|
|
| Back | Forward | |
|
Introduction
|
Within
such a theoretical framework research conducted into the nature of infidelity
has often concluded that there are innate gender differences in the occurrence
and response to infidelity. For example, it is asserted that males are more
likely to be promiscuous due to their fight for ‘Darwinian’ fitness. Those
individuals who have the greatest reproductive fitness have the greatest chance
of evolutionary success (Davies 1996:462). Furthermore based on evolutionary
assumptions, it is asserted (Buss et al 1992) that there are gender differences
in the exhibition of jealousy; males and females are innately predisposed to
react differently to sexual and emotional infidelity. It is thought that males
respond to the threat of sexual infidelity due to the biological threat of ‘cuckoldry’
(raising another males offspring with the false belief it is their own).
Females are thought to respond to the threat of emotional infidelity more so
than to the threat of sexual infidelity because of the feared loss of resources
that emotional infidelity may produce (Daly & Wilson 1992, Bailey et al
1994). Such research into gender differences leads to a ‘reification of gender
dualism’ and may further perpetuate stereotypes resulting in a culture of
exaggerated of sex differences (Hollway 1994, Crawford 1995, Hare-Mustin and
Maracek 1994; cited in Stokoe 2000:553)
An example of such research is that of Christine Harris (2000) who conducted research into the psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity. The aim of this study was to replicate previous findings of gender differences in jealousy by Buss et al (1992), and further still to specifically test the ‘jealousy as a specific innate module’, ‘JSIM. The rationale for this study was based on evolutionary assumptions that there are gender differences in the exhibition of jealousy to the threat of infidelity. This study measured physiological responses whilst participants imagined scenes of either sexual or emotional relationship infidelity. Sexual infidelity was defined as sexual intercourse. Emotional infidelity was defined as ‘falling in love and forming an emotional attachment’ (Harris 2000:1084). The study also employed a forced-choice question method, for which participants had to select which type of infidelity they found most threatening. The researcher employed counterbalancing of scenarios and power analysis of the null results to ensure validity of the responses.
The study
provided incomplete evidence to support Buss et al’s findings. The results were
reported as showing that there were significant effects for the male responses
to the two types of infidelity, but no evidence was found to support the JSIM
model in females. Harris draws several conclusions from her results; Firstly
she suggests that both genders are equally distressed by sexual infidelity, it
may be the case that males may be more successful at imagining sexual imagery
rather than emotional imagery. Secondly, because there was an inconsistency
between the data produced from the forced-choice questions and the physiological
data, it was concluded that the evidence was not ‘robust’ enough to support the
specific innate modular view of jealousy.
Such
research into the gendered nature of behaviour relating to infidelity would
seem to constitute and substantiate the idea that there are gendered aspects to
infidelity. However, approaching infidelity in this way neglects several
shortcomings of the research process. Firstly, it is believed that it is
possible to screen out individual interpretation to gain a clear and unmediated
representation of the object of study (Parker 1994:2). Secondly, Harris does
not question the validity of the JSIM, rather she questions the ‘robustness’ of
the evidence collected. This is because it is believed that reliable and valid
(true) knowledge can be obtained about the real nature of infidelity if the
right procedures are followed (note Harris’ implementation of counterbalancing
and power analysis) (Wetherell & Still 1998:104). Finally that the
researcher is central to what sense is made is ignored (Parker 1994:20), as are
the subsequent theories, ‘causes’ and explanations that are drawn upon to
explain the results. Personal interests shape research questions; the questions
we ask mould and form the results generated. As Di Stefano states, ‘In asking
how basic gender differences are, we are asking how basic we want them to be’
(Di Stefano 1990:66, cited in Hare-Mustin & Marecek 1994).
