The institutional logics of love: the order of passion in an intimate field

Author:

Friedland Roger,Roose Henk,Mohr John W.

Abstract

AbstractWe use Multiple Correspondence Analysis to capture the institutional logics of love and intimacy among a random sample of American university students. Comparing the theoretical assumptions of field theory and the institutional logics approach we explore whether institutional logics of intimacy exist, what kinds of practices are gathered in these logics, and whether these institutional logics are shaped by the actors’ field capitals, viz. gender and social class. Using survey data collected from a random sample of 1315 students from a large Pacific university (PU) we find that institutional logics of intimacy come in multiple forms: abstinence, loving sex and hookup sex, each characterized by its specific doings, feelings, and sayings. Our analyses further suggest that the logics of intimate practice have their own internal order, or grammar, which is only weakly conditioned by persons’ class or gender positions in the social structure. Although the perduring logics of intimacy are largely autonomous from persons’ positions in the field, the effects we do find largely echo Armstrong and Hamilton’s account of college life as a class project of young privileged women whose social networks formed through the Greek party scene (Armstrong and Hamilton in Paying for the Party. How College Maintains Inequality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2013). Constellations of meaningful practice, not distributions of capitals among persons, overwhelmingly organize the pathways of practice.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference101 articles.

1. Abbott, Andrew. 1988. Transcending General Linear Reality. Sociological Theory 6 (2): 169–186.

2. Adler, Gary J., Jr., Daniel DellaPosta, and Jane Lankes. 2022. Aesthetic Style: How Material Objects Structure an Institutional Field. Sociological Theory 40 (1): 51–81.

3. Alexander, Jeffrey. 1995. Fin de Siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of Reason, 128–217. London: Verso.

4. Alexander, Jeffrey, and Philip Smith. 2002. The Strong Program in Cultural Theory: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics. In Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. J.H. Turner, 135–150. New York: Kluwer Academic.

5. Alexander, Michele G., and Terri D. Fisher. 2003. Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-reported Sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research 40 (1): 27–35.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3