On Not Living with a Partner: Unpicking Coupledom and Cohabitation

Abstract

The contemporary normative model of sexual/ love relationships assumes a teleology in which some time after getting together two people instantiate their state of coupledom by moving in together. As a consequence, those who do not cohabit with a partner are generally thought not to be coupled. Social researchers have largely shared this understanding of intimate relationships, operating with a tripartite model of relationships in which people are single, cohabiting or married. This paper seeks to unpick the assumed contiguity of coupledom and cohabitation, and to deconstruct the category of ‘single’. It draws on data from an intensive investigation of the relationship experiences, practices and values of people who are not living with a partner. It starts with a discussion of the prevalence of not living with a partner, offering a commentary on recent demographic data and quantitative research. It then sets out the methodology used in research, and describes the sample, before exploring the diverse practices of partnership and orientations towards (non) cohabitation of those interviewees who were in non-residential couple relationships. Three main orientations are identified amongst the partnered (living apart together, or LAT) interviewees: living apart regretfully; living apart gladly and living apart undecidedly. The individual and relational contexts of these orientations are then discussed.

Keywords

Sexual/ Love Relationship Partnership Couple Coupledom Intimacy Cohabitation Living Apart Together (LAT)Single Household

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bauman

(2003) Liquid Love Cambridge: Polity.

Berrington

(2003). “Change and Continuity in Family Formation among Young Adults”, Social Statistical Sciences Research Institute, University of Southampton, Working Paper 03/04.

Chandler

, Williams

, Moconachie

, Collett

, and Dodgeon

(2004) “Living Alone: Its Place in Household Formation and Change”, Sociological Research Online Vol. 9, Issue 3. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/3/chandler.html

Duncan

(2000a). “The Use and Abuse of Locality Research”, CAVA Workshop Paper No. 17a http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/workshoppapers.htm

Duncan

(2000b). “Choosing Case Study Areas for Strand 3 Research - localities and neighbourhoods”, CAVA Workshop Paper No. 17b http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/workshoppapers.htm

Duncan

(2000c). “Variations in Parenting and Partnering at the Local Level” CAVA Workshop Paper No. 17c http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/workshoppapers.htm

Duncan

, and Smith

(2002) ‘Geographies of family formations: spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain’, Transactions, 27, 471–493.

Duncan

, Barlow

, and James

(2005). “Why don't they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage”, Child and Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 17. No. 3: 383–398.

Ermisch

(2000). “Personal Relationships and Marriage Expectations: evidence from the 1998 British Household Panel Survey” Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper August 2000, University of Essex.

10.

Ermisch

, and Francesconi

(2000) “Patterns of Household and Family Formation”, in Berthoud

, and Gershuny

(eds) Seven Years in the Lives of British Families Bristol: The Policy Press.

11.

Gerstel

N.R.

, and Gross

(1984) Commuter Marriage: a study of work and family London: Guildford Press.

12.

Giddens

(1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies Cambridge: Polity.

13.

Gierveld

J. de J.

, and Peeters

A. M.

(2003) “The interweaving of repartnered older adults’ lives with their children and siblings”, Ageing and Society, 23: 187–205.

14.

Gierveld

J. de J.

(2004) “Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, livng apart together: partner relationships following bereavement or divorce” Journal of Marriage and Family, 66: 236–243.

15.

Green

A.E.

(1997) “A Question of Compromise? Case Study Evidence on the Location and Mobility Strategies of Dual Career Households” Regional Studies, 31(7): 641–57.

16.

Hall

, Ogden

, and Hill

(1997) “The Pattern and Structure of One-Person Households in England and Wales and France”, International Journal of Population Geography, Vol. 3: 161–181.

17.

Haskey

(2005) “Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and Living Apart Together (LAT)”, Population Trends 122, 35–45.

18.

Hollway

, and Jefferson

(2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently London: Sage.

19.

Holmes

(2004). “An equal distance? Individualisation, gender and intimacy in distance relationships” The Sociological Review: 180–200.

20.

Holmes

(2006). “Love Lives at a Distance: Distance Relationships over the Lifecourse”, Sociological Research Online (this issue).

21.

Jamieson

, Anderson

, McCrone

, Bechhofer

, Stewart

, and Li

(2002). “Cohabitation and Commitment: partnership plans of young men and women”, The Sociological Review, 356–377.

22.

Jamieson

, Stewart

, Li

, Anderson

, Bechhofer

, and McCrone

(2003) “Single, twenty-something and seeking?” in Allan

, and Jones

(eds) Social Relations and the Life Course: Age, Generation and Social Change London: Palgrave 135–154.

23.

Kiernan

(1999) “Cohabitation in Western Europe”, Population Trends 96: 25–32.

24.

Kim

S.C.

(2001). “‘Weekend Couples’ amongst Korean Professionals: an ethnography of living apart on weekdays” Korea Journal 41(4): 28–47.

25.

Levin

(2004) “Living Apart Together: a new family form” Current Sociology Vol. 52, No. 2: 223–240.

26.

Levin

, and Trost

(1999) “Living Apart Together” Community, Work and Family 2(3): 279–294.

27.

Lewis

(2001) The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

28.

Milan

, and Peters

(2003). Couples Living Apart Canadian Social Trends, Statistics Canada - catalogue no. 11-008: 2–6.

29.

Ribbens Mccarthy

, Edwards

, and Gillies

(2003) Making Families: moral tales of parenting and step-parenting Durham: Sociology Press.

30.

Roseneil

(2004). ‘Sutured Selves, Queer Connections: Intimacy at the Cutting Edge of Individualization’, CAVA Symposium “Rethinking Family Lives”, Weetwood Hall, Leeds, December 2004.

31.

Roseneil

, and Budgeon

(2004) ‘Cultures of Intimacy and Care Beyond the Family: Personal Life and Social Change in the Early Twenty-First Century”’, Current Sociology, Vol. 52, No. 2, 135–159.

32.

Roseneil

(2006) ‘The Ambivalences of Angel's “Arrangement”: a psycho-social lens on the contemporary condition of personal life’, The Sociological Review. 54: 4: 846–868.

33.

Roseneil

(2007) Sociability, Sexuality, Self: relationality and individualization London: Routledge.

34.

Simpson

(2005). “‘Living Like the (Bridget) Jones's?’ Using the BHPS to research whether there is a delay or decline in partnership formation in Great Britain”, Paper presented at the BHPS 2005 Conference, University of Essex, Colchester, 30 June - 2 July.

35.

Smart

, and Neale

(2003). “Divorce and Marital Separation”, Paper presented at CAVA Initial Findings Seminar, University of Leeds, 23 May 2003.

36.

Trimberger

E. Kay

(2005) The New Single Woman Boston: Beacon Press.

37.

Sayer

R.A.

(1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach London: Routledge.

38.

Wasoff

, and Jamieson

, with Smith

(2005) “Solo Living, individual and family boundaries: findings from secondary analysis” in McKie

, and Cunningham-Burley

(eds) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships Bristol: Policy Press.

39.

Winfield

F.E.

(1985) Commuter Marriages: Living Together, Apart New York: Columbia University Press.