The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (31 page)

fulfillment helped to create whole new professions of sexual and marital therapy that, in turn, created more and greater searches for sexual and emotional

growth. Part of this search for individual authenticity and the exploration of

the self led to a rejection of traditional modes of pairing ± people left marriages, lived together before marriage, and questioned the hegemony of the heterosexual

couple as the only normative model for intimacy. Many of the intimacy topics of

interest to sociologists ± premarital sex, gay and lesbian couples, cohabitation, egalitarian marriage, enhanced communication, divorce rates, single parenting,

and non-marital parenting ± can be linked to the movements of the 1960s and

early 1970s.

Psychologists had, of course, fished in these waters before sociologists. But

sociologists looked at differences in intimacy according to distinctions of gender, class, race, and ethnicity. We examine the social context of intimacy and the

cultural contagion that has taken one model ± the Western vision of romantic

love and closeness based on personal disclosure ± and distributed it via mass

media and the social sciences to the rest of the world. There is a good deal of

evidence to indicate that the Western vision of marriage, as a love match rather than as family maintenance of status and reproductive rights guaranteed to stay

within class and religious and ethnic lines, has affected the most unlikely countries. Japan, for example, has a growing divorce rate, a significant majority of young people pick their own spouse, and marriage occurs later as young women

join men in the work world. In China, 57 percent of women who married in

1987 reported choosing their husbands and the other 43 percent reported that

they had had some choice in the matter. Even in India, researchers found

that between one-third and one-half of their young adult sample believed

they should have the freedom to choose their marital partner (Smith and Bond,

1998).

Other patterns of intimate association, such as cohabitation, seem to be

increasing wherever personal liberty is allowed. Nearly all young people in

Sweden live together before marriage (and most have children in these unions),

the vast majority of the French cohabit at one time or another, and cohabitation experience in the United States has risen dramatically from less than a fifth in the 1970s to more than half of all people today. The most conservative countries ±

such as those that have established fundamentalist Muslim governments ± have

made a special effort to repress and extinguish these Western customs but other

Muslim countries with non-theocratic governments, such as Turkey and

Pakistan, have, for the most part, not followed suit. They too see changing

family and relationship patterns as love and intimacy become central to a ful-

filling life.

Intimate Relationships

117

Competing Paradigms for a Sociology of Intimacy

Psychoanalytic

Historically, the study of intimate relationships has been dominated by Freudian psychodynamic approaches. The Freudian assertion of anatomy as destiny

implies an irreversible condition of gender. The corollary assertion that our

earliest family experience of gender predicts our lifelong sexual and intimate

lives establishes the centrality and immutability of gender to the human experi-

ence. This essentialist view pervades popular culture and supports inequality as the natural outgrowth of child development. Using ``men are from Mars and

women are from Venus'' as a justification for the structural and relational

position of men and women creates and maintains the vision of love and

intimacy based on separate and unequal status of the sexes.

Social Exchange

Social exchange theory is derived from economic theory and behavioral psycho-

logy. Exchange concepts were initially used in studies of courtship and marriage before the term ``social exchange'' was coined. Willard Waller formulated the

concept of thè`marriage market'' and examined the relative resources

exchanged in love relationships; since then exchange in intimate relationships

has been a major focus of social exchange theory. The theory has been popular

because it doesn't rely on assessing individual motivations and psychological

states; instead, it focuses on the exchange of resources, material and non-

material, in the relationship. Richard Emerson expanded social exchange theory

to include intimate relationships by exploring resource exchanges over time

rather than restricted to a single interaction (Molm and Cook, 1995). Subse-

quent empirical work helped understanding of the complexity of exchanges

involving multiple interactions. In couples, potential resources to be exchanged include both tangible and intangible assets, such as economic resources, housework, childcare, affection, and relative attractiveness. The type of intimate

relationship (dating, marriage, cohabitation) often affects the relative worth of these resources.

If relationships are based on a mutual exchange of rewards, how do clearly

unequal relationships endure? Many sociologists have documented the inequal-

ity of working wives' ``second shift'' (Hochschild, 1989; Brines, 1994); most

women both participate in the labor market and are responsible for the majority

of the domestic work and childcare. Michaels and Wiggins demonstrated that

exchanges do not have to be equal; instead the value of the exchange must

exceed any potential alternatives (see Molm and Cook, 1995). Still, the lack of

analysis of the effects of power and coercion in dyadic exchange has been

problematic for critics. By limiting social exchange theory to a reward-based

system it has not adequately evaluated coercive power in discordant relation-

ships. Recently, however, theorists have attempted to integrate reward-based and 118

Raine Dozier and Pepper Schwartz

punishment-induced forms of power. This seems to be a more effective means of

explaining coercive and abusive partnerships. Molm (Molm and Cook, 1995)

found that in mutually dependent relations coercion is rarely used. She also found that coercion and punishment tactics are most often used by those lacking

resource-based power ± in other words, the power to reward.

