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.