Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19

those adults not married orcohabiting(seeStrohm etal,those adultsnot married 2009; Duncan andPhillips, to thequestion asked andthesurvey group. This equatestoroughly ofall aquarter and Australasia live from apart apartner, although precise estimatesvaryaccording somewhere else. Around 10%ofadultsinmuch of Western Europe, North America together’ (LAT) –thatis, wholives beinginanintimaterelationship withapartner have anddemographers Sociologists recently becomeinterested in ‘living apart Introduction LAT isboth ‘new’ anda ‘continuation’. manoeuvre tothedemandsof inadaptingcoupleintimacy contemporary life. Hence, wesuggest, pivotal and cohabitation remains the goal for most, LAT allowspeopleflexibilityand room to different of relationship, sorts withdifferent needs anddesires. While overall coupledomremains Britain andinterview accounts from 2011. Our analysis showsthatLAT asacategory contains examining indepthwhy together, peoplelive apart usinganationally representative survey from new in preferring more to live apart permanently. interrogatesThis article this conclusion by Copyrightcircumstances orasamodernversion of ‘boy/girlfriend’, although aminority represents something a that supports ‘qualified continuist’ as a position –most people liveresponse to practical apart ‘continuist’ perspectives. Recent surveys, however, construct LAT asaheterogeneous category TheInterpretations together of living apart (LAT) have typically counter-posed ‘new family form’ versus Policy Press This article isdistributed under the termsofThis article the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0license(http:// Print ISSN20467435• Online ISSN20467443•http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/204674313X673419 Families, Relationships andSocieties•vol 2•no3323–38© The authors 2013•#FRS Why together? dopeoplelive apart Miranda Phillips([email protected]) Simon Duncan([email protected]) key words Julia Carter Julia Carter Canterbury Christ Church University,Canterbury Christ Church UK Mariya Stoilova ([email protected]) National Centre for SocialResearch, UK Sasha Roseneil ([email protected]) Birkbeck, University of London, UK living apart together livingapart •LAT •family •couples University of Bradford, UK provided theoriginal isattributed. work The derivative donot works alteration, reproduction permission anddistribution withoutfurther creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permitsadaptation, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ([email protected]) article 323 need tobelicensedonthesameterms. 1

Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19

location. LATsAnother 13%ofpartner indicated ‘constrained choice’ –they put together because of financialproblems (mostlyhousingaffordability) orjob/study of more established LATs’,‘partner constraintstoliving almosthalfcitedexternal were ‘not ready’ tolive together (DuncanandPhillips, 2010). Of theremaining 60% for living apart. For example, in 2006, in Britain as many as 40% of LAT respondents as aheterogeneous madeupofseveral category groups according totheirreasons although thequantitative emphasisrests on thelatter. These surveys LAT construct provide evidence forboththe form’‘new family and the ‘continuist’ perspectives – andcohabitation.normative positionofmarriage society’. From this continuist perspective, LAT would if anything reinforce the central is more prevalent among the better educated, about it and comment on who write (2009: 41)dismissively concludethatLAT attractspopularattention just ‘because it ‘a socialchangeinthenature ofwhatitmeanstobeacouple’, andSeidler Ermisch the family, but are cautious andconservative (Haskey andLewis, 2006). So insteadof Furthermore, peoplewholive (LATs) apart aremoving notradicalpioneers beyond have always coupleseparationsbecauseofeconomiccircumstances. been temporary always been ‘special’ or ‘steady’ and boy/girlfriends couples’,‘courting justasthere and Seidler, 2009). This involves littlethatisnew, despitethenew name; there have circumstances suchasjoblocation (Haskey, 2005; Haskey andLewis, 2006; Ermisch Copyright tocohabitationforcedto cohabitationandmarriage, by orisaninterruption 6). Inthisview, LAT isjustanother stageonthewell-worn route from singledom that ‘despite allthehuffingand puffing nothinghas reallychanged’ (Weeks, 2007: The individualistic behaviour (DeJong Gierveld,Policy 2004; Liefbroer etal, 2012). by forms, are family fundamentallyunderpinned andfertility relationship patterns signal anadvancedPress transition, stageoftheseconddemographic whereby changesin of ‘liquid love’. literatureThis isparalleledinthedemographic where LAT isseento Gernsheim’s (2002)emphasisonindividualisation andBauman’s (2003)metaphor family, resonating withGiddens’ (1992)notionof ‘pure relationships’, BeckandBeck- itself. In these interpretations, LAT to move begins beyond of traditional constructions onfriendship,place more importance thevery meaningofcoupledom thuschanging sexual/lovesuggests thatpeoplewholive relationships cande-prioritise and apart untrammelled by structures, thanispossible inmarriage. Similarly, Roseneil(2006) fostering oflove‘a new form semantics’ where couples comeclosertopure love, autonomy. Bawin-Legros andGauthier(2001: LAT andinterpret 39)gofurther as ofbeinginacouple,intimacy andsatisfaction but atthesametimeretain individual as form’ new family boththe ‘a historically through whichpeople can experience route tocohabitationandmarriage? Taking view, thefirst Levin (2004: 223)seesLAT are increasingly decentred? OrisLAT simplyanotherstageonthewell-established way societies, of doingintimacy in contemporary and cohabitation where marriage of thetime. a partner’ inrelationship terms. aboutaquarter This assumptionwillbeincorrect Rather, itisusuallytakenthat forgranted ‘single’ means inresidential terms ‘without in the worlds of officialstatistics, institutions, formal government policy and the law. cohabitation and singledom has not been replicated alongside marriage, unmarried 2010; Reimondos, 2011; Liefbroer, 2012). This ‘discovery’ of another relationship type Recent surveys ofthereasons forLAT, drawing onrepresentative nationalsamples, Alternatively, otherstudiestake amore ‘continuist’ perspective –they conclude and role about the social importance of LAT.Researchers disagree Is LAT a new Simon Duncanetal 324 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19

