“But You´Re Not Alone”: Outside of Coupledom

Home , Amatonormativity

FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES

“But You´re Not Alone”: Outside of Coupledom

Master's Thesis

KRISTÝNA KAYMAK MINAŘÍKOVÁ

Supervisor: Mgr. Eva Šlesingerová, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology Sociology

Brno 2021

“BUT YOU´RE NOT ALONE”: OUTSIDE OF COUPLEDOM

Bibliographic Record Author: Kristýna Kaymak Minaříková Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University Department of Sociology Title of Thesis: “But You´re Not Alone”: Outside of Coupledom Degree Programme: Sociology Supervisor: Mgr. Eva Šlesingerová, Ph.D. Academic Year: 2021 Number of Pages: 74 Keywords: Amatonormativity, uncoupled, non-romance, friendship, love

1 “BUT YOU´RE NOT ALONE”: OUTSIDE OF COUPLEDOM

Abstract

This work focuses on amatonormativity – the assumption that all people desire a romantic relationship, which is the way to happiness. Through an ethnographic research made of interviews and accompanied by au- toetnography it aims to explore how the amatonormative appeals affect people who are not in a romantic relationship, as well as the ones who are in some sort of romance. Further, the thesis analyzes how the uncoupled people negotiate their (ab)normality. Based on the interviews, the relations with friends appear as important, thus the role of friendship in everyday life is also examined.

2 “BUT YOU´RE NOT ALONE”: OUTSIDE OF COUPLEDOM

Abstrakt

Tato diplomová práce se soustředí na amatonormativitu – předpoklad, že všichni lidé touží po romantickém vztahu, který představuje cestu ke štěstí. Skrze etnografický výzkum založený na rozhovorech a doplněný autoetnografií zkoumá, jak amatonormativita ovlivňuje ty, jež nejsou v romantickém vztahu, stejně tak jako ty, kdo v nějakém takovém vztahu jsou. Dále tato práce analyzuje, jak nezadaní lidé vyjednávají svou (ab)normalitu. V rámci uskutečněných rozhovorů se vztahy s přáteli vyjevily jako podstatné, proto je také prozkoumána role přátelství v každodenním životě.

Počet znaků: 161 992

“BUT YOU´RE NOT ALONE”: OUTSIDE OF COUPLEDOM

Statutory Declaration

I hereby declare that I have written the submitted Master's Thesis concerning the topic of “But You´re Not Alone”: Outside of Coupledom in- dependently. All the sources used for the purpose of finishing this thesis have been adequately referenced and are listed in the Bibliography.

In Brno 19 May 2021

...... Kristýna Kaymak Minaříková

“BUT YOU´RE NOT ALONE”: OUTSIDE OF COUPLEDOM

Acknowledgements

Although I am the one signed under the thesis, this work is not only mine, rather it is the result of never-ending debates with my significant others, who were always willing to share their views, listen to my ongoing con- fusing thoughts, give me advice. The thesis happened thanks to enormous help I received from Nasťa, who talked with me, read what I wrote, commented it. The insights and comments of my supervisor Mgr. Eva Šle- singerová, Ph.D. were other crucial aspects. Without the vast support and encouragement, I always received from Fra I would probably not survive this last year without some bigger psychological damage, for which also all the help and reassurance of Klárka and Markétka was necessary, as well as of many others. Without the love of all of them I could never come to ideas which are presented in this thesis. I am grateful for what the work is to all my communicative partners, for their willingness and openness. I would like to thank all of you, this work is also yours!

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

Table of Contents

1 Introduction – How the Story Began 7

2 It Is All About Romance – Amatonormativity 9 2.1 However, the Ideal Persists ...... 13 2.2 Amatonormativity ...... 16

3 Till Death Do Us Apart – Marriage 19 3.1 Marriage as Oppression ...... 20 3.2 And What About Children? ...... 23 3.3 Future of Marriage ...... 25

4 The Path Which I Have Been Going Through – Methodology 27 4.1 A Few Words on the Role of Friendship in This Work ...... 31 4.2 Autoethnography as a Component of This Path ...... 33 4.3 What I Have Not Said About the Ethics Yet ...... 34

5 The Life Outside of the “Amorous Paradise” 36 5.1 The Consequences of Abnormality of Non-romance – Singlism ...... 37 5.2 When the Non-Romance Is Alright ...... 42 5.2.1 The Clock Is Ticking ...... 42 5.2.2 Old Maids and Bachelors ...... 44 5.2.3 Being the “Right” Single ...... 47

6 The Overlooked Idyll of Care and Understanding – Friendship 50 6.1 Friendship as Domain of the Oppressed? ...... 52 6.2 Friends Are the Ones We Care About ...... 54 6.3 Friends vs. Lovers ...... 56

7 Is It Love Th at We Need? 58

5 6 OBSAH

7.1 The Myth of Romance ...... 58 7.2 Love Is All Around ...... 61

8 Conclusion – This Is Love 63

Bibliography 65

Name index 73

6 INTRODUCTION – HOW THE STORY BEGAN

1 Introduction – How the Story Began

It is a sunny noon. The rays of the sunshine are passing through the window and make the whole kitchen a bright, warm space filled with a pleasant smell of the cooked broccoli and pasta. I, Klára and Fra are in the kitchen preparing our lunch together as any other day. A friend of mine´s dog, which we were supposed to take care for two weeks but that eventually became half-a-year, is sniffing around and completing the picture of an idyllic setting. While chopping the vegetables and setting the table Fra is telling us about an article he read this morning talking about “iperfamiglia” – a term that the journalist uses to describe the recent changes in the relationship settings. Next to the family and the blood ties, there is a whole universe of other ties that do not receive any or enough recognition, and that are relegated to a lower status, although the relationships with our friends, neighbours or colleagues often play a crucial role and make our lives significantly better [Camilli 2020]. It is spring 2020 and Europe is now facing the first wave of covid-19. People are in a lockdown, being scared and worried. Maybe at this particular moment it is possible to realize the importance of our interpersonal ties, possible support groups that can be activated when needed. And these needs are fulfilled by the whole network of people, which can consist of our families, our friends, our neighbours, our partners, … Most of us are in these various relationships for the whole our lives, sometimes with different intensity, sometimes in different settings, but they can all contribute to our well-being and fulfilled life. However, some of them are commonly valued more than the others. At a certain moment of our life the attention of us and – sometimes even more – of those who surround us, is directed to just one of them: the romantic relationship with our partner. Since a certain age such relationship is seen as an inevitable component of one´s life and it is perceived as the ideal outcome of one´s life. Have not we heard hundreads of times “and they lived happily ever after” as the ending of most of the fairy tales? Thus, it should be, of course in a certain moment of our life, our main focus to find a partner and achieve this “happily ever after”. But what does this perception bring to us? How does it influence our lives and all our other relationships? And how does it affect those who are not in this “paradise” of coupledom at the moment or have never been there?

7 INTRODUCTION – HOW THE STORY BEGAN

Fra, I and Klára were, at that time, all one of such, being outside of any romantic relationship. Being in our mid-twenties this is considered as something not really differing from “normal”, although that also depends on the environment. We were living together in a shared flat within which we managed to create our own home, in the meaning of a safe space: a space you can turn to for an advice, for any form of help, or simply just for having some fun and nice time. Our friends are here for any of these things, they are also often here over our break-ups, always ready to comfort us, to make us feel better. Sometimes they stay with us within our whole life through all ups and downs. So, maybe we should focus more on them, maybe we could value them and see in them the potential they can be consisting of. So, we, Klára, Fra and I, are here in this sunny noon happy, experiencing our lives as filled with many loving bonds despite being outside of a couple. We are not taught this is how the “happy-end” should look like. There is no white dress and celebratory music, neither children being born. However, in the lives there are not the happy endings, maybe there are happy episodes or times that are followed by the less happy ones. So, even when one reaches the idyllic “happy-ending” (let us keep for a moment apart how various meanings can eventually this happy- ending take on), there is always the day after. That is why this is not a happy-ending (neither from the normative point of view, nor from the more varied one), this is just a beautiful moment and the beginning of the story that resulted in this thesis. In that moment when being surrounded by my dear flatmates, supported by this idea of “iperfamiglia” I got the first thought what I want to devote my next year to. I want to write my thesis about relationships, relationships that are not considered as the ideal ones, that are often other-than-romantic and what their roles in our lives are. Let´s look beyond the amatonormative appeal that we should all find the life´s fulfilment in a romantic relationship that should be the central to us. Maybe there is more than that.

8 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY

2 It Is All About Romance – Amatonormativity

Since our childhood we are taught that the most precious goal of one´s life is to find our ideal partner, our soulmate, our second half. This message is delivered to us by many means among which the plotline of fairy tales is one of the most profound examples. The typical plot is based on the idea that there is a woman or maybe rather a girl that is facing some problems, but finally a man, often a prince, comes to save her, they fall in love together, get married and after that we just hear that classic phrase “and they lived happily ever after”. The point these stories are carrying is that we can be struggling in our lives, facing many difficulties, being sad and heartbroken, but these all will just pass in the moment we meet the right person, fall in love and create that ideal relationship – a relationship that is romantic, monogamous, central, erotic, heterosexual and, last but not least, permanent, lasting ideally for the rest of our life [Brake 2012]. In this introductory chapter I am going to focus on this normative assumption of what should be crucial and central in our lives considering relationships, what all aspects this couple-norm [Roseneil et al. 2020] consists of, how it is sustained and to outline which problems it can be causing. First of all, I need to say within the whole this work, if not specified otherwise, I am concentrating on the context of Europe. There are many references to especially Western norms and narratives as also most of the available literature concerned with this topic is concentrated on this setting. I try to reflect the specific context of post-socialist countries, too, particularly because my research is based on interviews conducted in Czechia with people who come from, as well as live in this coun- try. Thus, the work is primarily focused on the context of the Czech Re- public, which for the purposes of this thesis I approach as a part of the Western world, however, in some moments I also bring attention to its particularities. Nevertheless, many of these phenomena have almost a worldwide character because of the globalization. This chapter is mostly based on literature review, yet where suitable it is accompanied by findings from my research that I am going to present in detail in the chapter concerned with methodology. In short, my research was based on nine semi-structured interviews that were conducted mostly with

9 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY people who are not in any romantic relationship, as well as on a few interviews with people who are in some sort of romantic relationship. The findings of the interviews are then accompanied also with autoethnographic research of my own life story and ideas, as well as with the ethnographic research in general consisting of analysis of popular culture. As I mentioned above, the components of the ideal relationship are tied to adjectives describing it as romantic, erotic, monogamous, central, heterosexual and long-lasting. However, some of these aspects have been already challenged especially in the last decades. There has been a huge contribution to these by the feminist movement and other actors fighting for human rights, as well as the emancipation coming from above, as it was the case within socialist regimes. To start from the end of the list of characteristics, the permanency is one of such questioned aspects. Most of the people do not think they stay forever with their first ever partner. Serial monogamy is not something uncommon and it became also widely accepted by the public [Pallotta-Chiarolli 1995]. These changes have been among other factors also caused by the development and spread of contraceptive methods that enabled a separation between sex and reproduction [Kishwar 1997]. The other aspect of this ideal relationship is its heterosexual orientation. Heteronormativity has been also objected and criticized at least within the academic and activist environments [see e. g. Herz, Johansson 2015; Lasio et al. 2019]. The space for homosexual relationships was in some places also created in the legislative sphere [Brake 2012]. In most of the Western countries the same-sex partnerships received institution- ally at least some level of recognition by legalising the same-sex civil un- ions or marriages [Felter and Renwick 2020]. However, it is still far from equal position between the heterosexual and homosexual relationships. In most of the places in the world non-heterosexual partnerships still struggle with severe discrimination and the heteronormative ideal persists [Pitoňák 2011]. This ideal is reproduced and sustained by the cultural production, too, when e. g. reality shows focused on romance, such as Love is Blind or Wedding at First Sight (Svatba na první pohled in original), do not even consider the possibility someone could be not attracted to the opposite gender or any other difference, as well as the heteronormativity endures within the public space in general [ibid.]. Concerning the rest of the preferred characteristics of the ideal relationship, the challenges of them appear even less than of the previous ones. Although we can for sure find some cases of doing so, however, it

10 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY is more about rare islands of resistance of individuals than anything that could be seen as more widely happening in the society or even receiving some legal recognition. A phenomenon that plays an important role in this, as in all the confrontations mentioned above, is the rise of individualism and neoliberalism. The neoliberal self is one that is active, focused on themself, finding their own way through the self-development and self-realization [McGuigan 2016]. Thus, it is not a passive particle in a structure, on the other hand it is the neoliberal self successfully moving within the appropriate playing field while following the necessary rules, such as finding happiness through the work on yourself and continuous improvement. This ideal of neoliberal self became also the space where the norms are concentrated. The imagination of self-improving and realizing individual is saturated with the normative ideas of how such invid- ual should be and what they should do. Polyamory, or more precisely the concept of non-monogamies [De las Heras Gómez 2019], claims to be one of such islands of resistance to the monogamous ideal. According to the Oxford dictionary polyamory is “the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the agreement of all the people involved” [Oxford Dictionary 2020]. Relationships involving more than two partners are not something new. Polygyny, and especially polygamy, has been widely spread across space and time and it is practiced until nowadays in some societies. Polygamy is often criticized especially for its inegalitarian disposition [Brooks 2009]. Poly- amory, at least in theory, asserts for the opposite and places to its centre the accent of equality and non-oppressive character for all involved [see e. g. Michaels, Johnson 2015]. Nevertheless, it can be still perceived through the orientalistic lens [Said 2008] as a polygamic relationship and thus ascribed by characteristics, such as primitive, backward or danger- ous. Although such practises still stay on margins, they receive at least some attention within academy, activism, and partially also within pop culture when movies and serials feature characters that are in some non- monogamous partnership such as the fourth season of the TV show House of Cards or the Woody Allen´s movie Whatever Works. Lots of polyamorous relationships do not have to actually be that much revolutionary as they can seem at a first look. They can still be very much coherent with the other aspect that is the centrality of partnerships and the dominant position of such relationship(s) over all other ways we relate to people. Polyamory can place at its core the sexual relationships, as it is also evident from the definition of Oxford dictionary cited above.

11 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY

Even though, it does not have to necessarily be like that, polyamoric relationships are also based by great degrees on the emotional connections between the partners, or they can also consist of asexual relationships, the proclaimed sexual character of the ties enables prioritization of such over for instance friendships and others that do not incorporate the erotic particle. Moreover, many polyamorous relationships keep the structure of having ´primary´ and ´secondary´ partners, thus it embraces a clear hierarchy, and it perpetuates the primacy of the couple [Zanin 2013]. Delimitation of such approach is thought to be relationship anarchy (RA) that refuses this whole hierarchical division of relationships. It re- jects the hierarchy that prioritizes the romantic and sexual relationships [De las Heras Gómez 2019]. RA is a form of relating with people that rad- ically questions and refuses all the normative ideals mentioned above, but with its little occurrence it can be hardly said to challenge this ideal on some wider scale out of some radical leftist, anarchist, feminist collectives. And even in such environments it can be difficult to achieve that as addressed also by my communicative partner M who is in a polyamorous relationship and sees RA as an unreachable ideal. He compares the relation between polyamory and RA to the one thought between socialism and communism: “the relationship anarchy that´s the ideal where it can lead us in the moment, as well as with the communism, when people will be considerate and nice (…) there won´t be anymore any reason to define the relationships in any way”. The need not to define one´s relationships in any categories is a point I am going to touch openly also later. The prominence of romantic and erotic aspects of relationship also stays mostly unquestioned. Nowadays we hear sometimes about asexual and maybe even more rarely about aromantic people1. However, their position remains highly marginalized. They are often stereotyped in a negative way because of their non-participation in relationships that would be romantic [Granger 2020] or/and erotic (although since sex and erotism in general belongs much more to the private sphere, such people

1 Furthermore, we touch here the problem of identities and categorizations and its se- emingly static character [Brubaker, Cooper 2000]. If a person is not engaged in romantic and/or sexual relationships and give the main meaning to other relationships, this does not have to mean this person must identify themselves as aromantic and/or asexual, or that they does not engage in such relationships in some other moment of their life.

12 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY can sometimes pass through the normative imperatives more smoothly if they engage in some sort of romantic relationship). Moreover, such stereotypes and disadvantaging are not applied only to people who have never had or do not want to have any romantic or/and sexual relationship, but also to people who are simply not in such a relationship at the moment. This topic is one of the crucial ones of this thesis, thus these themes are explored more in detail in the chapter about being out of a couple.

2.1 However, the Ideal Persists

As we can see the ideal characteristics of relationship have been until bigger or lesser degree challenged. Nevertheless, the coupledom persists to be constructed as the normal, superior and adult way of being [Ro- seneil et al. 2020]. What such relationship promises to us is also to find happiness, which is another point that has been widely criticized, when in practise it is often far from its idealized version. For many people, and particularly women, their romantic relationship is more a site of discom- fort, abuse and violence, rather than space of contentment and safety [Brake 2012]. Based on all these aspects the relationship that is romantic, monogamous, central, erotic, heterosexual and permanent, is an idealized version that takes a prominent position in imaginations of most of us. This type of relationship has a hegemonic position [Laclau, Mouffe 2014] over all other relationships. In this way it can be compared to the hegemonic masculinity as explained by Connell [2002], which refers to the most idealized form of masculinity that has a dominant position not only over femininity (or rather all forms of femininities), but also over all other forms of masculinities. Thanks to its hegemonic position anything else is subordinated to it. At the same time, it is a fictional ideal, something that exists in the domain of ideas, rather than in the actual social world. In everyday life it is nearly impossible to suit completely into this idealized form of a relationship, especially when thinking of its idyllic form as bringing us ongoing happiness and satisfaction. Such a relationship is ought to be our own individual project of self-realization and ac- complishment and we tend to continuously compare ourselves with it, but as it often fails in succeeding to the ideal, it can cause us feelings of lacking and/or not being sufficient. Moreover, because of its hegemonic

13 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY position any relationships different from it are seen as less valuable [Brake 2012]. As I said above, since in this work I am focusing mostly on the context of Czechia, I find it important to say a few words here about the influence of the socialist past on this topic. The socialist ideology saw the bourgeois subordination of women as part of the problem of capitalism and at- tempted for their empowerment, at least in its theory and by some poli- cies also partially in practise, such as making women to be involved in paid work, offering institutional care for children etc. [Ghodsee 2018]. It saw the oppression of women within the relationships, too [see e. g. Marx, Engels 2008, firstly published in 1848]. The socialists claimed the relationships between men and women should be based on love. Thus, this ideal romantic relationship has been also seen as central during the socialism in the Eastern bloc. The regimes had a clear imagination of how the “right” relationship should look like, such as being heterosexual, lasting, between people of one´s own nation, and all of this was also a part of the regime´s propaganda [McLellan 2011]. Lots of these demands of gender equality and changes in relationships did not receive a sufficient attention in neither of the socialist countries and the women emancipation in the practise did not work so well. These topics were often used by the political representatives for prag- matic purposes and in many cases caused further problems to women, such as double burden [Ghodsee 2018]. Focusing on questions of relationships it is also important to notice that the socialist regimes were supporting, next to the coupledom, also the one of comradeship, so there could have been more space to focus on the other-than-romantic relationships, too. Within Czechoslovakia during the 50s there was a progressive approach to gender and sexuality, which was more open to relations outside of family and home. However, this had changed and since the 70s the direction was much more conservative and traditional, seeing the ties existing within the domestic sphere as the only appropriate human bonds [Lišková 2016]. “Intimacy understood as domesticated, couple-based, and family-oriented is a heritage of the ‘normalized’ 1970s.” [ibid.: 230]. When the socialist regime was over, the focus on the romantic relation, ideally between wife and husband, was not in contradiction with the images offered to us by the Western pop culture and the imaginations of the ideal coupledom. The way of thinking and seeing the world is intertwined with the language we use, which is an aspect where the dominant position of the

14 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY romantic relationship over all other forms of relationships is evident [Granger 2020]. “In contemporary English the phrase “in a relationship” is often assumed to mean romantic relationship. However, that assumption narrows the definition of what “relationship” means and makes it harder for other relationship types to be acknowledged when romance is the default” [Granger 2020: 7]2. I could observe the same tendencies during my research, when at the beginning of each interview I asked the question “What is the relationship or relationships you are currently in?” and some answered me by saying “Well, in no relationship”, or “I´m a single mother and I don´t have anyone at the moment”. Thereby, there is the presumed orientation to the romantic relationship of my question, which then leads them to this kind of answers. However, the word itself refers primarily to any relation between two or more people, it is about relating to someone, which therefore can take multiple shapes such as friendship, comradeship or kin relationship. To come back to my interviewees, others exactly problematized this and after my question they for example asked me what kind of relationships I am asking about and then answered in a complex way listing the various relationships they are engaged in. Considering this, when I use the term “relationship” within my thesis I refer to this broad understanding of it as any possible tie between people. Similarly, love is also generally understood as romantic love, an aspect I am going to talk about in the chapter about love. The mentioned hierarchization of relationships, with the romantic, sexual one on the top, is obvious in the phrases used for marking and describing a tie between two people. The expression being “just friends” illustrates this very well. The word “just” clearly indicates the ranking of relationships, when it makes the friendship subordinated to the romantic relationship. While no-one would say “they are just romantic partners”, for friendship people are very willing to devalue it by using that diminishing “just” [Granger 2020]. We can see such way of thinking also in popular culture. The TV show Friends focuses primarily on the importance and strength of friendship, nevertheless its ending differs, when the “happy-end” needs to be marked by four of the main characters passing from being “just friends” to romantic relationships, finding their ideal partners and only one of the characters – Joey remaining single

2 The same applies in the case of Czech language – “být ve vztahu”, “vztah” almost exclusively refer to a romantic relationship.

15 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY

(although his plot has been then continued in a spin off show focusing solely on himself) [ibid.]. The power of language can be also very difficult to overcome, and I realized how I am accustomed to the saying “just friends” or “being more than friends”, how it is difficult to get rid of it and sometimes even when I try to be very conscious on avoiding such expressions, I find myself exactly saying sentences such as “it was in the time when we were just friends”. However, it is important to try to change how we speak, which words we use and what connections these have considering that the language is not only an instrument to describe the world, but it is a vehicle of power and (re)production of hierarchies [Aus- tin 2009; Fairclough 2001].

2.2 Amatonormativity

The supremacy of romantic, monogamous relationship that I have been talking about until now can be coined by a single term – amatonormativity. The first proposing this term was Elizabeth Brake [2012] that defines it as based on “the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types” [Brake 2012: 88-89]. Amatonor- mativity, thus, stands behind the discrimination and disadvantaged position of people engaged in non-conventional and/or non-romantic relationships, and of such relationships themselves, when it sets a cultural norm how relationship aspect of one´s life should look like. The term amatonormativity is connected to heteronormativity, that assumes all people being heterosexual, producing the binary system of men and women, and, based on it, any other sexualities are perceived as deviant [Pitoňák 2011]. Amatonormativity is modelled on it, it works on the same logic and, in some regards, it also overlaps. Heteronormative ideals do not only marginalize LGBTIQ+ people, but also for instance the single parents, when they suppose their inevitable lack of something, meaning a partner of opposite gender. Some critics of heteronormativity also point out that monogamous relationship is a heterosexual ideal, so even legalisation of same-sex marriages remain heteronormative as far as it includes only exclusive dyads [Brake 2012]. Amatonormativity is a normative social structure, when it is constitutive in and related to many aspects of social life. Gender roles and

16 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY relations are one of such. “Our societies are based on systems that are essentially unequal: the traditional division of gender roles is the princi- pal way to divide us in two opposite human groups, women and men. This discrimination between us has been built to make us think that we are very different and that we must partner with a member of the other group to be completed” [Herrera Gómez 2014: 2]. The relation between the gender regime and the normative ideals works both ways in constructing, influencing and/or enforcing each other. The amatonormative appeal is gendered, when it is thought differently for men and for women – for whom the amorous imperative and necessity of being involved in a romantic relationship is structured even more firmly. Single women are treated differently than single men, when the negative stereotypes, such as being lonely, non-autonomous and sad, are even strengthened [Brake 2012]. The traditional norms of what being a woman (or a man) means are also defined, among other things, by heteronormativity and amatonormativity. According to them being a woman must entail being attracted by men, desiring a romantic relationship with one, of which the outcome is to get married and to have children. The issue of reproduction is also one of the crucial ones here, since being a woman is still strongly tied to being a mother [Stewart 2018]. As amatonormativity is setting up the ideal of the romantic relationship it also discourages people from involvement in and devotion to other kinds of relationships [Brake 2012]. The marginalization of other- than-romantic relationships works on many levels. It can be observed on the institutional one, when it is especially the institution of marriage that keeps the primacy in structuring and privileging romantic relationships (more on this in the next chapter). It is impossible to create any legal tie between people based on being “just friends” and that would enable such relationships to receive the benefits connected to marriage or civil union, such as a specific eligibility for immigration or possibility of being informed on one´s health condition [Brake 2014]. The discrimination appears in other settings, too, when non-romantic relationships are generally granted by a lower status and are seen as less important [Granger 2020]. The power of the status of conventional couple was also reflected by Vanesa, who is in a monogamous, romantic relationship. She told me that her relationship receives much more recognition than her friendships, especially by her family, although they are similarly important to her.

17 IT IS ALL ABOUT ROMANCE – AMATONORMATIVITY

Amatonormativity is an oppressive social structure. It intersects with other oppressions (e. g. of women, LGBTIQ+ people) and is in itself a way of systematic subordination, taking various forms when “[l]egal penalties and discrimination interlock with social pressures and discrimination, stereotyping in the media, workplace discrimination, consumer pricing, and children’s education” [Brake 2012: 98]. The centrality of romantic relationships is particularly incited on women, and often the amotonormative ideal is also the way their subordinated position is jus- tified. Love has become the basis for demands of work, mostly the caring labour, mainly (or even exclusively) done by women and for free [hooks 2000]. Amatonormativity is thus a significant contributor to the oppression of women, and it is especially carried through the love imperative and the perception of love of our society. In recent times, the appeal of love is ought to be also the basis for marriage – an institution, which is very much connected to the amatonormativity. That is why the next chapter is focused on this topic.

18 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE

3 Till Death Do Us Apart – Marriage

To get married, have children and start your own family is often perceived as the ideal outcome of one´s life (especially if the one is a woman). It is like the cherry on the top of amatonormativity. Although the importance of marriage has, in various contexts and to various degrees, decreased, anyway the heterosexual marriage still persists to be the ´gold standard´ [Roseneil et al. 2020]. This chapter focuses on the romantic imaginaries connected to it and especially to the problematic aspects of it while linking them slightly to the past, to the present and to the findings of my research. Raising children is also something traditionally associated with marriage and definitely with amatonormativity. Therefore, this topic is covered here, too. At the end, considering all the problematic features of marriage, I contemplate a possible alternative. Marriage is often portrayed as the proper “happy-end”, that has its basis and backing in the law. The romantic imaginary is also internalized by us [Roseneil et al. 2020] and we are taught it since our childhood, for instance exactly by watching most of the fairy tales. Some of my communicative partners also spoke about how they would like to get married, and Vanesa, a 25-year-old coupled woman, for instance even told me that she has already prepared a list of songs she wants to have played on her wedding since her teenage years. Although it is often said that these appeals apply especially to women, it does not work in such a gender-exclusive way. Alfréd, a 23-year-old uncoupled man, for instance told me: “It´s really weird, it´s one of my oldest memories. I was like 6, or 7, and I know I was imagining, I was like so much afraid of the moment when I would have to kiss the girl in public at the wedding”. So, even though this is not the romantic imagination per se (which actually none of my communicative partners told me they had when they were children), it is obvious there was the idea he will eventually get married, and some thoughts connected to it since his early childhood. Marriage is considered as a norm. Although the number of married people in Czechia is decreasing, they are still the most numerous group among the ones older than 15 years [ČSÚ 2021c]. It is perceived as a mark in one´s “normal” order of life and also as something morally valuable just by itself, something that deserves our appreciation, something that is morally just [Brake 2012]. However, in this chapter I am going to show that this perception does not have to be that much correct. On the

19 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE other hand, marriage is often a site of oppression and by its very existence it excludes and disadvantages those who do not choose it or whose relations do not suit to it [ibid.].

3.1 Marriage as Oppression

The problematic aspects of marriage can be already traced from just a simple definition of marriage as a permanent union between a man (or men) and a woman (or women) that gives to the spouses sexual and economic rights over each other and that grants children coming from this marriage a certain social identity [Murphy 1998]. The permanent aspect can often assist in staying in one´s marriage despite its unhappiness or even abusive character and it is not much coherent with the dynamic and fluid character of human relationships. The danger of abuse and oppression is also closely connected to the fact of granting the spouses the sexual and economic rights over each other, which can be particularly problematic when living in an unequal world, where (among other inequali- ties) one gender has a dominant position over the other [Jamieson 1999]. “Marriage and motherhood in the history of modem patriarchies have been mandatory for and oppressive to women, and they have been criticized by feminists on those grounds” [Card 1996: 4]. Historically, the man has been defined as the head of the family, as the one holding the power over the rest, meaning the woman and child(ren) as we can see in history of Ancient Greece [Uiorean 2018] or can trace this in the Roman law [Card 1996]. The oppressive character of marriage did not stay unnoticed. These concerns have been, of course, raised by the feminist scholars and it was more broadly part of the leftist ideas, when for instance Marx and Engels in the Communist manifesto [2008] criticized marriage as a bourgeois institution. In the past (and in some cases even nowadays) the only possibility for women to leave their home and become autonomous from their family was to get married. They did not have much choice for different life trajectories or changes of their role within household. Of course, this disadvantaged position of women within marriage has been evolving over time and we could trace some improvements in women´s position during the last centuries or especially decades [Green, Valleri- ani, Adam 2016]. Such advancements can be connected to the general in- crease of civil rights as more inclusive, raise of women´s participation in

20 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE paid work or the role of feminist movements, as well as the influence of individualistic and neoliberal ideas. Women became more independent, something that made them more powerful within the marriage or gave them better possibility to leave it [Williams 2004]. However, the problematics of it persist. The detraditionalization, claimed e. g. by Giddens [1992], occurs3, but only until a certain degree in certain environments and not without many obstacles and problematics [see e. g. Jamieson 1998]. Moreover, it can sometimes cause changes on the level of ideas, but that does not have to overlap with changes in practises or desires (such as the idealization of romance) [Green et al. 2016]. In patriarchal societies (and we can barely find any others in the contemporary world) marriage continues to be a significant marker of adulthood of women [Card 1996]. Based on this, unmarried women can thus sometimes struggle with disapproval or discrimination, they can be perceived as dependent, incomplete or sad [Macdonald 2018]. Furthermore, the institution of marriage can actually be an obstacle in protecting victims of domestic abuse, when the “legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse” [Card 1996: 8]. The recent idea of marriage is the one based on love, and this aspect can be also problematic for the empowerment of survivors of abuse to leave their abuser. Marriage is seen as being driven rather by affection than justice [Brake 2012] and this link with the emotions, and the romantic narrative in general, can be sometimes used as justification of the violence [Jackson 2001]. It is not only a matter of how the ones who are married perceive it, but also of how the others in our surrounding comprehend it. Marriage continues to be a traditional institution and that is why it can be very difficult to fill it with some different meaning or approach. When I decided to leave my previous partner, who I am married with, and who was abusive to me, I was experiencing disapprobative reactions from my relatives who were firstly not approving my decision at all, because we are married, so we should behave accordingly. Thus, although me and my

3 We can see that also for instance on statistical data from Czechia, where the numbers of marriages per year in general is, with some interruptions, decreasing. For example in the last 10 years there was the least marriages within the history of an independent Czech(slovakian) state [ČSÚ 2021b].

