08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 241

Bernadette Bawin-Legros

Intimacy and the New Sentimental

Order

T housands of stories have in past centuries crystallized romantic love into

an archetype which we recognize as such, with the result that we are not
always conscious of the existence of various love categories. Many historians
(e.g. de Rougemont, 1963) retrace the emergence of romantic love back to
the Middle Ages, to the time of troubadour culture. Whether these claims of
its origin are true or not, the more essential fact is that romantic love has
survived and that people still feel an irresistible attraction towards it.
Romantic love is a narrative that has been constructed in a fictive form, in
songs, poems, dramas, operas, fairy tales and films, but which also appears
in reality-based stories told in the form of biographies in a range of media.
The growth in popularity of romantic stories may stem from the promise
inherent in romanticism: that if something happens to someone else, it may
happen to me also. Therefore, romantic love is not only a matter of imagin-
ation but holds the promise of a potential experience.
The situation today is far more complicated than it was during the early
stages of romanticism. As Anthony Giddens (1992) writes, the influence of
traditional sources of authority and of social bounds has increasingly receded
in favour of an endless and obsessive preoccupation with personal identity.
Romantic love, it is argued, provides a case study of the origin of the ‘pure
relationship’ which today increasingly describes the nature of intimate
relationships. Ideals of romantic love have long affected the aspirations of
women more than those of men, although men have also been influenced by
them. The ethos of romantic love has had a double impact upon women’s
situation: on the one hand it has helped to put women in ‘their’ place – in
the home; yet on the other hand, romantic love can be seen as an active and
radical engagement with the ‘maleness’ of male society. Romantic love in its
ideological narrative presumes that a durable emotional tie can be established
with someone on the basis of intrinsic qualities, qualities that serve as the tie
itself.

Current Sociology, March 2004, Vol. 52(2): 241–250 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/0011392104041810

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 242

242 Current Sociology Vol. 52 No. 2

But in postmodern societies many more women and men are seduced by
something they name intimacy and which refers to the particularity of
personal identity. No longer are there unique reference points or unique
patterns of behaviour that guide how people live. Instead of constructing our
own identity gradually and slowly as we would, say, build a house, we are
increasingly tempted today by new beginnings and spontaneous bonds.
Having more situational control (Bauman, 1997) and an increased capacity
for choosing when, where and with whom we have sexual relationships gives
us strong feelings of living intimacy differently. The result is an identity that
takes the form of a ‘palimpsest’, where forgetting is more important than
remembering.
We are tourists of our own private land and we have entered the world
of pure individualism. The new sentimental order now rests more upon an
individualistic withdrawal into self and a fundamental and newly redefined
distinction between private and public spheres rather than upon tradition. In
fact, domestic moral standards have modified: getting married, staying
together, bringing children into the world, all this has lost its force as a
pressing moral obligation. The only legitimate union is that which rests on
love and dispenses happiness. The family institution is named postmoralistic
from the moment that it is dominated by the logic of autonomy and of
personal blossoming. Yet, despite cries of alarm from the moralists as well as
some philosophical and religious circles, the family remains a reliable value
and the couple, the place par excellence where intimacy is built and experi-
enced (de Singly, 1996).
Intimacy has become the principal indicator of the quality of inter-
personal connections and the core of love relations. With the exception of
Simmel, however, sociologists have historically paid little attention to love
and personal feelings, leaving that instead to the studies of psychologists and
to artists. This is the case because sociologists feel uneasy with the realms of
fantasy and imagination. Even if imagination is deeply rooted in reality, it is
necessary to make a distinction between practices and representations.
Confusion is often made between what we think, what we say and what we
feel. This has forced sociologists like Luhmann (1990), Kaufmann (1993) and
Chaumier (1999) to make of love a pure social construction taking different
forms according to time and space. I would suggest, contrary to Luhmann,
that love is not only a narrative. It finds expression in different registers, one
of which is intimacy, and love, as a stable emotion, finds concrete codifica-
tion in words, gestures and acts. For these reasons it may be argued that
intimacy can be studied in concrete ways through surveys or in-depth inter-
views.
One of the first questions that is raised when one talks about couples is
to know how to define what a couple is. Today it is indeed difficult to
measure precisely who lives alone and who lives in a couple, and this is made

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 243

Bawin-Legros: Intimacy and the New Sentimental Order 243

Table I Strength of Commitment

For a Until we have

Forever long time had enough

Living together 36.2% 20.3% 43.5% 100% (N = 6051)

Getting married 75.5% 10.1% 14.4% 100% (N = 6553)

more difficult the more vague the criteria employed become. It is obvious
that marriage alone no longer defines the couple. The fact of living together
is also too narrow a criterion, insofar as some people consider that they live
as a couple even though they do not live together (LAT).1 Even sexual
relationships are no longer the basis for defining a couple. Entering into a
couple relationship today proceeds by a number of means: through the insti-
tution that marriage embodies; through sharing the same roof; and through
interpersonal exchanges and cognitive mobilization and affective exchanges.
Yet, a clear frontier still distinguishes the project of the individuals who get
married and that of those who do not.

The Study and Results

The data in this study come from a survey which has been conducted in
Belgium for the last 12 years. In this research the same sample has been
surveyed every year on a panel basis. Each year, we add a special module on
a particular topic of interest, and in 1998 the chosen topic was love and
intimacy. The survey is conducted on a sample of 4500 households and a stan-
dardized questionnaire is administered in a face-to-face interview. The data
show that, in 1998, people seem to have committed themselves more, and in
a more lasting way, when they have got married than when they have simply
been living together. This reflects an attitude which defines the idea of a
‘forever’ as being tied to marriage more so than to the idea of living under
the same roof.
To the question ‘If two persons decide to live together, what do they say
to themselves: (1) it is forever, (2) it is for a long time, (3) it is until we have
had enough?’, we obtained the results shown in Table 1.
If age is brought in as an intermediate variable, one notes a difference in
points of view between the youngest (25–34 years) and the oldest (65 >) as
far as cohabitation is concerned, but not as far as marriage is concerned.
Whatever the age, marriage fits into the idea of duration even if one subse-
quently gets divorced. The project is that of a long-term commitment, as
Figures 1 and 2 show.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 244

244 Current Sociology Vol. 52 No. 2

50

40
Percentage

30 Forever
A long time
20 Until we’ve had
enough
10

0
< 24 25–34 35–44 45–64 65 >

N = 6051

Figure 1 Attitude towards Life Together

100

80
Forever
Percentage

60
A long time
40 Until we’ve had
enough
20

0
< 24 25–34 35–44 45–64 65 >
N = 6553

Figure 2 Attitude towards Marriage

This difference between attitudes towards the plan to get married and
the plan to live together is also marked for people not living in a couple (see
Table 2).2 There is a stronger stress by respondents living in a couple upon
the ‘forever’ as regards marriage.
To examine the image of love in people’s life, we see that the ideology of
a one-and-only love remains very strong and that today, we are, in fact, far
from the sexual and sentimental revolution that is said to have taken place in
the 1970s (see Table 3). We are closer to the pure relationship as described by
Giddens (1992).
If we break down the data according to gender, we find a difference
between men and women, as Table 4 shows.
These results confirm those obtained by European researchers in different
surveys about people’s values, namely that fidelity remains essential, although
women value it more than men. This difference between the sexes reminds us
that for women love and fidelity are more a part of their socialization process

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 245

Bawin-Legros: Intimacy and the New Sentimental Order 245

Table 2 Attitude towards Marriage and Life together according to Couple’s

Status

For a Until we have

Forever long time had enough

Living together (N = 6051)

People living in
couple 37.99% 20.27% 41.74% 100%
People not living
in couple 32.41% 20.49% 47.10% 100%
Getting married (N = 6553)
People living in
couple 78.08% 8.81% 13.11% 100%
People not living
in couple 69.56% 13.01% 17.43% 100%

Table 3 Idea of Love

‘Which of the following three assertions is the most closely akin to your
idea of love?’ (N = 6706)
1. Love only happens once 45.1%
2. One can love two or more persons deeply one after the other 49.9%
3. One can love two or more persons deeply at the same time 5%
100%

