Response to Zygmunt Bauman’s, Liquid Love (pg. 58-118)

Bauman continues to look at how our social framework and societal institutions inform our relationships of love. In the end of chapter 2, he begins to discuss his idea of ‘communitas’, a social arrangement that focuses on the community’s needs. A discussion of virtual connectedness and mobility is critiqued as a new age way in which relationships are governed. Again, the stress of commoditized love is emphasized in Bauman’s discussion of Gross National Product (GNP) being essential to the formation of intimate, fluid relationships. In chapter 3, the focus is on how it is difficult for the human to put the interest of others before their own. The human, like most animals, must put their individual survival above the rest. Bauman also criticizes Giddens’ model of the ‘pure relationship’ as establishing problems of trust and intimacy, aspects fostered in a fluid society. He ends the chapter by using the city as a model for the global, fluid, consumerist culture.

End Chapter 2: In and Out of the Toolbox of Sociality

In chapter 2, I was most interested in Bauman’s discussion of ‘virtual proximity’ and how it has changed the modern relationship within the realm of ‘physical proximity’. A new sense of connectedness has developed because physical proximity is no longer a criterion for remaining close to someone. The argument can also be flipped, in that physical closeness no longer signifies proximity. In a modern age, one can become intimate without the physical proximity. This phenomenon is exemplified through online dating and Internet relationships, in which the aspect of physical proximity no longer affects the sense of closeness a couple feels for each other. Bauman uses this argument to bring the reader back to his idea of fluid, consumerist love.

The GNP model expresses the governmental need to create products that will be consumed in order to attain fulfillment. Bauman discusses how this culture pulls the social bonds between people apart, fostering an individualistic strive for success and happiness. The idealized citizens that will foster this GNP culture are those void of social connection, but Bauman ultimately concludes these people to be fictional (69). He then discusses the need for a community model to emphasize social bonds, and in my belief, ultimately combat the GNP consumer obsessed culture. His conclusion is, “Human solidarity is the first casualty of the triumphs of the consumer market” (76). A fundamental form of this solidarity is the loving relationship that is forced into a fluidity framework. If the individual always comes before the group, Giddens’ vision of the ‘pure relationship’ can never be actualized. A relationship will never become stable because the market value of the relationship will constantly be rising and falling depending on the individual gain each person engaged in the relationship experiences.

Chapter 3: On the Difficulty of Loving Thy Neighbor

Bauman discusses the human struggle to ‘love thy neighbor’ over the best interest of the self. A discussion of survival and self-love develops, while these two concepts may run parallel to each other, self-love offers the option to refuse survival, if life is not living up to the standard set by the self. Bauman claims that self-love cannot exist apart from being loved, because self-hatred will breed if this does not occur. Survival on the other hand is described as more individualistic, instinctual, even if disconnected from others. These two aspects of self inform us on how we enter into loving relationships.

I was interested in Bauman’s critique of Giddens’ ‘pure relationship’. He focuses on the insecurity that results from a confluent love model because individuals are free to end the relationship when they are no longer being fulfilled. He expresses that this idea fosters distrust and instability. This is something we brought up when discussing Giddens’ model in class. However, Bauman fails to mention the element of emotional and physical reciprocity that develops in this egalitarian relationship. I think the model does not stress the fluidity of relationships (meaning one can leave at any moment) but the fact that one can leave if they are not feeling the reciprocal effects of the relationship. Of course this is complicated by the individual’s feelings on what the reciprocity should be defined as, and ultimately it may feel like one is leaving the other. However, I feel this is a much better option than the unconditional, devoted relationship that Kipnis critiques and finds fault in. Ultimately, Bauman fails to see this reciprocity and instead focuses on the dependency of the ‘pure relationship’ as binding the individual to an unstable relationship (90). I do not follow this logic because the ‘pure relationship’ is based off the idea of confluent love that is founded on the principle of reciprocity.