responses. Somerespondents who gave ‘constraint’ or ‘circumstance’ reasons for living ambivalence orindecision. Third, isthequestionofhow we thesesurvey interpret ‘independence’ and ‘circumstance’ reasons). Someofthereasons themselves suggest apart, someofwhichwere (forexample, apparently contradictory they choseboth (discussed below), almost half(49%)ofrespondents gave several reasons forliving reasons willbecontradictory. For example, inour2011 survey ofLAT inBritain doing so, andambivalence, ofcertainty degrees withvarious andsometimesthese its apparent robustness. Many LATs will have a number of overlapping reasons for studies. Second, compoundingthis issueisthe ambiguity of survey evidence despite quantitatively smallerthansometimesassumedinnon-representative qualitative they do constitute an emergent, new and different way of ‘doing intimacy’, albeit in theirquestionnaire responses orinterview are important; sociologically possibly whodochoose ofthoseliving apart the minority ‘independence’, ‘choice’ andsoon forms”’family (2010: 131). LATs constraints…are hardly whoare becauseof external primarily partners “new attitudinal position’, where ‘“steady” relationships and…those boyfriend/girlfriend form’,family conclude that LATs ‘as a whole do not show any marked “pioneer” ‘[f]or some, but notformany others, beingaLAT asanew may beexperienced – arrangement’. Similarly, DuncanandPhillips(2010: 132), althoughadmittingthat Copyrightentered intooutofnecessity. For others, itisaconvenient –andprobably temporary LAT relationship reasons. dosoforideological For most, itisaliving arrangement position. Liefbroer etal(2012: 11)concludethat ofpeopleina ‘only aminority The France and25%inGermany,Policy Europe. althoughdropping substantiallyinEastern Nevertheless, ‘independence’ asareason reached forliving highsof21%in apart couples,unmarried wherePress itwas age, notrelationship form, thatmadeadifference. LATs showed asacategory littleattitudinaldifference compared withcohabiting, around afifth ‘notbeing ready yet’ (fromto24%inRomania). 6%inGeorgia Again, from to75%inGeorgia),as areason (ranging 47%inGermany forliving apart with ‘practical reasons’ ofjoblocation, housingandfinance were mentionedmostoften (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Germany, RomaniaandRussia), foundthat (Régnier-Loilier etal, 2009: 93). Nonetheless, lived aquarter becauseof apart ‘the desire toremain independent’ to live together. Overall, 70% intended to live withinthree years. withtheir partner as joblocation, housingorfinance(over 60%), whileabout15% were ‘not yet ready’ of people living apart ‘were obliged to live separately because of circumstances’ such perspectives. Evidencefrom France(in2005)suggestssimilarconclusions: themajority could choosemore thanoneoption). This suggests thecredence of form’‘new family to keep theirown homeorwho ‘just donotwant tolive together’ (respondents also citedmore ‘open choice’ reasons forliving apart, includingthosewhowanted people.married acontinuist perspective.All thissupports Yet LATs halfofpartner more liberalgrouptogether withcohabitantsandyoung singles, incontrasttoolder andrelationships;their attitudesaboutfamilies ratherthey were ofayounger, part inthefuture.their partner Norwere in LATs pioneering particularly asacategory as two thirds ofrespondents saidthey ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ would like tolive with responsibilities tochildren orolderparents first, or were waiting tomarry. Asmany We questionthis ‘qualified continuist’ positiononthree, interlinked,grounds. First, On thisevidence, theserecent surveys take whatwe mightcalla ‘qualified continuist’ Similarly, Liefbroer etal(2012), usinga2004–08survey ofseven European countries Why together? dopeoplelive apart 325 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 or under-represented). sexuality, are over- household type and occupational group (although some categories roughly ofreason, withthenationalsurvey corresponds interms age, gender, ethnicity, givenliving apart intheirsurvey responses. As Table 1shows, sample theinterview frame from whichrespondents were purposively selected according tothereasons for depth (hereafter sample’).‘the interview This tookthenational survey asasampling which soughttoassesspractices, about LAT meaningsandunderstandings in more conversational ofaround interviews onehourwith peopleinaLAT relationship, expense ofdepthandcontext. Second, therefore, we drew on50semi-structured, from Britain in2011. from Britain methodology research design, basedonnew quantitative andqualitative evidence in detailwhy peoplelive apart, whichisourfocushere. To doso, we useamixed not besoself-evident afterall. to unpickfrom survey evidence alone. The ‘qualified continuist’ might interpretation live apart. All of this suggests a complexity about the reasons for LAT that is difficult LATs may –such as children feel that obligations to others – shape their ‘choice’ to in avoiding what they see as unpleasant situations consequent to cohabitation. Or more negative choice–they mightideallywant tocohabitbut choosetolive apart represent a simple desire for autonomy. Respondents may be exercising in fact a allow them. Ortheresponses suggesting ‘choice’ or ‘independence’ may notinfact mightwellapart appreciate theindependencethatthesesituationsconveniently respondents’ accountsthatdemonstrated eitherapreferenceforLAT (therespondent fromagency and decisionsin living apart their partner. We looked for statements in transcript,each interview identifyingrespondents’ discursive rationalisationsoftheir was interviews The analysisofthesemi-structured grounded onaclosereading of were interviews The 50 semi-structured recorded, and codedusingNVivo. transcribed and analysisproceeded through standard andcross-tabulation. frequency distribution wasThe nationalsurvey codedforthestatistical software information packageSPSS Analysis Our 2011survey ofpeopleinLAT relationships inBritain Sources Methodology sociodemographic information. sociodemographic experiences, motivations andattitudesinrelation toliving apart, andprovided 9% ofrespondents. Together thesethree surveys yieldedatotalof 572 peopleinaLAT relationship – Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus. surveys – the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Omnibus, the British survey’) combineddatafrom three statisticallyrepresentative generalpopulation instead reflects therangeanddiversity ofLAT inBritain. while notstatisticallyrepresentative, typeofLAT isnotlimitedtoaparticular but Copyright The Policy Press The nationalsurvey provides representative dataonLAT inBritain, but atthe A key toresolving thesedifferences istoexamine anddifficultiesofinterpretation 3 These LAT respondents were asked questionsaboutpractices, 5 This hastheadvantage ofcreating sample that, an interview 4

