Giddens (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy Romantic Love Confluent Love/Pure Relationship Transformation What caused this change? What are the consequences of this transformation? Pure Love Relationship is the dominant cultural form

Aspects of the Pure Relationship Definition (p.58; p.4 Gross & Simmons)) Voluntary Egalitarian Communicative Satisfying

Modernization Industrialization Increasing rationalization in society (de-traditionalization) Increased expert systems Increased individualism (key social unit) Increased pace of change Globalization: provides alternatives Self as an “open project” and “reflexive questioning” (Giddens)

Modernization and Intimacy Giddens is the heir of the “genuine ambivalence” about modernity Self as Project (“everyday social experiments”; “reflexive questioning”) Romantic Love = 1st phase of modern intimacy Confluent Love = mid - late 20th century

Structural Contradiction and Effects of the Pure Relationship Pure relationship requires commitment but provides no guarantees. Intimacy is risky. (p.137) Effects:  Increased uncertainty, instability, insecurity (negative)  greater equality, more democratic personal relationships (positive) New gender dynamics for heterosexuals Declining status of marriage as a social institution

Gross & Simmons (2002) Intimacy as a Double-Edged Phenomenon Empirical test of Giddens theory on intimacy and sexual relationships Data from 1995 in the U.S. (MIDUS); adults (25-74); 2000 with partners Independent variable: pure love relationship

3 Categories of Relationship Pure Love (for variables see p.8) Romantic Love Hybrid [Measured by: Intimacy Attitudes about relationship traditionalism Behavior of nontraditionalism]

Hypotheses on Impacts of Pure Relationships H1:Heightened feelings of autonomy H2:Happier with relationships H3:More egalitarian political views H4:Higher levels of anxiety H5:More addiction H4 and H5 not supported