The romantic imperative: discourses of romance and heterosexual marriage

Abstract

The contact hypothesis predicts that positive contact will reform attitudes towards the out-group and lead to less prejudice as a result. In contexts facing ongoing gender inequality – such as South Africa – romance is usually seen as a beneficial point of contact between unequal groups (heterosexual men and women), because of the sense of intimacy it brings. We investigated romantic practices in a discursive-ethnographic study, by recruiting five young, westernised, middleclass South African couples and interviewing them a number of times about romance and their relationships. We found that these couples positioned being-romantic extremely positively, as a means of sustaining intimacy in marriage. However, we also found that they positioned one version of romance as something they needed to engage in, in order to do relationship-work. We have called this the romantic imperative and suggested that it appears to channel these couples into being romantic in a particular way; one which is restrictive in the way it may be performed and which carries a high cost in terms of the effort, time and financial resources required to perform it successfully. This links to critiques of the contact hypothesis, in that positive contact does not always equate to positive outcomes.

Keywords:

• Being-romantic
• romantic imperative
• intimacy
• heteronormativity
• South Africa

Notes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Despite its progressive Constitution, South Africa experiences endemic sexism (Closson et al. 2019; Glick et al. 2000; Gunkel 2010; Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012), meaning that heterosexual men and women interact in micro-contexts embedded in broader systems of inequality and patriarchy.

2 For example, in terms of a “soulmate” discourse (see Giddens 1992; Human 2018; Vincent and McEwen 2006)

3 These are problematic terms: they reify socially constructed ideas about difference and race and were used during apartheid South Africa to justify privileging certain groups over others. While these groupings do not reflect actual difference in the way it was assumed by this regime, these terms are still in use in South Africa today and encapsulate ongoing differences in identity construction, experience, privilege and access to resources (Helman and Ratele 2016), and so are used in this study to describe participants.

4 Participants were given pseudonyms to protect their identities: Couple 1 were called Sue and Luke; Couple 2, Eddie and Robyn; Couple 3, Bruce and Louise; Couple 4, Anika and Johan; and Couple 5, Heidi and Tom.

5 The first author, Nicky, interviewed the women, and her husband, Strauss, interviewed the men. Interviewers are referred to by first names in order to distinguish between them.

6 Upmarket or expensive

7 11 of 25 interviews; interviews 1.a, 1.c, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.e, 3.c, 4.c, 5.b, 5.c, 5.e

8 13 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.c, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.e, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d, 4.a, 4.b, 5.a, 5.c.

9 23 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.e, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d, 3.e, 4.a, 4.b, 4.d, 4.e, 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d, 5.e

10 11 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 2.a, 2.b, 3.c, 3.d, 4.a, 5.b, 5.d, 5.e

11 4 of 25 interviews, Interviews 2.a, 2.c, 5.a, 5.c

12 19 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.e, 3.a, 3.b, 3.d, 3.e, 4.a, 4.b, 4.d, 4.e, 5.a, 5.b, 5.d, 5.e

13 9 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.a, 2.a, 2.b, 3.a, 3.b, 3.d, 4.b, 5.b, 5.e.

14 7 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.e, 2.b, 3.a, 3.c, 4.a, 5.b, 5.c.

15 23 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, 4.a, 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e, 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d, 5.e.

16 7 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.d, 2.b, 2.c, 2.e, 3.b, 4.a, 4.e.

17 18 of 25 interviews, interviews 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 3.a, 3.b, 3.d, 3.e, 4.a, 4.c, 4.d, 5.c, 5.e.

18 Interviews 1.e, 2.c, 2.e, 4.d, 5.c and 5.e.

19 Also in Interviews 1.a, 1.d, 2.d, 3.c, and 5.a

20 Also in Interview 3.b

21 7 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.a, 1.d, 2.c, 2.d, 3.c, 5.e, 5.c.

22 18 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.b, 1.e, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d, 4.a, 4.d, 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d, 5.e

23 As defined by participants, not the interviewers.

24 10 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.d, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 4.a, 4.d, 5.a, and 5.d

25 10 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.b, 1.d, 2.b, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, 4.a, 4.b, and 5.c

26 8 of 25 interviews, Interviews 1.a, 2.c, 2.e, 3.a, 4.a, 4.d, 5.a, and 5.c

27 E.g. that expensive dates paid for by men should be reciprocated with physical intimacy (Allen 2007; Braun, Gavey, and McPhillips 2003).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the South African National Research Foundation in the form of an Innovation Doctoral Scholarship, grant number 83778 and grant number TTK2008051600002.