Table 4 Idea of Love according to Gender

Male Female

1. Love only happens once 43.10 46.82

2. One can love two or more persons deeply one after the other 50.52 49.39
3. One can love two or more persons deeply at the same time 6.38 3.79
N = 6761

than they are for men. Although both sexes stress the importance of fidelity
and this is true whatever region in the world, it is still more important for
women than for men. Thus a double standard persists. Yet the demand for
fidelity (answers 1 and 2) does not herald the return to an uncompromising
and virtuous morality: this is only one more expression of contemporary indi-
vidualism. The centrality of fidelity, or unique love, that is claimed today has

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 246

246 Current Sociology Vol. 52 No. 2

Table 5 Definition of Unfaithfulness

In your opinion, when is a person unfaithful? (N = 6767) Yes No

1. If one thinks of somebody else all the time 49.5% 50.5%

2. If one has sexual intercourse with somebody else 95.6% 4.4%
3. If one no longer respects the objectives that were set together
in the beginning 41.2% 58.8%
4. If one leaves one’s partner to cope alone with his/her
problems and difficulties 64.2% 35.8%

lost its ring of unreservedness: what is demanded is not fidelity as such but
fidelity for as long as love lasts. Therefore, it is not a matter of perpetuating
the family order. There have indeed never been so many divorces; but the
plebiscite for fidelity and unique love testifies above all to the aspiration to a
love that could be undivided and free of lies. Fidelity has to do with a frantic
quest for fusion rather than with solemn vows. Postmoralistic fidelity
combines the vague hope of a ‘forever’ with the lucid awareness that every-
thing is temporary. Remaining fully faithful for as long as love lasts is an
absolute necessity, but when love ends then the game can be entered into
again, and love can once again play a soothing role. Undivided love, nonethe-
less, does not soothe the anguish of transient love affairs but ensures the search
for a meaning to life. Love no longer necessarily requires a serious dimension
implied by duration but appeals to the imaginary dimension linked to the
constituent continuity of self. This has been found to be more true for women
than for men. Similarly, in the answers that we obtained from our sample, we
note that the definition of unfaithfulness remains strongly linked to that of
sexual intercourse with a third person (see Table 5).
Breaking down the results according to variables such as age or sex does
not produce any significant difference. Unfaithfulness is above all the in-
clusion of a third person into sentimental relationships and this brings us
back to the idea expressed by Gilles Lipovetsky (1992), namely that the new
sentimental order rests less on collective values than on a deep and individual
aspiration towards building one’s own self-identity In a macro-social context
where social and professional identities are blurred, men and women attempt
to build for themselves a space of refuge away from prying eyes. The ‘new
chastity’ has nevertheless no purely virtuous meaning; it is no longer a
compulsory duty ordered from the outside but rather it refers to a
self-regulation guided by love and the religion of the ego. It is the ethos of
self-sufficiency and self-protection characteristic of a time in which perfor-
mative management of self is a priority. The ‘no sex’ attitude is an illustration
of individualistic self-absorption, not of the reappearance of the duties
towards the other.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 247

Bawin-Legros: Intimacy and the New Sentimental Order 247

In contemporary love aiming at fusion, Serge Chaumier writes (1999),

passion is above all sensual. Desire focuses on a definite and particular object.
In courtly love, the lady’s personality was of no importance to the knight:
only idealization counted. In postmodern love, only individualization
matters. Lovers today want both fusion and individualization in the unity
and autonomy of the person. Francesco Alberoni (1997) underlines that what
is at stake for modern couples is the reconciliation of these contradictory
desires. This idea is taken up again in de Singly’s recent work – Libres
ensemble (de Singly, 2000), which explores what it means to be free but not
alone. Two dialectical forces thus come into conflict: one tends towards
fusion and aims at accomplishment in the couple; the other tends towards
individualization and to the search for self-development. This is, however, a
model for the educated middle classes. In lower classes we find more
cohesion within couples. This may be because society is experienced in these
circumstances more as a threat, and the family, therefore, as a ‘refuge’.
As our figures show, lovers want both to maintain the nuclear family, in
the form of an exclusive couple, and not to undergo any frustration as they
live to the utmost of their respective desires. The essential problem for
modern couples is that they wish to encompass love, passion, tenderness,
friendship, intellectual companionship, education of the children and
exclusive sexual obligation at the same time. Because contemporary love is
very demanding and works only on itself, it contains the seeds of its own
destruction. This assertion is illustrated by the results on people’s reasons to
separate (see Table 6).
Table 6 is a good illustration of the contradictions that are experienced by
modern couples, who both aspire to an eternal love that would be undivided,
free of lies and would last forever, and grant themselves the right to part if
there is no passion or conversation left. Yet, let us not forget that the new way
of living as a couple – the notion of a couple described here – is in fact strongly
marked socially. It is outlined in the strongest and clearest way in the intel-
lectual classes (higher degree or university). Yet, it spreads from this avant-
garde, taking its influence from an innovative core represented by young
students. Two sectors resistant to the spreading of this model appear: the
upper middle classes and the working classes. For the latter, precariousness,

Table 6 Reasons for Separation

Are people right to part if . . . Yes No

1. The partners do not agree on having a child? 22.8% 77.2%

2. There is no passion or reciprocal attraction left? 64.4% 35.6%
3. They are unable to talk to each other? 75.6% 24.4%
4. There are no common interests left about which one can talk? 46% 54%
N = 6725.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 248

248 Current Sociology Vol. 52 No. 2

whether professional or conjugal, has traditionally been an evil that has had
to be fought in order to reach a definite and stable social status. The fact of
quickly having to assume a role (married man or woman, father or mother)
then becomes a protection against the risks of marginalization. Olivier
Schwartz (1990) shows very well how marriage (which lays the foundations
of the couple) and motherhood (for women) contribute to direct the expec-
tations of the working classes. Class, then, defines opportunities to experience
conjugal improvisation and levity. For the working classes, it is not so much
a matter of ideological position as of maintaining an older way of living as a
couple. The greater the risk of a return to precariousness associated with
relationship breakdown, the more strongly they remain attached to the idea
of the couple. When we examine the choice of life in a couple and the results
according to level of education, we see that it is in the categories where indi-
viduals have fewer educational opportunities that marriage – preceded or not
by a period of living with the partner – is the most attractive.
As for the place of children, it is striking to note that this desire is
considered very important in all age categories but in a more pronounced
way by older people. It is people in the age bracket of 65 years and older that
most clearly assert that a couple is successful when there is a mutual desire
to have a child (Table 7).

Table 7 Importance of Children according to Age

Not Rather Rather Very

Age important not Neutral important important

< 24 4.05% 4.64% 28.93% 23.21% 39.17%

25–34 4.21% 2.72% 17%.00 25.99% 50.08%
35–44 3.35% 3.6%0 16.08% 27.19% 49.78%
45–64 4.97% 4.09% 15.21% 25.45% 50.28%
65 and more 3.17% 3%.00 11.05% 25.62% 57.16%
N = 6763.

Table 8 Importance of Children according to Marital Status

Not Rather Rather Very

important not Neutral important important

Single 5.81% 4.81% 27.47% 24.28% 37.64%

Married 2.43% 2.24% 12.47% 26.53% 56.33%
Widowed 5.26% 3.16% 10.11% 26.32% 55.16%
Divorced 10.16% 10.16% 23.56% 23.33% 32.79%
Separated 7.14% 11.43% 20%.00 23.57% 37.86%
N = 6763.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 249

Bawin-Legros: Intimacy and the New Sentimental Order 249

Table 9 Portrait of the Couples

Applies to the situation:

—————————————
Very Quite Quite Very
badly badly well well

We do not hide anything from each other 0.9% 4.5% 44.9% 49.8% 100%
For the most part, we spend our spare time
together 1.7% 8.3% 42.5% 47.5% 100%
We generally have the same opinion about
the main things 0.8% 5.6% 51.6% 42%.0 100%
We always talk about our divergences 1.7% 11.9% 49.5% 37%.0 100%
Next to our mutual friends, we have
personal friends that we rather see alone 23.1% 29.1% 33.5% 14.3% 100%
We give a lot of room to friends, we see many
of them and our house is open to them 7.7% 25.1% 43.8% 23.4% 100%
The relationships with our family have an
important place in our life as a couple 4.4% 15.9% 47.1% 32.6% 100%
N = 1895.

