There is a structural contradiction in the pure relationship, centring upon commitment.... To generate commitment and develop a shared history, an individual must give of herself to the other. That is, she must provide, in word and deed, some kind of guarantees to the other that the relationship can be sustained for an indefinite period. Yet a present-day relationship is not, as marriage once was, a 'natural condition' whose durability can be taken for granted short of certain extreme circumstances.... For a relationship to stand a chance of lasting, commitment is necessary; yet anyone who commits herself without reservations risks great hurt in the future, should the relationship become dissolved. (1992: 137)
søndag 28. desember 2008
sosiologi, eg saknar deg
It is a relationship which is perpetually negotiable, which stands aside from inevitability and which, Beck-Gernsheim suggests, frames 'the normalisation of fragility' (2002: 18), where the relationship is consistently seen as 'good until further notice' (Jamieson, 1999: 481). Beck-Gernsheim goes on to argue that this fragility leads to 'risk-diminishing' strategies (2002: 26) such as the aversion to marriage itself, and to having children, because both act as barriers (or, at least, inhibitors) to ending a relationship if the need should arise. For the most part, this need arises via an appealing alternative to the relationship. Giddens points out that:
There is a structural contradiction in the pure relationship, centring upon commitment.... To generate commitment and develop a shared history, an individual must give of herself to the other. That is, she must provide, in word and deed, some kind of guarantees to the other that the relationship can be sustained for an indefinite period. Yet a present-day relationship is not, as marriage once was, a 'natural condition' whose durability can be taken for granted short of certain extreme circumstances.... For a relationship to stand a chance of lasting, commitment is necessary; yet anyone who commits herself without reservations risks great hurt in the future, should the relationship become dissolved. (1992: 137)
There is a structural contradiction in the pure relationship, centring upon commitment.... To generate commitment and develop a shared history, an individual must give of herself to the other. That is, she must provide, in word and deed, some kind of guarantees to the other that the relationship can be sustained for an indefinite period. Yet a present-day relationship is not, as marriage once was, a 'natural condition' whose durability can be taken for granted short of certain extreme circumstances.... For a relationship to stand a chance of lasting, commitment is necessary; yet anyone who commits herself without reservations risks great hurt in the future, should the relationship become dissolved. (1992: 137)
Abonner på:
Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar