Intimacy and Power The Dynamics of Personal Relationships

in Modern Society

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/intimacy-and-power-the-dynamics-of-personal-relation
ships-in-modern-society/

Click Download Now

Intimacy and Power
The Dynamics of Personal Relationships
in Modern Society

Derek Layder
University of Leicester, UK
© Derek Layder 2009
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The author has asserted his right to be identified
as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2009 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN-13: 978–0–230–57956–9 hardback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne
Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements vi

1 Understanding Couple Intimacy 1

2 The Varieties of Couple Intimacy 10

3 Psycho-Emotional Needs 36

4 Intimacy and Interpersonal Control 51

5 Gender, Intimacy Styles and Skills 63

6 Arguments, Indirectness and Non-Disclosure 84

7 Personal Strategies and Repertoires 98

8 Deficit or Energy-Draining Games 113

9 Energising Games 130

10 The Erosion of Intimacy 146

11 The Nature of Modern Intimacy 160

12 Intimacy, Power and Social Domains 170

Bibliography 180

Index 184

v
Preface and Acknowledgements

This book is about the intimacy and power games that underpin
personal relationships between couples (and, to a lesser extent, friends)
in the modern world. It focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on the
interpersonal dynamics of relationships between couples (and friends)
by asking questions such as ‘How is intimacy “achieved”? How do peo-
ple make close relationships work? What happens when their intimacy
stalls, or breaks down completely?’ These are serious analytic questions
for any science of human behaviour, but are infrequently broached by
sociologists. Yet such questions are too important to be left entirely to
self-help gurus and writers of popular psychology (which is not to deny
the usefulness of some of their contributions).
For these and other reasons, this book concentrates on a fairly
restricted band of interest in intimacy compared with the potential
spread of sociological enquiry. In this respect it is not a critical overview
of existing social research on the many different facets of intimacy. As
I’ve already said, it mainly concerns intimacy in couples and friendship
and, as such, it does not cover issues about parenting or parent–child
interactions. Nor is it explicitly about the role of sexuality in intimacy –
although obviously it is assumed that sexuality frequently plays a major
role in couple intimacy in a way that it doesn’t in friendships. Follow-
ing from this, the book does not explore contrasts between heterosexual
and same sex relationships. It is assumed that although there may be
differences between them, they share much in common in terms of the
human experience of intimacy.
Gender issues do figure quite prominently in the discussion. However,
the main focus is on the debate about the extent to which differences in
intimacy skills and the negotiation of intimate relationships result from
gender influences. The question of gender roles (such as the persistence
of notions of ‘female housewives’ versus ‘male earners’) within marriage
or cohabitation, or the topic of gender inequalities and exploitation,
is not explicitly examined. The main concerns are about how couples
(and/or friends) communicate with each other in the context of differ-
ent types of intimacy and the typical confusions, problems and conflicts
that arise.

vi
 Preface and Acknowledgements vii

Intimacy involves personal closeness – both physical, and psycho-

emotional – and in this sense, many aspects of human contact may be
defined as intimate. Thus it is common to speak of having ‘intimate con-
versations’ or sharing intimate situations – even with people we might
otherwise regard as strangers. Such interactions occur regularly in gym
changing rooms, on aircraft, trains, buses, and in many public spaces.
Now while it may be that a ‘version’ of ‘intimacy’ is shared in such
instances, it is, nonetheless, usually fleeting and, as I say, often involves
individuals who aren’t particularly well known to each other. Both char-
acteristics make this phenomenon very different from that which is
the focus of this book. Here the concern is with intimate relationships
sustained over time by deep mutual (psycho-emotional) knowledge.
‘Self-disclosure’ (Giddens 1992) and ‘disclosing intimacy’ (Jamieson
1998) are terms that have been used to characterise close relation-
ships in the modern world. Unfortunately, these terms do not distin-
guish between perfunctory or superficial self-disclosure – of the kind
frequently present in fleeting moments of ‘intimacy’ – and a more
profound kind of self-revelation stemming from sustained contact,
shared experience and deep mutual knowledge. Both for this reason and
because (as I go on to show), the extent and form of self-disclosure in
modern couple intimacy varies considerably, I prefer to talk of ‘deep
knowledge intimacy’ rather than self-disclosure or disclosing intimacy.
Finally, there are many people – too numerous to mention – who have
influenced my thinking on intimacy over the years and to whom I am
grateful. More specifically, I would like to thank Barbara Misztal for her
comments on earlier drafts of what now appear as parts of Chapters 1
and 12. Also, Nicky Drucquer provided a thorough and perceptive com-
mentary on most of the chapters as they appeared in earlier forms. Her
insightful comments helped me greatly in reformulating some of the
ideas.
1
Understanding Couple Intimacy

Since its earliest beginnings a prominent theme in sociological analysis

has been to document the cataclysmic social changes that have accom-
panied the transition from pre-modern (traditional) societies to their
modern and late modern forms. A concern with the profound changes
in social relationships that resulted from this transition is reflected in
the work of the classical sociologists Comte, Durkheim, Marx, Weber
and Simmel. Such an emphasis has also been present in the writings
of subsequent authors such as Parsons and Elias. In a similar fashion,
recent sociological works, particularly by Giddens (1991, 1992) and
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995), are themed around the issue of how
intimacy has been changed by the structural transition to modernity.
These authors have stressed the way in which traditional constraints and
expectations have been stripped away to leave intimate relationships
bereft of such external supports. They have identified the emergence
of what they call ‘the pure relationship’, which has meant that inti-
mate relationships have become increasingly fragile, as their external
anchorages have fallen away.
I shall have reason to discuss the pure relationship at many points
in this book. However, in so doing I shall be more concerned with the
nature of the pure relationship and its implications for personal and
social experience than with the question of how intimacy has changed
from pre-modern to modern times. In particular, I focus on how the pure
relationship measures up against what we know of the interpersonal
dynamics of intimacy, as they are experienced in the modern world.
This entails something of a shift of emphasis away from a concern with
social structural matters – involved in the transition from traditional
to modern societies – to a relatively greater concern with understanding
intimacy as an interpersonal transaction.

1
2 Intimacy and Power

However, in suggesting this, I am by no means advocating that

interpersonal dynamics are the exclusive outcome of ‘internal’ situa-
tional factors. Of course, historical developments in social structure and
culture are extremely important but these ‘external’ factors must be
understood in combination with equally important subjective psycho-
logical factors, as well as the dynamics of socially situated behaviour. In
this respect, what I call the theory of social domains (Layder 1997) fur-
nishes the underlying explanatory framework of this study. While this
remains largely in the background its influence is critical. More gen-
erally, however, intimacy cannot be properly understood without due
attention to the interpersonal dealings and transactions which are, in
fact, its primary means of expression. In short, the way people ‘do’,
or ‘enact’, intimacy is of paramount importance to understanding its
nature.

Variations in couple intimacy

Chapter 2 begins with an overview of Giddens’ (1991, 1992) and Beck

and Beck-Gernsheim’s (1995) accounts of the emergence of the pure
relationship in the modern era, but quickly moves on to a critical com-
mentary on them. This critique draws from ‘alternative’ empirical data
on couple relationships – reinforced by other critical voices – which
suggest a somewhat different story about the nature of modern inti-
macy. The point is not to question the historical basis of Giddens’ and
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s accounts of the transition from intimacy in
traditional society to the modern pure relationship. However, a close
examination of the empirical material reveals that the complex experi-
ential character of modern couple intimacy differs from that suggested
by the pure relationship.
Reibstein’s (1997) study of protective dependent love, Marshall’s
(2006) research on the problems that couples have in sustaining opti-
mal intimacy over the longer term, along with Miller’s research on
what he calls ‘intimate terrorism’, provide detailed and vivid evocations
of these alternative visions of intimacy. Along with Jamieson’s (1998,
1999) extensive review of work on different aspects of intimacy and
Craib’s (1998) critique of Giddens, the evidence suggests that modern
couple intimacy is rather more complex, plural and nuanced than is
suggested by the pure relationship. On this basis Chapter 2 goes on
to outline six qualitatively different types of intimate relationship. In
this sense, modern intimacy is to be understood not as a unitary ‘pure
relationship’ but as a series of types whose characteristics may vary
 Understanding Couple Intimacy 3