21 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE partner did not assign much importance to the fact we are married and we did not see the union as something inseparable, the perception of the others, particularly referring to the kin, was different and caused us difficulties when we decided to break up. Despite of these critiques of marriage, it does not have to always involve the problematic aspects. On the other hand, for some, marriage can be recognised as a sphere of security and certainty and it can be filled with positive meanings both by the ones living it coherently with its conventional aspects, as for the ones reshap- ing its content and implications. As my communicative partner M, who is in a polyamorous relationship, says: “I think marriage can be great and not like the status from the legal point of view or of the church, but what it can mean for a person, so that can be awesome”. However, the legal issues of marriage are also something beneficial for the lives of those who are involved in it, as I am going to show later. Recently (and this goes hand in hand with the detraditionalization thesis [Green et al. 2016]), we can observe raise of numbers of couples that decide not to get married. According to Report on Family 2020 [Ku- chařová et al. 2020] from Czechia the numbers of people who are not in a romantic relationship are increasing, although the married family persists to be the most preferable form of living. However, the position of the ones outside of marriage remains disadvantaged compared with married couples. There are many benefits, such as favourable taxation, entitlements considering immigration or hospital visiting rights of the spouses [Brake 2014] that remain to be exclusive for the ones who get married. There is a big role of state in marriage: it is not just a relationship, the definition of which depends on the individuals who are involved in it, but rather the state is another actor in it [Card 1996]. I can reflect this substantial role of legal advantages coming with the marriage on my own case of being married. A decision that we made with my ex-partner was done mainly in order to receive an immigration entitlement for him and to be able to live together in Czechia. If there was not this issue, the idea to get married would probably not even enter our minds, at least not at that very moment. Similar case was experienced by my communicative partner M, whose decision to get married was also partially influenced by the immigration entitlements. The legal advantages of marriage, such as the issues connected to the property rights or healthcare, were also mentioned by almost all my interviewees when they talked about why they find marriage as something important or positive.

22 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE

The discriminatory character of the laws considering marriage is further responsible for the possible decline in our motivations for invest- ment in other kinds of relationships. By this way, the marriage can be even a source of disconnectedness, because it takes us by its centrality and exclusivity from the other relationships we are (or were used to be) engaged in. “The belief that marriage and companionate romantic love have special value leads to overlooking the value of other caring relationships” [Brake 2012: 88]. Last but not least, the legal position of marriage can also keep some people from decision to get divorced and rather to stay in an unhappy union [Card 1996]. The privileged position of marriage (both on the institutional, but also on the imaginary level) and at the same time its exclusive character, limiting who can actually get married, leads some to fight for its more inclusive character. As such the most prominent are the struggles for in- clusion of gay and lesbian marriages. However, some scholars who prob- lematize marriage itself discourage these attempts, seeing this only as including some other forms of couples into it, and thus keeping its amatonormative character without getting rid of its problematic, oppressive and discriminatory character [Brake 2012]. They rather propose to refuse marriage at all, or completely privatize it and divorce it from the State [see e. g. Beyer 2002; Garrett 2009].

3.2 And What About Children?

Marriage is seen as a path towards creating one´s own family, thus, the question of child rearing is very much intertwined with this topic. From a radical perspective [see e. g. Card 1996] mothering and even parenting can be seen as problematic and misleading since they are not centred on the needs of the child, but rather on the parent(s). Furthermore, mothering has, historically, been a crucial element of patriarchy. Accord- ing to some, more disperse way of parenting, such as multiple parenting when child(ren) are cared for by a group of people is seen, for instance by polyamorists, as more beneficial for the child(ren) [Brake 2014]. Sim- ilar arguments were also risen by Sara who says: “Well, I always really like to say that the child is brought up by a tribe”. She is in a romantic, asexual relationship and has a very vivid network of close and further friends. She lives recently together with her 10-year-old daughter and says her daughter Ana has been raised up and cared not only by her, but

23 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE also by many of her friends and that it is something very beneficial for Ana to have a contact with various adults. Sara is also glad that, nowadays, the father of her daughter is not participating much in bringing her up, because of their previous unpleasant, abusive experiences with him, and she hopes it will stay like this. Hooks [2000] proposes so-called revolutionary parenting as a more suitable way, when children are raised by a community of people. This does not have to be just a case of some alternative (polyamorist) com- munes, but we can find this kind of setting, for instance, among the black communities, too [ibid.]. This also applies to the case of Sara, who does not fit into a category of privileged people, since she used to be homeless and still struggles with financial, housing and other problems. It is actually this unprivileged position of her that partially played a role in organizing Ana´s raising up in this kind of way. Card [1996] argues that the conventional way of parenting is unequal due to the powerful position of the parents, and that “[c]hildren raised without such models [being raised by parent(s) with assuming the responsibilities without the priv- ileges] of the concentration of power may be less likely to reproduce patriarchal and other oppressive social relationships.” [ibid.: 18]. However, by privileging marriage, the state causes that this setting appears as the only good way (or the best possible way) to raise children and, by this way, it puts any other arrangements, such as single parents or homosexual couples raising child(ren), into a difficult position. My communicative partner Pavlína, who is a single mother, was expressing her grief about feeling sorry she was not able to provide the growing up for her son in a “complete family”. From her point of view, he missed a lot from not being raised up also by his father or some other man. She says: “I always wished to get married and to have a normal family, two children, a husband, a house, a garden, a dog”. From her perspective this is exactly something connected to being “normal”, to have the “normal” family, and now, by being a single mother, she is not able to fit into this norm. This also plays a role in her decisions considering romantic relationships. When she tells me about her last time being in a couple, she says: “I wished that for myself and also for Adam, that finally we´ll have the family like complete, and even though I knew from the beginning that it is not absolutely ideal, I just accepted so many things just in order to…to make it work and that was wrong”. We can see in Pavlína´s case how the norms of amatonormativity and of the ideal coupledom do not exist just outside of us, but they are also internalized [Roseneil et al.

24 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE

2020] and how they are also intertwined with the imaginations of the only “right” way of bringing up a child as being done by a woman and a man [Card 1996]. Nowadays this leads Pavlína to perceive her own life history as being in lack, which sometimes can then orient her to attempts of overcoming this lack by decisions that have in other ways unpleasant consequences for her life, as it was in the case of her last romantic relationship.

3.3 Future of Marriage

All these problematic aspects can lead us to the question if we should refuse marriage at all. As I have mentioned above some authors ask for abolition of marriage and see it as the only positive way of dealing with these problems [see e. g. Beyer 2002; Garrett 2009]. The trouble is also concerning the language itself, which is embedded in the patriarchal order, the same one where the roots of marriage itself can be found. “For those who would work to enlarge the concept of family to include group- ings that are currently totally noncontractual, in retaining patriarchal vocabulary there is a danger of importing patriarchal ideals and of inviting treatment as deviant or “second class” at best” [Card 1996: 4]. From this perspective, it seems more desired to develop a new vocabulary and sign by that a radical rupture with the previous settings. However, according to Brake [2012] it would be better to argue for reforming the vision of marriage. She proposes minimizing marriage as the appropriate alternative. Such minimal marriage would not only get rid of the heteronormative and monogamous appeals, but also of the amatonormative one. It would be open for anyone who is in a caring relationship with another person or people. The entitlements could be specific for each person and, when getting married, everyone would know these entitlements they sign up for (in contrast to contemporary marriage, when the laws and rights considered are very abstract and often not fully known by the spouses) [Brake 2012]. For the concerns with the language, the term “marriage” should be either accessible to everyone, or to no-one, because otherwise the discriminatory character of it would persist [Brake 2014]. The state should support caring relationships, no matter who is involved in them, and as such they should be seen as morally valuable from the ethical perspective, too. “[C]are is a matter of justice within political liberalism, and this is perhaps the most powerful of

25 TILL DEATH DO US APART – MARRIAGE the strategies surveyed here for making society fairer for women [Brake 2012: 206].

26 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY

4 The Path Which I Have Been Going Through – Methodology

This chapter is concerned with the methodological issues of this thesis. I would like to introduce and explain the way through which I have conducted my research, as well as the analysis, while also connecting these to the theoretical literature which constitutes the methodological basis of my work. I begin with outlining the focus of my research. After that, some space is devoted to interviews, as they are the constituent aspect of my research. I explain the procedure of the interviews and how they influenced the continuation of my inquiry. This is then linked with the friendship as method [Tillmann-Healy 2003] and with an autoethnographic contribution, stating the reflection of my own position. Finally, some ethical considerations that I have not presented earlier are outlined and, at the end, I conclude presenting my research questions. This work is based on qualitative research using especially the method of semi-structured interviews [Esterberg 2002], further accompanied by ethnography with autoethnographic aspects [Ellis 2004; Ellis, Adams, Bochner 2011]. The data collection was done since December 2020 to March 2021. Nevertheless, since it is based on the ethnographic methods in general, containing reflections of my own experience and various impulses received from, what we could call, participant observa- tion, it is difficult to mark a clear beginning or end of the fieldwork. More- over, the fieldwork is not any distinct area, but it can be basically anything that appears within my everyday life. The topics of this thesis, amatonormativity and relationships in general, are themes that are every- where around us. I encounter articles, movies, TV shows, speeches or di- alogues concerned with them almost on everyday basis. I try to critically reflect them and incorporate some of them into this work, that is why my analysis is in some moments accompanied by mentions of TV shows, movies, songs etc. corresponding with the presented argument. When it is anything involving other people, most often my friends, I discussed with them my intentions to incorporate their ideas or experiences into this thesis, listened their thoughts and position about that and did so only if they agreed with it. When I started to be focused on amatonormativity, I was thinking I could concentrate on how this norm is experienced by people who are

27 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY in some sort of alternative, non-conventional relationships, but by the time as I was more and more focusing, reading and thinking about all the norms tied to it, I started to realize almost every person is probably from some perspective in a non-conventional relationship(s). However, people who are not in any kind of romantic relationship are unable to suit into the amorous norm for sure. They need to organize their everyday life, the meaning of their relationship status and their relationships in general while being outside of the amatonormative ideal of which they generally cannot get rid of neither externally, nor internally. That is why I decided my research would be primarily focused on people who are currently not in any form of romantic relationship. Within this work I try to avoid the usage of the term “single”, because I consider it as one of the ways of reproducing amatonormativity, since the word´s other meaning is also alone or sole. Thus, it implies that when one is not in a romantic relationship, they is also alone because of that [Roseneil et al. 2020]. It does not acknowledge the other-than-romantic relationships in a sufficient way and does not grant them an equal status as to the amorous ones. Unfortunately, I do not have any alternative for the term, that is why I solve this problem by paraphrasing it in ways such as “people who are not in a romantic relationship”. As a way to acquire the data I opted for semi-structured interviews, that are suitable for gaining insight into people´s ideas, positions and experiences related to the relevant topics [Kvale, Brinkmann 2015]. I conducted these interviews using very open questions, such as “What do you think about relationships?”, or others focused on people’s everyday life, such as who they share their household or go for a holiday with, and concentrated further on the topics that emerged within the interview. I was also critically reflecting the power unbalance that is always present in the interviews, since it is the researcher who asks questions and the researched who answers and reveals information about themselves [Ester- berg 2002]. I tried to create a friendly atmosphere during the interview, and since I have personally known most of my communicative partners prior to it, being friend of some of them (a point I am talking about in detail later), it has not been a problem to achieve a relaxed atmosphere and a good rapport with them. I knew that many of the covered topics are very personal and intimate. Therefore, I was attentive to assure the interviewees of the possibility to talk just about issues they are comfort- able with and, on the other hand, to refuse to answer or talk about certain themes at all. However, such situations basically did not happen, and I

28 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY often encountered a great openness from their side. In some parts, where I found it appropriate, I also talked about myself, about my own experiences and opinions. I spoke openly with them about my work and research. I am aware this could have caused some distortions in their answers and I reflect this. However, I still find it as a better option, considering the ethics. I informed them about the anonymity, the possibility to withdraw themselves in any moment from the research and gained their informed agreement with their participation. Furthermore, within this thesis I am not going to call them as respondents, but I rather choose the word “communicative partner” as implicating a more equal approach. In many cases, the involvement of the interviewees did not finish by the end of the interview. We were further collaborating, for instance by discussing my thoughts. Some of them, who wished so, could read and edit the tran- scripts of their interviews or just discuss with me what I wrote. I perceive this research as a collaborative and relational process, and this final thesis as the result of it, rather than just as a work of myself [Jeffers, Four- nillier 2020]. First of all, I conducted six semi-structured interviews with people who are not in any sort of romantic relationship. I was proceeding induc- tively. I heard a lot, within these interviews, about other-than-romantic relationships, especially about friendships, and about the crucial roles they were playing in my communicative partners’ lives. Thus, I started to be more focused on the topic of non-romantic relationships, and I found useful and worthy of inquiry to look at what kind of position they gain in lives of people who are in some sort of romantic relationship. That is why I have decided to enhance my research with three more interviews with such people. Since I am writing about amatonormativity, paying attention to all the norms that are applied to the ideal relationship - being it monogamous, sexual, romantic, dyadic and central [Brake 2012] - I have included people in various romantic relationships, too. Thus, there is one interview with a person in a polyamorous relationship, one in a sort of asexual, romantic relationship4 and one in a monogamous, long-term, heterosexual, we could say “conventional” relationship.

4 I say a sort of asexual, romantic relationship, because this interviewee does not assign a clear category to this relationship. She says from her position it is a platonic, asexual, romantic relationship, but from the side of her significant other there is no sexual, neither romantic feelings for her, and she perceives it as a close friendship.

29 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY

The choice of my communicative partners, as well as the procedure of the whole research process, was complicated by the ongoing pandemic of Covid-19, which caused me some difficulties in reaching the interviewees and which led to conduction of four interviews online. Considering reaching my communicative partners, firstly, I asked some of my friends of whom I knew they are not in a romantic relationship to participate in my research, accompanied with a few contacts which I got through my friends or family. Regarding the followed-up interviews with people who are in romantic relationship/s I again turned to my friends or a friend of a friend to get to people in various romances. The interviews lasted between half an hour to two hours. There is a variety among the interviewees considering their age, although most of them (respectively five) are young adults between 23 and 27, one is 31 and three are between 47 and 57 years old. Six of them identify themselves as women and three of them as men. There is also a diversity considering sexual preferences, however, most of them (respectively six) identify themselves as (prevalently) heterosexual. All my communicative partners come from and live in Czechia5, most of them in a bigger city, one in a smaller town and one in a village. There are also differences when looking at their class and/or cultural background, four of them are university students, others are workers in working-class positions, pro- fessionals or unemployed, one struggling with unstable housing and, previously, with homelessness. Only two of the interviewees, both being single mothers, have children. Three of them live alone, while the rest lives in shared flats with their child, friends, family of origin, or partner. The time they have been spending out of romantic couple also differs, ranging from five months to a few years; three of my communicative partners have never been in a romantic relationship they would consider as serious, and one of them have not been in any romantic and/or sexual relationship at all. Considering the ones currently in some romantic relationship, they have all been in one for a few years. The person who is in a romantic, asexual relationship was also getting divorced at the moment of the interview, however she has not had a romantic relationship

5 All interviews were conducted in Czech, as it is the first language of both me and all the interviewees. The excerpts used in this thesis were translated by myself and I admit a possibility inaccuracies or defects. Some of the translations were also discussed with the people who said them.

30 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY and/or lived together with her husband for more than a year. Others were never-marrieds. I do not to claim my communicative partners would be representa- tive of the groups they could be assigned to, thus I am not attempting for any kind of representativity coming from the variety of people I spoke to. Rather I would say that the aim of my research is to comprehend the complexity and particularity of their experiences and positions, rather than their representativeness, since all the mentioned factors, intertwined with many others, play a bigger or lesser role in what they told me. After conducting each of the interviews, I wrote in the form of brief notes what stayed in my mind as important from the research, accompanied by details of how, when and where the interview happened, or any other relevant information (such as regarding the body language, my own feelings and impressions from the interview etc.). I transcribed all the interviews and analysed them while using the open coding method. The analysis has been going through the whole research process, since it was not clearly distinguished from the period of gathering the data. This way, these two steps were informing and influencing each other resulting, for instance, in editing or adding questions into the next interviews. With my first interviewee, I have conducted two interviews, since other topics emerged in my research later on. To a few others I asked comple- mentary questions after the end of the interview, when something re- mained unclear.

