Chapter 8 "Contradictions of the Pure Relationship":
"Pure relationship" as defined by Giddens is "a relationship of sexual and emotional equality" (p. 2, he goes more into details on p. 58). In this chapter, Giddens focuses on aspects of the pure relationship in same-sex encounters, specifically lesbian women (134). In this chapter, I believe Giddens is saying that a homosexual relationship, especially a lesbian relationship can provide us with a new model to follow since the heterosexual model has been impacted by too many societal restrictions. Giddens goes on to say that it is the gay community who becomes pioneers in changing and challenging long-term relationships and marriages (135). I do believe that because so much attention has been focused on heterosexual relationships (and unfortunately, so much benefits have been given to heterosexual couples) that maybe our hope for a new model of relationship would be to look at homosexual relationships. According to Giddens, homosexual relationships can give us that pure relationship we're looking for because women have a higher level of communication with each other as opposed to heterosexual relationships (142). I think Giddens sums up this chapter pretty well on page 154 when he says "if orthodox marriage is not yet widely seen as just one life-style among others, as in fact it has become, this is partly the result of institutional lag and partly the result of the complicated mixture of attraction and repulsion which the psychic development of each sex creates with regard to the other".
I personally have seen and experienced a lot of problems with heterosexual relationships in terms of communication and expectations from the other sex. The earlier chapter on codependence spoke to me on personal levels. I believe there are a lot to learn from other relationships, such as homosexual relationships, and once we can look at the relationship instead of the two individuals involved, than maybe we can start to see what works and what doesn't. I can speak for myself that I've started to noticed my personal relationship have become more of what Giddens called "confluent love". So as third wave feminists, I wonder if this "confluent love" is what we all should be striving for?
Chapter 9 "Sexuality, Repression, Civilisation":
I found this chapter harder to understand. But in here, Gibbens criticizes "sexual radicals", Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, for "believing that modern societies depend upon a high level of sexual repression" and because they did not include much information on gender or changes on love in the modern social order (168 & 169). I guess one thing that I didn't really understand was when Gibbens mentions that according to Reich "freedom and sexual health are the same thing" (163). I believe Gibbens is saying that he doesn't agree with Reich and Marcuse in have a non-repressive society because we are not ready for it and by having it be a non-repressive society, we put all of our other relationships at stake (182).
I would have to say that I agree with Gibbens on this issue. I find it disturbing to think of kids having sex with each other. Yes, this is how my culture, my society has raised me up to think but like we mentioned earlier, should we consider everything socially constructed as something bad?
Chapter 10: "Intimacy as Democracy":
First, Gibbens goes on to talk about 'the meaning of democracy'. He mentions David Held four approaches to political democracy (185). Gibbens states "the structural source of this promise is the emergence of the pure relationship, not only in the area of sexuality but also in those of parent-child relations, and other forms of kinship and friendship". What he is proposing here is again his model of "confluent love" (188). I believe Gibbens is saying that he doesn't believe parents should encourage their children to be sexually active but he believes parents should have democratic relationships with their children.
"The model of confluent love suggests an ethical framework for the fostering of non-destructive emotion in the conduct of individual and communal life" (202).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ka Zoua,
Thanks for your blog. I think Giddens has a decent point that lesbian and gay relationships have perhaps had more freedom from potentially restrictive heterosexual relationship models put forward by society, but I also think that he needs to be careful not to imply that this "freedom" makes all lesbian or gay relationships automatically "pure relationships" or unrestricted in other ways. The very lack of social expectations has the potential to be just as destructive and/or hurtful for people in nontraditional relationships as the heterosexual relationship "box."
-Heidi
Hey Ka Zoua,
Thanks for your great summary and personal reactions. Although I think that Giddens might be stuck in a little bit of gender binary (except what was that random bit at the end? I didn't even put that in my blog either because it was so unrelated to the rest of the book) and puts homosexual relationships in boxes a little bit, I do think his model of plurality and his critique of the socialization of relationships adds to our third wave discourses. To me, his emphasis on concrete action to open up democracy and plurality in intimate relationships is key.
Ka Zoua,
Thank you for your thoughts.
One thing I'm still struggling to understand is the way in which pure relationships "can be terminated, more or less at will, by either partner at any particular point" (137). Though I understand that Giddens is seeking new ways of expressing and sharing intimacy outside of the "confines of marriage," I think Giddens oversimplifies the process of breaking up. This is usually a painful and difficult process regardless of whether one was married beforehand or not. I don't see how the model of pure relationships suggest a better or less painful way of breaking up.
Post a Comment