Abstract
This article addresses a proposed rupture between duty and desire in late modern intimacy: the optimistic account of liberated love propagated by Anthony Giddens (1991, 1992) on the one hand, and the feminist critique, among others presented by Lynn Jamieson (1998, 1999) on the other, that emphasizes a widened gap between ideals of pure love and a persistent gendered division of work. Drawing on a longitudinal study of egalitarian couples in Norwegian society, the article outlines an alternative picture. Faced with a noticeable erotization of work and an accentuated focus on the child as a project, neither negotiations for a fair distribution of practical duties nor the mutual disclosure and passion seem to provide the glue in these couples. Instead, the tensions between domestic responsibilities, heavy work requirements, and high expectations on emotional closeness seem to produce new configurations of commitment and desire. Rather than untying domestic necessities from passionate love, these couples transform the timebind into a narrative about shared projects. The achievements of these shared projects are twofold: they liberate the process of home‐making from the gendered narratives, and they permeate these de‐gendered narratives with a romantic spirit. By making these joint projects a focal point in their everyday lives, these couples have managed to reformulate both love and home‐making in a way that produces a committed “in‐between” in their intimate relationship, the overarching principle that is missing in Giddens' concept of confluent love.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call