University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 2017+ University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2018 confluent love: a conversation Bridget Dougherty University of Wollongong Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses1 University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Dougherty, Bridget, confluent love: a conversation, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of the Arts, English and Media, University of Wollongong, 2018. https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses1/368 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] ‘confluent love: a conversation’ A thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy From The University of Wollongong Bridget Dougherty, MA Applied Ethics (UOW 2006) School of the Arts, English and Media Supervisors: Associate Professor Dr. Christopher Barker and Research Fellow, Dr. Denise Russell 1 Contents Abstract page 3 Preface pages 4 - 5 Introduction pages 6 – 36 Chapter one: exploring confluent love pages 37 - 61 Chapter two: the feminist critique pages 62 - 87 Chapter three: ethics pages 88 - 114 Chapter four: method pages 115 - 141 Chapter five: stage one results pages 142 - 172 Chapter six: stage two results pages 173 - 194 Chapter seven: stage three results pages 195 – 206 Chapter eight: conclusion pages 207 -222 Bibliography pages 223 - 234 Appendix A page 235 Appendix B page 236 Appendix C page 237 (Approximately 95,000 words) 2 Abstract - confluent love: a conversation This research explores how people in Australia are going about their intimate relationships at a time when traditional gender roles are being contested, and sexuality is more open to individual interpretation. Anthony Giddens’ (1992) theory of confluent love was a starting point for the research because he provides a way of talking about love that differs significantly from existing ideals. According to Giddens (1992), romantic love is still the dominant ideal in western culture, but confluent love is emerging, because, he argues that women no longer go along with male sexual dominance. Despite the weaknesses in Giddens’ (1992) theory, he provided a way of talking about love that potentially dissolves the unequal power dynamic at the heart of romantic love, and provides a space for people to experiment with different ways of being in love. Because the sort of love he talks about is a collaborative process, it allows more egalitarian forms of relationships to come into being. Unlike romantic love, which is essentially heterosexual love, limits what same sex couples can say about their relationships. Confluent love is a way of talking about love that is more aligned with people’s diverse sexual preferences, values and aspirations. Confluent love is an emergent phenomenon that has come about in contemporary western culture as people experiment with different ways of being in a sexual relationship, according to Giddens (1992). In this sense, confluent love is a ‘bottom up’ rather than a ‘top down’ phenomenon. Because of this, I approached the research as a conversation, in the original Latin sense of ‘wandering along together’ (Liamputtong 2007). Using qualitative methods, I looked at love as a ‘language game’ as Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951) meant it, the aim being to identify ways of talking that might indicate confluent love. To do the research I posted nine questions on an Internet website called lovedialogue.com, asking people about their intimate relationships. I collected approximately 41,000 words in response, which I analysed as a ‘discourse’ or conversation about love in contemporary Australian culture. I used qualitative methods, including grounded theory (Charmaz 2006, 2012) and positioning theory (Davies and Harrè 1990), to understand how the people who participated in the research were navigating their intimate relationships. I identified a basic tension that participants were trying to resolve, which involved negotiating ‘being together’ and being separate’. As one respondent put it: ‘we want to be free and be in the relationship as well’. By focusing on how people resolved this tension in their relationships, a core category called ‘we share a world’ emerged. When I explored how respondents went about ‘sharing a world’, I discovered an ethic at work, which could be called confluent love. The ethic that emerged in the research is different from existing moral theories in that it includes both an ethic of justice, or rights, and an ethic of care. Rather than these being contradictory, or opposing viewpoints, the two perspectives came together as people talked about their rights in a way that showed they cared. I do not make claims that this ethic can be generalised, and it is a procedural rather than a prescriptive ethic. While this is different from the way Giddens (1992) explains it, the research did support his claim that contemporary relationships are potentially revolutionary, in that they involve breaking away from existing ways of thinking about ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, ways of thinking that can lead to suffering rather than happiness. I also show how this ethic could foster more democratic relationships. Importantly this research explored love as a verb, as a journey, that potentially contributes to more authentic ways of being in love, ways that heal, rather than hurt. 3 Preface Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1989) depiction of hell in his play ‘No Exit’ is three people having to share a room for eternity, each in their own way having to face their hopeless existence through the eyes of their equally despairing roommates. The characters in Sartre’s play are trapped precisely because they lack the capacity to step out of their own perspective and genuinely relate to the other people with whom they share the room. Their personal concerns cloud their minds. All they can hear are their own thoughts, their own internal chatter. Each has their own monologue that drowns out other voices. Each is stuck in emotions or feelings that belong to the past, a past that is perpetuated eternally by their lack of understanding. For me, Sartre’s play is a pessimistic account of our human condition, but it also sheds light on the frailty of human bonds, as well as their importance. Love is how we derive meaning in life: the people, places and activities that we love, ultimately define us; ‘who we are’ emerges through our emotional engagement with other people. Each of us has a mind of our own, and our own ideas of what a ‘good’ life is about, but realizing our individual dreams and creating a meaningful life, largely depends on our capacity to relate to other people. Sartre knew this, but his philosophy, particularly his theory of emotions, including love, relies on people being conscious, or self-aware. But many people block out this awareness, and lose themselves by acting habitually, without questioning why they do things a certain way. This is a state of mind that Sartre referred to as ‘false’ consciousness or ‘bad faith’ (Fullbrook and Fullbrook 2008). False consciousness is when we ‘dissociate’ from our own experience, or ‘subjectivity,’ and become an object for another. If someone does this for long enough they can ‘forget’ they are experiencing false consciousness, and they play the roles that other people determine for them (2008 p. 64). For example, we might not like the way someone makes us an object of their desire, but we like that they desire us, so we play along. Over time, our initial discomfort is forgotten, and we become what the other person wants us to be. For both Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir this was a moral as well as a philosophical issue, because if we ‘forget’ we are living in false consciousness, we lose the capacity to 4 tell the difference. If we get caught up in the world of appearances, we start to identify with it, and we fail to take responsibility for our own lives. We might be comfortable, but we would not be free. For both Sartre and de Beauvoir, ethics was about living according to rules that we make for ourselves and doing the best we can to live an authentic life (2008, p. 57). This was illustrated in their relationship, where despite their on-going affair both de Beauvoir and Sartre had other lovers. Other people judged them, but neither Sartre or de Beauvoir regarded their behaviour as ‘wrong’, rather they saw it as an act of freedom; they loved in accordance with their beliefs and their values. In ‘No Exit’ the door to the room opened at one point but nobody took the risk to journey out of it into uncertainty.