Bauman concludes this chapter by looking at the formation of similar sub-communities within the larger context of a city. All of his deconstructions of how human's create society and interact in society inform us on how we develop relationships. I think Bauman’s goal is to show us how our relationships mirror the larger, consumerist society. It is the public informing the private, and by looking at patterns of the larger culture, we can see why love has become fluid, rather than constant.

Response to Anthony Giddens’, The Transformation of Intimacy: Intro. and Chapters 1-4

Anthony Giddens wrote this text in order to examine the institution of sexuality and its’ implications for heterosexual relationships. Most of the text focuses on heterosexual patterns of love but he also acknowledges the importance of examining patterns of homosexual relationships. He draws on the genre of ‘self-help’, in hopes to reach a wide array of people, helping them to critically examine how the societal construction of romantic love has influenced the construction of intimate relationships. Sex (predominantly heterosexual sex) is analyzed through the historical examination of gender roles and how new roles (strong focus on women) are changing the formation of heterosexual relationships today. However, he also admits that patterns of power may appear to have changed but are still underlying factors in the continuation of female subjectification within heterosexual relationships.

Chapter 1:Everday Experiments, Relationships, Sexuality

This chapter focuses on the changing role of women within sexual relationships, as they begin to assume power and control over their sexuality and whom they share it with. Giddens emphasizes how the separation of reproductively and the female sexual experience have given women the opportunity to seek sexual pleasure without the burden of pregnancy. No longer is it a reality that men have free sexual range and experience multiple partners, while women experience one partner in the realm of marriage. Gibbens claims that, “Women no longer go along with male sexual dominance, and both sexes must deal with the implications of this phenomenon” (8). The examination of how both men and women respond to this change in sexual relationship patterns becomes the focus of this chapter. However, the role of masculinity is not thoroughly explored.

Chapter 2: Foucault on Sexuality

Gibbens utilizes Foucault’s, The History of Sexuality, to draw on and expand on his insights into how sexuality has been historically constructed. However, Gibbens believes Foucault’s conclusions to be flawed and ultimately hindered by his emphasis on power. Gibbens argues that Foucault’s discussion of ‘disciplinary power’ “produced ‘docile bodies controlled and regulated in their activities rather than able spontaneously to act on promptings of desire” (18). This introduces Connell’s discussion of the body reflexive and the importance of factoring in the body as ‘agent’ as well as ‘actor’. Foucault begins to view power as a ‘mobilizing agent’, not merely a limitation later on in his analysis. In this sense, power becomes the “instrument for the production of pleasure: it does not stand opposed to it” (18). Gibbens briefly discusses Foucault’s analysis of how sexuality was historically constructed, adding his own commentary on points of contention he views in Foucault’s hypothesis. One of Giddens' main criticisms is that Foucault puts too much emphasis on sexuality, at the expense of gender roles and does not connect the construction of sexuality to romantic notions of love. Romanized love and sexuality are inextricably linked in Gibbens’ opinion, and thus, both influence and are influenced by one and other.

Chapter 3: Romantic Love and Other Attachments

This next chapter attempts to show how romantic love is imperative to deconstruct in order to understand the construction of sexuality. He defines passionate love or ‘amour passion’ as “expressing a generic connection between love and sexual attachment” (37). This connection is Gibbens' main focus, as he examines how romantic love influences sexual desire and attachment. Again, he does a social historical analysis of the construction of romantic love and how genderized roles have been conditioned to respond to the phenomenon in different ways.

