Sunday, March 21, 2010
Intimacy and the Global Era in Kuwait
Sociologist Anthony Giddens argues that the West has undergone an intimacy revolution during the second half of the 20th Century. Intimacy according to Giddens is now guided by the idea of the "Pure Relationship." Do you agree? Discuss what Giddens means by the pure relationship and then assess to what degree it applies to understanding intimate relations (family, friends, marriage) in Kuwait? Be sure to discuss what new forms of intimacy, if any, have emerged socially in the last 20 years, and whether it has become a source of social and political tension.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to Anthony Giddens, the pure relationship is based upon implicit democracy between the two partners. It depends on endless trust, open discussions, and self disclosure. The foundation of a pure relation is talking or dialoguing democratically. It doesn’t involve any type of subjective power or violence between any of the partners. As for parents, they are expected to have authority over their children but it is based upon democracy, equality and open discussions. There fore, a pure relationship makes marriage a formal commitment to stabilize it. In this case, marriage becomes no longer related to economy or sexual intimacy.
ReplyDeleteFrom my opinion, the characteristics of a pure relationship are established based upon the democratic culture of the United States. This is where the emphasis on democracy, freedom of speech, and the importance of human rights in the U.S have helped in creating an ideal relationship, which will accommodate itself with a democratic culture. On the other hand, the true definition of democracy was never fully implemented in any system. This is because the governmental interventions are still being included in certain cases. Similarly, the characteristics of a pure relationship can never be implemented on real life. The fully democratic relationship between partners is away from reality, where there will be in some cases, situations of monocracy between partners. There fore, I don’t agree with Gidden’s definition of a pure relationship.
In Egypt, there isn’t a definition of a pure relationship. Relationships between partners is quiet diverse where people’s interests and habits in Egypt are diverse. Couples are either conservatives, mediators, or very liberal. So, the definition of a pure relationship according to each couple will vary. There fore, there isn’t a specific a characteristic of the best relationship. Still, people would all agree that husbands should be more democratic and wives be more supportive. The rate of husband’s democracy and wife’s support varies to each couple.
In my opinion, the new forms of intimacy that have been appearing in Egypt is the “boy friend and girl friend” relationship. This is where young Egyptian teenagers start approaching intimate relationships between each others. In addition, due to the young relationships’ widespread, the idea started to be socially accepted. Families started to accept the idea of having their children dating and going with out their partners. In this case, the family will always be expecting the couples to date under certain constraints. A relationship that wouldn’t include any type of sexual interactions. This is because adultery is against the law of Islam and treated harshly. Usually, families who permit the idea of early intimacy are those who are coming from an upper social status, liberals and pro westernization. There fore, the political party of the Muslim Brotherhoods in Egypt is totally against the idea. Conservative Muslims would also mention that this new type of intimacy coming up that doesn’t include marriage, which is against Islam, is an American influence on Egypt.
I think that pure relationships means havind a clear, honest,flawless,sincerity relationship which creates eqaulity between partenrs who are involved in a relationship. Pure relationships do not exist everywhere, in my opinion I think in nowadays they are rare. If I compare relationships in Kuwait with a pure relationship, I'd result in a huge difference becuase as I mentioned I don't think that pure relationships is everywhere or at least in Kuwait. In family relationships I think that they have a strong relationship but ofcourse sometimes family members fight or misunderstand each other and eventaully both of them solve their problem because their family. Sometimes they lie or hide secrects, that shows that members are not always honest. It's the same with friends because I think that friends are like family, they maybe friends for many years but sometimes friends have different point of views of aomething that may cause a misunderstanding but like a family they solve thier problems and that may strengthens their bonds together. In marraige I think that its the least pure relationship (in some marraiges only), it doesn't mean that it's not based on honesty but in nowadays divorce rates are increasing wich means that purity in these relationships are in a very low percentage. That shows that each relationship have a different amount of purity and in these recent years people have different believes of pure relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Giddens views that open discussion and dialogues are basic factors in his idea of pure relationship. An assumption of this kind requires that the partners be open to one another and that they have an infinite notion of trust and confidence. Assumptions of this kind talks about mutual understanding and the exclusion of individual factors; no room is left for subjectivity. All the members of the family are in fact a microcosm of the free and social society in which the values of freedom is to be respected as long as there is mutual trust between the members of the family.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind this assumption sounds attractive but utopian in our society. It is true that freedom and trust are much admired values but there must be that type of controlling and ruling power that brings all together. In our society this is not acceptable totally because there must be limits and the repercussions should be measured in advance. Of course there must be trust and dialoguing but the children for example should not be given that ultimate freedom. In this society lots of values are respected and followed. This does not oppose the notion of freedom but some conventional regulations are always present between the members of the family, the explicit authority of the parents, the society and the religion is always there to limit this sense of freedom.
