Zygmunt Bauman, author of “Liquid Love,” explains this concept in the foreword of the book: “[Ulrich’s] successors today must tie together whatever bonds they want to use as a link to engage with the rest of the human world by their own efforts…None of the connections that come to fill the gap…are, however, guaranteed to last. Anyway, the need to be only loosely tied, so that they can be untied again, with little delay, when the settings change- as in liquid modernity they surely will, over and over again” (Foreword, vii). It is Bauman’s intention “to explore the frailty of human bonds, the feeling of insecurity that frailty inspires, and the conflicting desires that feeling prompts to tighten the bonds yet keep them loose” throughout the book (viii).
In chapter 1, “Falling In and Out of Love,” Bauman begins by examining the relationship between love and death. Just as one cannot learn to die, the author writes, one cannot learn to love. He argues that instead of people rising to the occasion of loving greatly more often, people instead choose to create lower standards. The author contends that love is not a skill to be learned, nor are ones’ skills to be furthered with each passing experience (5). Bauman contends that for some, love is akin to fate. He writes, “To love means opening up to that fate, that most sublime of all human conditions, one in which fear blends with joy into an alloy that no longer allows its ingredients to separate” (7).
After a section on Eros, Bauman writes of the connection between desire and love. He makes a distinction between two by describing desire as the “wish to consume” and love as the “wish to care, and to preserve the object of the care” (9). Bauman believes, however, we should rethink what we mean by desire. He describes desire as a long term situation or experience, and the time it takes to enjoy the investment of desire is “irritatingly and unaffordably long” (11).
Bauman continues on with an investment theme, describing relationships in terms of investments, stocks, and profits. Similar to investments, Bauman writes, is the effort it takes to create and maintain successful relationships, especially when considering the overwhelming doubts and securities both partners feel. However, the success of relationships is that neither person suffers from loneliness anymore.
The author explains “top-pocket relationships” next, named for how one can “keep it in your pocket so that you can bring it out when you need it” (21). The best qualities of such a relationship are that they are short and sweet. To be effective, Bauman writes, both partners must “enter in full awareness and soberly…and keep it this way” (21).
After a digression on a soap show called EastEnders, Bauman describes how affinity can be both positive and negative for one’s relationships. He states, “living together acquires the attraction which the bonds of affinity lack…over ‘living together,’ future kinship, whether desired or feared, does not cast its dark shadow” (29). The author then explains new popular ideologies, such as a substitution of ‘shared identity’ for ‘shared interests,’ ‘imagined communities,’ and technological communications (31-35).
In chapter 2, “In and Out of the Toolbox of Sociality,” the author contends that “homo sexualis” is both “orphaned by Eros” and “bereaved by the future” (40). He illustrates the issue of the modernity of medicine by describing the increasing importance of medicine rather than sex for reproduction. In the beginning over the chapter, Bauman examines how children change the lives of their parents, both positively and negatively. He notes that children, “first and foremost, [are] an object of emotional consumption” and warns “when it comes to objects of consumption, one looks for ‘value for money” (42).
The author also makes not of the increasing impact of medicine on sex by describing the potentially long-lasting consequences from having multiple sexual partners. Alongside issues of HIV or AIDS, Bauman notes that sexual intercourse or “episodes” also may produce increased levels of anxiety. He writes, “What sort of commitment, if any, does the union of bodies entail? Can the sexual encounter be kept in isolation from the rest of life’s pursuits, or will it spill over across that rest of life, saturate it and transform it?” (51).
It is these last questions that I think will be most interesting to discuss for tomorrow’s class. Many college students attempt to keep relationships or “sexual episodes” as informal and frequent as possible. Others seek out a partner they can see themselves marrying in the near future. I would like to discuss this issue in light of Bauman’s earlier discussions on the frailty of human bonds and the connection between love and desire. To what extent do you agree with his assessment of modern relationships? Disagree? In family/frienships/partner relationships?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Kipnis' "Against Love" chapters 3 & 4
Throughout chapter 3, “The Art of Love,” author Laura Kipnis illustrates different types of affairs, and how adulterers may feel getting into one, being in one, and getting out of one. Kipnis provides a multitude of possible reasons for why people engage in affairs, from boredom to dissatisfaction. She spends more time in the chapter describing what it feels like for people to be in affairs, persuading the reader to believe one can’t achieve this level of happiness/fun/excitement/desirability/love in a state of monogamy. Kipnis illustrates the extent to which adulterers rearrange their lives such as, taking up new hobbies or prolonging the work day, attempting to create satisfactory excuses to keep their actions of their new secret life safe and hidden. She writes of adultery as a way to “experiment with possibilities,” an idea she wants everyone to work with, not merely artists (114).