Chapter 4: Love, Commitment and the Pure Relationship

I was most intrigued with this chapter because my personal experiences with relationships were mirrored in Gibbens’ discussion of commitment. He examines virginity as being a loss for women and a gain for men. I think this is still a reality in our society today. I also see relationship patterns of bargaining, where the woman will offer sex for the exchange of commitment from her male partner. I think many issues of masculinity that we learned about through Connell’s text were apparent in this chapter, especially the emphasis on the man being the sexual expert and having more sexual experiences over that of the woman. This is the first chapter that Gibbens explicitly looks at the constraints of masculinity that cause a power imbalance within relationships. I think this is an element that was missing from his previous chapters. He focuses so much on how the role of women has changed in heterosexual relationships over time, he fails to show how men are changing as well. I feel like he focuses on men changing their attitudes in response to women’s changing roles. But do they have advocacy in this matter? How is the modern man escaping the established roles of masculinity in the realm of romantic relationships independently of women’s changing roles?

I was also interested in Gibbens’ discussion of women being focused on the future using the pronoun “we”, while men talk about the future using the pronoun “I”. This phenomenon filters into his discussion of women defining their independence through relational dependency, while men still focus on their dependency defined on their own terms. He ends with a discussion of ‘confluent love’ being the ‘modern’ form of love. This love focuses on the reciprocity of sexual pleasure between partners. It also assumes reciprocity within the realm of emotional giving and taking. This egalitarian love begins to meld the strict gender roles of dominance and submissiveness that have been emphasized in heterosexual relationships. I am hopeful that this is the direction relationships are starting to move in but I am also not naive of the fact that remnants of the historical notion of romantic love still influence and create an imbalance within heterosexual relationships today.

Natalie Angier’s article, "Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek The Keys to It." and "NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction

"Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek The Keys to It."

Natalie Angier discusses the topic of desire and studies that have been conducted to examine how men and women differ in response and understanding of their sexual desire. I was particularly interested in how sexual desire is assessed in men through recording periods of penile erection, but in women, it is difficult to find a comparative bodily action that solely signifies sexual arousal. First, I was upset at how these studies focused on the erection as the signifier of male arousal, and thus, sought to define female sexual arousal through a physical response that would be equivalent to the male erection. This perpetuates the system of desire being connected to the fallice. It emphasizes the idea that the woman must have a counterpart to the male erection to define her sexual desire.

Stephanie A. Sanders from the Kinsey Institute and Indiana University described asking women about if they thought the female equivalent to the male erection was genital lubrication. The majority of women responded with a resounding “no”, claiming that “’you can get wet when you’re not aroused, it changes with the menstrual cycle, it is not a meaningful measure’” (4).

A startling finding from Dr. Chivers of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health was that “women and men show divergent patterns of genital arousal while viewing material with sexual content” (4). He observed that most heterosexual males had a personal awareness of the connection between their physical and psychological arousal when viewing sexual content. However, many women displayed disconnect between their physical arousal and psychological arousal. Their bodies responded to the sexual images but they claimed not to enjoy the visually explicit material.

This is a phenomenon we have discussed in my Human Sexuality course. The question is, why does this disconnect exists? I am apt to believe that because of our culture, women are conditioned not to be in touch with their bodies sexually. Porn is also socially construed to be a form of female subordination, and thus, many women refuse to support the consumption of porn or if they do enjoy it, feel guilty and that they must hide this socially unacceptable practice. This is something the CAKE girls are fighting against and the book “Female Chauvinist Pigs” addresses, the acceptance of women into this raunch culture and the freedom to freely express their sexual desires. However, discussing this in my Human Sexuality class, the general consensus was that porn was a male activity, and women wanted nothing to do with it.

Dr. Chivers seems to have a different hypothesis; he states that women are not aware of this physical response to the explicit material. His theory is that women are in constant fear of being raped and it is the body’s natural defense mechanism to lubricate at “any hint of sex” to protect the reproductive tract. I am skeptical of this claim. If lubrication is the signifier of whether or not a woman is aroused, the studies discussed earlier have already proven that this is not a good indicator. Women experience lubrication in many instances outside the realm of sexual arousal. Also, in our Human Sexuality textbook, the device used to tract women’s arousal recorded their muscle contractions, not just their lubrication production. If we use Chivers' argument in this circumstance, why would women contract their muscles, which is defined as the first stages of arousal, if they are merely doing this as an evolutionary defense mechanism against rape? I really think there is something else at play besides the evolutionary protection of the reproductive tract.