4.1 A Few Words on the Role of Friendship in This Work

Tillmann-Healy [2003] proposes friendship as a possible method of qualitative research and recognizes it as useful especially when studying close interpersonal relationships. That is why I found this approach particularly suitabile for this work. The basis for such work can be found in some of the feminist methodologies that break the assumption of value- free inquiry [Harding 1992] and invite to more participatory and politi- cally oriented research, claiming for empowerment and/or conscious- raising [Reinharz 1992]. For this kind of knowledge, the social scientists need to incorporate into their research ethics of care, including relationships that open space for emotions and empathy [Tillmann-Healy 2003]. These approaches, such as challenging the hierarchical division between

31 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY the researcher and the researched ones, are then coherent and at the core of my research as described above. Within this kind of research, the researcher tries to get to know their communicative partners rather than just gaining the needed data from them [ibid.]. Since the topics of this thesis are so personal and intimate, I also find it appropriate that some the interviewees have been my friends prior to the beginning of the research, so they were much more open to reveal themselves to me than in other cases. However, there are several dilemmas arising from this approach. One of them is the question of how much my communicative partners were affected by knowing me, my position, opinions and/or details about my work. As friends we often try to please each other, which could have been also the case during the interviews. In order to face this challenge, not all of them belong to my group of friends: I did not know some of them (almost) at all before the interview. Such a mixture of interviewees as the ones I have close ties with and others I do not know can be, thus, beneficial [Taylor 2011]. Another challenge is the continuous balancing between my professional and personal role, an issue that has been already addressed by ongoing discussing and reflecting my work together with my communicative partners. When one writes about (close) friends there is a necessity of continuous stepping back and examining the relationships analytically and critically [Till- mann-Healy 2003], which I have been trying to do so during the whole research and writing process. There is also a danger of writing in favour of our communicative partners [Taylor 2011]. Talking about this sort of worries [see e. g. Zinn 1979], i.e. that I could be sympathetic in my analysis, I would say yes, I am writing sympathetically with my communicative partners. How- ever, this does not mean I am writing uncritically. I try to critically reflect all the information I gathered during my ethnographic research and I especially attempt to point out the structural causes, such as the influence of the norms on their ideas and practises. Although, rather than portraying them as passive “victims” or particles in the structure, I refer to them as active agents that are affected and constrained by the norms, but at the same time negotiate and employ them in their own specific way. I also chose not to include some aspects of the data collected into my analysis because of the trust, empathy and care that have been part of my field work. “Omission is political; it is also tricky, yet it is often necessary” [Taylor 2011: 14].

32 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY

4.2 Autoethnography as a Component of This Path

While I was proceeding with this work and research, I was more and more realizing how much this topic is personal and how much it influ- ences and makes me think about my own life. I have been contemplating many of the issues and readings in reference to myself and my relationships with others for hours and hours. They have also made me involved in discussions with many of my friends and significant others about these topics, some of which also influenced this work. Insider research with people the researcher has close ties with and the usage of friendship as method often involves or is a part of autoethnography [Taylor 2011]. “Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze (graphy) personal experience (auto) in order to understand cultural experience (ethno) [Ellis 2004; Holman Jones 2005]” [Ellis et al. 2011: 273]. It enables me to get insight into the subjectivity and emotionality of the lived experience of myself [Griffin, Griffin 2019] and since I am writing about normativity – thus about issues that can be difficult to be realized because of the internalization of the norms – this autoethnographic aspect can be useful, too. I am not trying to say I am able to critically reflect all the (internalized) norms and pressures, neither to posit myself into a higher stance than reports of anyone else. My aim is to point out how my self-reflection can serve as a great supplement to the data gathered during the ethnographic work, mainly through the semi-structured interviews. Autoethnography admits the subjectivity, the role of emotions and the researcher´s influence on the research and sees it as inevitable components of any academic work, trying to acknowledge and accommodate these aspects [Ellis et al. 2011]. That is why I would like to reflect here my own position. The research process, as well as the result of it, have been influenced by many of my characteristics. My position is affected by me being identified as a woman who went through femininely coded socialization, since gender plays a crucial role when thinking about amatonormativity [Brake 2012]. Further, it is influenced by my age, being a young, 26-year-old adult. Another factor playing a role is that I am a university student, particularly of sociology and of social anthropology. Regarding my relationship status I am married for almost four years, but there is no romantic relationship between me and my husband for almost two years. When I started to work on this thesis I was not in any

33 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY romantic relationship, but now I have been in a romantic, open-monogamous, heterosexual relationship since October. I have very close ties with a few of my friends. I am interested in non-hierarchical way of being, of which the constituting of our relationships is an important part. I have been attracted by the idea of relationship anarchy [De las Heras Gómez 2019] and I try to set up my relationships as equally as possible, with a special focus of not prioritizing the amorous relationship over my friendships. This has posed me many, especially internal, ongoing struggles. I find my environment of a huge help in shaping my life in this direction and trying to go beyond the existing categories, while at the same time continuously realizing the limitations of this, of myself and of others. It is a process of ongoing negotiations on day-to-day basis, admitting our weaknesses and fears and defining ourselves and our relationships in ways they can be the most suitable for ourselves at the very moment. This position and ideas of myself were influential on this work. This thesis can be placed to the normative epistemic mode [Reed 2011] that pays attention to how the social reality depends on people´s judgements and that often involves a practical application of the acquired knowledge. I do believe the world without amatonormativity would be a better one. I do not claim for refusing all the categories influencing our relating to others, neither for privileging other-than-romantic relationships, nor I am against amorous relationships in general. I do acknowledge and understand to all people, who are not in any romantic relationship and desire to be in one, as well as all the ones, who do not desire so, or wish to be in one in anyhow unconventional way. Acknowledging and appraising all caring, well-functioning relationships, no matter of the type they are of, more evenly can be a fundamental step towards a more just and equal society. My attitude is also coherent with the one of autoethnography in general. “Autoethnographers view research and writing as socially-just acts; rather than a preoccupation with accuracy, the goal is to produce analytical, accessible texts that change us and the world we live in for the better [Holman Jones 2005: 764]” [Ellis et al. 2011: 284].

4.3 What I Have Not Said About the Ethics Yet

Ethical considerations I have incorporated into this work are ̶ next to the open communication with my communicative partners, informed consent and participation of some of them throughout the whole

34 THE PATH WHICH I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH – METHODOLOGY research process ̶ the issues of anonymity. The ethical scrutiny is of high importance during any (auto)ethnographic research and the questions of anonymity and potentiality of harm to those involved can be often problematic [Griffin, Griffin 2019]. Since I use also aspects of autoethnography, when I am talking about my own experiences, such episodes generally consist of lives of other people. In such cases it is basically impossible to achieve a full anonymity, since at least the people who know me can detect who are the other people that the stories involve. For these reasons I have discussed my intentions to incorporate autoethnography into this thesis with all such people that are mentioned within this work. I tried to explain them what such a decision and work would contain and ask them about their opinion about that. Later on, I also sent them the written pieces, invited them to contribute to their editing and asked their approval. Considering the issues of anonymity, I chose an individual approach to each of my communicative partners. In most of the cases I use pseu- donyms, however, for some their actual names are used, when they are not anymore anonymous subjects of the research, but they become real actors not only of their, but also of this particular story. These decisions were again taken together with the concerned people. In some other cases I have not changed only the name, but also other characteristics which were not relevant for this work in order to prevent recognition. In what follows I am presenting results of the analysis, mixed together with the theoretical basis and literature review. This work is not structured into a clear order – theory, methodology and analysis, but rather the analysis is a part of the whole text. That is why the chapters on amatonormativity and marriage also contain some analytical work.

Within this thesis I try to answer the following research questions: • How is the amatonormativity constituted and how is it experienced in everyday life as outer, as well as internal pressure? • How is the abnormality of non-romance experienced and ne- gotiated by people who are not in a romantic relationship? • What is the role of friendship in everyday life?

35 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE”

5 The Life Outside of the “Amorous Paradise”

The aim of this chapter is to explore the issue of being outside of any romantic relationship, especially in the connection with amatonormativity through the insight gained from the research and relevant literature. I talk about the negative stereotypization and discrimination of people who are not in a couple. Coupledom as a norm causes that these people are often perceived as abnormal and as ´others´ [Budgeon 2008], which is the theme covered in this chapter. Furthermore, I also analyse when the non-romance is accepted and even seen as something positive. First of all, I would like to say a few words about the terminology I am using in this work. As I have already described my concerns about the usage of the term “single” in the methodological chapter, consequently I have similar ones considering the word “singleness”, which can also connotate a state where one is alone or sole. That is why I use an alternative word “non-romance”. However, it could be objected that by this way I define it in a negating manner in relation to the romance and to being in a romantic relationship, but I find the factor that one is not in a romantic relationship as the only common one between people generally referred as “singles”. There can be a vast variety between them (they can be young, old, divorced, widowed, never-married, asexual, aromantic etc.). By using the term “non-romance” I do not want to imply there is no romance in the lives of these people. One can find romantic aspects in friendships, in relationships with one´s kin, pets or whoever and whatever else6, and I do acknowledge this. “Non-romance” just appears as a possible alternative to singleness for the purposes of this thesis, despite its many limitations.

6 Within this work I concentrate on the interpersonal human relationships and their importance in people´s lives. However, I acknowledge people can develop different relationships, sometimes into a great depth and/or importance, with non-human actors, too. It can be about relationships with non-human animals, a topic I slightly touch on in the chapter about friendship, but it can also concern the relationships with objects, places, or non-material entities. However, these aspects, together with the factor they were not mentioned by the interviewees almost at all, are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this thesis.

36 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE”

When I spoke about the aspects of amatonormativity and ideal couple, I have mentioned that the norms of some of them have been en- larged, until a bigger or lesser degree (e. g. the compulsory heterosexu- ality), although the obligation of romantic love and coupledom persists [Wilkinson 2012]. By placing being coupled always on a higher, or we could even say the highest, position from the perspective of morality [Brake 2012], law [DePaulo 2011] or simply the shared meaning in everyday life [Granger 2020], people who are not in a romantic relationship face many difficulties caused by their relationship status. They have been marginalized and stigmatized within the history until nowadays [De- Paulo 2011]. People who are not in a romantic relationship are stigmatized [Roseneil et al. 2020] and they struggle with, what DePaulo and Morris [2005] coined as, singlism, referring to how “[p]eople who do not have a serious coupled relationship (…) are stereotyped, discriminated against, and treated dismissively” [DePaulo 2007: 2]. However, there have been profound changes in the ways of living and many people nowadays choose, for instance, not to get married, have kids and to live alone globally (Czechia included [Vacková et al. 2014]), or not to be in a romantic relationship at all [Macdonald 2018]. The numbers of people who are outside of a couple are increasing: according to the Czech statistical office the percentage of such people between the age 20-39 changed from 1,7 % in 1970 to 9,6 % in 2011 [Habartová 2014]. Despite these actual changes, the cultural ideal of partnership, and ideally of marriage, persists [Byrne, Carr 2005], which is also evident for example from the Report about Family 2020 [Kuchařová et al. 2020] of Czechia, where half of the Czech population expressed condemning opinion about people who are not coupled.

5.1 The Consequences of Abnormality of Non-romance – Singlism

Society is organised according to the notions of normality, when the norms are supposed to function in order to make the society work in the “right” way, to correct it, to intervene in it or to transform it [Foucault 2003]. The domain of romance has not been excluded from this normative project and thus the categories of normality are also applied here. These norms are not only operating within society in general, but more importantly they work through all of us. They get to be internalized

37 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” during our socialization and we consequently reproduce them by our ac- tions, practises or wishes [Foucault 1978]. Thus, the norms circulating in the society are a powerful weapon, as it is the notion of being normal or, on the other hand, of being abnormal, that could work in order to dis- credit oneself. People who are not in a romantic relationship are in a continuous threat of being targeted as the abnormal ones because of the idealization and domination of coupledom [Roseneil et al. 2020]. One of the common aspects coming with singlism is the stereotyping of people who are not in a romantic relationship. According to DePaulo [2011] these people are, compared with the coupled ones, more often assigned to be lonely, sad, less self-confident or physically attractive, having lesser satisfaction with their life or lower social skills. Another common stereotype is that they are less mature [Budgeon 2008]. This has been also reflected by Vanesa, who is currently in a long-term, serious, monogamous relationship and was expressing how she feels that, because of her relationship status, people, for instance her family, perceive her as more mature and adult. As she expresses: “I have now a status, a status simply of being in the relationship, that I have the serious relationship, when I say it like that, which is like completely different social status, people perceive me differently and I think that in my case also as more mature, more adult than if I didn´t have a partner”. In this excerpt Vanesa touches also another point connected to having romantic relationship, which is the status one receives when is coupled. The people who are not in a romantic relationship are, thus, lacking this, and they are frequently required to justify their status, such as being continuously asked questions like “Why are you single?”, while a question “Why are you married?” occurs much less [DePaulo 2011]. In this way the non-coupled people have to often explain themselves [Reynolds, Wetherell 2003]. The difficulties of being repeatedly exposed to such questions were also mentioned by other communicative partners. Tea, a 23-year-old woman who is not in a romantic relationship for three years, tells me how she would prefer if her relatives skipped such questions, because they make her feel uncomfortable. “I would be happier if they didn´t say some of these things, like where do I have my…boyfriend, I´m saying to myself it would be kinder to me if they didn´t comment about it probably”. Such questions and comments can then work as a constant reminder of one´s abnormality resulting from the amatonormativity [Brake 2012]. In Tea´s case the normality of coupledom [Roseneil et al. 2020] is also

38 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” reminded her by seeing others as coupled, for example regarding some family celebrations, where her cousins and other relatives always come with their partners, and she is the only one who does not. Klára, a 25- year-old woman who has never been in a romantic relationship, is another of the interviewees who told me a lot about such questions and comments pointing out her lack of a romantic relationship. She encounters these situations basically every time she meets her grandparents, when she always hears from them “When will you finally have a boyfriend?”, “Find some boyfriend already” etc. As Wilkinson [2012] says “[s]ingleness is often depicted as a problem from which people need to be cured. To be single is never a choice, but instead a signal that something is wrong in your life” [p. 139]. The stereotypes of people who are not coupled are often constructed and/or reinforced by cultural production. However, some changes in their portrayal within movies or TV shows can be observed. One of the most prominent examples of TV show where women who are not in a romantic relationship are portrayed positively and not as desperate, is Sex and the City, that represents such characters as happy and independent [Reynolds 2013]. On the other hand, there are still a lot of works, such as Bridget Jones, sustaining the negative stereotyping of people, especially women, out of a romantic relationship. Other contributions are done by songs. An example of portraying a woman out of a couple as desperate and “dying alone with her cats” is the song by The Beatles Eleanor Rigby [Lahad 2012]. Although it could be objected that these works do not belong to the most current pieces, they still enjoy huge popularity. And we could also find instances from more recent productions, as in the case of various reality shows concerned with the topic of couples, such as Love is Blind or Back with the Ex, and their contribution to this normativity, where being coupled is portrayed as the desired state that all people wish to achieve. What follows the stereotype of people out of romantic relationships being sad or lonely [see e. g. Granger 2020] is the way of thinking that the people who share this point of view and somehow care about the ones concerned can be feeling sorry for them. The kind of reactions and perception that Klára receives, especially from her mum: “Like for example what my mum tells me, like it´s not she wants to push me to something or that I´d be doing something wrong or anything, but that it [the romantic relationship] is the best you can have in your life, and that she wants the best for me, so that she would wish so much that I find