After providing three different scenarios of adultery, Kipnis begins to explain how adulterers have the great fortune, or misfortune, of being “routinely exposed to the most privy aspects of each other’s primary relationships” (119). While this can lead to excitement for the adulterer, giving him or her inside information and possibly, confirmation that their affair is for the best, it can also lead to a case of too much information and the demise of the affair.
In later sections of the chapter, Kipnis describes negative aspects of becoming involved in an affair, possible negative self-realizations. The most significant, Kipnis writes, is the feeling of self-disgust. The author furthers this section with a discussion on deception, and the potential disastrous consequences of lying to one’s partner. She writes, “The sustaining premise of modern coupled life is that our intimates are those we don’t lie to: we like to think of intimacy as a private enclave of authenticity set apart from ordinary social falseness and superficialities” (127). Kipnis concludes chapter 3 with a discussion on the reasons and potential ramifications of marriages staying together “for the sake of the children” (139).
In chapter 4, “…And the Pursuit of Happiness,” Kipnis focuses on numerous stories of our nation’s politicians’ extramarital affairs, with all of their scandalous details. From former President Clinton to Georgia congressman Bob Barr, Kipnis exposes their stories as evidence of her argument of the erosion of the “public/private distinction in American political culture” (145). I found her argument throughout this chapter that “whoever gets caught, at some level, self-engineers this fate” particularly interesting (147). I can understand how this could both explain and exasperate the sexuality scandals focusing on prominent national politicians. On one hand, when a person in such a famous position in national politics becomes involved in such a scandal, it’s easy to argue they should have known better, being in such a prominent position. Yet if one flips around this argument, it would be easy to claim that such famous figures believe in their own scandal immunity, leading them to participate in a potential scandal. Kipnis continues on to include a discussion on gay marriage, civil ceremonies, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I found her encouragement of a civic dialogue on the institution of marriage the most promising aspect of the entire book. We, as a nation, must be willing to entertain the “possibility that marriage was an institution in transition or an institution being redefined” (153).
After providing three different scenarios of adultery, Kipnis begins to explain how adulterers have the great fortune, or misfortune, of being “routinely exposed to the most privy aspects of each other’s primary relationships” (119). While this can lead to excitement for the adulterer, giving him or her inside information and possibly, confirmation that their affair is for the best, it can also lead to a case of too much information and the demise of the affair.
In later sections of the chapter, Kipnis describes negative aspects of becoming involved in an affair, possible negative self-realizations. The most significant, Kipnis writes, is the feeling of self-disgust. The author furthers this section with a discussion on deception, and the potential disastrous consequences of lying to one’s partner. She writes, “The sustaining premise of modern coupled life is that our intimates are those we don’t lie to: we like to think of intimacy as a private enclave of authenticity set apart from ordinary social falseness and superficialities” (127). Kipnis concludes chapter 3 with a discussion on the reasons and potential ramifications of marriages staying together “for the sake of the children” (139).
In chapter 4, “…And the Pursuit of Happiness,” Kipnis focuses on numerous stories of our nation’s politicians’ extramarital affairs, with all of their scandalous details. From former President Clinton to Georgia congressman Bob Barr, Kipnis exposes their stories as evidence of her argument of the erosion of the “public/private distinction in American political culture” (145). I found her argument throughout this chapter that “whoever gets caught, at some level, self-engineers this fate” particularly interesting (147). I can understand how this could both explain and exasperate the sexuality scandals focusing on prominent national politicians. On one hand, when a person in such a famous position in national politics becomes involved in such a scandal, it’s easy to argue they should have known better, being in such a prominent position. Yet if one flips around this argument, it would be easy to claim that such famous figures believe in their own scandal immunity, leading them to participate in a potential scandal. Kipnis continues on to include a discussion on gay marriage, civil ceremonies, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I found her encouragement of a civic dialogue on the institution of marriage the most promising aspect of the entire book. We, as a nation, must be willing to entertain the “possibility that marriage was an institution in transition or an institution being redefined” (153).