Simon Duncanetal 326 6

2 (hereafter ‘the national Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 Sources: 2011nationalsurvey, 2011interviews Table 1: The nationalsurvey sampleandtheinterview sample: selectedcharacteristics LAT. Respondents couldchooseany number ofreasons from 16available options, Table ofreasons 2presents thenationalsurvey the distribution respondents gave for patterns Nationalsurvey Why together peoplelive apart their relationship andthepresence ofdependentchildren. on thisbasicgrid, includingthegender, classandageofinterviewees, thelengthof wereinterviews thenusedtoillustratethese. We alsoplottedothersocialvariables andassociationsindisplayingsocial clusters sample; thewholeinterview individual preference andconstraint, stateandstage. We usedthistovisuallydiscover andpresent qualitative plottingofinterviewees’ asdefined by diagram positionsonasummary prompted). This assessmentthenallowed representation graphical oftheanalysis, with would affect this ‘strength’ assessment (if, forexample, it was hypothetical orheavily interviewees madethestatement, orthecontextinwhichstatementwas made, make stronger thatcategory (andfewer would make itweaker). Similarly, theway as relatively ‘strong’ or ‘weak’. For example, would more statementsofonecategory or stage and state, we made overall judgements about each interviewee’s responses Copyrightan outsideagency(suchasemployer orprison). LAT was situational signifying thatliving together was thoughttobetooearly intherelationship, The arrangement).was seenasacontinuing andsatisfactory Finally, we notedstatements andchildren) andstate sometimes withmarriage Policythe sametimewe recorded stage LATPress (therespondent talked about circumstances preventing desired cohabitation). At talked abouttheadvantages of, and/ortheirpreference for, orconstraint living in apart) Routine andmanual occupations, andunemployed Intermediate occupations Managerial andprofessional occupations Living alone Children inhousehold Heterosexual White Under theage of 45 Women Men locationetc) Situational constraint (job/study Constraint Too early Preference As many participants expressedAs many combinationsofpreference participants andconstraintand/ consequent tojob/studylocationoraresponse todemandsof Why together? dopeoplelive apart statements (plansandideasaboutmoving intogether, 327 % survey sample statements (abouthow LAT current (n =572) 41 20 29 33 24 97 85 76 51 49 12 19 31 30 % interviewsample (n =50) 36 32 10 44 34 98 86 56 58 42 14 26 20 40 or that Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 couples whoostensibly wanted tocohabitnow, but founddifficultiesindoing so. cohabitation astheirmain/onlyreason, withaffordability mostcommon. These were (codedunderpreference)civil partner –3%gave this astheirmain/onlyreason. this pathwas thesmallnumber ofrespondents whowere explicitlywaiting tomarry/ of LAT asaphasebefore cohabitationastheironlyormainreason. along Further they would eventually cohabit. Altogether, 31% of respondents chose some expression ofa relationship interms ‘special boy/girlfriend’ where, iftherelationship proceeded, who simplyhadnotthoughtaboutcohabitation, thisimpliesthatmany LATs saw their to cohabit, or that the couple were not yet ready to do so. Adding in the small number preference andpreference. –tooearly/notready,categories financialconstraint, situationalconstraint, obligated ‘main/only’ columnin Table 2. For bothwe have groupedreasons intofive main main reasons, together withtheonlyreason oftheremaining 51%, isshown inthe then prompted tochooseamainreason forliving apart. ofthese The distribution in Table 2. Respondentswhochosemore than onereason, 49%ofthetotal, were options). oftheseresponses isshownThe distribution inthe ‘all reasons’ column or give theirown reason (someofwhichwere reclassified amongthepre-given Source: Weighted Notes: Copyright The Policy PressTable 2: Reasons for LAT: Britain, 2011 TOTAL Other/none We justdon’t want tolive together It’s justhowthingsare We bothwant tokeepourhomes prefersMy partner nottolive withme(Iwant tolive withthem) wants tolive with me) I prefer nottolive withmy (s/he partner We are have waiting acivilpartnership untilweget married/ Preference We have otherresponsibilities Because of my ormy partner’s children Obligated preference islivinginaninstitution(care home/prison) My partner isstudying elsewhereMy partner hasajobelsewhereMy partner Situational constraint It wouldaffect my/my partner’s benefits We can’t afford tolive together Financial constraint We haven’t thoughtaboutlivingtogether We are notready tolive together/it’s tooearly inourrelationship Too early/not ready Reason Another third (30%) of respondents chose various forms ofconstraintimpeding Another third (30%)ofrespondents forms chosevarious The mostpopularreason chosenforLAT was thatitwas tooearlyintherelationship 2011 nationalsurvey bases 533, unweighted bases572. *Respondents more couldchoose thanone option. Simon Duncanetal 328 All reasons* (%) 11 19 13 13 28 14 41 8 2 8 5 9 7 1 5 4 * Main/only reason Main/only 100 (%) 17 29 8 5 5 5 0 4 3 3 5 1 3 8 1 3 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 of LAT politicaldiscourse. sometimesfoundinBritish list ofallreasons –thislow the figure undermines ‘moralbreakdown’ interpretation to admitthismotivation forLAT –and4%didmentionthisintheircomplete only reason –just1%. forliving apart While respondents mighthave beenreluctant aboutbenefitpaymentsa very smallnumber astheirmainor admittedtoconcerns popular accountswhere thisisassumedtobeamajorreason forLAT. Similarly, only organisations). This includedjust8%withjobs elsewhere –insomecontrasttomany wasliving apart aresponse tothedemandsofemployers, orother stateauthorities Only 12%ofrespondents chose ‘situational