39 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” someone and have a relationship with this person”. Such wishes can be sometimes coherent with what the person concerned desires as well, as it was for instance in the case of Pavlína, a 47-year-old single mother who is currently uncoupled for around a year, but in many cases they can be in contradiction with the wishes of the concerned person. Moreover, even when they are coherent, they can have rather a negative effect and contribute to one´s feeling of being abnormal and to one’s frustration of not being in a romantic relationship [Lahad 2012]. The continuous encounters with these kinds of situations can be experienced as a pressure even when they are not meant to be that. They can then cause that the perception of one´s potential romantic relationship is also shaped by them. So, when I asked Klára what she thinks a potential romantic relationship could bring into her life, she replied: “Well, I don´t want to name it as the first, but it´s a thing that now comes to my mind, but I don´t perceive it as a priority, but some bigger acknowledgement of the relationship from my surrounding (…) like some bigger satisfaction from the side of my family (…) and that I would feel less pressure on myself, not that I would feel it now a lot, but you still know that the people are for example worried about that and so on”. Thus, the others’s assumption is that she would be happier in a romantic relationship and, by following the norm of being coupled, she would be seen as “normal” [Budgeon 2008]. This assumption is in turn then influencing Klára´s own position. Such unpleasant reminders and comments were often experienced within one´s family of origin rather than among their friends or other environments, where, vice versa, their relationship status was much less seen as an issue, or where they rather received encouraging reactions no regards if it was in the direction of finding a partner or of remaining single. Alfréd, a 23-year-old man that has never been in a serious romantic relationship, told me about his positive experience concerning the reactions of his family, too. Although his mum was firstly a bit concerned that he does not have a partner, they talked about it, which cleared out the issue. “When we were talking about this, so well… “Alfréd do you have a girlfriend?” and I told her transparently how I have it, “Look, I don´t, in some way I´m looking for it, but it´s alright that I´m not finding, now I have friends with benefits”. And she was completely fine with it, once she asked me, “Do you have more of them?” and I said “Well, yes”, “hm, interesting”, so… (laughing)”. From his mum’s reactions it is evident she has an open-minded and progressive point of view, since she is also

40 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” ready to accept without some bigger concern that her son is having sexual relationships outside of a couple, moreover with multiple partners, something which also transgresses the couple-norm [Roseneil et al. 2020]. The only case when friends intervened into one´s relationship status and tried to influence and change it was described by Tea, who told me that one of her friends have tried to match her up with some of his friends even in the time when she did not wish to be in a romantic relationship. She says how she feels about that: “and I find it like very…well I think if it was from someone else, so I would consider it as really weird or simply annoying, but because it came from this friend I know for so long and I like him, so it´s more like funny”. Thus, in this case, Tea does not perceive it as something negative or disturbing and rather sees it as funny, which, however, would not be probably the same if it was done by someone else. Friends sometimes tend to advise us, match us up and intervene into our romantic relationships and in some moments, it can seem they take on the role families previously used to have in deciding about one´s partner [Watters 2003]. Another feature of singlism is concerned with the discrimination of people that are not coupled. This discrimination takes on various forms, e.g. in the case of housing, where lessors are more willing to rent a flat or a house to a couple, especially to a heterosexual and married one, than to a person who lives alone or with friends or someone else [Reynolds 2013]. Such situations were encountered by Sara, a 50-year-old woman in romantic, asexual, non-co-residing, homosexual relationship, when she was looking for a flat for herself and her 10-year-old daughter. In some cases, she met with disapprobative or incomprehensible reactions from the owners. “Once I called somewhere and the woman immediately asked me where my husband was and why he wasn´t there, (…) I explained her I´m a single mother and I´m getting divorced, but she still expected there´ll be some man…she couldn´t accept we are complete as a family unit – me, my daughter and Moro [their dog]”. It is difficult to say whether the refusals she experienced were caused by her being outside of a romantic, co-residing relationship or if it was about some other issues, but for sure her relationship status was something to be addressed by this lessor. Another form of discrimination is by the law, especially excluding people who are not in a romantic relationship from the advantages coming from marriage, such as immigration rights, more convenient taxation

41 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” etc. [Brake 2012]. Workplace is also an environment where the discriminatory practises against people outside of romantic couple happen. It can take forms such as expecting them to work extra hours, to go for work travels or to take shifts in unpopular times or dates [Granger 2020]. It can also be an environment where one encounters the expectations of a conventional life trajectory, as it was experienced by Vanesa, who often received comments and questions from her colleagues or superiors about when she will have a child.

5.2 When the Non-Romance Is Alright

However, there are also cases when the non-romance is accepted, when it is not seen as transgressing a norm or when it is even invited and seen as something positive. At this point I would like to mention three important factors that play a role in perceiving non-romance in a positive manner – the question of age and time [see e. g. Lahad 2012], of gender [see e. g. Macdonald 2018; Roseneil et al. 2020] and of self-representation [see e. g. Budgeon 2008; Reynolds 2013].

5.2.1 The Clock Is Ticking Time is a very important factor considering romantic relationships. There are more or less clear imaginations of one´s “normal” life trajectory saying when it is needed to be in a romantic relationship [Lahad 2012], when it is not needed or when it is even inappropriate or un- wanted. Of course, these trajectories can vary across the cultural, economic or ethnic distinctions. According to the Czech statistical office [ČSÚ 2021a] until the age of 29 there is a majority of “singles”. Then, most of the women between 30 and 34 are already married, while in the case of men this occurs in the group between 35 and 397. The expectations are also reflected, (re)produced and reinforced by the cultural production, such as by movies, fairy tales and books. When we look specifically at the children´s books and stories among the huge

7 Of course, these differences in amounts of married people can be also explained and assigned to some generational differences and decreasing comonnes of marriage. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of growing numbers of people who are married with the increasing age persists.

42 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” amount of those focused on the tales of romance, we find also quite a lot of production of stories about one´s family - considering parents, siblings and the wider kin - and about friendship. We can find examples of that within the new, maybe more progressive production of Disney, such as Frozen; but in much older pieces, too, even in the Czech context, such as the comics The Rapid Arrows (Rychlé šípy, in original). On the other hand, the production for adults is much more centred on the romance. Alt- hough we could also find some exceptions, anyway most of the movies, TV shows or books are somehow concerned or end up with a romantic relationship. As I mentioned earlier, even such a prominent piece about friendship as the TV show Friends finishes with most of the characters being happily in a couple. Thus, although it is alright that one is not in a romantic relationship at some stage of their life (such as childhood or in the case of widowed seniors), or for some shorter periods of time (especially in adolescence or young adulthood, as it was for instance the case of Tamara, a 27-year-old woman, uncoupled for five months), it is not preferable that one remains out of romantic relationship for longer time or that even “ends up” like that [Macdonald 2018]. Being outside of a romantic relationship is regarded as a transitory state that is expected to have an end at a certain moment [Lahad 2012]. There are also imagined point(s) since when it appears - to the people themselves or to the others - to be “too late” to find a partner. Such a position was adopted by Ludvík, a 57-year-old man who has never been in a serious romantic relationship. When I asked him if he would like his relationship status to change, he answered: “Now not anymore…after, after the longer time as you get used to your own peace, well, no…”. He perceives the possibility of having a romantic partner rather in negative terms as disturbing, although in the past he said he wanted to be in a romantic relationship. Similarly, Pavlína, a 47-year-old woman, also perceived it as being “too late” for her. She said she always wished to get married, but now not anymore. She says: “Maybe I would get married, maybe…but…now it already doesn´t matter, I wanted that because of the children and now it´s basically too late, so I…it´s not any priority for me anymore”. The crucial role of time is also reflected by many expressions referring to people (especially women) who are not in a romantic relationship, such as “missed her train” or “in the end she´ll die alone” [Lahad 2012]. Pavlína perceives her situation as if she had already “missed her train”, at least concerning the marriage, and that is why now it is not important anymore for her.

43 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE”

The clear imagination of one´s life trajectory was also expressed by Alfréd, who told me how he is recently completely fine with not being in a romantic relationship, but this would probably change by the time when he will be around 30, when he would wish to have a partner and would be even willing to reduce his expectations and demands about how his girlfriend should be. Similarly, he also spoke about our expectations regarding experiences of people with romantic and sexual relationships. “When there´s a 35-year-old person, who doesn´t have a partner, but that has simply some experiences, had some relationships, some sexual relationships, so we all perceive the person differently than a 35- year-old virgin (…). We see that there are some exact periods when…people conventionally start and, sure, you can have a different time scale, but then it can be maybe more difficult to get into it”. In this moment there was another theme that emerged from Alfréd´s speech, which is the expectation and the norm that we are all sex-desiring subjects [Wilkinson 2012]. In the contemporary Western society the sexuality is constructed as something crucial that, in certain ways, we are all expected to be engaged in, and we are also governed by these sexuality related issues [Foucault 1978]. Thus, asexuality can become a very radical choice targeted against patriarchy, the state and status quo [Fahs 2010]. To this topic Sara, who does not define herself as asexual, but is somewhere on the spectrum of gray-sexuality, says for instance: “I realized the thing I´m not craving sex is giving me the freedom to love people just like that, without the desire”. From her point of view, her romantic, platonic relationship is without problems and able to work like this exactly thanks to her not desiring anything sexual with her partner. This aspect is then giving her the possibility to go beyond the conventional categories and to overcome the binary coupled/“single” or/and trans- gress the divisions between partners and friends [Carrigan 2012]. The issues of sexuality are very much intertwined also with the topic of ama- tonormativiy and romantic relationships, although unfortunately these are to a large degree beyond the scope of this thesis.

5.2.2 Old Maids and Bachelors Another issue that is often mentioned when talking about non-romance is gender and the differences between approach, imagination and representation of women who are not in a romantic relationship and of such men [see e. g. DePaulo 2011; Macdonald 2018; Reynolds 2013]. As

44 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE”

I have mentioned earlier, amatonormativity contributes to the hierarchical binary of men and women, to whom different characteristics and expectations are assigned and demanded [Brake 2012]. Historically, one of the normative assumptions about femininity based on the gender regime is that a woman must be tied to a man and, therefore, defined by him [Reynolds, Wetherell 2003], with this man being the woman’s father during her early years and, later on, her husband. This issue can be for instance also observed on the surnames: in the context of Czechia a woman generally bears firstly the surname originating from her father and later on, when she gets married, she conventionally embraces the surname of her husband. In patriarchal societies the woman is constructed as the ´other´, that needs to be defined through someone else, through her social roles, especially of being wife and mother, that also tie her to the private sphere [Beauvoir 1997]. However, the perception of women only defined by men have changed profoundly with the contribution of the feminist movements, the struggle for human rights in general or also with the regimes´ ideology in the context of post-socialist countries. Within them, women became much more independent, especially by being part of paid work or due to easier possibilities of getting divorced or being single mothers [Lišková, Holubec 2020]. Sometimes even the possibility that women could choose different life trajectories than being always just mothers and wives was also articulated, such as in Czechoslovakia in the 50s [Liš- ková 2016]. Other significant factors are individualism and neoliberalism, that through ideas like focusing on oneself and/or meritocracy opened up the possibility for positive portrayal of “anyone”, if the one is a proper neoliberal subject. Despite these changes, the negative perception and stereotypes are still more applied to women, than to men, who are outside of a couple [Brake 2012]. While, for a man, being out of a romantic relationship is much more often framed as a matter of choice, agency and independence, on the contrary, for a woman, such relationship status is more often associated with not being able to find a partner, being desperate, sad or lonely [Reynolds 2013]. These imaginations are also sustained and reinforced by the media, such as the positive, un-coupled men of the Western movies and Rambo-type characters. On the contrary, it is much more difficult to find corresponding depictions of such un-coupled women [Ma- cdonald 2018]. Similarly, the language at use also supports this point of view. Considering the Czech language, a man who is not in a romantic

45 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” relationship is informally labelled as “starý mládenec”, bachelor in Eng- lish. Although this word can have some negative connotations, it is until much lesser degree compared to its equivalent for a woman – “stará panna”, old maid or spinster in English, which has a very unfavourably loaded meaning. Moreover, if we consider the issues of sexuality and the option of having more short-term sexual or/and romantic relationships, the general portrayal of such man is the one of an “all star”. On the other hand, such women are often exposed to slut-shaming, and are rather seen in negative terms as a threat [Budgeon 2008]. Last but not least, a man is conventionally approached much more as an individual, since the attention is directed to his achievements or successes, whereas for a woman her relationship status is often the first and the main thing which is mentioned or talked about [DePaulo 2011]. Although my research does not claim any representativeness, I can hardly compare the experiences of interviewed men and women, both because of their particularity and because of their number. Regarding this issue, I am going to mention the instances that suit to the relevant literature and findings of other authors, as well as the ones that, on the other hand, offer a distinctive picture. Two of my communicative partners – Alfréd and Ludvík, who are men and are not in a romantic relationship, both portray their relationship status in positive terms. Alfréd does so especially by referring to his age, having time, trying different things and having “friends with benefits”, thus, being in some sort of sexual relationships. Ludvík connects his not being coupled with having his own peace and freedom. Already his answer to “Which relationship or relationships are you nowadays in?” shows this. In fact, he answered: “In a relationship? In a single/free/un- attached8 one, and the word reflects it (…), that you´re not attached to anyone, you´re responsible just for yourself, you´re independent”. Thus, we can see that he connects his not-being in a romantic relationship with these positive attributes that can be tied with it, as the notion of freedom [Macdonald 2018]. However, similar positive portrayals are also em- ployed by the interviewed women, who also mentioned aspects, such as that now they can concentrate on themselves, they can be themselves etc. According to Reynolds and Wetherell [2003], women who are not in a

8 In Czech he says “ve svobodném”: the word “svobodný” can be translated as single, but also as free or independent.

46 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” romantic relationship are trapped between constructing their non-romance in positive terms – which then causes them difficulties to move out from the category of un-coupled – and, on the other hand, constructing it in negative terms, which makes them risk to seem desperate and unable to find a partner. Nevertheless, men can face the same troubles, and they are also exposed to stereotyping, such as being less happy, less successful or angrier [DePaulo 2011]. The amatonormative appeals on women are very much intertwined with the expectations they should be mothers [Stewart 2018] and, with the consequent pressures to have children. This was often reported by my female communicative partners, when they told me how they are continuously asked if they are going to have children, when this will happen etc. Such situations occur within the sphere of work, as Vanesa for instance talks about, and within their families of origins, as in Klára’s case, that together with questions about when she will finally have a boyfriend, is also often asked, especially by her grandparents, when she and her sister will have children. The men I interviewed did not mention any occasions like these ones, although I am not drawing any conclusions from this. The procreation is at the heart of the couple-norm [Roseneil et al. 2020], of the amatonormativity. Consequently, childfree people are often seen as selfish and are exposed to continuous asking why they do not have or do not want child(ren) etc. [DePaulo 2007]. The essential imaginations of womanhood are strongly linked with being a mother [Stewart 2018]. The importance of being a mother is also evident in the answers of the two interviewed single mothers. They both defined their relationship status, or rather the relationship(s) they are in, firstly as being single mothers, which was basically the first thing they told me about themselves and, thus, the first way how they identified themselves.

5.2.3 Being the “Right” Single As I have already outlined a bit, there are various repertoires of how one can frame their non-romance: it can be in negative terms, or it can be in positive ones [Reynolds, Wetherell 2003]. When adopting the positive representation, one talks about themselves as free and independent. Such characteristics can be sometimes marked also by the solo living [Jamieson, Wasoff, Simpson 2009], which was also the case of Alfréd and, especially, of Ludvík, that says that when he moved to live alone it was a

47 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” lot about to establish himself, to prove he can do it, that he can be an independent adult. Other aspects that are assigned to the positivity of non-romance are the notion of having time for yourself and the possibility of ´finding yourself´ [Wilkinson 2012]. That was exactly mentioned by Tea, who says that after the break-up of each of her romantic relationships: “I was like completely confused and I didn´t have any idea what to do with my life and how to live it and so on and…then in both cases there came this super good period, when I came back to who I actually am, what I want and, and what I can do by myself”. Tea describes that when she was coupled, she always became very identified with the relationship and was ´losing herself´, a thing that changed with the end of the romance. Similarly, Tamara tells me she would not like a romantic relationship now, because she feels she needs to deal with some of her “things”, as referring to some psychological issues, as well as to material ones, such as to find a stable job and housing, and just after that to enter in a romantic relationship. That is also closely connected with the issues of time, since “singleness as a temporary state is something that is often encouraged as it provides time to be alone” [Wilkinson 2012: 138]. These claims can be even strengthened when pointing out the oppressive and abusive character of many romantic relationships [Card 1996]. Especially as experienced by the one who is abused and leaves the relationship, being un-coupled can be seen as the best way of being, that one wants to last at least for some time. When I experienced an abuse in my previous romantic relationship, it was the greatest relief when I finally decided and left my previous partner and I felt I need some time of not being coupled and it was as well encouraged by my friends. Similarly, Sara, who also experienced abuse in her previous marriage, also expresses that she finds her life now much better than before, also for instance considering the care for her daughter, as well as feeling more loved and cared than w hen she had the romantic relationship with her husband. The last issue I want to mention here is related to self-representation. In many articles, (self-help) books etc. we can often read that being un-coupled is about “self-respect, an independent spirit, creativity, true love, and confidence” [Budgeon 2008: 310]. For instance, Cagen [2006] proposes the term “quirkyalone” to refer to someone who enjoys being un-coupled. Similarly, this was reflected also by some of my communicative partners, such as Alfréd and Sara. As Sara says: “I always considered

48 THE LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE “AMOROUS PARADISE” it according to how the person presents that [being uncoupled], if they speaks about it they really wants someone and has no-one, so, it´s stupid and you find that the person is a bit less. However, (…) when someone is like strong and single or doesn´t mind about it, so I would consider it fine”. She explains her perception of other people, she appreciates when people are strong and independent and then there is absolutely no problem with their relationship status whatever it is. However, the perception of a person craving for a romantic relationship and/or not being “strong” is much less favourable. But what about the ones who want to be in a couple? What about the moments when one is weak and does not feel independent, creative or confident? Similar claims about how one should, or even must, be, when not being in a romantic relationship, are also risen by literature about polyamory. That often focuses on how one must be able to communicate well, protect one´s boundaries or enjoy being alone and just then they can be in a polyamorous relationship [Zelichenko 2020]. My communicative partner M, who is in a polyamorous relationship, also raises comparable arguments when he says that “what is important is the work on yourself and the work on the good communication” as he adds this is related to the things one needs in order to be in any relationship. These appeals could be connected with the idea to be the proper neoliberal subjects [McGuigan 2016], when we should focus and work on ourselves, being continuously getting better, being independent and self-confident. The neoliberal self works as the site where norms concentrate, and it devel- ops the channels through which it is spread among the society. It can offer an alternative for the ones not suiting into, for instance, the amorous norm, such as being coupled, but such alternative is again restricted just to the ones who have the proper characteristics as being independent, working on self-development and actively constructing the path to their own happiness. This is also connected with living in a ´therapeutic society´, where one is supposed to be ongoingly self-reflexive and to achieve the state of happiness by following the path of individualism and freedom traced by the psycho-sciences [Rose 1992]. But what if this does not work either? The space where people turn when they do not feel as fully suiting into this ideal of how to be, or simply have doubts about themselves, is often the domain of friendship. This is also the topic of the next chapter.

49 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP

6 The Overlooked Idyll of Care and Understanding – Friendship

When I was talking with all my communicative partners about their lives, from the questions of who they live or go for a holiday with, and where they feel safe, to the ones about who they receive help from, what was often mentioned by all of them, was the importance of friendship. Friends often play a crucial role in our lives and this chapter focuses on these relationships. It explores the areas and aspects they are somehow constitutive of. The care within friendship is also analysed. Finally, I am going to talk about differentiating friendship and romantic relationship. Friendship is a very broad category [Rothblum 1999], since many different people can be considered our friends, from a person we know since the kindergarten and we meet every day, to someone we have spo- ken with just a few times. Friendship is sometimes described as a voluntary, non-institutionalized form of interpersonal relationship [Bowlby 2011]. Underlining the voluntary character of the relationship - that is not based on an obligation but, rather, on the free will of the people involved – sometimes contributes to see it as the ideal relationship [Bell, Coleman 1999]. As such, it is put into contrast to the family, where the relations are on the other hand ascribed, and where there can be much more pressure that they should be working well [Gheaus 2018]. This was also evident in the statements of Vanesa. When I asked her which relationships are important in her life, she firstly talked about her romantic relationship and friendships, and after that mentioned: “well, and then the family, like the biological one (…) there I should probably say that those are the most important relationships, but it´s a different type of the relations with the family”. Vanesa reflects how she feels she ought to say the kin relations are the most important, but her case is not completely coherent with that, when she finds her other-than-kin relationships as more important to her in many respects. The voluntary aspect of friendship is appraised by some as giving more freedom to people with less space for unequal power positions, control or abuse. “Friendship is a significantly different relationship from that of mothering, lacking controlling institutions and firm cultural expectations and conventions” [Roseneil 2004: 7]. For example, Tamara, a 27-year-old uncoupled woman, was telling me that the relations with

50 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP her family do not work well, since she generally receives undermining rather than supportive reactions from it. On the other hand, her friends create a supportive network for her within which she is surrounded by empathetic and encouraging environment. Similarly, Ludvík spoke about the help he receives from his friends, rather than from his relatives. In the moment when his father passed away, he turned firstly to his siblings (who were also the children of his father) to get help in managing all the things, such as the organisation of the funeral etc., but they did not take part in it. So, Ludvík went to his friends, who assisted him in solving the formal issues and managing all the necessities. Friends can play a crucial role in care considering some minor issues, but also some major ones, as can be for example the death of a close family member [Bowlby 2011]. However, it is important to consider also the less ideal attributes of friendship. By its very nature it is always exclusionary and selective, since we are never friends with everyone, but only with some people [Peel et al. 2009]. Moreover, people often make friends with who is in a similar social position. This can then contribute to the existing divisions in a society [Bowlby 2011]. By some authors [see e. g. Carrier 1999] it was also argued that only people having a certain cultural, social and/or economic position are capable of building friendship in this idealized, voluntaristic version (similarly as the question of current Western imagination of romantic love [see Illouz 1997]). Furthermore, highlighting the role of one´s own choice in developing of friendship can cause the pressure on the ones who have “bad” friends, which can be then interpreted as their own failure and they can be blamed for their wrong choices [Jones-Wild 2012]. A point that could be connected with the neoliberal appeals constructing people as active agents, who are responsible for their lives and destinies, and their well-being is thus highly dependent on their choices and decisions. During the last decades, the importance of friendship has been seen as continuously growing. An increasing focus on it can be observed within the everyday life, in the academic interest, as well as in the cultural production [Caine 2009]. Watters [2003], for instance, even coins it as a new phenomenon of Urban Tribes, drawing on the importance of friendship in the lives of young adults in the US context, who postpone their marriage and/or to have children, having their lives filled with meaningful relationships with their friends. These changes are sometimes connected with the destabilization of family structures and the shifts in gender and sexual relations resulting by far from the processes

51 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP of individualization, which created much more space to focus on relationships that are other than romantic or familial [Roseneil 2011]. Despite these changes, the formal status of friendship remains in many respects subordinate to the one of romantic and/or kin relationships [Rothblum 1999]. As I have already mentioned earlier, the relationships between friends are excluded from the advantages coming from marriage. The status they are granted by other people is somehow lesser, which can be seen when plans with friends are perceived as less important than the ones with one´s family [Granger 2020]. Klára, a 25-year- old woman, never been in a romantic relationship, says how she feels her relationships with her friends do not receive such appreciation and interest from her family as a potential romantic relationship would get. “If I had a partner, so my family, so they would definitely be more interested, and not only my parents, but also the wider family, that they would be asking me about the person, what we did and so on, but about my friends, they don´t even know who they are, or not at all ask how they are or what we do together”. Klára has also the comparison in this regard when her sister´s boyfriend receives much more interest from her family, as well as becoming a kind of part of it by being invited on various celebrations etc., something that is not even thought about in the case of Klára´s friends.

6.1 Friendship as Domain of the Oppressed?

In the last decades, the attention of many authors [see e. g. Sullivan 1999; Roseneil 2011] has been focused on the importance of friendship in the lives of LGBTIQ+, who often struggle with homophobia within their families of origin, and who are also not able to fully conform the couple- norm in its idealized heterosexual, reproduction-oriented form [Ro- seneil et al. 2020]. In such cases, friendship has sometimes been recognized as an act of radical choice and a performance of individual freedom [see e. g. Sullivan 1999]. Such relations are sometimes referred to as ´families of choice´ [see e. g. Jones-Wild 2012], although this concept has also been criticized by some, for not giving a proper recognition of the role of various friendships etc. [Roseneil 2011], as well as for retaining the patriarchal vocabulary [Card 1996]. “Families of choice” can sometimes be the result of a necessity, rather than an expression of choice [Jones-Wild 2012], as in the case of Sara, a 50-year-old woman in an

52 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP asexual, romantic, lesbian relationship, who does not have basically any relations with her family of origins, who experienced abuse in her previous marriages and, because of her complicated social and economic situation, is highly dependent exactly on her friends. Sometimes friendship is also recognized as a feminist issue playing a crucial role in the struggles for gender equality [Roseneil 2011], likewise in activism in general [Peel et al. 2009]. The imagination of women as existing for the sake of men has been criticized and instead of it the attention on female friendships flourished [Devere, Smith 2010]. By this way, friendship has been sometimes seen as the domain of women and gay men, while “the group largely left out of this new focus on liberating, intense, intimate and reciprocal friendships was heterosexual men” [Peel et al. 2009: 336]. Other stereotypical visions are perceiving women as providing each other more emotional support, while men being more focused on the practical help [Bowlby 2011], and the cultural production often reproduces the impossibility of a deep friendship between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman. Nevertheless, heterosexual men do not have to be excluded from friendship, as well as from the importance of emotional support. This was also evident in the speeches of Alfréd, a heterosexual man, who was telling me a lot about the important role his friends play in his life and how much emotional support they provide to each other. Similarly, the ´families of choice´ are also not something reserved only for LGBTIQ+. On the other hand, Wilkinson [2014] shows how people who are not coupled, establish their intimacies and homes primarily within their friendships no matter of their sexual preferences. Within my interviews I also could not detect any differences in what people were telling me about the role of friendship in their life considering if they were part of LGBTIQ+ or not9, although, as I have already said, I do not claim any representativeness of my research and, thus, I do not draw any conclusions from this. Likewise, Roseneil and Budgeon [2004] say their interviewees put “[a] strong emphasis on the value of friendship, and on choosing to surround themselves with a network of friends, went hand-in-hand with a deliberate de-emphasizing of the importance of conjugal relationships” [p. 146]. Sometimes the centrality of friendship in some people’s lives is

9 Moreover, for instance Wilkinson [2014] argues that the lives of uncoupled people can be also considered as queer and thus part of LGBTIQ+, likewise there is also the queer potential of the friendship itself.

53 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP tied to increasing individualism, to certain social and economic positions, and to raising geographic mobility causing many people living far away from their families of origins [see e. g. Jones-Wild 2012; Watters 2003].

6.2 Friends Are the Ones We Care About

With the increasing acknowledgement of friendship, the attention is also paid to the caring practises that take place within it [see e. g. Ro- seneil 2004; Roseneil, Budgeon 2004; Wilkinson 2014]. Care can be understood as one’s active interest in the well-being of another person [Bowlby 2011]. It can take various forms, from more emotional support – as listening, being present in some difficult moments etc. – to more practical help, such as financial aid. All these forms of care were repeatedly mentioned by the interviewees, who told me how their friends support them both psychologically and practically, as in the case of Tamara, whose friends helped her in complicated financial and housing situations. Care can be crucial not only in formating and sustaining family relationships [Souralová 2015], but friendships as well. Friendship can occupy the central place around which care is orga- nized, rather than the person’s kin or romantic relationship [Roseneil, Budgeon 2004] as in the case of Sara, whose life is highly dependent on her friends. Thanks to them she could for example manage the care – especially the schooling obligations – of her daughter in the moments of Sara´s psychological problems. Moreover, much of this provided care is also tied to the specific environment of activistic, (anarchist) collectives where most of Sara´s friendships are set. These collectives help her men- tally, since taking part in them is one of the bright moments in her weeks, as well as financially, such as with the food aid she receives from them. Thanks to one of the friendships developed within this environment, nowadays Sara also has stable housing, since her friend pays for her rent. Although the informal care that is often part of friendship is mostly tied to reciprocity [Bowlby 2011], it can be expressed and motivated by various reasons. In this case, the altruistic help is among other things also tied to the anarchist ideology, similarly as it was the case of M, who was telling how it is important for him to always support his friends and partners. He says: “I helped many people or I´m open to help even without the expectation that I wait the same from them, that they´ll return it to me, it´s more about some kind of anarchist or positive transmissions…”.

54 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP

All my communicative partners spoke about the emotional importance of their friends and the preciousness of such support, which was sometimes connected also with the self-worth of the person. While being interested in friendship, reading various articles and books about this topic, I was more and more realising the link between importance of friends and the self-perception. In moments of some depressive thoughts, when I felt overwhelmed by self-destructive feelings of insuffi- ciency and inferiority, I reminded myself my friends, who I admire, even adore, and remembered that these people love me, want to spend time with me and care about me. It made me think that if these adorable people think about me in this way and that they are simply friends with me (there is also the component of voluntariness and the question of choice involved), maybe I am not that awful person as I could perceive myself in such down moments. Similar thoughts were also described by M and Sara. In fact, Sara says how she cannot even believe she has such precious friends and feels an enormous gratitude for that. Friendship can be thus also seen as a path to self-respect, since friends see in us and show us the best of ourselves [Watters 2003]. So far, I have been talking solely about the interpersonal relationships, although I acknowledge there is a much bigger variety of them. Re- lationships with objects, places, virtual or other non-human entities can play huge roles in our lives, being also involved in the issues of care. Nev- ertheless, these relationships are often devalued because of the dominant nuclear familial [Stewart 2018] and/or amatonormative ideals, since they are not seen as equally important or moral as the ones with one´s kin or partner. One of such relationships was mentioned by Sara, who has a very significant tie with their dog Moro, that she considers as an equal member of their family. Nevertheless, their tie does not always find the understanding of the others, who sometimes see Moro rather as a burden in Sara´s life. On the other hand, she points out that “many things without Moro would be managed in a much more complicated way”, such as the care for her daughter Ana, for whom their dog is a great playfellow. So, in this case there is even a reciprocity in a relation with a pet, since Sara and Ana care for Moro, feed him etc., but at the same time Moro also contributes to relieve Sara of Ana’s care.

55 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP

6.3 Friends vs. Lovers

But what about moments when friendship is placed in a picture with other kinds of relationships? In this work I have been talking about the amatonormative ideals, according to which friendship is not the most desired relationship [Brake 2012]. The centrality of amorous relationships can work sometimes as a threat to friendships, which are on the other hand often portrayed just as a temporal destination before finding the “right one” [see e. g. Watters 2003]. These worries were also expressed by Alfréd, a 23-year-old uncoupled man, who wished to have a serious, romantic relationship later in his life, partially also because of the fear that his friends will start to live more their familial lives, to get married and/or to have children. This way, they will stop to have such close friendships as now. On the other hand, friends are sometimes portrayed as obstacles in finding one´s serious partner, as described for instance by Watters [2003] as one of the issues of the so-called Urban Tribes. Some of my communicative partners also questioned the attributes that are often connected with romantic relationships, such as its centrality or permanency. Vanesa, a coupled woman, says that she finds partner and friends similarly important in her life, and perceives rather her friendships to last longer than romances. She also talks about the difficulties of overcoming the “break-ups” with friends as harder than those with her romantic partners. Likewise, the excerpt from the interview conducted by Budgeon [2008] shows: “I’d marry me friends! [laughing]. They’d last longer. (Jools, white heterosexual woman, age 28, single, living alone)” [p. 315]. Various attempts of decentralizing the romantic and/or sexual relationships can be found, such as organizing one´s life more according to friendships (e.g. moving in order to live close to your friends) [Roseneil, Budgeon 2004]. Such tendencies often come with problematizing the naming of various relationships and blurring the distinctions between them. These issues were also risen by M and, especially, by Sara, who further transgresses the categories by blurring the distinctions between friends and partners by having romantic feelings for her significant others, even though they are not reciprocal. The romantic, or even sexual feelings for one´s friend do not have to cause the end or destruction of the friendship, on the other hand these different relationships often overlap [Rothblum 1999], as it is also in Sara´s case. The distinctions are,

56 THE OVERLOOKED IDYLL OF CARE AND UNDERSTANDING – FRIENDSHIP thus, not that clear. The roles these different relationships play in people´s lives vary, as well as the degrees of emotional involvement. The amorous couple is sometimes conceived as the only space of “true” love, and the romantic love receives wide appraisals. However, as Alfréd said, “a person can also love their friends” and I do love my friends as, I believe, many others do. Love is a contested term and phenomenon, which can be seen as very problematic, but also as containing a potentiality for various ways of relating to each other and of structuring relationships. That is why it is also the topic of the following, closing chapter.

