Cultures of Intimacy and Care beyond ‘the Family’: Personal Life and Social Change in the Early 21st Century

Abstract

The authors argue that if sociologists are to understand the current state, and likely future, of intimacy and care, we should decentre the ‘family’ and the heterosexual couple in our intellectual imaginaries. In the context of processes of individualization much that matters to people in terms of intimacy and care increasingly takes place beyond the ‘family’, between partners who are not living together ‘as family’, and within networks of friends. The first section of the article provides a critique of family sociology and the sociology of gender for the heteronormative frameworks within which they operate. It proposes an extension of the framework within which contemporary transformations in the realm of intimacy are to be analysed, and it suggests that there is a need for research focusing on the cultures of intimacy and care inhabited by those living at the cutting edge of social change. In the second part of the article, the authors draw upon their own research on the most ‘individualized’ sector of the population – adults who are not living with a partner. They explore contemporary cultures of intimacy and care among this group through a number of case studies, and argue that two interrelated processes characterize these cultures: centring on friendship, and decentring sexual relationships.

Peer-Led Care Practices and ‘Community’ Formation in British Retirement Migration

“…Sally, the retired nurse explained: 'people will always be willing to help if they can'. Work by Roseneil & Budgeon (2004) and Spencer & Pahl (2006) confirm the wider societal shift of declining familial relationships and increased significance of private and informal relationships. These relationships are developed in Spain among people who may have only recently met, but nonetheless might extend to caring, intimate acts (see Haas 2013).…”

Single People's Geographies of Home: Intimacy and Friendship beyond ‘the Family’

“…Therefore, even when respondents had attempted to create and recreate spaces of belonging and home, law and policy were still felt to reproduce a narrowly couple-centric and familial understanding of intimate life founded upon the ideal of a shared domestic space. Many authors have highlighted 'the heteronormativity of care', and noted that the nuclear household is often assumed to be the 'correct' space for care, whether in the form of childcare or care for the elderly (Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004 (Beck andBeck-Gernsheim, 1995, 2002;Giddens, 1992). As is evident in this study, intimate life can still be a space of constraint; coupled attachments are still privileged above others; and, as Folbre (2001, page 228) notes, "our economic and legal system has not kept pace with changes in the types of caring relationships that individuals form."…”

Embodying the ideal carer

“…Roseneil and Budgeon's (2004) more general discussion of intimacy outside the traditional realm and the focus on non-normative intimacies is very helpful in investigating the situation of migrant carers living with elderly people. Since care needs to be seen ''as a hybrid of love and instrumentality'' (Ungerson 2000: 627) this tension is of particular interest for those analysing the processes happening in domestic family settings.…”