Another
example of research into infidelity from a socio-biological perspective is the
work by Boekhout et al (1999). They tackled the issue of infidelity in
relationships by looking at the perceived ‘relationship loss’ experienced. An
‘Extrarelationship Involvement Survey was conducted to gather data on the
experience of loss after the occurrence of sexual and emotional infidelity in a
relationship. This research was based on the ‘loss of illusions’ framework of
Janoff-Bulman and Frantz (1996), which states that individuals hold three basic
assumptions about their inner world; their world is benevolent, their world is
meaningful, they are worthy. It is thought that this ‘undergirding positivity
may color our approach to life’ (Boekhout et al 1999:98). It is asserted that
because of the overwhelming negative effect of infidelity on the individual,
the individual’s emotional and psychological well-being depends on a committed
relationship with a significant other (Boekhout et al 1998:98). The researchers
conducted an analysis of variance, which showed a significant difference in the
male and female reactions to infidelity and also the reasons given for
infidelity (the type of infidelity was not distinguished). ‘Physical’ reasons,
such as sexual excitement in a new relationship and sexual incompatibility in a
current relationship, were thought to be used more often by males than females
to justify infidelity. ‘Relationship’ reasons, such as lack of commitment or
communication in a current relationship, emotional satisfaction or
companionship in new relationship, were thought to be used more by females than
males to justify infidelity. The researchers draw several conclusions from the
results. They acknowledge the diversity and contradictory nature of some of the
findings (Boekhout et al 1998:115). The researchers assert that because men are
able to separate love and sex, men do not perceive their own infidelity as
damaging to their existing relationship (Boekhout et al 1998:116). Furthermore
it was concluded that male responses to infidelity are consistent with
Darwinian ‘male reproductive strategies’ and ‘mate guarding’ concepts (Boekhout
et al 1998:116-117). It was also concluded that females’ greater reactivity to
infidelity might also have a socio-biological explanation; that women will seek
a more stable mating relationship in order to increase their reproductive fitness.
Again we see an example of infidelity research conducted within a traditional methodological framework that is underpinned with the aforementioned assumptions. Mainstream social psychologists have theorized aspects of intimate relationships, they have ‘measured’ and ‘categorised’ such notions as ‘love’ and ‘infidelity’ with little regard for the wider historical and social contexts that constitute and ‘make sense’ of such categorisations (Burns 2000:482). Such research reproduces notions regarding the gendered aspects of relationship behaviour, for example that males may commit infidelity due to ‘biological, reproductive’ reasons; because such research neglects to make explicit the epistemological positions upon which they are founded, the outcomes of such research may come to be thought of as ‘fact’. Even the mere investigation of ‘gender differences’ in relationship behaviour ‘warrants’ asking the question of gender difference. Any commentary that treats women and men as different ‘groups’ reinforces the dichotomy (Stokoe 2000:554). Feminist theorists have noted that often the question of ‘power’ and ‘power inequalities’ are made invisible throughout the research process. Underlying political interests and ideologies are present within the research process, the research process is always biased because investigated phenomena are imbued with culture-specific qualities, attributes and associated behaviours that are never neutrally assessed. Researchers invoke ‘Gender’ as an analytic category without reference to the assumptions upon which the category is based (Stokoe 2000:552). From a social constructionist position it is believed that scientific knowledge produces a particular image of the world, which then operates within the world as if it were true (Parker 1994:9). A specific example of this is how the reproductive theory has been used to account for male infidelity in relationships. Through continual usage this theory gained credibility, and can now be used as a ‘valid’ explanatory device of male infidelity. Research conducted about personal relationships and infidelity from within a social constructionist framework tackles the ‘constructive’ nature of accounts generated about infidelity. From a social constructionist position it is believed that such accounts of relationships actually ‘construct’ and ‘constitute’ the relationship ‘reality’ that we experience.