over time. The bundles of characteristics or dimensions that form these

types include the extent and nature of self-disclosure between partners;
varying forms of trust, commitment and satisfaction; communicative
styles, the matching or mismatching of psycho-emotional needs, argu-
mentative or conflict styles and so on. However, the most important
variable characteristic is the form of interpersonal power and control
underpinning the intimacy in question.

Intimate agendas and alignment

Individuals have different levels of personal and subjective power –

as indicated by the existence of varying amounts of self-confidence,
persuasive skills, capacity to get things done, or make a difference. Chap-
ter 3 examines how these varying powers profoundly impact on couple’s
everyday negotiations about intimacy. Identifying the exact balance of
power, control and influence underpinning a close relationship provides
a clue as to what is going on in the minds of the intimates as they search
for psychological and emotional satisfaction. In this respect a basic driv-
ing force in intimacy concerns the ‘agendas’ of the participants: what do
they each want, desire or need from the bond? Do they simply want to
feel included in the other’s agenda or do they want to be part of a shared
project? Do they wish to be regarded as a team, or simply want their
thoughts or feelings to be acknowledged? Do they desire, or need, defi-
nite expressions of love or closeness – like hugs or kisses, or verbal state-
ments of support or concern? Are they driven by the need to encourage
one another and/or to disclose more about their desires and feelings?
Although partners and friends may share interests and attitudes, their
respective psycho-biographical journeys generate differences in emo-
tional sensitivities as well as practical needs. For example, they may
have different requirements about personal space, how much love and
affection they want, or how much they value the relationship. Even the
extent of criticism and support they expect from one another may dif-
fer. Differences in need and disposition are potential sources of strain,
tension or conflict. Personal agendas become the foci of ‘negotiations’ –
either explicit or unconscious – which affect how partners ‘get on’ on
a day-to-day basis. The way in which they deal with such negotiations
will affect the closeness and robustness of their bond in the longer term.
Alignment between intimates is also important. Do their purposes
and agendas mesh or conflict? Severe problems may result from mis-
matching agendas. There are three main possibilities. First, alignment
problems may be situation-specific. For example, after dining out friends
4 Intimacy and Power

or partners may have a ‘friendly’ disagreement about who pays the

bill. Second, interpersonal business may carry over from a previous
encounter to influence alignment in the current situation. Continu-
ing the example, whoever paid last time, and how everyone felt about
it, in all likelihood will colour the emotional atmosphere of the next
encounter. Finally, over long chains of encounters the general align-
ment of those involved will determine their ongoing moods and, as a
consequence, how distant or close they become.

