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.