Broader than psychoanalysis and deeper than sociology: the psychosocial promise of group analysis

This paper starts from the suggestion that there is a deep, historic chasm between the disciplines of sociology and psychoanalysis in the United Kingdom. It proposes that we might look to the group analytic tradition for a psychosocial clinical practice and body of theory that draws on both sociology and psychoanalysis. It introduces the psychosocial and relational ideas of S.H.Foulkes, and the move he made beyond the individual/society dualism. The paper suggests that group analysis works with a generative conceptualisation of the constitutive permeability and entanglement of being human that is broader than is generally understood in psychoanalysis and deeper than is understood in sociology

Why do people live apart together?

Interpretations of living apart together (LAT) have typically counter-posed 'new family form' versus 'continuist' perspectives. Recent surveys, however, construct LAT as a heterogeneous category that supports a 'qualified continuist' position – most people live apart as a response to practical circumstances or as a modern version of 'boy/girlfriend', although a minority represents something new in preferring to live apart more permanently. This article interrogates this conclusion by examining in depth why people live apart together, using a nationally representative survey from Britain and interview accounts from 2011. Our analysis shows that LAT as a category contains different sorts of relationship, with different needs and desires. While overall coupledom remains pivotal and cohabitation remains the goal for most, LAT allows people flexibility and room to manoeuvre in adapting couple intimacy to the demands of contemporary life. Hence, we suggest, LAT is both 'new' and a 'continuation'

Living apart together: uncoupling intimacy and co-residence

Over a fifth of those normally classified as “single” are actually in a relationship but not living with their partner – which is 9% of adults in Britain. This sizeable minority has only recently been recognized by social researchers, even though people have long been having relationships without moving in together. In the context of increasing attention to the diversity of ways in which people live and love outside the conventional family, understanding “living apart together” (LAT) relationships is vital for policy-makers, practitioners and researchers who are concerned with couples, families, and individual well-being today. This briefing paper presents the findings of the most comprehensive study of living apart together in Britain to date

Practices and perceptions of living apart together

yesThis paper examines how people living apart together (LATs) maintain their relationships, and describes how they view this living arrangement. It draws on a 2011 survey on living apart together (LAT) in Britain, supplemented by qualitative interviewing. Most LATs in Britain live near to their partners, and have frequent contact with them. At the same time most see LAT in terms of a monogamous, committed couple, where marriage remains a strong normative reference point, and see living apart as not much different from co-residence in terms of risk, emotional security, or closeness. Many see themselves living together in the future. However, LAT does appear to make difference to patterns of care between partners. In addition, LATs report advantages in terms of autonomy and flexibility. The paper concludes that LAT allows individuals some freedom to manoeuvre in balancing the demands of life circumstances and personal needs with those of an intimate relationship, but that practices of living apart together do not, in general, represent a radical departure from the norms of contemporary coupledom, except for that which expects couples to cohabit

Living apart relationships in contemporary Europe: accounts of togetherness and apartness

Drawing on a European cross-national biographical-narrative study of intimate life, this article discusses the complexity of experiences of ‘togetherness’ and ‘apartness’ amongst people in living apart relationships. We explore the five main ways in which interviewees spoke about and understood their current living apart relationships (as: chosen; temporary; transitional; undecided; and unrecognisable), which we argue shows the need for a broader conceptualisation of this form of intimate relationship than is suggested by the established notion of ‘living apart together’. The article points to interviewees’ varying experiences of receiving or being denied recognition and acceptance by others as belonging to a couple, as well as to their differing degrees of desire for, or rebellion against, expectations that living apart relationships should ‘progress’ towards cohabitation