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
R. W. Connell, chapters 6 and 7
In chapter 6 of R. W. Connell’s “Masculinities,” the author examines the relationship between straight and gay men. Connell introduces the chapter by offering a brief history of society’s public acceptance of homosexuality. In the late 1960s and early 70s, Connell notes a “greater sexualization of the general culture,” providing a basis for the emergence of gay communities in the 1970s and 80s. Social-scientific views of homosexuality began to progress as well, with male homosexuality moving from being viewed as a form of “deviance” to an understanding of a separate identity.
Chapter 6 results from Connell’s interviews with 8 men from the gay community in Sydney, Australia. Ranging from early 20s to late 40s, these men had all had relationships with both women and men. Connell intertwines excerpts from these men with historical and current discourses on homosexuality. He begins by noting that homosexuality was caused by an “abnormality in development,” but that no one had determined what exactly that abnormality was. Distant fathers and seductive mothers were suggested to be the cause, but Connell points out recent studies have found little support. In Connell’s study, all 8 men had family relationships considered to be socially conventional. Their childhoods were also found to be socially normal, as there wasn’t much gender nonconformity (146). Moving into their adulthoods, Connell describes their work lives as socially masculine. With these two possible suggestions for an “abnormality” critiqued, Connell writes of the men’s “moment of engagement,” as stemming from “a sexual experience- the discovery of sexuality, or a discovery in sexuality” (147). The author continues on to describe several men’s early heterosexual and homosexual relationships by referencing that public discourse takes heterosexuality for granted (148). He writes of adult homosexuality, “It is something that happens, that is produced by specific practices, not something predetermined” (149).
Further sections of the chapter focus on the men’s experiences of “realizing” their homosexuality or their “coming out” stories. Usually these dialogues include thoughts of “sexual freedom,” and later, wishing for a long-term relationship. Other stories focus on feelings of “change,” such as change in living situations, or more personal, such as working to change specific parts of one’ s personality.
I was interested in the last parts of the chapter, when Connell focuses on the men’s opinions on feminism, especially when it is noted the their attitude and the level of ignorance of the subject matches those of heterosexual men interviewed. Connell illustrates, “Their usual position is to express some support for feminism, but to qualify it by disapproving of Those Who Go Too Far” (159).
Chapter 7 focuses on hegemonic masculinities, with reference specifically to rationality. Connell introduces, “A familiar theme in patriarchal ideology is that men are rational while women are emotional” (165). By critiquing this in light of men’s experiences (9 men, aged early 20s to mid40s) constructing their own masculinity, especially in the workplace, Connell illustrates the complexity of this issue.
A majority of the men interviewed recount childhoods with a great understanding of distinct gender roles, usually played out by their mothers and fathers. These reflections often connect directly to their current understanding of men and women’s roles, typically very traditional views.
Connell writes of two men’s vastly different job training experiences, with one educationally more advance, and the other having worked his way up from position to position based on previous skill and knowledge. The author goes on to describe how rationality can be “accomplished” in the workplace. One way is a hierarchically organized workplace, where the most knowledgeable people work at the top. In contrast, the other structured workplace focuses on common goals, rather than the authority in control. Connell concludes, “We may argue, then, that the relation between expertise and hierarchy in the workplace is a characteristic difficulty encountered by this group of men” (174). I found this section of Connell’s chapter most applicable to my own understanding and experience in a workplace, and believe many women, and young adults share this problem. Feelings of both inadequacy and, in contrast, superiority, both plague the workplace environment, creating an arena of uncertainty and disinterest.
Connell concludes with a section on the rationality of a workplace and the place the issue of sexuality holds. He writes, “Though diverse in their practice of sex, the men share a cultural experience about sex”(175). This translates into difficult workplace “sexual etiquette,” the next section Connell discusses.
Connell concludes by restating his argument, that rationality “is part of the modern legitimation of patriarchy” (180). However, he notes, this must be examined in light of sexuality in modern practice and in the workplace. He notes that there have, in fact, been attempts at reform and modernization, though still within well-defined limits (181).