constraints’ asmain/onlyreasons (where precluding cohabitation. However, thisstillleftabout afifthwhoexpressed amore not yet appropriate. Somerespondents saw as obligations andcommitmentto others constraintsto cohabitationorbecausewasbecause ofvarious seen as reasons in thissurvey) appear toseeLAT asastagebefore cohabitation, either the supports ‘qualified continuist’ view ofLAT. (62% ofmain/only The majority suchasclassorgender. than factors and thenature oftherelationship thatinfluencespeople’s reasons forLAT, rather of the ‘preference’ are young. category All thissuggeststhatitisbothsomeone’s age ‘too early/not ready’ are middle-aged orolder, category while asignificant proportion isrepresentedindeed eachcategory inallagebands. Thus, somerespondents inthe 2 shows, many respondents have acomplexmixture ofmotives forliving apart, and ‘preference’ isspread more category evenly across agebands. not ready category, ormore concretely forthe ‘constraint’ category. Incontrastthe is astagebefore cohabitation–eitherhypothetically oridealisticallyforthetooearly/ LATs are mainlyearlyonintheir relationship, inthesecategories where living apart and, forbothcategories, alittleover halfare below 25. We mightassume, then, that by main/onlyreasons) are bunched intotheyoungest agebandsbelow 35years old ofthe A largemajority ‘too early/notready’ and ‘constraint’ (asdefined categories Copyright(33% asopposedto15%ofmen). my or my partner’s children’ and more women than men actually lived withchildren women. However, obligated preference includesliving apart asacategory ‘because of The showed –infact similarproportions wasofmenand for otherfamily prioritised) where we – mightexpectgendered distributions ‘obligatedPolicy preference’ (where caring is littlegenderdifference inthe survey responses. Inparticular, one reason forLAT workersPress may prefer tolive together justasmuch apart asprofessionals. Similarly, there as much by higher-andlower-income occupationalgroups, androutine ormanual reasons for living apart. just Constraints to living together appear to be experienced gave main other(unclassifiable) reasons orno reason. were orthey (see were partnership waiting formarriage/civil Table 2). Finally, 8% partner,particular they simplydidnotwant tolive together, LAT was justhow things LAT –they wanted tokeep theirown homes, they preferred nottolive withtheir older relatives (3%). This left 22% who chose more preference personal reasons for their partner’s children (5%), for orbecauseofotherresponsibilities suchascaring call ‘obligated preference’: respondents didnotlive together becauseoftheirown or main reason thiswas reduced to30%. ofthese8%in Infact Table 2were whatwe The categorisation in The categorisation Table 2, like the other recent surveys discussed above, There is, however, more significantassociationbetween reason forLAT andage. Perhaps surprisingly, inthesurvey data, socialclasswas notsignificantly related to Many respondents chosevarious ‘preference’ reasons forLAT, but inchoosinga Why together? dopeoplelive apart 329 7

8 Nonetheless, as Table Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 LAT inmore depth, interviews. usingthe50semi-structured is notexplicitlyexpressed as ‘preference’. to simultaneously maintainautonomy andintimacythrough living apart, even ifthis reason forLAT. Nonetheless, inLevin’s suchrespondents may (2004)terms beable desired orappreciated autonomy. This may notberationalisedasamainoronly Similarly, constraintsandcircumstances may sometimesprovide ajustificationfor ongoing alternative tothechoice between cohabitationorrelationship breakdown. orinotherliving arrangements;than inearlierperiods they may beusingLAT asan for beingaLAT. Itmay bethatLAT gives freedom couplesgreater formanoeuvre greater, ofpreference was assomeform themostpopularresponse among ‘all reasons’ less than Table 2suggests. (‘It’s justhow thingsare’). Hence, clear-cut ‘preference’ may forliving apart beeven want tolive withhim/her)’. ‘Preference’ canalsoinclude ambivalence orindecision (s/hewantspartner tolive withme)’ and ‘my prefersnottolive partner withme(I apparently inconflict over cohabitation(theoptions ‘Iprefer nottolive with my 2012)? This seemsproblematic asthe ‘preference’ includesthosecouples category 2004), orsimilarlyasan ‘ideological’ alternative tocohabitation(Liefbroer etal, respondents represent people using LAT as a form’ new family ‘historically (Levin, well. Second, how shouldthesereasons forLAT Dothe beinterpreted? ‘preference’ in Table 2between ‘all reasons’ and ‘main/only reasons’ suggeststhiscomplexity reasons oftenqualifiedor secondary even contradictedthemain reason. Thecontrast half of thenationalsurvey respondents gave several reasons forliving apart, and their and Phillips, in2011(Liefbroer 2010)andGermany etal, 2012). discovered for France in 2005 (Régnier- Loilier et al, 2009), in 2006 (Duncan Britain clear-cut preference forLAT ratherthancohabitation–similartotheproportions were over theageof40. respondents) were undertheage of40, andmore of the ‘preference withstate’ cluster age – not unexpectedly more of the ‘preference with stage’ cluster (mostly ‘too early’ composed ofwomen withchildren. There were alsosomedifferences according to stage’ cluster(obligated preference) inthisnon-representative samplewas mostly with this distribution, with one significant exception – the ‘constraint with We below. inturn commentoneachofthese clusters • • • • or transitionalcases: section. distinctclusters, Ouranalysisfoundfourfairly withrelatively few outliers along aconstraint/preference andstage/stategrid, asdiscussedintheMethodology Figure 1presents theallocationofall50interviewees from sample theinterview ofLATUnderstandings Copyright The Policy Press To address thiscomplexity, we goontoexaminerespondents’ of understandings Alternatively, ‘preference’ asbeingmuch couldbeinterpreted forliving apart However, Table 2raisesasmany questionsasitanswers. First, asalready discussed, As withthenationalsurvey, there were nosignificantclassorgenderassociations preference withstate. preference andconstraintwithstage(obligated preference); preference withstage; constraint withstage; Simon Duncanetal 330 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 Source: Note: Figure 1: Understandings together of livingapart only’ reasons (see Table 2). inthenationalsurvey, categories