Relationship Studies
2/28/22
At the moment, I am taking a course called Sexualities and Society, and while I find it absolutely fascinating I do have a major problem with the breadth of what the course covers exactly. A lot of the reading I have been doing for the course is centered around relationships, specifically consensual non-monogamous relationships, polyamory, etc. Sexualities, within the discipline of sociology at least, emphasizes the sexual element of the relationship as the fundamental section of relationships.
To clarify, the reason I am studying polyamory in this course is that the nature of consensual monogamy is due to the relationship ship structure includes sexual relationships with multiple people. However, the issue here is that it focuses on the sexual element of these relationships, but not the other elements of CNM, i.e. intimacies in the non-sexual sense, quality time, communication, and daily-life activities. Polyamory is a topic of discussion in this course because the is a sexual element in the relationship style, however that is only one element of a much more complex form of relating to other people. There seems to be more an emphasize on the individual and how they relate to other people; be it a sexual identity or practice. There is not as much of an emphasizes on the relationship element, which I think is more important than studying the individual who relates. But for this post I am not talking just about sexual relationships, but literally every possible relationship a person can have.
I think this is an issue in general with sociology and the academy as a whole. We tend to focus on individuals or groups (specifically how individuals may represent a larger group or trend) and how those individuals relate to others. There is little focus on dyadic relationships and what those types of connections represent for a larger group. Basically, the unit of analysis is rarely ever the center of the study. Relationships, in every sense, holistically tend to be overlooked, instead focusing on how the individual relates. So what I am proposing is a bit of a methodological shift in how we understand people – looking at the negotiations of relationships and what that can tell us about society rather than focusing on indiviudals as the primary unit of anlysis. I suggest some sort of disciplinary mix-up, an interdisciplinary field: relationship studies.
Day-to-day people exist not merely by themselves in a vacuum but through relating to other individuals – while intersectionality (the focus of modern sociology) empathizes how individuals are a multiplicity of identities, we also exist as an intersection of various relational identities, and I think an academic view of these roles often goes unexamined.
Here are just a brief list of possible subsections of relationship studies:
– Intimate relation studies (e.g. sexual partners, spouses, fwb, etc.)
– Colleagues and professional relationships
– Friendship
– Familial Relations
– Relationships with stranger
– Relationship formations within larger group formations.
– Self
– Neighbors
– Classmates
– Non-human/trans-human relationships (relationships to pets, place, plants, etc.)
(literally every relationship can be examined through the supposed relationship studies model)
There are so many questions that can exist within the academic field of relationship studies. How are these relationships established? How are they maintained? How do these relationships intersect? How have relationship structures changed over time and how do the structures for the same relationship type differ over geographical space? Oftentimes (at least in my readings) relationships are viewed by scholars in relativist single-dimensional terms – i.e. wife, colleague, parent, ignoring the deep interplay and multiplicities of relationships. But relationships themselves are as intersectional as the people who form them. What do we make of the work/friend? How do we define the relationship of a one-night stand? What do we make of second-degree relations, such as the friend of a spouse?
It’s likely that there is a whole plethora of research regarding this topic and I am missing it. I recognize work like Granovetter and the field of social network analysis – but that tends to study the relationships and social networks at the most baseline and mechanical, not through the richness and complexities. However, the issue is that that’s not the paradigm in which sociology is discussed, especially in sexualities. We talk about “sexual partner” in the course in the most abstract of terms and pay little attention to the complexities of that partnership. What is the unique history of these sexual partners? How does one go about forming this relationship? How does one maintain the relationship? The current model of social research tends to ignore the complexities of relationships.
We look for patterns within people and what that says about social functions on a larger scale, but looking for patterns within relationships is often ignored. I think changing the focus of social research from individuals/groups to dyadic relationships will have a profound shift in how we methodologically approach social realities. Changing the frame will have profound ways in how we can understand the social world.
Utopian visions of the future in Relationship Studies: folks getting their undergraduate degrees in Relationship studies. Classes with the titles “Technological and Digital Relationships”, “Advanced Relationship Theory”, “Spiritual Relationships: Understanding Relationships in Religious Contexts”. Essay titles such as “Relationship formation in public space – Bars as facilitators of relationship initiation” or “Setting Boundaries: Intentional Discontinuation of Relationships”. In short, I think the western canon of academia ignores the rich complexities of relationships. The standard view is that each person exists with their own self-contained body with their own identities, layered by lived experience, and thus the individual should be the unit of analysis. I think social research needs to shift more in the direction that each person exists exclusively in relation to other people – and that identities and beliefs are shaped by the development and interplay of these relations. Therefore, the relationships themselves should be the unit of analysis.
Comments