57 IS IT LOVE THAT WE NEED?

7 Is It Love That We Need?

If not specified otherwise, the noun love – as well as the verb to love someone – is generally equated simply with the romantic love. This is reflected within the everyday life speeches as well as in popular media, such as in the lyrics of songs [Granger 2020]. Although romance is not the only kind of love that flourishes between (not only) humans, a prominent position is conventionally reserved to the idealized imagination of love between a couple, ideally made of cis-heterosexual woman and man. Why is such position retained particularly for romantic love and what are the problematic aspects coming with it? And what if we overcome this narrow vision of love and focus on its other potentials? There is not a single definition of love, as it can take forms such as being “affectionate towards, care for, or pay special attention to, the beloved” [Gheaus 2017: 739]. Within this chapter I will focus on the romantic love, on some problematic elements of it, and I will also slightly touch upon the potentiality of understanding love in some broader way.

7.1 The Myth of Romance

The idea of romantic love is conventionally intertwined with the sexual desire, and sometimes is even equated with the erotic love [Sadler 2018]. Sexual relations are often granted with a special position within our societies, as they receive precise attention and they are prioritized over other ways of relating [Rothblum 1999]. People are demanded to be sexually desiring subjects [Wilkinson 2012], they are expected to have sexual relationships in order to be considered as normal. Such way of thinking was also apparent when Alfréd told me about the role age plays in his perception of being uncoupled, as I have already mentioned in the chapter about non-romance. From his perspective, the perception of an uncoupled person differs also according to their sexual experiences, since a middle-aged virgin adult risks to be perceived as somehow abnormal. Therefore, there is the premise that everyone has sexual desires, which should also be fulfilled in accordance with the age. However, going back to the romantic love, it is necessary that the sexual passion is connected to strong emotions and also to the vision that, through the partner, we will find out or confirm who we really are

58 IS IT LOVE THAT WE NEED?

[Luhmann 2002]. The romantic love is perceived as having its own agency when it is imagined as something that can come and leave. As the expression “to fall in love” suggests, love is rarely understood as something chosen (a characteristic that is assigned e. g. to friendship). Rather, it is seen as something that just happens to us and in which we do not play any active role [Sadler 2018]. Love is conceived primarily – and often solely – as an emotion, rather than a social practice. This understanding of love prevents us seeing ourselves as active agents, and because of that it becomes much easier to permit inequality, hierarchy or abuse to take place within it, as in the case of many romantic relationships [Jack- son 2001]. However, love is very much embedded in social practises. The society sets up how we perceive it, how we feel it in our bodies, and also shapes all the imaginations and idealizations that we have about it [Illouz 1997]. Emotions are also products of our socialization, since people are taught them, and that is why they can also be active agents considering them [Sadler 2018]. However, we should not imagine this active role as something under our complete control. There is an important social at- tribute in it which can lead also to the persistence of oppressive structures, due to their internalization caused, among other things, by the influence of symbolic violence [Bourdieu 2000]. According to Illouz [1997], the recent imagination of romantic love is intertwined with consumer capitalism, resting on the values of the (up- per-)middle classes, tied to ideas of self-realization, hedonism and self- knowledge. From this perspective, romantic love is also linked with the idea of neoliberal self [McGuigan 2016]. As I have shown earlier, self-realization and development are the same values at the core of both the romantic utopia and the neoliberal subject. Thus, the neoliberal self can be seen as a necessary precondition of the recent Western romance. Ro- mantic love contains and reproduces social divisions, too, as people have to acquire certain skills to be able to succeed in the romantic utopia [Illouz 1997]. Romantic love can be sometimes seen as something a person needs to know how to “do”. Such thoughts were expressed also by Klára, a 25-year-old woman, never been coupled, who told me that she would like to be in a romantic relationship, apart from other factors, in order to know that she is capable of being in a couple, “but also of feeling, well, the emotion”. People who are not in a romantic relationship – especially the ones who have never been in one – can sometimes regret or perceive themselves as incapable of feeling the emotion of romantic love

59 IS IT LOVE THAT WE NEED?

[Roseneil et al. 2020], a perception that is supported by the idealized myth of romance. The way how we are taught romantic love is gendered. There are different stories produced for men and women. Women have been more often portrayed as the labourers of love, those who should dissolve the indifference of men and make them love. This then constructs women as responsible for the relationship and even for the behaviour of their partner. Such perception can tie women to abusive partners, while believing they can make them better by a proper emotional labour [Jackson 2001]. We are able to find these kinds of stories in many romantic movies or fairy tales, such as Beauty and the Beast, “in which the beast in the man is represented as a temporary affliction, whereas the essence of the man is depicted as princely” [Towns, Adams 2000: 564]. But it is not only about the way romantic love is portrayed in the media: women are in general mostly the ones who are responsible for creating, sustaining and caring for relations. They are, for instance, the main protagonist of kin work [Di Leonardo 1991], since they are often the ones maintaining the kin ties with the wider network of relatives through visits, phone calls or gifts, as well as caring for the relations within the household. Jealous feelings are sometimes interpreted as proves of love. There- fore, they are considered as positive aspects, which is connected to the possessive tendencies that are tied to the idea of romantic love [Jackson 1993]. My communicative partner M, a 31-year-old man in a polyamorous relationship, says: “they [some people in monogamous relationships] even say, “who isn´t jealous, doesn´t love”, and things like that (…) I feel really anxious from it and I wish them they´d have it differently, because jealousy really isn´t fine.” These characteristics of romantic love can contribute to the creation of romantic relationship as a site of abuse (not only for women) [Towns, Adams 2000]. Romantic love can be destructive, especially in the case of heterosexual couples with a higher risk of inequality, dependency and abuse for women, because of the norms of the patriarchal society. However, this does not apply exclusively to women, since abuse does occur in homosexual relationships, too [Gaman et al. 2017]. The mixture of it with possessive love, all-giving love, that is based on the idea of gaining happiness by giving everything to the other, or extensively caring love can all lead to dependency, and also to justification and excuse of abuse and violence in a romantic relationship [Towns, Adams 2000]. Such doubtful patterns can appear in romantic relationships in general, because of the existing

60 IS IT LOVE THAT WE NEED? discourses about love and because of their common exclusion from and prioritization over the other foms of relationship. Such problematic aspects of romantic love and relationships have been also reflected by Sara, who was abused in her previous heterosexual romantic relationships. She was telling me how her life got better after leaving her last partner, and how she finds her current environment of friends and significant others as much more loving, supporting and fulfilling than how her previous life – when she was living with her husband – looked like. In one moment of our interview, while talking about the way others perceive non-coupled people as alone, she very emotionally told me: “But you´re not alone in such moments! Nowadays I´m much less alone than when I was with my husband, right?”.

7.2 Love Is All Around

However, if we take a step away from the romantic love, there is quite a different story and dynamics to be seen. There are distinct strong bonds between people that can be, and sometimes are, called love. His- torically, such strong bounds can be found outside of romantic couples, since also the marriage has been portrayed as the space of love only within the last centuries [Giddens 1992]. “Certainly, romantic love as it has traditionally been conceptualized is a way for women to relate closely to men. Yet for centuries, women have felt strong love, affection, and intimacy for other women, even when both women were married to men” [Rothblum 1999: 78]. Similarly, strong ties have been developed between men, too, as is the case of homoeroticism in ancient Greece – where the relations between older men and younger boys were seen as more valuable than the ones between husbands and wives [Uiorean 2018] – or in the case of ties developed for instance in exclusively male settings, such as wars. Nevertheless, friendship, and thus also the love between friends, has never received the same recognition as its romantic counterpart [Brake 2012]. When looking at love from this broader point of view, there can be cases of some problematic aspects or moments of exploitation of the emotional attachment of a person, although the conventional understanding of romantic love is much more loaded with the burden of inequality or possessiveness [see e. g. Evans 2002; Jackson 2001]. According to various scholars, emotional attachments in themselves are beneficial

61 IS IT LOVE THAT WE NEED? for people´s wellbeing [see e. g. Bowlby 1999; Seeman 1996]. The relations based on mutual understanding, care and support are something worthy to be encouraged. Even just from an utilitarian perspective, considering all the care that happens within an informal context, it is in the interest of the state itself to support all kinds of caring relationships and make the conditions suitable for the blossoming of any forms of such emotions and ties [Brake 2012]. It is favourable when relations are based on the commitment of the ones involved, a committment that is dissolv- able, aspect that can then prevent abuse, violence or other negative phenomena from happening within a relationship [Gheaus 2018]. Seeing love as a social practice rather than just as an emotion could enable us to perceive it as active doing and shape it according to our own values and visions [Sadler 2018]. Such approach could also contribute to rid love of its romanticized and commercialized form [Evans 2002]. Love has huge political, as well as economic and social dimensions. It can be used in order to exploit and keep the hierarchies [Illouz 1997], but it has also the potentiality of being the foundation of a more just and equal world [Herrera Gómez 2014]. Bell hooks [2000] proposes love ethics should become the basis for all social practices. “The question is not whether love is good or bad, but rather how we might best configure love in order to achieve human flourishing and how love can participate in constructing justice. We must reinvent love” [Sadler 2018: 35]. One of such ways can be through opening the space to love and recognising it within all various relationships, for instance in friendship, as also explored within this thesis.

62 CONCLUSION – THIS IS LOVE

8 Conclusion – This Is Love

It is a raining afternoon of April 2021; I and my friend Angela are sitting on the stairs in the city center, drinking a beer. Angela is telling me that a few days ago she met some of her previous friends. They were asking her whether she is still with her ex-partner. After she told them that they are not together anymore, they asked her: “So are you alone?” Angela continues: “And I answered: No, I´m not alone at all. They were like: So, do you have someone?10 I replied: No, I don´t have anyone, but I´m surrounded by some many loving people. And they couldn´t understand it at all…”. Binary opposition of coupled vs. “single” comes together with the imagination of one who is not coupled as alone and, on the contrary, of the coupled one as not alone, by the power of having a partner. Such vision is one of the products of amatonormativity – the assumption that all people desire a romantic relationship, which ideally should be monogamous, central, heterosexual, erotic and long-lasting [Brake 2012]. These appeals, moreover, come with the imagination that the way to happiness can be found only in this “paradise of coupledom”. Thus, if a person is not in a romantic relationship, people tend to perceive them as unhappy, desperate, immature and, last but not least, alone [DePaulo 2011]. This work shows how this amorous normative regime affects (not only) people who are not in a romantic relationship. The uncoupled interviewees were telling me how they are, for example, continuously asked when they will find a partner. They are reminded of their “abnormality” not only by all these questions and comments, but also by most of the cultural production, with fairy tales in its forefront. Suiting to the ideal imagination of relationship status (although the idealized version of a relationship is a never-reachable perfection) brings some advantages to a person, such as gaining a better social status or having possible accesses to all the advantages that come with the marriage (e. g. the immigration entitlements), which – despite changes in the ways it is perceived – remains the ´gold standard´ to be achieved [Roseneil et al. 2020]. Nevertheless, the couple-norm is further accompanied by other expectations about how the relationship should look like and evolve, or how the

10 In Czech “to have someone” means to have a romantic relationship with a person.

63 CONCLUSION – THIS IS LOVE life trajectory of a person should continue, such as being expected to have child(ren) [ibid.]. Considering the enormous attention given to romantic relationships, and the privileged position they are granted of, the other ways of relating to people are disadvantaged [Brake 2012]. One of the relations that is often overlooked is friendship. Within the interviews I conducted, it was evident how much crucial role friends play in the lives of my communicative partners. No matter what their relationship status was, all of them were telling me how much time they spend with their friends, how much they help and care about each other. I listened to stories of vivid networks of friends that can get activated for support when it is needed, as in moments of psychological breakdowns, and provide care for each other, from listening and comforting to paying a rent or a tuition fee so the person can finish their studies. Friendship stands at the core of this work, since it is also the domain where the ethics of this research, and this thesis in general, originate from. This kind of methodology opens up the space for emotions and empathy [Tillmann-Healy 2003], something of particular importance, considering the study of personal and intimate topics and the ethnographic work conducted among my own friends (although not only among them). This thesis has been made of bits and pieces collected not only from the conducted interviews, but also from many ordinary moments of everyday life, including myself and my own life stories, as well as the ones of the others. This whole process helped me (and hopefully not only me) to see the strength and potential of friendship and of the interpersonal relationships in general, and to look at the more that can be found beyond the amatonormative appeal. So, here we are, sitting with Angela on the stairs, finishing our beers, thinking and talking about how much we are grateful for all close relations with people we have in our lives, how much we are grateful for our friendship. We love each other, as I do with more of my significant others. We love each other without a sexual desire, without a need to be in a romantic relationship together, without attempts of excluding the others or defining our relationship in some certain, clear way. As it is April, the rainy, gloomy afternoon has slowly changed into a sunny, pleasant early evening. This is the end of this story and one of the possible forms of the reinvention of love.

64 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Austin, J. L. 2009. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectu- res Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. 2. ed., [repr.]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press. Beauvoir, S. de. 1997. The Second Sex. New Ed edition. London Vintage: Vintage Classics. Bell, S., and S. Coleman, eds. 1999. The Anthropology of Friendship. Ox- ford: Berg. Beyer, J. A. 2002. ‘Public Dilemmas and Gay Marriage: Contra Jordan’. Journal of Social Philosophy 33(1): 9–16. Bourdieu, P. 2000. Nadvláda mužů. Praha: Karolinum. Bowlby, J. 1999. Attachment and Loss. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, S. 2011. ‘Friendship, Co-Presence and Care: Neglected Spaces’. Social & Cultural Geography 12(6): 605–22. Brake, E. 2012. Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Brake, E. 2014. ‘Recognizing Care: The Case for Friendship and Poly- amory´. Syracuse Journal of Law & Civic Engagement. Brooks, T. 2009. ‘The Problem with Polygamy’: Philosophical Topics 37(2): 109–22. Brubaker, R., and F. Cooper. 2000. ‘Beyond “Identity”’. Theory and Society 29(1): 1–47. Budgeon, S. 2008. ‘Couple Culture and the Production of Singleness’. Se- xualities 11(3): 301–25. Byrne, A., and D. Carr. 2005. ‘Caught in the Cultural Lag: The Stigma of Singlehood’. Psychological Inquiry 16(2/3): 84–91. Cagen, S. 2006. Quirkyalone.San Francisco: HarperOne. Caine, B., ed. 2009. Friendship: A History. London ; Oakville, CT: Equinox Pub. Camilli, A. 2020. E se ricominciassimo dall’iperfamiglia?. [online]. Interna- zionale [cit. 27. 4. 2021]. https://www.internazionale.it/opinione/annalisa-camilli/2020/04/29/congiunti-affetti-stabili-iperfamiglia. Card, C. 1996. ‘Against Marriage and Motherhood’. Hypatia 11(3): 1–23. Carrier, J. G. 1999. ‘People Who Can Be Friends: Selves and Social Relati- onships’. in The Anthropology of Friendship. Oxford: Berg.