I’m curious to hear what the class thinks about these two chapters of Connell. Though chapter 6 focused more on homosexuality and the interplay between sexual orientation and masculinity, I think its interviews were more critical to Connell’s discussion than those in chapter 7. Other points to consider: what did you think of the authority vs. experience workplace debate? To what extent is that problem similar to women’s experiences in the workplace? Women’s sexuality in the workplace?
Chapter 6 results from Connell’s interviews with 8 men from the gay community in Sydney, Australia. Ranging from early 20s to late 40s, these men had all had relationships with both women and men. Connell intertwines excerpts from these men with historical and current discourses on homosexuality. He begins by noting that homosexuality was caused by an “abnormality in development,” but that no one had determined what exactly that abnormality was. Distant fathers and seductive mothers were suggested to be the cause, but Connell points out recent studies have found little support. In Connell’s study, all 8 men had family relationships considered to be socially conventional. Their childhoods were also found to be socially normal, as there wasn’t much gender nonconformity (146). Moving into their adulthoods, Connell describes their work lives as socially masculine. With these two possible suggestions for an “abnormality” critiqued, Connell writes of the men’s “moment of engagement,” as stemming from “a sexual experience- the discovery of sexuality, or a discovery in sexuality” (147). The author continues on to describe several men’s early heterosexual and homosexual relationships by referencing that public discourse takes heterosexuality for granted (148). He writes of adult homosexuality, “It is something that happens, that is produced by specific practices, not something predetermined” (149).
Further sections of the chapter focus on the men’s experiences of “realizing” their homosexuality or their “coming out” stories. Usually these dialogues include thoughts of “sexual freedom,” and later, wishing for a long-term relationship. Other stories focus on feelings of “change,” such as change in living situations, or more personal, such as working to change specific parts of one’ s personality.
I was interested in the last parts of the chapter, when Connell focuses on the men’s opinions on feminism, especially when it is noted the their attitude and the level of ignorance of the subject matches those of heterosexual men interviewed. Connell illustrates, “Their usual position is to express some support for feminism, but to qualify it by disapproving of Those Who Go Too Far” (159).
Chapter 7 focuses on hegemonic masculinities, with reference specifically to rationality. Connell introduces, “A familiar theme in patriarchal ideology is that men are rational while women are emotional” (165). By critiquing this in light of men’s experiences (9 men, aged early 20s to mid40s) constructing their own masculinity, especially in the workplace, Connell illustrates the complexity of this issue.
A majority of the men interviewed recount childhoods with a great understanding of distinct gender roles, usually played out by their mothers and fathers. These reflections often connect directly to their current understanding of men and women’s roles, typically very traditional views.
Connell writes of two men’s vastly different job training experiences, with one educationally more advance, and the other having worked his way up from position to position based on previous skill and knowledge. The author goes on to describe how rationality can be “accomplished” in the workplace. One way is a hierarchically organized workplace, where the most knowledgeable people work at the top. In contrast, the other structured workplace focuses on common goals, rather than the authority in control. Connell concludes, “We may argue, then, that the relation between expertise and hierarchy in the workplace is a characteristic difficulty encountered by this group of men” (174). I found this section of Connell’s chapter most applicable to my own understanding and experience in a workplace, and believe many women, and young adults share this problem. Feelings of both inadequacy and, in contrast, superiority, both plague the workplace environment, creating an arena of uncertainty and disinterest.
Connell concludes with a section on the rationality of a workplace and the place the issue of sexuality holds. He writes, “Though diverse in their practice of sex, the men share a cultural experience about sex”(175). This translates into difficult workplace “sexual etiquette,” the next section Connell discusses.
Connell concludes by restating his argument, that rationality “is part of the modern legitimation of patriarchy” (180). However, he notes, this must be examined in light of sexuality in modern practice and in the workplace. He notes that there have, in fact, been attempts at reform and modernization, though still within well-defined limits (181).
I’m curious to hear what the class thinks about these two chapters of Connell. Though chapter 6 focused more on homosexuality and the interplay between sexual orientation and masculinity, I think its interviews were more critical to Connell’s discussion than those in chapter 7. Other points to consider: what did you think of the authority vs. experience workplace debate? To what extent is that problem similar to women’s experiences in the workplace? Women’s sexuality in the workplace?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)