Interactionist

Some sociological research examines how intimate relationships create and

maintain gender stratification. This growing body of work claims that early

socialization is less responsible for gender differences, styles, and goals than are current, ongoing interactions that both create and maintain difference and

inequality. This view strays from psychoanalytic and sociobiological assertions

of early, fixed gender identity and behaviors, and instead underscores people's

shifting gender roles both situationally and over the life span. Risman focuses on a variety of family forms to explore how gender socialization takes place through interaction (Risman, 1998). She claims that gender structure so thoroughly

organizes work, family, and community that rejecting gender directives is diffi-

cult because of the compelling ``logic'' of the gendered status quo. For instance, a couple may be committed to shared parenting which would require each working part-time, but if the man is paid significantly more then shared parenting

economically penalizes the family. Since the structure supports the superiority of men economically, physically, and socially, thè`logical'' decision ± that only he participates in the economic sphere ± perpetuates gender stratification.

The structure of gender informs interaction in intimate relationships ± how

couples work, parent, love, and communicate. Necessarily, then, straying from

prescribed gender roles changes intimate interaction. For instance, Risman's

(1998) research on single fathers found that fathers become much like mothers

when required to perform domestic tasks and nurture children, and even come to

identify themselves as more feminine. This means that feminine characteristics

are more strongly influenced by the performance of a social role than by early

socialization, but since social position is usually determined by gender, the two become conflated.

These are a few of the primary ways intimate relationships have been exam-

ined: at a personal level through psychoanalysis and social exchange theory; and at a structural level examining how interaction creates and maintains the social structure of gender stratification. The sociological study of intimacy, then, can help to clarify the relationship between social structure and personal experience, both how structure creates the personal, intimate family experience and how the

personal experience creates and maintains social structure.

Sociological methods for analyzing intimate relationships have been used in

several domains. The rapidly changing roles of men and women in relationships,

marriage, and the family have created numerous sites in which to study intimate

relationships. In this article, we will focus on just a few: dual earner marriages, egalitarian marriages, cohabitation, and communication in intimate relationships.

Intimate Relationships

119

Sites of Intimate

Intimate Relations

Dual Earner Marriages

In the past fifty years, women's entry into the labor force has profoundly

changed family structure, marital relationships, and attitudes about childrearing.

Although some women have always worked outside the home, particularly

African Americans, immigrants, and other poor women, now most women

with children work outside the home. In fact, over 60 percent of women with

children under one participate in paid labor (US Bureau of the Census, 1998b).

In order to accommodate women's entry into the labor force, families and

couples have struggled to rearrange both their lives and their values. This rapid shift in values and identity has occurred within one generation, allowing few

preceding role models for dual earner couples. Changing family roles and labor

patterns leave both men and women struggling to redefinè`good parenting'' in

the context of forty-or fifty-hour work weeks. Men grapple with their role in the domestic sphere and its relationship to masculinity; women wonder whether

they can ``do it all'' ± have a rewarding career, parent, maintain the household, and nurture a fulfilling relationship.

The concept of à`good marriage'' has changed as well. No longer are hus-

bands usually the sole breadwinner and wives happiest in managing the domestic

sphere by themselves. In her interviews with working-class families in the early 1970s, Rubin often heard women report, `Ì have nothing to complain about.

He's a steady worker; he doesn't drink; he doesn't hit me'' (Rubin, 1976, p. 93).

Her interviews twenty years later illustrate that the cultural shift in the definition of a good marriage had permeated the often traditional working class. Many of

these wives worked full-time and came home to thè`second shift,'' but they no

longer felt it was fair. Many, in fact, deeply resented it (Rubin, 1994). Research has found a growing disenchantment among women regarding the household

division of labor that has profound effects on both the health and future of a

marriage.

Hochschild (1989) examined the lives of dual earner couples to discover under

what circumstances men and women shared domestic responsibilities. She pos-

tulated that men's values would predict their behavior ± that men who valued

equity and espoused the equal division of domestic labor would be more likely to share in household tasks. She also believed that domestic work was directly

exchangeable with money ± men who were more dependent on their wives'

wages would feel more obligated to help at home. Her empirical findings belied

these logical assumptions: she found equitable relationships across the spectrum of both class and beliefs about gender equity. A working-class man with traditional beliefs was just as likely to participate in the domestic sphere as an upper-class man with a belief in equity. Instead of being a site for the expression of values regarding class or the division of labor, domestic work often became a site for the expression of power. Men who felt insecure economically were less likely to participate at home; those who felt their status most threatened because they 120

Raine Dozier and Pepper Schwartz

earned less than their wives were the least likely to participate in domestic labor.

Because of an inability to express traditional masculinity in thè`provider role,''

masculinity was asserted by dominating at home and distancing from the

domestic feminine sphere.

Wives also participated in ``balancing'' or the re-establishment of men's dom-

inance and power (Hochschild, 1989). Since traditional models of intimate

relationships between men and women rely on gender hierarchy, women who

made more money than their husbands felt a need to restore his power by

waiting on him or doing an even greater share of the domestic chores than

non-working wives. This may sound counterintuitive, but additional research

has strengthened Hochschild's findings. Brines's (1994) quantitative research

supports the notion that men who are more dependent on their wives' income

resist doing housework. She also describes this flight from domestic participa-

tion as a method of ``displaying gender'' when traditional masculine routes

(economic success) are unavailable.

In addition to coping with conflicts regarding power and equity in the domes-