Whether it is a consequence or cause, it is of no dispute that in the contemporary world, there exists the diversification of families. In order to meet the diversified needs of these new forms of families, it is only logical to come up with alternatives that satisfy these needs. With more women entering the workforce and the increase in the breaking up of families (due to different reasons), there exists alternative care, intimacy, and emotional work. To make sense of all of this, it is insufficient to look at these alternatives by the heteronormative framework—the “normative nuclear family” model—and ineffectual in explaining the how and why of diversification of care and intimacy. How are we to take into account single parent households, families with no children, cohabiting partners, or those in homosexual relationships? In this aspect, Roseneil and Budgeon’s critique of the heteronormative framework, in regards to the family, care, and intimacy aspects, is quite intriguing. It is interesting to look at the different case studies of Karen and Polly, Dale, and Eleanor and through them, as the authors point out, we are able to see that the concept of love, intimacy, and care are fluid and highly flexible to fit into all situations. For those who are not committed to a “nuclear” family, they tend to turn to friendship—practices of care and support happening away from the (hetero)sexual partnerships. Along with the “decentring” of sexual relationships, the interchangability of lover/partner and friend is very informative.
With the ever-changing definition and formation of families and emotional work, we need to look at these diversifications and alternatives as they are. We should not become fixated in trying to explain the “broken down” families and the interchangeability of lover/friend, care, love, and intimacy by the heteronormative framework for it will only hinder us from fully understanding these new phenomenons.
Q1] Hochschild mentions the commercialization of the intimate life. With regards to this, is emotional investment towards the family a mode of production or consumption? Is the emotional investment towards the spouse/partner different than that of the one towards the children (in the sense of whether it being a mode of production or consumption)?
Q2] The transformation and fluidity of intimacy that Roseneil and Budgeon mention in their work brings about intriguing issues to surface. Can we come up with a concrete definition of “stability” with regards to the diversification of care, intimacy, and love? Can we give a definitive answer to as which form of “family of choice” can provide the most stability to those involved?
Q3] Is the concept of care, intimacy, and love all just a symbolic norm to allow for our society to fully function? Or is it a biochemical reaction where some have the potential to become a loving and caring individual while others have no sense of intimacy whatsoever and is incapable of love?
No comments:
Post a Comment