While it is important to look at how women and men differ in their experience of desire, we need to remember that these studies focus on heterosexual people. Therefore, these studies do not enlighten us on all people’s experiences of desire. Also, as we have emphasized over and over again, desire too, is a part of a continuum in which men and women’s experiences overlap. This article fails to mention all the similar experiences of sexual desire that men and women feel, while they may manifest themselves in different ways, not all men are carnal aggressors and all women are not passive lovers. In many ways, this article reinforces the heteronormative roles of the aggressive male and the passive female.

"NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction"

This was one of the most amazing magazines I have ever read. Every piece was extremely provocative and hours of discussion ensued on the airplane after reading each article. I will be discussing the article by Mans Andersson called, “Gendering Animals: Representation, identification and the demise of simplicity”. As an environmental chemistry student, this article particularly spoke to me and reemphasized the need to deconstruct the strict gender binary present in our society.

First, I was fascinated by all the species discussed that defy the sex binary of men and women. There were example of inner-sexed species, sex determined by outside environments such as temperature, and characteristics that have been defined as essentially male practices found to be female characteristics. Patterns of aggression and sex selection of mates are in reality a very common female trait in many species. Andersson also points out that many of the species observed to have this gender- role reversal, are understudied and usually not given much attention in the mainstream science.

This is where the genderizing of animals comes into play. Humans study the animal kingdom through the sex binary we have established for understanding our lives. Thus, we try to fit animals within this framework of understanding, and when they do not fit, we either ignore them or try to bend the reality of the species behavior to fit within the sex-specific behaviors established in the sex binary. The most telling example of this is when Andersson refers to John Marzuluff and Russ Baldo’s study of dominance hierarchies within the bird specie called Pineon Jay. They claimed that the female’s aggression was tided to hormonal fluctuation, similar to women experiencing PMS. Later, this conclusion was dismissed, as scientists observed that females were in charge of choosing their mate and aggression was displayed in ensuring the best mate selection (15).

I was fascinated by this idea that human’s gender normative stereotypes are indirectly applied in studying other animals. I began to think about Animal Planet specials, especially on mating, that use heteronormative language to describe the animals. The males are usually the pursuers and the female flees from the males, until she is too weak to fend off the strongest male’s advances and ultimately succumbs to his will, natural selection at its finest, the strongest male wins. But why don’t we hear about the birds that store up several males sperm, and pick the best batch to fertilize their eggs, and even control the sex of their offspring? Is it because these animals trouble our definition of male and female roles, do they trouble the biology of what we believe to be essentially “woman” and “man” behaviors. If biology is closer to truth then cultural construction, why is biology still confined within this heteronormative sex binary, when so many species deviate from this rigid definition of sex? I am reminded of Butler’s discussion of biology being constrained by language, this article definitely reiterates this claim. If many of nature’s species deviate from this binary, how can we still be fighting to naturalize this binary, why should it exclude many humans’ and animals’ experiences of gender? What is more natural then nature?

Norah Vincent’s, Self-Made Man: A Discussion of Chapters 4-6

These three chapters dealt with Norah Vincent’s insights into Ned’s experiences with dating, life in a monastic setting and working in corporate America. I was particularly intrigued with “Chapter 5: Life”, in which Ned lived with a Catholic monastic order. At first Vincent believed that she would gain new insight into masculinity because sex, specifically sexual encounters with women, where taken out of the picture in a monastic setting. However, many similar insights into masculine identity were discovered, even without the added element of heterosexual sex. In fact, hyper-masculinity plagued many of the monks because they had to suppress any interactions with their fellow brothers that may be classified as homosexual tendencies, which ultimately could progress into sinful sexual acts with fellow brothers. This chapter blew me away because I have never thought of monks being trapped within the construction of hyper-masculinity. I think this is because, like Vincent, I connect hyper-masculinity so strongly to heterosexual interaction with women, that I feel an absence of this relationship with women would ultimately free monks from this demeaning masculinity that forces men to objectify and victimize women.