summary accountingintotalfor30%of ‘main/ five living abroad. respondents hadpartners group This represents the ‘constraint’ years, and were most likely to live over an hour away – in fact, from their partners and children. Not surprisingly, nearly all were relationships of under two shorter active plans about living together in the near future, and many talked about marriage of thedemandsoutsideagenciessuchasemployers orstateauthorities. Mosthad (orevenpartner toany relationship) grounds, onculturalandreligious orbecause couldnotliveOthers oppositiontocohabitation withtheir together becauseoffamily and/or finance were mostoftendiscussedandthese fairly decisivewere usuallyfeltas . severe constraintstotheirdesired cohabitation. external Difficultieswithhousing stageenforced by asatemporary These respondentstheirliving apart understood Can’t livetogether – constraint withstage (14/50) wanted to marry hispartner,wanted tomarry were but hisfamily implacably opposedto him marrying saving tosetupinNew Zealand, andchildren to follow. withmarriage Ravi really ‘hubby’ inreturn. couldnotafford ahousetogetherAnnabel andherpartner but were –allwithinthenexttwo years,and marriage calledhispartner ‘wifey’ andwas called envisaged jointrelocation toamid-pointbetween theirtwo jobswithengagement of herhouselease, but shewould dowhenthatendedinayear’s time. Peter, who Copyright The Policy Press Craig S =situational, E=tooearly, X =otherrespondent 2011 interviews 9 was atype-caseexample; couldnotmove hispartner injustthenbecause Why together? dopeoplelive apart 331 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 greater autonomygreater withLAT than with cohabitation. these earliersurveys. And, asLisaandKatieshow, women may beable toexperience the tolerateddeviancy of sex’,‘pre-marital ortheenforced separation, in reported that respondents could enjoy couple intimacy through LAT without undergoing of the1950sand1960s(Duncan, 2011). difference now,An important however, is that wesurveys ofconstrainedseparationinthe family comeacross similarstories thingisn’tnatural kindofbiological it?” But becausehumanbeingsare supposed tobetogether, aren’t they? Natural–it’s a think it [LAT] would work long term. I don’t it. understand Don’t get it. I d- Idon’t. form.alternative family Geneva ofcohabitationwell: putthisnormalisation “I don’t and have (more) children. Like inthisgroup, mostothers LisadidnotseeLAT asan onrelease fromher partner bailhostelandthen, order, inshort tohousehunt, marry I want”. Butthisincidentalautonomy herstrong didnotoverride wishtolive with my face”. shewas able to Furthermore ormy ordowhatever“see my family friends andwalk aroundI stillcangetupinthemorning withmy make-up half-way down is abenefit[from it’s living apart] stillthat you’ve stillgot your own space, you know incidental advantages from inbeingapart theirpartner, thusLisanotedthat “if there term. bail hostel subsequent to a prison Nonetheless,in a restricted some found hiswife from to bring Thailand, Stacey’s lived partner barracks, inarmy andLisa’s orimprisonment.about immigration Thus, onhisplan citedvisarestrictions Henry (where someelementofchoice exists), but was alsoimposedby state-enforced rules Table 2). This more was living obligatory apart notonlyconsequenttojoblocation the nationalsurvey suchsituational respondents accountedfor12%ofthetotal(see by outsideagenciestolive somewhere else) shared this ‘can’t live together’ position. In the days thatIknow he’s notcoming”. women –thewoman doeseverything …it’s like having two children. SoIdolike advantages ofliving apart. noted:As shewryly “the way he’s beenbrought upthe this stagewas becomingaconstantstate, andshewas leftcontemplatingsomeofthe from herpartner’s parents andculturalgroundsseemedsoinsoluble onreligious that someone ofadifferent caste. For Katie, the overwhelming oppositiontomarriage (Table 2). Gemma, while enjoying holdingmore relationship power through being the ‘not ready’ element of the ‘too early/notready’ optioninthenationalsurvey meant they also preferred not to live together just now. These respondents illustrate the relationship tolive together, strong feelingsofemotionaldefence and/orinsecurity no reason why …she can’t live here, there’s plentyofroom.” someone …atthemomentwe’re gettingtoknow eachother” [even though] “there’s know …’causeitisavery bigcommitment whenyou the person living with start to live with someone straight away, to be quite honest. ’Cause you need to get to with theirpartner, were locatedinthisgroup. So Tom, forexample, “wouldn’t want in the ‘too early’ category, whodidnotthinkthemselves emotionallyready tolive developing intocohabitation, andchildren. further sometimeswithmarriage Most These respondents preferredtolive justnow, apart but saw their relationship ideally Not cohabitationjustnow –preference withstage (10/50) Copyright The Policy Press This clusterpresents a ‘traditional’ or ‘continuist’ position in living apart, inthesense Unsurprisingly, all seven ‘situational’ respondents was (where one partner required Three women in this group were exceptions. partial While not feeling ‘too early’ in Simon Duncanetal 332 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 less likely in1969. tobethedesired goalthanforthoseengagedandwaiting tomarry nowadays mightbemore or flexibleeven andlongerterm, cohabitation withmarriage be living together within two years). together Living as apart ‘special boy/girlfriend’ future cohabitationwas lessassured (inthenationalsurvey, 46%didnotexpectto average agehadincreased (inthenationalsurvey, 57%were over theageof25)and 60% already hadaday for theirwedding fixed, whereas forthe2011LATgroup the physical intimacy’ (Gorer, 1971: 213). However, in 1969 few were aged over 25 and Then, 44%of ‘the unmarried’ hadsuchapartner, withhalfofthese ofreal ‘on terms Gorer (1971)foundinhis1969 survey ofpeopleunderthe ageof40inEngland. early onintherelationship, resembling the orboyfriends’‘special girlfriend that for 31%ofthe ‘main/only’ reasons forLAT in Table 2. represent thelarge ‘too early/notready’ in thenationalsurvey, category accounting two years, andmostwere undertheageof40andwithoutdependentchildren. They to live withhimandhave aperfectfamily, andIfight myself”. “good relationship” andthey hadasontogether. Nonetheless, Michelle “would love wary”. Consequently, shedidnotlive