There are some sorts of intimacy that emerged recently and they form a real challenge to the structure of the family. Internet relationships for example make example of these free intimacies that cannot be easily detected and supervised. Also the change in the life style and the westernalization of the way people behave and react has brought about serious changes and caused other forms of intimacy. This has caused serious political turmoil mainly between the fundamentalists and the liberals in this society. The traditionalists and the fundamentalists use all their legal and moral authority to stop this type of change.
I agree in the fact that in the west they started to have intimacy revolutions during the 20th century, but I think it is never true that those kinds of relationships are "pure relationships". Pure relationships are when a man wants to build his future through getting married and having children that will carry his name and so on. They are not relationships of loving someone for life and not thinking wisely for what will happen in the future, a man must plan to forge his and his wife's life. Not mentioning the children that a couple would make, even though if a couple would not want to make children they would still strive for the best and love for the good. In Kuwait, there was no such a thing about "pure relationships" people would get married to known relatives and families. There were very few problems, and mostly no issues caused with married couples. After the influence of intimacy revolutions, it had spread through the whole world, and drew the idea of "pure love" or "relationship" and it is in my opinion FALSE. Many teenagers were coaxed belief of intimacy, and many problems have arisen after this idea's diffusion. Sex became such a normal thing in life that any person would do to feel better and as they say it’s a "pure relationship".
ReplyDeleteI believe Giddens should have called the term “pure relations in the west” I believe (as realist not a pessimist) that term “pure relation” is somewhat Pejorative in sense that in makes other relations that don’t fall in that category “impure” he classifies a pure relations as one “entered for its own sake” “ “ both parties deliver enough satifaction” in which both parties have equal powered and equally need each.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with Giddens perception of the “pure relations” as some relations “entered for its own sake” doesn’t always have deep intimacy between the two parties. And as Selma stated is based too broadly on the American model.
It is somewhat difficult In Kuwait to build interment relations with one’s parents, as some parents continue to run their household in an authoritarian way. Intimacy can exists however between siblings. Friends are sometimes easier to build intimacy with as they have less restriction and easier to “break up with” that family member when things go wrong. Marriage in my opinion in Kuwait is not pure relations and doesn’t have the level of intimacy that Giddens talk about. Women are more likely to discuss their problem and build their sense of worth from their friends and children.
A new form of intimacy is perhaps “cyber friends” friends on social network such as facebook and hi5 are easier to communicate with as they are not present to judge physically and can be “deleted” easily.
The problem of degeneration begins with the self, of course after having felt the need to be intertwined with someone to feel complete. Pure relationships are indeed new phenomena relative to the 2oth century if not a little earlier. We are constantly reminded that we are alone, and should seek our better half to avoid loneliness. The same time, we are asked to be independent and have our own ideas, and not be too insipid or achromatic. To me I believe what Giddens is trying to make us understand is that the relationship now has turned into something of convenience. When he emphasizes that people enter into a relationship for it's own sake...It suggests that it is a matter of choice, both individuals play the games by their rules, so long as they each are invested into each other...Of course, once a partner feels no longer attached to the other, the option of separation becomes implemented. He clearly mentions that men and women tend to display their affection differently. "love here only develops to the degree to which intimacy does, to the degree to which each partner is prepared to reveal concerns and needs to the other and to be vulnerable to that other" when he says that he seems to suggest that intimacy is a result of two individuals that are loser like and have nothing else to do but take care of each other, and that is how they become intimate and connect with each other.