This chapter drew many similar conclusions to “Chapter 2: Friendship”, in which Ned interacts solely in a male dominant environment. Sexual orientation and homophobia became very important components of Vincent’s observed masculine identity in the monks. There were clear physical and emotional boundaries that were not to be crossed, for fear that another brother may perceive one as gay and thus a threat to one’s vow of chastity. I was fascinated that when Father Fat learned that Ned was a woman, he openly embraced her, just as Jim had done in the chapter on friendship. As soon as Ned was reclassified as a woman, both men were able to let down their emotional and physical guards.

Again, Vincent ends this chapter with certain observational claims about the group of men she spent time with. She states, “I found you can take the man out of his element but you can not very often take the element out of the man” (181). She emphasizes that men removed from the element of heterosexual interaction with women still act within the boundaries of this element. I wonder if this statement is another essentialist claim Vincent is making about masculine identity or is this simply a constructed element in which men have been conditioned into and can never to escape?

In “Chapter 4: Love”, Ned experiences dating and realizes how challenging dating is for men. Vincent believed that Ned would be good at dating because he was indeed a woman, thus aware of what women want. However, this was not the reality. One main theme of this chapter was rejection and how men respond to rejection usually through resentment towards women, thus, pulling the emotional and physical needs of women and men further apart. Vincent concludes that “women have a lot of power, not only to arouse, but to give worth, self-worth, meaning, initiation, sustenance, everything” (127). This comment of women’s power over the heterosexual male is imperative to understanding the insecurities that lie beneath the hyper-masculine exterior of many heterosexual men.

Another important observation was female and male expectations, and there disconnect and mixed signals of female expectations that men have to deal with in a dating environment. She observes, “while a man is expected to be modern, that is, to support feminism in all its particulars, to and treat women as equals in every respect, he is on the other hand often still expected to be traditional at the same time, to treat a lady like a lady…” (112). This double standard is something I have personally struggled with in my relationships and think that a lack of communication between men and women in a date setting is problematic for both sexes.

In “Chapter 6: Work”, I was most intrigued with Vincent’s observations of Ivan, a corporate, chauvinistic, egotistical man that was successful in this “Red-bull” business world. Weaknesses were unacceptable in this group of men, masked through the competitive attitude and strive for success from the work world to the bedroom. Everything revolved around sex, even a successful product sale was “another form of scoring or ranking or winning, and the office reflected this attitude in every respect” (197). The stereotypical sports atmosphere of competitiveness and a drive to score in all aspects of life is observed in this chapter. The weakest link is fired, or forced to the bottom of this hierarchal latter of success, and this is not only a point system based on business sales. This point system depends on every part of the males’ masculine experience, the more beautiful women you fuck, the more points of respect you earn, just as the more sales you make.

I was very upset with this chapter because of all the affluent power these men have and how they reinforce a masculinity that oppresses women. I think I would have screamed at Ivan if I had to listen to all his boasting about fucking women and how intelligent he is. And the most frustrating thing is, how are women suppose to break into cooperate American culture, do they have to “suck it up” and put up with the offensive guy comments and harassment about their sex? If the boss uses this "JUICE" language to pump up his “team”, can a woman ever infiltrate this environment; will she ever be a fully included member? If cooperate strength is defined by these sexist actions, will a woman in cooperate America always be the “weakest link” if she refuses to put-up with this behavior? I am also aware that men are victimized by this cooperate culture because they must participate in this sexist behavior in order to climb the latter of success. It is truly a sad reality, and it reiterates one of the main themes of the book, both men and women suffer from the “masculine” identity.