partner, withhercurrent even thoughitwas a by someonewho’s meanttolove me. Umso, yeah, I’ve just, kindofbecomeabit I don’t want tobepossessed, Idon’t, andIdon’t want tobebeatenup[smalllaugh], from my“kind oflearnt lessonsand…Idon’t want toloseeverything inmy house, possessive andfinallyattacked her, her eye. damaging Notsurprisingly, Michellehad and …leftloadsofbills, debt”, hadbecomeviolently whileasucceedingpartner same mistakes thatIdidbefore”. to be sensible,trying andyou know, inlove notfall toodeeplyandjustmake the was “keeping himatarm’s length, nottogettooclose’causemy …I’mtrying heart’s Hannah enjoyed the autonomy LAT provided but, recovering divorce, from a searing a LAT, alsofeared losingherassetstotheChildSupport Agency withcohabitation. time. I’mnotsaying itwillnever happen. Idohopeitdoeshappen.” doesn’t deal with change very well. So um, I just want to take it, each day as a t- at a because my from sonsuffers ADHD[attention deficit hyperactivity disorder], andhe for children seenasdisabled. didnot Thus Carrie “want intoit [cohabitation] torush cohabitation would have towait forayear orso. Suchobligations were felt particularly independent life. aboutgetting Soadding toherworries ‘it wrong time thefirst round’, my daughter out first, she comes first really”arrange her leaving home into and children –theparental housewas ‘their home’. For example, Stephaniehad “to sort Obligations tochildren were feltasmuch –ifnotmore asforyoung –forteenagers ofthenationalsurvey,category accountingfor8%of ‘main/only’ reasons (Table 2). children andwere previously married. They represent the ‘obligated preference’ precluding cohabitation.)Mostoftheseinterviewees were women who haddependent parents living elsewhere, andthismightcomplicatethings, initselfthiswas notseenas mother.to aninfirm (Whileseveral other respondents didprovide somecare for older cases, thiswas becauseofobligations felttodependants, usuallyachildbut inonecase This group showed more of a balance of preference and constraint in living apart. In most ‘Oughtn’t together’ to live –preference andconstraint withstage(7/50) Copyright The Policy Press This groupostensibly shows a ‘continuist’ positionwhere LAT ofbeing ispart Unsurprisingly, nearlyalltheserespondents were relationships ofunder inshorter Michelle was even more self-protective, had partner forherfirst “emptied my house Why together? dopeoplelive apart 333

Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 they were notespeciallyconstrained from living together hadthey sowanted. This move intogether, valued they particularly autonomy but alsodesired intimacy, and form’family version ofLAT –theseinterviewees were notplanningorwanting to want…. And have the bestofbothworlds.” autonomy further: “as abloke…, it’s quiteagoodsituation. Because Icandowhat sample whoexplicitlysaw LAT before separating andmoving astemporary on, took ironing andhousecleaningevery week. Andrew, intheinterview theonlyperson of traditionally gendered sort ‘payback’ for her autonomy that she did her partner’s mine but I don’t like his house as much as I like mine so…” Perhaps it was some want, you don’t have toask…. Ilike my own space. …he’s gotabiggerhousethan him togethisown place. OrasNicolaput it: “You candowhatyou want whenyou – soeven moved ifherpartner upfrom LondontoEdinburgh, shewould stillprefer absolutely awful, Iknow it’s really selfish.” Shefelt “like I’ve got my cake andeatit” her: “I’m usedtohaving thingsdonemy way, space. ratherthansharing It’s awful, Helen became “annoyed after10days” stayed whenherlong-distancepartner with ‘preference’ inthenationalsurvey category with30% of ‘main/only’ reasons (Table 2). not committed (two out of three), were in this group. This group parallels the overall were notinlove (five withtheirpartner outofsixsample respondents), orinlove but before.had beenmarried Inaddition, whosaidthey almostallofthesmallminority over 40, includingallfive samplewho ofthetotalinterview were over 60, andmost regularly. Mostwere in longerrelationships ofover two years. Nearlyallwere aged their partner, this position was also more practical – they could easily see their partner or ideal-stageideasaboutcohabitation. As mostlived lessthan20minutes away from together. All saw thisasacontinuing state, althoughsomeadmittedtohypothetical could cohabitrelatively constraintstoliving easilyintheabsenceofmajorexternal about theadvantages of, and/ortheirpreference for, living apart, even thoughmost All interviewees inthisgrouppreferredtolive apart, inthesensethat they talked ‘Won’t livetogether’ – preference withstate(19/50) Copyright The Policy Press period, women are now able tomobilisethefinancial resources todoso. while stilltakingcare ofexisting obligations. Inparticular, incontrasttothisearlier individuals couldmaintainanopen andintimatecouplerelationship, through LAT, surveys1960s family (Duncan, 2011). What is different, however, was that now such was becauseofobligationsliving toothers inthe1950sand withapartner reported with hismother’s death. This groupalsoappears ‘traditional’ inthesensethatnot although forBenthiswait when was indeterminate ‘the crunch’ would onlycome forotherreasons. apart partner, althoughthiswas feltasareinforcing backgroundtoagiven decisiontolive issuesiftheyFive lived aboutinheritance olderrespondents withtheir raisedworries first”. disappearwiththeiradulthood. Nordidobligations tochildren necessarily life andpretending tobedad.