‘the pure relationship seems to be a near impossibility for domestic partners’ (Jamieson, 1999, p. 490) as often in these relationships, one partner holds more power and authority over the other. Therefore, this presents inequality in relationships, which has been crystalised by the rise in domestic violence during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

In summary, Jamieson’s view of intimacy builds on more than solely viewing intimacy through the vision of the ‘family’ and sexual relationships. Therefore, this term has been useful in the expansion of this lens by encompassing significant relationships

such as friendships, facilitating inclusivity. Giddens’ concepts of the ‘pure relationship’ and ‘confluent love’ are idealistic and provide a guide to contemporary relationships, by emphasising on the idea of ‘choice’, however this theory does not consider unequal power within a relationship, and therefore does not encompass all relationships.

Word Count: 512

References

Giddens, A. (1993) The Transformation of Intimacy : Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Available at: https://web-s-ebscohost-

com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzYwNjA5M19f QU41?sid=b9077549-1d79-4f2f-ba25698ba5b726a3@redis&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 (Accessed: 25 October 2021).

Giddens, A. and Sutton, P.W. (2017) Sociology. 8th edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gillies, V. (2003) ‘Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research’, in. London: South Bank University. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.466.8005&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed: 2 November 2021).

Gross, N. and Simmons, S. (2002) ‘Intimacy as a Double-Edged Phenomenon? An Empirical Test of Giddens’, Social Forces, 81(2), pp. 531–555.

Jamieson, L. (1999) ‘Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the `Pure Relationship’’, Sociology, 33(3), pp. 477–494. doi:10.1177/S0038038599000310.

Jamieson, L. (2011) ‘Intimacy as a Concept: Explaining Social Change in the Context of Globalisation or Another Form of Ethnocentricism?’, Sociological Research Online, 16(4), p. 15....