ReplyDeleteFor me I believe that relationships are non-existent. I am not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but from the many observations I seem to come to the same conclusions every time; that is that it is impossible to find two partners that love each other the same amount. When ever you meet a couple, you can always feel that one partner has invested more into the relationship, be it the man or the woman. Moreover, you tend to see who sacrificed more in the relationship, yes of course people will claim that in a relationship it's all about forgiving, sacrificing, understanding, and blah blah blah. But reality shows that one person is doing all the work, while the other follows. This is what relationships are consisted of in this century, and maybe the previous ones. So when Giddens tries to sell us this concept of "pure relationship" I dont buy it.
When one compares "pure relationships" to relationships that take place in Kuwait, we tend to note major differences, and conflicts that arise at certain occasions. Precisely, because of the many restrictions imposed on the many young individuals, they are forced to create this new idea of "pure relationship" they try to set free, by creating love situations and integrating them into their relationships. They focus so much on this notion of love that they get lost, and disappointed once they realize that a relationship is more than a phone call, and random gifts. Male counterparts usually try to exhibit macho like behavior, to assert his tradition, yet at the same time seeks this idea of love. Female counterparts seem to be the followers, and want to assert their femininity. I'm not arguing that anything is wrong with asserting their own gender, but what is wrong is the way it is approached. So at the end of the day, young fellas, and ladies do not know how to be intimate with each other without confusing their roles in society.
Intimacy however, can happen between family, but only as a result to fulfill emotional needs. Biologically, we are bound to have feelings, and someone needs to offer us the emotional support we require. That is why in Kuwait, often times, you will find families trying to express their love to their children, but still confused with the abstract notion of love, mistake it for material exchange versus emotional bonding. When people get intimate with friends, it is only to express their loneliness in life. Friends cannot give the emotional bong either, they can support them, but that's it. The most they can do is probably bail them out of jail if its deemed necessary, but Giddens term of "pure relationship" cannot be related to friends.
ReplyDeleteAnother form that has been emerging are the many websites available to ease the way to get intimate, such as matchmaker, tag and that sort of website. They of course create political tension, because the fundamentalists want to try and control what people are doing behind doors. But at the end of the day it is not up to them what people do, they can only block sites, but then again people will access what they want when they want. Another possible form of intimacy, is bonding through a hobby, for instance if someone is into playing guitar that is how they will bond. They will spend time claiming that they are learning how to play the instrument, when in reality it is their excuse. I'm sure there exists many other ways, restrictions gets those aspiring and creative minds working all right.
For some reason the blog only allows 4000 characters. So I had to post twice. Sorry about that.....
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the concept of pure relationships has started in the 2oth century and spreading around the world. According to Anthony Giddens a pure relationship has nothing to do with sexual purity, but it is a relationship that is based on trust, equality, and democracy between two individuals and being in the relationship should have no other reason than just wanting to be together and satisfying each other. I agree with Giddens idea of a pure relationship. Equality, trust, freedom of speech, and satisfaction should be the basis of all relationships but the definition of equality and freedom might differ from culture to culture, especially between our society here and the west. In our society the man has to have the final say and the woman should always seek his consent about any matter. This for the westerners surly means that there is no equality or democracy and therefore it's not a pure relationship. However, because people in our society strongly believe in that, they assume in such a relationship that the man and the woman are playing their roles as partners and therefore they are equal, no one is taking over the role of the other. For example, the woman is in charge of the household and the children, while the man is in charge of making important family decisions and securing the family financialy. Each of them understands the duties of the other and respects it. And the man satisfies the woman by fulfilling his duties and the woman satisfies the man by fulfilling her duties. Trust and respect should be the foundation of their relationship.Therefore,according to a society like ours this is a pure relationship based on EQUALITY. :)
ReplyDeleteS00007182
I agree that in the West have started revolutions and intimacy during the century 20th, but I don't think that this type of relationship is "pure relationship". Giddens thinks that the pure relationship is depends on the open discussions, the truth, and trust between the partners without force or violence. He doesn't means sexual purity. I definitely agree with Giddens in that. As Giddens says that our relationships based on the equality and democracy. What we have in Kuwait is another definition of pure relationship. the pure relationship in Kuwait is based on the pure Ancestors and the pure family. Those are the known families in Kuwait. The men in our society give orders to the women. They have the final decision in the house. They are responsible about the financial issues. Nevertheless, the women are responsible about the kids and the house. Therefore, each one is responsible for his or her duties.