From a feminist perspective men are seen as gendered beings (Willott & Griffin 1997:108), the discursive accomplishment of ‘doing gender’ is dynamic and socially constituted, ‘gender’ is primarily located in interactions and is routinely achieved during conversational activity (Stokoe 2000:553-554). Hegemonic masculinity is therefore routinely achieved during conversations, and can often only retain its ‘hegemonic’ status in relation to subordinate and marginalized constructs (Connell 1995, cited in Willott & Griffin 1997:108) such as women being constituted as the ‘object’ within dominant ‘male’ discourses. Similarly, becoming ‘successfully’ masculine pressures young men into sexual strategies that are mechanisms for subordinating women (Holland et al 1993:3, cited in Kitzinger & Powell 1995:347). Hegemonic masculinity is discursively achieved within predominant relationship discourses, and is continually reproduced throughout cultural media representations; this ensures that women see themselves, to some extent, through men’s eyes (Crawford et al 1994:573). ‘The discourses available in the contemporary western language community within which we speak about sex are geared to articulating men’s interest and accounts of sexuality’ (Gilfoyle et al 1992:224, cited in Crawford 1994:574). Furthermore through the use of ‘Romantic’ discourses men are again privileged because they are continually represented as the ‘romantic object’ or the ‘central ‘working’ figure’, this reproduces and reconstitutes the centrality of men’s involvement in heterosexual relationships (Burns 2000:484).
The discourse
of the ‘male sex drive’ has entered popular discourse and has become a powerful
stereotype (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:360) it is drawn on frequently when
exploring male relationship behaviour (Hollway 1984, Crawford et al 1994,
Kitzinger and Powell 1995). Hollway (1984:54) details ‘The Discourse of Male
Sexual Drive’, within this discourse men are seen to be driven by the
biological necessity to seek out (heterosexual) sex, the discourse relies on
the more general claim that sex is natural and ‘not’ mediated socially (Hollway
1984:54). Similarly, Crawford et al state that within this discourse men are
viewed as having a strong sex drive which is largely uncontrollable’ (Crawford
et al 1994:576), this discourse is driven by the sociobiological myth that in
the animal kingdom the male has an imperative to pursue and procreate (Crawford
1994:576). Women’s sexuality is positioned within this discourse as being
governed by the biological need to reproduce (Hollway 1984:54), again women are
located with reference to the dominant male discourse of sexuality. Of course
such a discourse comes into question given the (mere) cultural
‘performance’/phenomenon of female bisexuality or female homosexuality.
Crawford et al (1994) also detail how the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse is
mobilized around negotiations of sexual encounters in relationships. The man
involved is often expected to take the active role (Crawford et al 1994:577)
and it is likely that the man’s understanding of the sexual encounter is
privileged and it is his wishes that prevail (Crawford et al 1994:574).
Furthermore it is reasoned that the discourse is more directly involved and
drawn upon during episodes where pressures are exerted, for example when the
man failed to listen during sexual negotiations when the women said ‘no’ or
‘stop’ (Crawford et al 1994:578). The ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse is also drawn
upon to excuse male infidelity in relationships, as this discourse locates such
behaviour as opportunistic and as normalised (Burns 1999:410).
Another
discourse pertaining to male relationship behaviour is that of the ‘emotional
illiterate’ male. The construction that ‘women are supposed to do the romance
in relationships and men are supposed to do the sex’ (Kitzinger & Powell
1995:345-6) is commonly drawn upon to differentiate between male and female
relationship behaviour (Kitzinger & Powell 1995, Burns 1999, Jackson 1993).
Kitzinger & Powell (1995) draw on several areas of research that
distinguish between the gendered constructions of personal relationships. For
example, Hite (1981) reported that the meanings of monogamy and infidelity in
relationships differ dramatically between the genders (Kitzinger & Powell
1995:346). Kitzinger and Powell themselves conclude that the meanings of fidelity
held by the genders vary dramatically, where women emphasised the emotional
components of the relationship and relied heavily on the ‘language of love’,
men tended to rely on sexual terminology and sexualised relationships
(Kitzinger & Powell 1995:366). This also parallels with Stenner’s (1993)
reading of the ‘laddish’ story discourse, where sex is privileged and is seen
as the main function of the relationship, and also where there is a tension
with the alternative (female) discourse which prioritises companionship and
friendship (Stenner 1993:123-124). Furthermore, in Kitzinger & Powell’s
study there was an absence of ‘emotion’ words in stories written by their male
participants, hence ‘inexpressive maleness’ is performed once again.
