What does Giddens (1993) say about intimate relationships?

What does Giddens (1993) say about intimate relationships?

• A. Relationships remain based on permanence
• B. Confluent love and personal fulfilment gained significance
• C. Gender roles determine chores in the home
• D. Divorce is universally avoided

Answer: (B)

Giddens argues that in late modern society intimate relationships are shaped by confluent love and the pursuit of personal fulfilment. Confluent love is a flexible, ongoingly renegotiated form of love that focuses on emotional satisfaction and compatibility, rather than sticking together out of social obligation. Relationships endure because they meet both partners’ needs, which is part of his idea of the pure relationship—formed around equality and mutual fulfilment rather than traditional duties. This makes the idea that confluent love and personal fulfilment gained significance the best fit, because it directly captures his shift away from the notion of relationships as permanent obligations toward ones guided by personal satisfaction and ongoing choice. The other statements clash with his view: permanence as a given, gender-determined domestic chores, or divorce being universally avoided aren’t central to his late-modern analysis of intimate relationships.

Giddens argues that in late modern society intimate relationships are shaped by confluent love and the pursuit of personal fulfilment. Confluent love is a flexible, ongoingly renegotiated form of love that focuses on emotional satisfaction and compatibility, rather than sticking together out of social obligation. Relationships endure because they meet both partners’ needs, which is part of his idea of the pure relationship—formed around equality and mutual fulfilment rather than traditional duties.

This makes the idea that confluent love and personal fulfilment gained significance the best fit, because it directly captures his shift away from the notion of relationships as permanent obligations toward ones guided by personal satisfaction and ongoing choice. The other statements clash with his view: permanence as a given, gender-determined domestic chores, or divorce being universally avoided aren’t central to his late-modern analysis of intimate relationships.