Interpersonal control and intimacy

Chapter 4 takes up the issue of interpersonal power, control and influ-

ence in intimacy. When circumstances permit, individuals try to min-
imise uncertainty and unpredictability in their relationships with others
and this is linked to their ability to derive psycho-emotional benefits
from intimate contact – such as support, approval, love, companion-
ship, self-disclosure and so on. Emotions are the key to this process in
which a relatively stable and well-adjusted sense of self-identity results
from interpersonal negotiations of control and influence. Thus people
are continually involved in power – in the positive sense of empower-
ment – through acts of personal mastery and what I call ‘benign control’,
or mutually negotiated relations of control and influence that meet the
needs of all those involved and which minimise manipulation based on
self-interest.
Since intimacy requires psychological and physical closeness, mutual
benign forms of power and control are most relevant to its success.
But it is mistaken to think of mutually satisfying intimacy as totally
pure, unsullied by elements of selfishness or milder forms of manipula-
tion. In this sense, ‘softer’ persuasive and manipulative control often
plays a central role. Only when there is excessive disregard for the
rights, needs and desires of another in a personal relationship, does con-
trol and influence become more manipulative and exploitative – as in
instances of emotional blackmail or psychological bullying. Three of the
six types outlined in Chapter 2 represent intimate relationships based
on mutual benign, or benign-manipulative, control. The other three
are more closely linked with manipulation exploitation. But all six are
closely related in the sense that they often contain elements or mix-
tures of elements from each other. While mutually satisfying intimacy
will, from time to time, contain manipulative or oppressive elements,
the more exploitative types may occasionally be punctuated by brief or
perfunctory gestures of care or affection.
 Understanding Couple Intimacy 5

In this regard some kinds of manipulation, oppressiveness or pre-

tence are more or less socially acceptable than others. They do not, in
every case, refer to situations in which people are duped or coerced.
Perhaps more disturbingly, partners or friends often freely accept some
level of manipulation, oppressiveness or pretence as ‘normal’ or accept-
able. Of course, mutually satisfying intimate relationships rely on open
communication and fluid alterations of power. But the sine qua non
of optimal intimacy is that no one person dominates the relation-
ship over time. If power positions become rigidly entrenched, then
lines of communication also begin to close down and intimacy rapidly
deteriorates.

Intimacy skills, clashing styles and arguments

Chapter 5 focuses on the notion of intimacy as an art requiring partic-

ular skills such as being able to communicate affection or care, being
able to talk about sensitive emotional issues (say, insecurities or desires)
and being able to empathise. The more skilled a person is in the arts
of intimacy, the more this contributes to her or his subjective powers –
by boosting or depleting confidence, energy and enthusiasm. It is clear
that some individuals are more skilled at intimacy than others. But, it is
far more contentious to claim that differences in intimacy skills can be
predicted by gender (Cameron 2007). In this regard enduring popular
stereotypes suggesting that women are more accomplished than men in
the interpersonal skills required for intimacy are reinforced by studies
based on the assumption that there are ‘fundamental’ or ‘essential’ dif-
ferences between men’s and women’s conversational styles and ways of
relating (Gray 1992, Tannen 1992, 2002; Baron-Cohen 2004).
However, as Cameron points out, while there is scant evidence to sup-
port these claims, there is plenty of other evidence to suggest alternative,
more complex explanations. The social domains perspective that frames
this current study supports the main thrust of Cameron’s argument, but
takes it into new theoretical territory. Thus, Chapter 5 evaluates claims
about gender differences in intimacy skills (such as the evidence for,
and purpose of, cooperative – or ‘rapport talk’ – or of empathetic skills
in men and women). However, the evaluation is made in the light of the
influence of multiple social domains on social behaviour, and the way
in which different forms of power and control play a leading role in the
interpersonal dynamics of intimacy.
Chapter 6 turns the spotlight on other issues related to differences in
intimacy skills. In particular, it asks questions about whether individual
6 Intimacy and Power

differences in style of communication have implications for attitudes

towards self-disclosure and thus for the quality of intimacy or the fate
of relationships. Conflict styles and the arguments they facilitate are
also crucially important in influencing how partners get on with one
another on a day-to-day basis. However, the main focus of Chapter 6
concerns the distinction between direct and indirect forms of commu-
nication and the effects that clashing individual styles have on couple’s
feelings and emotions. It is important to distinguish between different
forms of indirectness in the expression of emotion in order to tease
out their implications for intimacy. In this respect personal control and
emotional blocking are of pivotal importance.