65 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carrigan, M. A. 2012. ‘“How Do You Know You Don’t like It If You Haven’t Tried It?” Asexual Agency and the Sexual Assumption’. 3–19. Connell, R. W. 2002. Gender. Wiley. ČSÚ. 2021a. Aktuální populační vývoj v kostce [online]. Český statistický úřad [cit. 28. 4. 2021]. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/aktualni-popu- lacni-vyvoj-v-kostce. ČSÚ. 2021b. Sňatky a Rozvody. [online]. Český statistický úřad [cit. 28. 4. 2021]. https://www.czso.cz/csu/stoletistatistiky/snatky-a-rozvody. ČSÚ. 2021c. Gender: Demografie [online]. Český statistický úřad [cit. 29. 4. 2021]. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/4-gender_obyvatelstvo. De las Heras Gómez, R. 2019. ‘Thinking Relationship Anarchy from a Queer Feminist Approach’. Sociological Research Online 24(4): 644–60. DePaulo, B. M. 2007. Singled out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmati- zed, and Ignored and Still Live Happily Ever After. 1. ed. New York: St. Mar- tin’s Griffin. DePaulo, B. M. 2011. Singlism: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Stop It. Lexington, KY: DoubleDoor Books. DePaulo, B., and W. Morris. 2005. ‘Singles in Society and Science’. Psycho- logical Inquiry - PSYCHOL INQ 16. Devere, H., and G. M. Smith. 2010. ‘Friendship and Politics’. Political Stu- dies Review 8(3): 341–56. Di Leonardo, M., ed. 1991. Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Femi- nist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press. Ellis, C. 2004. The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoe- thnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Ellis, C., T. E. Adams, and A. P. Bochner. 2011. ‘View of Autoethnography: An Overview´. Historical Social Research (36). Esterberg, K. G. 2002. Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Evans, M. 2002. Love: An Unromantic Discussion. 1st edition. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Polity. Fahs, B. 2010. ‘Radical Refusals: On the Anarchist Politics of Women Choosing Asexuality’. Sexualities 13(4): 445–61. Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd ed. Harlow, Eng. ; New York: Longman. Felter, C and D. Renwick. 2020. Same-Sex Marriage: Global Comparisons [online]. Council on Foreign Relations. [cit. 14. 11. 2020].

66 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/same-sex-marriage-global-comparisons. Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality. 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. 2003. Abnormal. London: Verso. Gaman, A., S. McAfee, P. Homel, and T. Jacob. 2017. ‘Understanding Pat- terns of Intimate Partner Abuse in Male-Male, Male-Female, and Female- Female Couples’. The Psychiatric Quarterly 88(2): 335–47. Garrett, J. R. 2009. ‘A Prima Facie Case Against Civil Marriage’: Southwest Philosophy Review 25(1): 41–53. Gheaus, A. 2017. ‘Love and Justice: A Paradox?’ Canadian Journal of Phi- losophy 47(6): 739–59. Gheaus, A. 2018. ‘Love, Not the Family’. Analize. Journal of Gender and Fe- minist Studies. Ghodsee, K. R. 2018. Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism. Nation Books. New York. Giddens, A. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Granger, R. 2020. ‘Amatonormativity, Aromanticism, and What Defines a Relationship’. BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 330. https://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/330. Green, A. I., J. Valleriani, and B. Adam. 2016. ‘Marital Monogamy as Ideal and Practice: The Detraditionalization Thesis in Contemporary Marria- ges’. Journal of Marriage and Family 78(2): 416–30. Griffin, N. D. S., and N. C. Griffin. 2019. ‘A Millennial Methodology? Auto- ethnographic Research in Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Punk and Activist Communities’. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 20(3). Habartová, P. 2014. Singles tvoří již pětinu domácností jednotlivců [online]. Statistika&My’. [cit. 13. 3. 2021]. https://www.statisti- kaamy.cz/2014/05/16/singles-tvori-jiz-petinu-domacnosti-jednot- livcu/. Harding, S. 1992. ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is “Strong Objectivity?”’ The Centennial Review 36(3): 437–70. Herrera Gómez, C. 2014. Romantic Love from a Queer Perspective. Coral Herrera [online]. [cit. 13. 11. 2020]. https://haikita.blo- gspot.com/2014/04/romantic-love-from-queer-perspective.html. Herz, M., and T. Johansson. 2015. ‘The Normativity of the Concept of He- teronormativity’. Journal of Homosexuality 62(8): 1009–20.

67 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holman Jones, S. 2005. ‘Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political’. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 763–92. hooks, bell. 2000. All about Love: New Visions. 1st ed. New York: William Morrow. Illouz, E. 1997. Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jackson, S. 1993. ‘Love and Romance as Objects of Feminist Knowledge’. Pp. 55–66 in Making Connections. Taylor & Francis. Jackson, S. 2001. ‘Happily Never after: Young Women’s Stories of Abuse in Heterosexual Love Relationships’. Feminism & Psychology 11(3): 305– 21. Jamieson, L. 1998. Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge ; Malden, MA: Polity Press. Jamieson, L. 1999. ‘Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the `Pure Relationship’’. Sociology-the Journal of The British Sociological Associa- tion - SOCIOLOGY 33: 477–94. Jamieson, L., F. Wasoff, and R. Simpson. 2009. ‘Solo-Living, Demographic and Family Change: The Need to Know More about Men’. Sociological Re- search Online 14(2): 20–35. Jeffers, E. K., and J. B. Fournillier. 2020. ‘Epistemological Defiance: Troub- ling the Notion of Authorship, Collaboration, and Re-Presentation in Dis- sertation Research’. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa- tion 1–15. Jones-Wild, R. 2012. ‘Reimagining Families of Choice’. Pp. 149–67 in Se- xualities: Past Reflections, Future Directions, Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences, edited by S. Hines and Y. Taylor. London: Palgrave Ma- cmillan UK. Kishwar, M. 1997. ‘Women, Sex and Marriage. Restraint as a Feminine Strategy’. Manushi (99): 23–36. Kuchařová, V., J. Barvíková, S. Höhne, O. Nešporová, J. Paloncyová, and L. Vidovićová. 2020. Zpráva o rodině 2020. VÚPSV. Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qua- litative Research Interviewing. Third edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publicati- ons. Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 2014. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso Books. Lahad, K. 2012. ‘Singlehood, Waiting, and the Sociology of Time1: Single- hood, Waiting, and the Sociology of Time’. Sociological Forum 27(1): 163–86.

68 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lasio, D., F. Serri, I. Ibba, and J. Manuel De Oliveira. 2019. ‘Hegemony and Heteronormativity: Homonormative Discourses of LGBTQ Activists About Lesbian and Gay Parenting’. Journal of Homosexuality 66(8): 1058– 81. Lišková, K. 2016. ‘Sex under Socialism: From Emancipation of Women to Normalized Families in Czechoslovakia’. Sexualities 19(1–2): 211–35. Lišková, K., and S. Holubec. 2020. ‘Women between the Public and Pri- vate Spheres’. in The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century : Volume 1, Challenges of Modernity. The Routledge Twentieth Century History Handbooks. Luhmann, N. 2002. Láska jako vášeň. Paradigm lost. Praha: Prostor. Macdonald, R. M. 2018. ‘“Ms-Understandings”?: A Discourse Analysis of the Talk of Older Single Women’. PhD thesis in Doctor degree of Philo- sophy, University of Toronto, Toronto. Marx, K., and F. Engels. 2008. The Communist Manifesto: With the Con- dition of the Working Class in England in 1844 ; Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. McGuigan, J. 2016. Neoliberal Culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. McLellan, J. 2011. Love in the Time of Communism: Intimacy and Sexuality in the GDR. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Michaels, M. A., and P. Johnson. 2015. Designer Relationships: A Guide to Happy Monogamy, Positive Polyamory, and Optimistic Open Relationships. First edition. Jersey City, New Jersey: Cleis Press. Murphy, R. F. 1998. Úvod do kulturní a sociální antropologie. Praha: Soci- ologické nakladatelství. Oxford Dictionary. 2020. Polyamory Noun - Definition. [online]. Oxford Advanced Learner´s Dictionary [cit. 14. 11. 2020]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/polyamory Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. 1995. ‘“Choosing Not to Choose: Beyond Mono- gamy, Beyond Duality” in Kevin Lano and Claire Parry (Ed) (1995) Brea- king The Barriers of Desire, London: Five Leaves Publication, Pp 41-67.’ Pp. 41–67 in. Peel, M., L. Reed, and J. Walter. 2009. ‘The Importance of Friends: The Most Recent Past’. P. 40 in Friendship: A History. London ; Oakville, CT. Pitoňák, M. 2011. ‘Queer Geografie Česka: Heteronormativita Prostoru’. Reed, I. 2011. Interpretation and Social Knowledge on the Use of Theory in the Human Sciences. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

69 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reinharz, S. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, J. 2013. The Single Woman: A Discursive Investigation. 1st ed. Routledge. Reynolds, J., and M. Wetherell. 2003. ‘The Discursive Climate of Single- ness: The Consequences for Women’s Negotiation of a Single Identity’. Feminism & Psychology 13(4): 489–510. Rose, N. 1992. ‘Engineering the Human Soul: Analyzing Psychological Ex- pertise’. Science in Context 5(2): 351–69. Roseneil, S. 2004. ‘Why We Should Care about Friends: An Argument for Queering the Care Imaginary in Social Policy’. Social Policy and Society 3(4): 409–19. Roseneil, S. 2011. ‘Foregrounding Friendship. Feminist Pasts, Feminist Futures’. Nouvelles Questions Feministes 30: 56-+. Roseneil, S., and S. Budgeon. 2004. ‘Cultures of Intimacy and Care beyond “the Family”: Personal Life and Social Change in the Early 21st Century’. Current Sociology 52(2): 135–59. Roseneil, S., I. Crowhurst, T. Hellesund, A. C. Santos, and M. Stoilova. 2020. The Tenacity of the Couple-Norm: Intimate Citizenship Regimes in a Changing Europe. Rothblum, E. 1999. ‘Poly-Friendships.’ Journal of Lesbian Studies 3: 68– 83. Sadler, B. J. 2018. ‘Love as Emotion and Social Practice: A Feminist Per- spective’. New Series (11): 22. Said, E. W. 2008. Orientalismus: západní koncepce Orientu. Praha: Paseka. Seeman, T. E. 1996. ‘Social Ties and Health: The Benefits of Social Inte- gration’. (6): 442–51. Souralová, A. 2015. New Perspectives on Mutual Dependency in Care-Gi- ving. Farnham: Ashgate. Stewart, H. 2018. ‘Parents of “Pets?” A Defense of Interspecies Parenting and Family Building’. New Series (11). Sullivan, A. 1999. Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Sur- vival. 1st Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books. Taylor, J. 2011. ‘The Intimate Insider: Negotiating the Ethics of Friend- ship When Doing Insider Research’. Qualitative Research 11(1): 3–22. Tillmann-Healy, L. M. 2003. ‘Friendship as Method’. Qualitative Inquiry 9(5): 729–49.

70 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Towns, A., and P. Adams. 2000. ‘“If I Really Loved Him Enough, He Would Be Okay”: Women’s Accounts of Male Partner Violence’. Violence Against Women 6(6): 558–85. Uiorean, O. 2018. ‘Love as an Instrument of Oppression: Plato’s Sympo- sium and Contemporary Gender Relations’. New Series (11): 17. Vacková, B., L. Galčanová, M. Kvapilová Bartošová, and L. Kala. 2014. Sami doma: bydlení, práce a vztahy lidí žijících v jednočlenných domácnos- tech. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart. Watters, E. 2003. Urban Tribes: A Generation Redefines Friendship, Family, and Commitment. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Bloomsbury : Distributed to the trade by Holtzbrinck Publishers. Wilkinson, E. 2012. ‘The Romantic Imaginary: Compulsory Coupledom and Single Existence’. Pp. 130–45 in Sexualities: Past Reflections, Future Directions, Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences, edited by S. Hines and Y. Taylor. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Wilkinson, E. 2014. ‘Single People’s Geographies of Home: Intimacy and Friendship beyond “the Family”’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46(10): 2452–68. Williams, K. 2004. ‘Has the Future of Marriage Arrived? A Contemporary Examination of Gender, Marriage, and Psychological Well-Being’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 44: 470–87. Zanin, A. 2013. The Problem with Polynormativity [online]. Sex Geek. [cit. 14. 11. 2020]. https://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/thepro- blemwithpolynormativity/. Zelichenko, M. 2020. 7 Skills You Need for Successful Polyamory [online]. Medium. [cit. 14. 3. 2021]. https://medium.com/polyamory-today/7- skills-you-need-for-successful-polyamory-afb44c6762c8. Zinn, M. B. 1979. ‘Field Research in Minority Communities: Ethical, Met- hodological and Political Observations by an Insider’. Social Problems 27(2): 209–19.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Name index

Adam, 21, 24, 71 Ellis, 27, 33, 35, 70 Adams, 27, 62, 63, 70, 75 Engels, 74 Austin, 16, 69 Esterberg,, 71 Beauvoir, 46, 69 Evans, 64, 71 Bell, 52, 64, 69 Fahs, 45, 71 Beyer, 23, 25, 69 Fairclough, 16, 71 Bochner, 27, 70 Felter, 10, 71 Bourdieu, 61, 69 Foucault, 39, 45, 71 Bowlby, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 64, 69 Fournillier, 29, 73 Brake, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, Galčanová, 76 24, 25, 29, 34, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 58, 64, Gaman, 63, 71 66, 67, 69 Garrett, 23, 25, 71 Brinkmann, 28, 73 Gheaus, 52, 60, 64, 71 Brooks, 11, 69 Ghodsee, 14, 71 Brubaker, 13, 69 Giddens, 21, 63, 71 Budgeon, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47, 50, 56, 58, 59, Granger, 13, 15, 16, 18, 38, 41, 43, 54, 60, 69, 75 71 Byrne, 38, 69 Green, 21, 22, 71 Cagen, 50, 69 Griffin, 33, 35, 70, 71 Caine, 53, 69 Habartová, 38, 72 Camilli, 7, 69 Harding, 32, 72 Card, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 50, 55, 70 Herrera Gómez, 17, 64, 72 Carr, 38, 69 Herz, 10, 72 Carrier, 53, 70 Holman Jones, 33, 35, 72 Carrigan, 46, 70 Holubec, 46, 73 Coleman, 52, 69 hooks, 18, 64, 72 Connell, 13, 70 Illouz, 53, 61, 64, 72 Cooper, 13, 69 Jackson, 21, 61, 62, 64, 72 ČSÚ, 19, 21, 43, 70 Jamieson, 20, 21, 49, 72 De las Heras Gómez, 11, 12, 34, 70 Jeffers, 29, 73 DePaulo, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 66, 70 Johansson, 10, 72 Devere, 55, 70 Johnson, 11, 74 Di Leonardo, 62, 70 Jones-Wild, 53, 55, 56, 73

73 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kishwar, 10, 73 Roseneil, 9, 13, 19, 25, 28, 38, 39, 40, 42, Kuchařová, 22, 38, 73 43, 48, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 66, 75 Kvale, 28, 73 Rothblum, 52, 54, 59, 60, 63, 75 Kvapilová Bartošová, 76 Sadler, 60, 61, 64, 75 Laclau, 13, 73 Said, 5, 11, 35, 75 Lahad, 40, 41, 43, 44, 73 Seeman, 64, 75 Lasio, 10, 73 Simpson, 49, 72 Lišková, 15, 46, 73 Smith, 55, 70 Luhmann, 61, 73 Stewart, 17, 48, 49, 58, 75 Macdonald, 21, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 73 Sullivan, 55, 75 Marx, 14, 20, 74 Taylor, 32, 33, 72, 73, 75, 76 McGuigan, 11, 51, 61, 74 Tillmann-Healy, 27, 31, 32, 67, 75 McLellan, 14, 74 Towns, 62, 63, 75 Michaels, 11, 74 Uiorean, 20, 64, 75 Morris, 38, 70 Vacková, 38, 76 Mouffe, 13, 73 Valleriani, 21, 71 Murphy, 20, 74 Walter, 53, 74 Oxford Dictionary, 11, 74 Wasoff, 49, 72 Pallotta-Chiarolli, 10, 74 Watters, 42, 53, 56, 57, 58, 76 Peel, 53, 55, 74 Wetherell, 39, 46, 48, 49, 74 Pitoňák, 10, 17, 74 Wilkinson, 38, 40, 45, 49, 55, 56, 60, 76 Reed, 34, 53, 74 Williams, 21, 76 Reinharz, 32, 74 Zanin, 12, 76 Renwick, 10, 71 Zelichenko, 51, 76 Reynolds, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 74 Zinn, 32, 76 Rose, 51, 75