… They comefirst every timeandtheirfeelingscome David putit: “the lastthinga16-year-old ladwants issomebodycomingintotheir a man, who At first sight,At first then,group asanon-traditional this appears relationship or ‘new Autonomy andindependencewere majorissuesformostinthisgroup, forexample These interviewees stagebefore mostlysaw cohabitation, asatemporary living apart These obligations todependantssometimesextendedtheotherpartner, usually worried aboutupsettingtheirpartner’sworried children ifthey lived together. As Simon Duncanetal 334 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 independence. clearly preferred to live for positive apart ‘lifestyle’ reasons centred on autonomy and are left, therefore, withonlyeightinterviewees who, like NicolaandHelen, more As shecontinued: “I don’t want tolosehim, sohe’s notmoving inbasically.” We We bothendedprevious relationships with literallynothing…Ilosteverything”. repeated infidelity. Similarly, Charlotte and her partner “both had burned…. us fingers doing withmongymen”, toprotect shemainlyusedliving againstany apart herself want toendup around“running tidyingupafterhim” andcertainly “could notbe only reason (Table forliving apart 2). So while Julie valued herown space, didnot the 5%innationalsurvey whopicked ‘it’s justhow thingsare’ astheirmain/ aswell asautonomysought emotionalsecurity through LAT. This perhapsreflects Third, threeinthegroupwere but others partner lessantipathetictotheirparticular Indeed, as saw marriage Maggie “the top”, withoutwhich “society willgodownhill”. a deficitpositionforthesetwo respondents –ideallythey would ratherbe married. and centralheating” for medical reasons). important (thelatterparticularly LAT was love him, so that we couldbe together”, or Maggie’s would partner offer “marriage desires forcohabitation–ifonly Wendy’s would partner andIwould “stop thedrink respondents withthis ‘negative preference’ forLAT consequentlyheldontoidealised lookedpartner down onherasill-educatedandintellectuallyinferior. Someofthese no centralheatingandsporadictoiletflushing). Like Sharon, shealsothoughther arguingIjusthate-wantstart heraway”. inherand…I’vemuch together …whenshegetsadrink hadadrink, thenwe just obligation tohim. –theproblem was was Gary more forthright that “we arguetoo andemotionallyinsecure husband butclinging althoughseparatedfeltacontinuing nor Janet would countenanceliving withalcoholicpartners, Sharon disliked her wants tolive withme)’ with4%of ‘main/only’ reasons (Table 2). Neither Wendy This reflects thenational survey option ‘Iprefer nottolive with (s/he my partner –rather,apart more negatively, they didnotwant tolive partner. withtheircurrent else. Second, forsixrespondents itwas notsomuch thecasethatthey wanted tolive together; LAT was thatwas anearlystageintheirlifecourse notleadingtoanything and complex picture. First, three young interviewees felt that it was too early to move Andrew putit. 2011). Rather, LAT enabled theserespondents to ‘have thebestofbothworlds’, as is apositionrarely, ifever, surveys inthe1950sand1960sfamily reported (Duncan, live apart, many dosofor ‘negative’ reasons suchasreservations abouttheir partner, majority, LAT is seenasastagebefore cohabitation. doprefer to While aminority All thesecircumstances would have beenrecognised inthe1950sand1960s. For the emotionalandpracticalobligations toothers,feel prior whichprevent cohabitation. circumstances or agencies fromexternal achieving their desired cohabitation, or they live together doing so later on), (although they imagined or they are constrained by live together appearto do sobecauseitistooearlyintheirrelationship apart to can betaken the assupporting ‘qualified continuist’ view ofLAT. Mostpeoplewho At one level both the analysis of the national survey sample and of the interview Conclusion Copyright The Policy Press Maggie wasMaggie repelled by herpartner’s ‘hardcore’ lifestyle(hislackofwashing, green However, acloserlookattheirmotivations reveals forliving apart amore nuanced Why together? dopeoplelive apart 335 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19

of the greater personal autonomy, personal of thegreater spaceandfreedom it afforded. For example, many respondentsnearly allinterview saw atleastsomeadvantage because inliving apart autonomy, as combining intimacy with safety or intimacy with obligation. Third, separation. Inthese casesLAT isnotsomuch a matterofcombiningintimacywith in the1950sand1960ssimilar situationsoftenledtoprolonged singledom or want tolive partner, withaparticular commitmentstoothers. orfeelprior Again, emotional andpracticallives whencohabitationseemsrisky, orwhenthey donot legitimacy. and sexualrelationships thatwould once have toacquire social required marriage can extend and develop through courtship LAT, practising non-residential intimate often seen as second best, to someone else. Similarly, ‘too early’ special boy/girlfriends the constraintinterviewees oftenendedinseparation, singledom, orlatermarriage, change. surveys In the family of the 1950s and 1960s, to those told by similar stories withwhomthey donotlive,relationships withpartners represents significantsocial possible forwomen tolive by themselves, orwiththeirchildren, andtoopenlyhaving is notpossiblejustnow. orappropriate That itisbotheconomicallyandculturally unfavourable situationsandovertly enjoy couple intimacy, even if desired cohabitation circumstances. response tochanging and satisfactory People canmore easilyadaptto in individual lives’. First, LAT now provides amore acceptedand, formany, apractical Copyrightdoing soforgetthepower ofagencyandthemacroscopic impactofsubtlechanges suggests, ‘the continuists want tostress therecalcitrance ofhiddenstructures, but in ofwhyis notsignificanttotheunderstanding peoplelive apart. As Weeks (2007: 7) Theways ofmoving between between singledomandcohabitation, orthatsocialchange Policydo (relateinmore toothers taken-for-granted ‘traditional’ ways). what peoplecanpotentiallydo(createPress individual self-projects) withwhatthey actually DIY, dog walking andwashing up). Intheseways confuse individualisation theorists by wives traditionally performed (and men traditionally contributed male partners or childcare for their out the domestic labour services how theydescribed carried labour (andthiswas never amajorstatedreason forliving apart). women interviewees mentionedLAT asameanstoavoid traditionaldivisions of that separatedanddivorced are mothers leftliving withchildren. Indeed. onlythree little classorgenderassociationwithreasons forLAT, exceptinthetraditionalway involvedare particularly inindividualisation processes. Butaswe have seen, there is (2002)haveBeck andBeck-Gernsheim suggestedthatitisprofessional women who relationship model, follow thatthisisactuallypractised. itdoesnotnecessarily Similarly, most likely amongLAT couples. While LAT lenditselftothepure may inprinciple that,result considering of relationship were if this sort to exist, it would probably be of Bauman’s andcommodified (2003)temporary ‘liquidlove’. Thismay beasurprising relationships’ (where therelationship lasts), isonlycontinued whilesatisfaction stillless relationship. was livingthe interviews apart hardly ever discussed as an alternative ‘ok for now’ practical, aspirationaloridealisedgoal. Overall