This study also considered whether divorced people attach less import-
ance to the mutual desire to have a child, as opposed to married people
(Table 8).
Finally, we end this description of Belgian couples by looking at the
cohesion scale in which couples are shown a range of situations and asked if
the situations described more or less reflected their own experience.
According to the results from the 1998 survey, it is the proposition ‘we
do not hide anything from each other’ that encountered the greatest support,
and this is true whatever the variable (sex, age or degree) (see Table 9).
Transparency is thus clearly on the agenda. These results confirm what
we have been saying all through this analysis, namely that love free of lies
remains a priority and this is for as long as love lasts, not necessarily ‘for
ever’. This was found to be the case for all ages and social classes, with a slight
difference between men and women – men were seen as being more capable
of lying than women.

Conclusion

Intimate life is characterized today by several paradoxes and contradictions.

Though there are multiple ways of living in a couple and though relation-
ships frequently end (only to be rebuilt with new partners, often as soon as
possible) it seems, according to the survey we conduct each year and the 1998

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015

08 041810 (to/d) 17/2/04 1:41 pm Page 250

250 Current Sociology Vol. 52 No. 2

results in particular, that people still very much aspire to fidelity, as well as
to forming durable bonds, and sharing a life without lies. The figures that we
are presenting only reinforce what researchers in social sciences have been
saying for many years, namely that today, fusion in love is a refuge aspira-
tion but that it harmonizes badly with aspirations to autonomy and self-
development which are characteristic of our contemporary world. Though it
appears frequently through surrounding ideology and representations in the
media, the dominant model can nevertheless not be found evenly across all
social classes and particularly in the working classes, where marriage and
couple solidarity remain the best guarantees against precariousness. Yet, the
following observation is paradoxical: the fact that men and women are
enjoined to love each other and to love their children in a way which presents
love as an idealized pursuit is indeed now being reinforced precisely when a
liberation movement for women seems possible and feasible. But, as I have
suggested, modern love attempts a difficult synthesis of the irreconcilable
dimensions of transparency and secrets, of fusion with another and a
commitment to self-development. The nature of this attempted synthesis
makes the whole project very fragile.

Notes

1 See Levin (this issue, pp. 223–40). LAT is an acronym for Living Apart Together
and refers to committed couple relationships in which the partners maintain
separate residences.
2 Here, the notion of couple is defined by the fact of living together.

Bibliography

ALBERONI, F. (1997) Je t’aime. Tout sur la passion amoureuse. Paris: Plon.

BAUMAN, Z. (1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press.
BAWIN-LEGROS, B. and LENOIR, V. (1999) ‘Le Fonctionnement du couple dans la
société Belge’, in B. Bawin-Legros (ed.) Familles, modes d’emploi, pp. 3–23.
Brussels: De Boeck.
CHAUMIER, S. (1999) La Déliaison amoureuse. Paris: Armand Colin.
DE ROUGEMONT, D. (1963) L’Amour en Occident. Paris: Plon. (Orig. pub. 1952.)
DE SINGLY, F. (1996) Le Soi, le couple, la famille. Paris: La Découverte.
DE SINGLY, F. (2000) Libre ensemble. Paris: La Découverte.
GIDDENS, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
KAUFMANN, J.-C. (1993) Sociologie du Couple. Paris: PUF (Que sais-je?).
LIPOVETSKY, G. (1992) Le Crépuscule du devoir. Paris: Gallimard.
LUHMANN, N. (1990) L’Amour comme passion. Paris: Aubier.
SCHWARTZ, O. (1990) Le Monde privé des ouvriers. Paris: PUF.
TAYLOR, C. (1989) The Sources of the Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 14, 2015