Intimacy strategies: Personal repertoires

Given that couples pursue agendas formed around their emotional and
psychological needs, the question of how they pursue them becomes cru-
cial, and this is the focus of Chapter 7. Each person tends to employ her
or his own favoured methods and means of achieving what they want
or need. Such strategies, ploys and skills are part of a personal repertoire
of control manoeuvres and may be in the service of benign or exploita-
tive motives – and the positive and negative emotions that go along
with them. The emotional architecture that underpins self-identities
plays a large part in shaping personal repertoires of interpersonal con-
trol and influence. In a sense a person’s preferred strategies and ploys
will be directly related to her or his psycho-emotional agenda within
the relationship – what they want, need or desire from intimate part-
ners. But intimate relationships also require joint emotion work in order
to preserve their integrity.
As for specific strategies, ploys or manoeuvres, there is a considerable
range of possibilities depending on whether the relationship is mutu-
ally satisfying or in serious decline. Mutually satisfying relationships can
be expected to include various forms of (psychological) seduction and
persuasion, enrolment, deals and pacts and so on, as well as ‘inverted’
manipulation – like giving away power and emotionally ‘rescuing’ a
partner. At the other end of the scale, strategies include exploitative
manipulation such as emotional blackmail or psychological terrorism.

Games, erosion and plurality in modern intimacy

In Chapters 8 and 9, I describe some typical energising and energy-

draining power and control games to be found in committed
relationships. This extends the analysis of personal strategies, tactics
 Understanding Couple Intimacy 7

and ploys to more complex ‘patterns of relating’ that develop over

the longer term. Intimacy ‘games’ emerge from the combined interplay
of individual behaviour, personal relationships and chains of everyday
encounters (Collins 2005). In pursuing their respective agendas, pur-
poses and strategies, intimates either support and enhance, or diminish
and undermine one another’s self-esteem and self-confidence. ‘Energy-
draining’ games channel physical and emotional energy away from a
relationship through the absence of loving gestures or support, or by
deliberate efforts of partners to wound or attack one another. Energising
games work on the reverse principle. Through care, support and loving
gestures, individuals and relationships are energised precisely because
intimates confirm or boost one another’s self-confidence, self-esteem
and approval.
Mutually satisfying intimacy rests on a delicate balance of an array of
tensions and forces such as that between individuality (personal space)
and the need for togetherness. The continuous shifting of the focus and
balance of power is also integral to optimal intimacy because it allows
partners to genuinely share in setting the direction and tone of the
relationship. Permanent or complete equality does not exist in such a
relationship. The survival of mutually satisfying intimacy rests on the
continual rotation of power and control in tandem with open dialogue.
Partners take the lead on a broadly equitable basis. But even the best of
personal relationships never reach an ideal or ‘pure’ state. Mutually sat-
isfying intimacy is always a ‘work in progress’. Even the most sort-after
intimacy – what I call ‘dynamic intimacy’ – rests on an ever-changing
(and thus inherently) fragile balance.
Chapter 10 confronts the fact of the fragility of modern intimacy
by examining how it rapidly degrades when its interpersonal sup-
ports are removed, accidentally damaged, or fall away as the result
of neglect. The chapter is driven by the question of why it is that a
great many relationships that were once mutually satisfying, while not
being destroyed completely, slowly but surely deteriorate, becoming flat
and de-energised. It examines some of the key interpersonal dynamics
that underlie the process of erosion and the unravelling of energising
intimacy games. Particularly important is the problem of emotional
blocking first raised in Chapter 6. A continuous cycle of emotional
blocking reinforces the conflicts and arguments generated by com-
munication problems between partners. Also crucial are problems of
habituation and the emotional estrangement it may cause.
Chapter 11 brings the different strands of the discussion together in
terms of a critical dialogue with the notion of the pure relationship.
The evidence and arguments offered in this book amply demonstrate
8 Intimacy and Power