ReplyDeleteKholod Al-Shamry 12863
According to Giddens “pure relationships” means trust, open discussions, and respect for your partner. It does not include any sought of violence for the couples that are husband and wife. Looking at it from the 20th century point of view in Kuwait, it is very important for the couples to base their relationship on trust, open discussion and respect for each other. Giddens also believes in equality. Looking at a very typical scenario from day to day family life, the wife is taken as the care taker of the house and the husband is the bread winner or the one who brings food to the table. It is very important for both of them to have equal rights in the relationship although their duties and responsibilities are different, but for them to treat each other equally is very important. Respect plays an important role in the relationship. If one partner does not respect the other for what he/she does then the relationship is very difficult to be stable. Pure relationships need to have open discussion, there should not be anything between the couple to hide and there should be the comfort to share everything between each other. Living in the Arab world, women are looked down then the men or let’s just say that women do have restrictions unlike men, but then they are respected and given their rights as well. We see majority of the Arab families, where women are treated equally as men and are given the freedom to speech as well. But then again we can find examples where women are not given the same respect and authority as men are given. The base of a strong relationship needs to be based on these three elements: respect, equality and freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteقرض العرض التقدم للوظيفة
ReplyDeleteتحية للجميع،
أنا السيدة جنيفر ليزا من ولاية أوهايو الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية، وسرعان ما ترغب في استخدام هذه الوسيلة ليجز شهادة حول كيفية إخراج الله لي أن المقرض القرض شرعي والحقيقي الذي حولت حياتي من العشب إلى نعمة، من كونهم فقراء لامرأة غنية الذين يمكن الآن تتباهى حياة صحية وغنية من دون إجهاد أو صعوبات مالية. بعد أشهر عديدة من محاولة للحصول على قرض على شبكة الانترنت وخدع مبلغ 5200 $ أنا أصبحت يائسة في الحصول على قرض من البنك قرض شرعي على الانترنت الذي لن تضيف لآلامي، ثم انني قررت ان اتصل صديق الألغام الذي حصل مؤخرا على قرض على الانترنت، ناقشنا حول هذه القضية، وإلى استنتاجنا قالت لي عن رجل يدعى السيد فرانكلين سكوت الذي هو الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة فرانكلين سكوت الشركة قرض البريد الإلكتروني: Franklinloans37@gmail.com لذا تقدمت بطلب للحصول على مبلغ القرض من ($ 3،000،000.00 دولار أمريكي) مع انخفاض سعر الفائدة من 2٪، لذلك تم الموافقة على القرض بسهولة دون إجهاد وجميع الاستعدادات حيث قدمت بشأن نقل القروض وفي أقل من اثنين (2) أيام من إيداع القرض في حسابي المصرفي لذلك أنا تريد النصيحة أي واحد في حاجة الى قرض للاتصال به بسرعة من خلال البريد الإلكتروني: Franklinloans37@gmail.com انه لا يعرف أنا أفعل هذا وأنا أدعو الله أن يبارك له عن الشيء الجيد الذي قام به في بلدي life.Thank الله أنا يمكن أن يبتسم مرة أخرى أوصي هذه الشركة لجميع أولئك الذين ضللوا وأولئك الذين كانوا ينخدع، فهي موثوقة وجديرة بالثقة. في حال كنت بحاجة إلى معرفة أكثر، والبريد الإلكتروني للشركة على Franklinloans37@gmail.com ارسل لهم اليوم، وسوف تكون سعيدا فعلتم.
Mrs.JENNIFER ليزا
بارك الله.