Furthermore, males’ reactions to female infidelity was characterised by
violence and aggression; resembling the betrayed and jealous men of stereotype
and literature (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:360).
Dominant
discursive constructions of hegemonic masculinity have been examined in terms
of how these are continually (re)constructed, (re)constituted and (re)produced
within common discourse. Such constructions are specific to the particular
historical and social setting within which they are produced. It can be seen
that these gender constructs are continually contested and that there is always
a potential for (re)negotiation (Willott & Griffin 1997:109).
As we have seen ‘male’ discourses
being produced, it is the case that conversely ‘female’ discourses are also
constituted. Each of the discourses are mutually dependent, they imply aspects
of the ‘Other’. Within the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse female sexuality is
positioned as complimentary to male sexuality. Female desire is absent from
the male sex drive discourse; the woman must accept her status as object,
she has no voice and her desires are voiced by others (Crawford et al 1994:576).
Women’s sexuality is seen as being governed by the biological need to reproduce
(Hollway 1989), and hence a woman’s role is to be acquiescent and receptive
(Crawford et al 1994:576) to male advances. In Crawford et al’s study (1994)
women illustrated the operation of an economy of exchange between men and
women; women’s bodies are the commodity for exchange between men and women
(Crawford et al 1994:576). On the
one hand we have women positioned within the male sex drive discourse as the
receptive objects given no voice and on the other we have women positioned
in contrast to the ‘emotionally illiterate’ male as the ‘emotional being’.
As Kitzinger & Powell (1995) comment, women are assigned the ‘emotional
labour’ in relationships (Hochschild 1983, cited in Kitzinger & Powell
1995:356), in their study female participants often reflected on the emotional
quality of the relationship. Female infidelity in relationships was constructed
as a result of a lack of emotional closeness and intimacy in the relationship,
in contrast male infidelity was constructed as occurring from excessive intimacy
(Kitzinger & Powell 1995:358). When women position themselves within romantic
discourse they usually do so self-consciously and reflexively, women’s reflexive
resistance of the ‘romantic’ love discourse positions them as ‘emotionally
literate’ (Burns 2000:484). Unfortunately the domination of male discourses
is then reinforced because women’s emotions are only understood in relation
to, and as reactions, to such dominant male discourses of emotion (Burns 2000:484).
Burns also comments, that from feminist perspectives, the female positions
available within romantic discourse disguises such gender inequality and women’s
oppression in intimate heterosexual relationships (Burns 2000:481). Relatedly,
Crawford et al (1994:572) comment upon sex educational programmes, specifically
an AIDS prevention campaign which urged women to be more assertive, which
positioned women as passive and weak; and rather paradoxically as being responsible
for safe sex within relationships. It is argued further that such relationship
behaviour is undertaken ‘within frameworks of taken-for-granted understandings
that enshrine the power imbalance of gender difference’ (Crawford et al 1994:572)
and as such, relationship behaviour will continue to reconstitute this power
imbalance.
With the
above contrasting of male and female discourses it can be seen that ‘gender’ is
constantly being ‘done’ through language. Gender constructs are dynamic and
flexible phenomenon’s that are constantly being constructed and contested
within interactions (Willott & Griffin 1997:109).
Exploration of ‘relationship’ discourses
Relationship
discourses encompass many of the aforementioned constructive features, these
discourses are draw upon within interactions to characterise and locate aspects
of personal relationships. People position themselves within these discourses
to achieve particular discursive manoeuvres, they are flexible phenomenon
that are constantly reconstructed and constituted through talk. Rachel Lawes
(1999), in her paper ‘Marriage: An analysis of discourse’, examines the discursive
resources and techniques used by participants to construct accounts of marriage.
Lawes explores two relationship discourses, the ‘Realist’ repertoire and the
‘Romantic’ repertoire. The realist repertoire constructs such notions as ‘permanence’,
‘fidelity’ and ‘happy marriages’ as existing only as theory or supposition
(Lawes 1999:7). The realist repertoire is ‘a discourse of fatalism and passivity’
(Lawes 1999:10), and as such relationship failure is rationalised and need
not be attributed to any one party involved, conversely relationship success
may be ascribed to ‘luck’ (Lawes 1999:10).
The romantic repertoire is impinged on such issues as ‘commitment’, ‘exclusivity’
and ‘permanence’ in marriage. ‘Commitment’ is viewed as an ‘event’, as a ‘process’,
the function of which is to guarantee a partner’s intentions and to justify
an expectation that the relationship will be permanent (Lawes 1999:7-8). ‘Romantic’
explanations of relationships’ failure draw heavily on notions of ‘not
making the effort and not working’ (Lawes 1999:9). Participants may
mobilize around both repertoires, from this are they able to emphasise the
importance of such things as ‘commitment’, ‘security’ and ‘working at relationships’,
whilst presenting undisguised cynicism and moral relativism (Lawes 1999:16).
Hollway (1989)
details the ‘Have/Hold’ relationship discourse. Within this discourse sex
is constructed as having to take place within a framework of a lasting relationship.
Within this discourse ‘sex’ is seen as a ‘carrier variable’ (Seu 2001) that
comes imbued with meanings such as ‘commitment’, ‘security’. This discourse
could theoretically be ‘gender blind’, though in practice it is applied more
stringently to women (Hollway 1989:55), the discourse was ‘commonly invoked
to produce the required norms of conduct in women’ (Hollway 1989:55) and as
such implicitly reproduces the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse through the objectification/regulation
of women. As discourses are historically/socially located, relationships ascribed
to the ‘have/hold’ discourse are located amongst the various ‘prescriptions
of the epoch that govern sexuality, contraception, child-bearing and monogamy’
at that ‘cultural moment’ (Hollway 1989:53).
Hollway (1989)
also details the ‘Permissive’ discourse that is juxtaposed to the ‘have/hold’
discourse. Within this discourse ‘permissive’ sex is constructed as the central
feature. Both sexes have the right to express their sexuality in anyway they
choose (as long as no-one gets hurt) because of its ‘asocial’ existence (Hollway
1898:55-56). In contrast to the previously discussed ‘male sex drive’ discourse,
this discourse constructs women as ‘equal subjects’ in the expression of sexual
desires, and not as objects. Rather than challenging the biological, asocial
nature of the ‘male sex drive’ discourse, the permissive discourse has encompassed
this construct; the permissive discourse has become the logical extension
of the idea that sex is purely physical and separate from social relations
and is unmediated by social significations (Hollway 1989:57). This discourse
counters the ‘have/hold’ discourse, as ‘free’ sexual expression is privileged
over the ‘partnership’ (Hollway 1989:56).
Through
the explication of these discourses Hollway (1989) has highlighted multiplicity
and contradictions involved in constructing meanings and desires encompassed
within personal relationship discourses (Hollway 1989:58). Such research
highlights how ‘common sense’ accounts, associated with dominant western
assumptions (Hollway 1989:50) have generated these discursive constructions and
how, to a degree, they have now become constituted as ‘facts’ regarding
personal relationships.
The Study in Hand:
This study
is concerned with explicating constructions of ‘infidelity’ and ‘monogamy’
as contextualized by accounts of personal relationships. The study is firmly
located within a social constructionist framework, which involves seeing any
accounts generated by participants or socially available texts investigated
as ‘negotiated products’ (Stenner 1993:115) developed and ‘worked up’ during
interactions. For a media text discourse to ‘work’ it is dependent (as are
all others) upon a shared understanding or agreed ‘convention of realism’
(Stenner 1998) regarding the subject matter, between author and audience.
Accounts would therefore be read as constituting and constructing infidelity
and monogamy as they are read as narrations of experience. From a feminist
poststructuralist perspective discourses will be examined for their complex
and, at times, contradictory constructions of power relationships (Willott
& Griffin 1997:108); which may be seen to be taking place within interactions
and existing outside of them.