What is disturbing and why not to disturb. On mobile phones,gender,and privacy within heterosexual intimacy

Abstract

Drawing on recent research conducted in Spain, this article analyses how mobile telephony contributes to (re)create and (re)mediate gender, couple intimacy, and privacy. We take a Goffmanian approach to analyse the utterances of disturb* (to disturb, disturbing, disturbed) in interviews and focus groups on mobile phone uses and practices within heterosexual couples, showing how gendered ways of everyday management of intimate bonds and territories of the self contribute to the ordinary reconstitution of gender hierarchical differentiation. These gendered ways, in conjunction with mobile telephony possibilities and constraints, are producing the contextual norms and expectations which set the condition for privacy, or the lack of it, within current couple intimacies.

Keywords

Couple intimacy gender heterosexuality privacy mobile telephony ordinary practices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ariès

Duby

(Eds.). (1987–1991). History of the private life (5 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Beck

Beck-Gernsheim

(1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Berlant

(2011). Cruel optimism. Durham NC: Duke University Press.

Berlant

McCabe

(2011). Depressive realism. An interview with Lauren Berlant, Hypocrite Reader, 5. Retrieved from http://hypocritereader.com/5/depressive-realism

Bolter

J. D.

Grusin

(2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Branaman

(2010). The Protean Goffman. In Jacobsen

M. H.

(Ed.), Contemporary Goffman (pp. 232–255). New York, NY: Routledge.

Caputi

(1988). Seeing elephants: The myths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 487–524.

Carey

(1989). Communication as culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

Casado

(2002). La construcción sociocognitiva de las identidades de género de las mujeres españolas (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from www.ucm.es/BUCM/tesis/cps/ucm-t26344.pdf

10.

Cooper

(2001). The mutable mobile: Social theory in the wireless world. In Brown

Green

Harper

(Eds.). Wireless world. Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age (pp. 19–31). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

11.

Eldén

(2012). Scripts for the “good couple”: Individualization and the reproduction of gender inequality. Acta Sociologica, 55(1), 3–18.

12.

Faulkner

(2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79–95.

13.

Fortunati

(2005). Mobile telephone and the presentation of self. In Ling

Pedersen

P. E.

(Eds.), Mobile communications. Re-negotiation of the social sphere (pp. 203–218). London, UK: Springer.

14.

Foucault

(1982). The subject and the power. Afterword. In Dreyfus

H. L.

Rabinow

(Eds.), Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–225). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

15.

Foucault

(1988). Technologies of the self. In Martin

L. H.

Gutman

Hutton

P. H.

(Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). London, UK: Tavistock.

16.

Garfinkel

(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

17.

Gidddens

(1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

18.

Goffman

(1971). Relations in public. New York, NY: Basic Books.

19.

Goffman

(1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3), 301–331.

20.

Goffman

(1983). Felicity’s condition. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 1–53.

21.

Goffman

(1987). Gender advertisements. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

22.

Green

(2001). Who’s watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile relations. In Brown

Green

Harper

(Eds.), Wireless world. Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age (pp. 32–45). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

23.

Gross

(2005). The detraditionalization of intimacy reconsidered. Sociological Theory, 23(3), 477–494.

24.

Hashimoto

S. D.

Campbell

S. W.

(2008). The occupation of ethereal locations: Indications of mobile data. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25(5), 537–558.

25.

Hjorth

Lim

(2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 477–484.

26.

Jamieson

(1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the “pure relationship.” Sociology, 33(3), 286–311.

27.

Lasén

(2011). “Mobiles are not that personal”: The unexpected consequences of the accountability, accessibility and transparency afforded by mobile telephony. In Ling

Campbell

(Eds.), The Mobile Communication Research Series: Volume II: Mobile communication: Bringing us together or tearing us apart? (pp. 83–105). Edison, NJ: Transaction Books.

28.

Lasén

Casado

(2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple intimacy. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 550–559.

29.

Lohan

Faulkner

(2004). Masculinities and technologies. Some introductory remarks. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 319–329.

30.

Nissenbaum

(2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.

31.

Peters

J. D.

(2000). Speaking into the air. Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.

32.

Qiu

J. L.

(2007). “The wireless leash”: Mobile messaging service as a means of control. International Journal of Communication, 1, 74–91.

33.

Rettie

(2009). Mobile phone communication: Extending Goffman to mediated interaction. Sociology, 43(3), 421–438.

34.

Sheller

Urry

(2003). Mobile transformations of “public” and “private” life. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(3), 107–125.

35.

Simmel

(1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. American Journal of Sociology, 11, 441–498.

36.

Thompson

J. B.

(2011). Shifting boundaries of public and private life. Theory, Culture and Society, 28(4), 49–70.

37.

Wajcman

(2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447–464.