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

Women’s agency in living apart together: constraint, strategy and vulnerability

Recent research suggests that women can use living apart together (LAT) for a reflexive and strategic undoing of the gendered norms of cohabitation. In this article we examine this assertion empirically, using a representative survey from Britain in 2011 and follow-up interviews. First, we find little gender differentiation in practices, expectations, or attitudes about LAT, or reasons for LAT. This does not fit in with ideas of undoing gender. Secondly, in examining how women talk about LAT in relation to gender, we distinguish three groups of ‘constrained’, ‘strategic’ and ‘vulnerable’ female interviewees. All valued the extra space and time that LAT could bring, many welcomed some release from traditional divisions of labour, and some were glad to escape unpleasant situations created by partnership with men. However, for the constrained and vulnerable groups LAT was second best, and any relaxation of gendered norms was seen as incidental and inconsequential to their major aim, or ideal, of the ‘proper family’ with cohabitation and marriage. Rather, their agency in achieving this was limited by more powerful agents, or was a reaction to perceived vulnerability. While the strategic group showed more purposeful behaviour in avoiding male authority, agency remained relational and bonded. Overall we find that women, at least in Britain, seldom use LAT to purposefully or reflexively undo gender. Equally, LAT sometimes involves a reaffirmation of gendered norms. LAT is a multi-faceted adaption to circumstances where new autonomies can at the same time incorporate old subordinations, and new arrangements can herald conventional family forms

Repartnering

This chapter examines repartnering over a 10-year period. Many people who have experienced relationship breakdowns go on to have new relationships. Repartnering, which is forming a new intimate relationship after the dissolution of a previous one, can take a number of forms. This is because of the widespread changes in the types of relationships available to people in Western-industrialized countries like Australia. Until the 1970s, repartnering almost exclusively took the form of remarriage. Over the last 30 years, cohabitation has increased considerably, resulting in four main patterns of repartnership: (1) consecutive marriages; (2) cohabitation with a new partner following a marriage; (3) marriage to a new partner following cohabitation with another partner; and (4) consecutive cohabitations. This chapter starts with a literature review and provides a theoretical lens that incorporates individual histories and social context for investigating repartnering. This is followed by a description of the data used to measure repartnering over a 10-year period. The analysis presented is based on retrospective and prospective longitudinal information available from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (2001–2010). These data provide an opportunity to incorporate past relationships, family and fertility histories with current socio-demographic characteristics into understanding patterns of repartnering. The main emphasis of the chapter is on ‘who, when and how’ people repartner