coupledomremains pivotal, andin preference forLAT asarelationship form, andformostcohabitationremains asa they would ideallycohabit, even express amore getmarried. positive Onlyaminority ofcohabitation. aboutrepeating badexperiences or fears Ifonlythingswere different Second, showed as theinterviews well, LATs canmore safelymanagetheir However, thesecontinuations donotmeanthatLAT simplymaintainstraditional There istherefore littleexplicitevidence ofGiddens’ (1992)ideal-type ‘pure Simon Duncanetal 336 More oftenwomen Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 else (pleaseincludeyour ifyou spouseorpartner are living notcurrently withthem)?” were subsequentlyasked: “Can Ijustcheck…doesyour live partner here orsomewhere Survey andNatCen’s Omnibus), andcohabitingrespondents married, civil partnership relationship withsomeoneyou are notliving withhere?” Intwo ofthesurveys (theBSA to allwhowere orcohabiting): notmarried, inacivil partnership “Are you ina currently to thetwo earliersurveys hadshown littlevariation. questions were simplified or omitted for the ONS survey (taken last), where responses a meanstobenefitfraud(Radio4, World atone, 27November 2012). flexible pragmatism. marriage, orasimplereaction toconstraints. Rather, LAT as isbettercharacterised life. relationshipsin personal andfamily into cohabitation. Inthisway, LAT canopenupnew possibilitiesandexpectations be conductedhave changed, andexpectationsofautonomy may beyond persist LAT homeremained theideal.family Nonetheless, ofhow relationships experiences can a circumstantial, ifpleasant, by-product ofbeingapart, where living together ina autonomypersonal from theirmalepartners. For mostthisautonomy was more of women interviewees, echoing1960s’ feminism, the advantages ofincreased described 062-23-2213. Thanks totheEconomicand SocialResearch Council(ESRC), number RES- grant Acknowledgements 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notes rework andreproduce established ways ofdoingrelationships. circumstances. inorderunderstandings toadaptchanging Insodoingthey both and ‘continuation’ or ‘tradition’ as people draw on existing practices, and norms in conductingtheirrelationships. LAT therefore combineselementsofboth ‘new’ co-residential relationships. givesThis flexibility peoplemore room formanoeuvre Potentially, from living allows apart apartner flexibilityforindividuals greater than intimacy, commitments, otherfamily andhow circumstances. to respond toexternal different needs and desires around autonomy, personal emotionalmanagement, couple the tooearly, younger, maleandprofessional). living alone or withchildren, occupations, andinintermediate whileunder-representing ‘situational’ respondents intoanoverall ‘constraint’ category. was therefore included in the larger ‘preference’ category. For the same reason, we added whom we carried out in-depth biographical narrative outin-depth biographical (notusedinthisarticle). interviews whom we carried Copyright The Policy Press Living apart togetherLiving was apart self-definedin response totheinterviewer question(addressed The interview sampleover-representsThe interview preference LATs, andthosewhoare older, female, The category The category ‘obligated preference’ was toosmallformeaningfulstatisticalanalysis, and Iain DuncanSmith, ofStatefor Secretary theBritish Work andPensions, citedLAT as We alsotooka ‘psychosocial’ samplefrom thesurvey, of16different respondents, with All namesare pseudonyms. includesEngland,Britain Scotlandand Wales. author.Corresponding Questions were thesameforallthree constituentsurveys, of althoughsmallnumbers LAT form, isnotsimplyanew family or but norisitjustastageincourtship As a category, LAT of contains differentrelationship, sorts with Why together? dopeoplelive apart 337 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 192.168.39.151 On: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:03:19 Giddens, A,1992, Ermisch, J, Seidler, T, 2009, together, Living apart inMBrynin, (eds) JErmisch Duncan, S, Phillips, M, 2010, People wholive together (LATs) apart –how different Duncan, S, 2011, Theworld we have made?Individualisation lifein and personal De Jong Gierveld, J, 2004, cohabitation, Remarriage, unmarried together: living apart Beck, U, Beck-Gernsheim, E, 2002, Individualisation, London: SagePublications Bawin-Legros, B, Gauthier, A, 2001, Regulationofintimacyandlove semanticsin Bauman, K, 2003, Liquidlove: Onthefrailty, ofhumanbonds Cambridge: Polity Press References Weeks, J, 2007, Theworldwehave won: The remaking ofintimateanderoticlife, Strohm, C, Seltzer, J, Cochran, S, Mays, V, 2009, together’‘Living apart relationships Roseneil, S, 2006, Onnotliving withapartner: unpicking coupledomand CopyrightReimondos, A, Evans, E, Gray, E, 2011, together Living (LAT) apart relationships in TheRégnier-Loilier, A, Beaujouan, É, Villeneuve-Gokalp, C, 2009, Neither single, norin a Policy Liefbroer,Press A, Seltzer, J, Poortman, A-R, 2012, notliveWhyLevin, dointimatepartners I, 2004, together: Living apart form, a new family Haskey, J, Lewis, J, 2006, together Living in Britain: apart context and meaning, Haskey, J, 2005, Britain: incontemporary Living having who arrangements apartner Gorer, G, 1971, inEnglandtoday, Sexandmarriage London: Nelson Changing relationships,London: Routledge, chapter2 are they?, SociologicalReview58, 1, 112–34 the 1950s, SociologicalReview9, 2, 242-65 Family 66, 1, 236–43 relationships followingpartner bereavement or divorce, together,couples living apart ReviewofSociology 11, International 1, 39–46 Routledge in theUnitedStates, Demographic 21, Research 7, 177–214 roseneil.html cohabitation, Australia, Family 87, Matters 43–55 couple: together astudyofliving inFrance, apart 21, Demographic Research 4, 75–108 abstract, European Population Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–16June together? diversity Understanding inLAT relationships across Europe, extended ofLawinContext2, Journal International 1, 37–48 lives elsewhere together andliving (LAT), apart PopulationTrends 122, 35–45 Sociological Research Online11,Sociological Research 3, www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/ The transformation ofintimacy,The transformation Cambridge: Polity Press Simon Duncanetal 338 Current Sociology 52,Current 2, 223–40 Journal of Marriage and the of Marriage Journal London: