This blog is a foray into some of the most personal yet politically and socially controversial topics of our time: family. Through a sociological perspective, we explore questions concerning the definition, history and dynamics of the family in North America. Main topics and questions in this blog are guided by a graduate-level seminar in Sociology of the Family at McGill University taught by Professor Anna-Liisa Aunio.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Family and Intimacy

As we have discussed in extent during our classes, the image of the traditional or nuclear family is changing in order to adapt to societal changes in the construction of families. It thus far makes sense that if the definition of family changes then the definition of love and intimacy also evolves. As it was discussed in Budgeon’s and Roseneil’s article, in order to be intimate with someone no longer implies that you are involved in a sexual relationship. Friends can have an intimate relationship in which they share personal thoughts, views, worries and care for one another without being lovers. This was demonstrated with a woman’s relationship with, “Tom” who was obviously taking care of her during an illness but who was not a lover. I also agree as it was also argued in this article that friends can become one’s family; “friends are the family that you choose”. There are people in this world who do not have a “traditional” family and therefore create a relationship with friends that takes upon the role that a family would other whys play.

I also welcome Gidden’s theory of confluent love as opposed to romantic love as I believe it is more reflective of our definition of love in today’s society. Intimacy or love no longer in my opinion has to be defined between a man and a woman as romantic love defines it. I think confluent love is more based on a type of intimacy where both partners are equal and are expected to both give and take in the relationship but also allows them to be their own independent individuals. This definition of love or intimacy also is not as restrictive as romantic love and applies to both homosexual and heterogeneous relationships.

1) In your opinion, what do you believe to be the difference between, “amour passion” and “romantic love” as described by Giddens?

2) “Love doesn’t heal. When you give it, it doesn’t take. When another offers it, it may feel good but it’s not good for you” (Hochschild 2003, p.25) Do you agree or disagree with this quotation? Why or why not?

3) Do you believe that it is possible for friends to reach the same degree of intimacy as lovers would? Do you think there are different levels of intimacy?

No comments:

Post a Comment