that modern intimacy is multidimensional. There are significant varia-

tions in communication and self-disclosure and the quality and nature
of trust, commitment and satisfaction in close relationships. Although
it is undoubtedly true that modern intimacy is fragile, the reasons for
its fragility are not necessarily those that the proponents of the pure
relationship suggest. In this regard the important role of interpersonal
power and control is vastly underplayed, if not overlooked entirely. In
short, modern intimacy is plural, complex and nuanced in ways not
envisaged by the pure relationship.
Chapter 12 pursues these questions further in relation to more general
issues in social theory. First, the analysis of intimacy presented in this
book relies on the theory of social domains with its multidimensional
view of power. This provides a central vantage from which to criti-
cally evaluate some of Goffman’s, Giddens’ and Collins’ views on the
nature of interpersonal relations, human subjectivity and their relation
to structural and institutional phenomena. Some of the inadequacies
of these views stem from an inability to embrace a multidimensional
view of power and to acknowledge the relatively independent proper-
ties of social domains. Finally, the chapter traces some of these more
general theoretical ideas and concepts and their implications for the
pure relationship.

Modern intimacy: A many splendoured thing

Giddens suggests that ‘mutual disclosure’ is central to modern intimacy

and while he has a point, he also overstates the case. Undoubtedly,
there has been an intensification of mutual disclosure and an increas-
ing recognition of its importance. However, the distinctive feature of
modern intimacy is not mutual disclosure per se, but the various forms
it may take. Disclosure comes in varying forms and degrees, depend-
ing on the needs of the intimates and how their relationship plays out,
emotionally and practically. The same is true of trust and commitment.
Varying standards of mutual satisfaction, communication, disclosure,
trust and commitment emerge from the ever-present flow of negotiation
and ‘emotion work’ in intimacy. Just as there is no single type of inti-
macy, so there are no uniform versions of trust and commitment. In this
respect I have to agree with Jamieson (1998) that modern intimacy is
multidimensional – it is various and many-sided. While Jamieson tends
to focus on variations in intimacy deriving from structural influences,
this study concentrates on the crucial importance of interpersonal fac-
tors. The social domains view of intimacy not only suggests variation in
 Understanding Couple Intimacy 9

types of intimacy, but also suggests variation in underpinning forms of

power and control. Even the most ‘balanced’ relationships are based on
shifting patterns of power and control.
Mutual benign control enables couples (or friends) to obtain what
they need and desire from one another in the way of love, approval,
validation, companionship and so on. Crucially, however, it not only
involves taking control, but also involves swapping, and relinquishing
it at different times. The very close link between benign control and
more manipulative and coercive forms is also of great importance. That
these two seemingly opposite types of power and control can so easily
slip, or morph into each other, is the underlying reason why personal
relationships are so various. Intimacy cannot be measured only by its
‘optimal’ manifestations even though these may be its most sort-after,
or socially acceptable. Benign and exploitative intimacy are two sides of
the same coin, they are mirror images that exist – to differing extents –
in all its forms. Thus, in this sense, to speak of ‘pure’ relationships is
rather misleading.
Control in personal relationships ranges from benign, seductive and
persuasive influence, through the manipulation of emotional blackmail
and ending up with the extremes of emotional terrorism, bullying and
physical coercion. Although routine intimacy games and relationship
habits are similarly divided between benign and exploitative types, they
are also closely related. Thus there are mutually satisfying, energising
intimacy games as well as energy-draining ones, more closely resembling
war zones. But again, they are never simply pure types. They contain
diverse elements – bits and pieces – of others, lumped together in a
unique amalgam.
The mixture of benign and exploitative, satisfying and unsatisfying
intimacy speaks to the fact that close relationships are frequently sul-
lied by jealousy, disappointment, even despair (Craib 1998). Problems
are intrinsic to personal relationships. Sometimes they appear right
from the start, but in the main they emerge after the first exciting fris-
sons of ‘getting to know one other’ have worn off. Only when the
routine aspects of day-to-day life are under way, are personalities and
relationship compatibilities really tested. In long-term relationships,
‘habituation’ – especially as it concerns problems around taking one
another for granted – is perhaps the greatest enemy of intimacy. Such
problems tax to the full the ingenuity of partners or friends as they try
to keep their enthusiasm for, and commitment to, one another alive
and fresh.