Page 1
1
This article has been accepted to be published by the journal Mobile Media andCommunication(Sage)
Whatisdisturbingandwhynottodisturb.Onmobilephones,genderandprivacy
withinheterosexualintimacy.
ElenaCasado
UniversityComplutenseofMadrid
AmparoLasén
UniversityComplutenseofMadrid
Page 2
2
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 onmobile phone uses
andpracticeswithinheterosexual couples, showinghowgenderedwaysofeveryday
managementof intimatebondsand territoriesof the self contribute to theordinary
reconstitution of gender hierarchical differentiation. These gendered ways, in
conjunction with mobile telephony possibilities and constraints, are producing the
contextualnormsandexpectationswhichsettheconditionforprivacy,orthelackof
it,withincurrentcoupleintimacies.
Keywords Mobile telephony, gender, couple intimacy, privacy, ordinary
practices,heterosexuality
Page 3
3
Whatisdisturbingandwhynottodisturb.Onmobilephones,genderandprivacy
withinheterosexualintimacy.
The diverse forms of considering privacy and the public sphere share two
fundamental kinds of opposing imagery: in one hand, what is hidden, withdrawn,
secretvs.what isopen,revealed,accessible,visible;and intheotherhand,personal
vs. collective. Digital mediations of couple relationships offer a privileged site to
observe the convergence and clashes between the shaping of the self and privacy,
understoodinthosetwoways.
The ubiquity and pervasiveness of mobile media and digital mediations
contribute to the multiplication of hybrids of public and private (Sheller and Urry,
2003) as they induce changes in the contextual norms of appropriateness and
distributionofinformation.Theyareindiscretetechnologies(Cooper,2001,p.24),not
justbecausetheyfacilitateformsofsocialindiscretion,butbecausetheydohavethe
capacitytoblurdistinctionsbetweenostensiblydiscretedomainsandcategories,such
as public and private, remote and distant, work and leisure. Formal and informal
norms,aswellasordinaryexpectationsaboutwhatisappropriateforwhominagiven
situation or relationship, show how different contexts and realms of everyday life
Page 4
4
entaildifferentprivacies1whosedemarcations,meaningsandcontentsarethushighly
contextual (Nissenbaum, 2004; Thompson, 2011). These evolve in relation with the
materialityofsocial life,asthecontemporaryformsofmobileintimacy“inwhichthe
geographic and physical space is overlaid with an electronic position and relational
presence,whichisemotionalandsocial”(HjorthandLim,2012,p.478).
Methodsandapproach
Thispaperexploressomeofthesedynamicsrelatedtothearticulationbetween
mobilephonesusesandpractices,genderedsubjectivitiesandaffects.Oursociological
analysis is grounded in two lines of research: conflicts and violence in heterosexual
couplesandmobilephoneintimatecommunication,whichmergedintheprojectNew
communication technologies and the re‐articulation of gender relations: emergence,
expression and management of couple conflicts2. The fieldwork was carried out in
Madrid, from 2009 to 2011, involving 2 focus group, 24 semi‐structured individual
interviews,3semi‐structuredinterviewswithbothmembersofthecouple,124‐days‐
diaries ofmobile phone use from bothmembers of 6 couples and 1,000 telephone
interviews. However, this paper focuses specifically on the discourses collected
through the focus‐groups and the interviews, both individual and in couple, lasting
from1.30 to2.15hours,whoseparticipantswereheterosexualmiddle classwomen
Page 5
5
and men, aged 20‐45. This age group was chosen because it presents a sufficient
familiaritywithdigital technologies, aswell as theprobability of having experienced
several couple relationships.Furthermore, theyhavegrown inademocratic context,
with egalitarianism as one of its emblems, which distances them from the Spanish
traditionalistandauthoritarianrecentpast.Therelativehomogeneityintheacademic
backgroundandincomelevelhelpstostrengththecomparisonbetweenthesocialand
sociological egalitarian portrait of contemporary “modern” couples (Giddens, 1992;
BeckandBeck‐Gernsheim,1995)andthedailypracticesofthosewhoarepresumedto
embodyandperform it.Thoughweselecteddifferentkindsofcouples,according to
the length of the relationship (less than one year, fromone to five years andmore
than five), with and without children, living together or not, our analysis here
highlightsthecommonalitiesofthegenderedinteractionorder.
This analysis focuses on how mobile telephony contributes to (re)mediate
(Bolter and Grusin, 2000) and (re)create performatively gender, privacy, couple
intimacyanddomesticitythroughordinarilyritualizedandmediatedpractices.Inorder
todosoweattendtohowtheparticipantsinourresearchusetheterm“disturb”and
its derivatives regarding mobile phone interactions within the couple.
Methodologically,itimpliestosituateouranalysisonwhatisdisturbingandforwhom
withinthedramaturgicalinteractionorder:
Page 6
6
Who is brought or brings himself into the immediate orbit of another; who
initiatestalk,whoisselectedastheaddressedrecipient,whoself‐selectsintalk
turn‐taking,whoestablishes and changes topics,whose statements are given
attentionandweight,andsoforth.(Goffman,1977,p.324).
Thequestionisthenwhodecides,wholeads,andwhofollowsinthedanceofdigitally
mediatedand face‐to‐face interactions,andwhat thebroadersymbolicandmaterial
implications of these choreographic arrangements are. Moving from the
methodologicaltothetheoretical,Goffmanalsoprovidesuswithachoreographicview
ofgenderwhichrevealsitsorderingpotentialasa"remarkableorganizationaldevice”
–upto thepoint that itcanbestatedthat“gender,not religion, is theopiateof the
masses”(Goffman,1977,p.315).Intheritualityofeverydayordinaryencountersand
digitallymediatedformsofcommunicationincouples,genderrelationshipsemergeas
a particular choreography, a performance in which one’s position, subjectivity and
movementsarearrangedregardingtheposition,subjectivityandmovementsofone’s
partner while simultaneously other orders and hierarchies are performed and re‐
enacted as well, such as professional/domestic, public/private or
information/communication. The different uses and meanings of disturb in the
interviews illustrate this complex articulation of gendered ways of everyday
managementofcouplebondsandpersonalspace,aswellastheyrevealhowgender
Page 7
7
hierarchicaldifferentiation is reconstitutedandkeepsonservingasabasis forother
social orderings. At this point, Goffman’s proposal contrasts with some common
assumptions on contemporary couple relations and dynamics, which presume the
progressive dissolution of gender and its asymmetric orderings:when “some of our
citizenry no longer believe thatwomen's traditional place is a natural expression of
theirnatural capacities […], if the traditionalpattern is sustained itwillbe sustained
lesscomfortably”(Goffman,1977,p.309).Analysingtheusesoftheverbdisturbcan
helpustounderstandthis lesscomfortably‐sustainedorderwithoutdenyingtherole
ofgenderasakey“remarkabledevice”.
Framingcontemporarycouplecommunication
Couple relationships undergo diverse interconnected transformations related
tothegeneralsocio‐historicalcontext(theso‐calledrisk,uncertaintyorinformational
society),togenderrelationsandsubjectivities,tofamilynotionsandstructures,aswell
as toordinarypractices and interactions, such as digitalmediationsof relationships,
communication and everyday life. Some of the most influential contemporary
sociologists have analysed those processes as a shift from traditional to more
consensualbondsor“purerelationships”(Giddens,1992),wherelovebecomescrucial
butchaotic(BeckandBeck‐Gernsheim,1995,p.2)3.Thus,couplerelationshipsbecome
Page 8
8
a paradigmatic example of “cruel optimism” (Berlant, 2011: 1): a double‐bindwhen
theobjectthatdrawsyourattachmentsustainsyouin lifeatthesametimeas it isa
threattoyourflourishing.Thisis,aclashbetweenthe“fantasiesofbelonging”andthe
“conditionsofbelonginginparticularhistoricalmoments”(Berlant&McCabe,2011).
Aswehavealreadydiscussed(Lasén&Casado,2012),communicationplaysa
centralroleinthischanginglandscapeforintimatebonds.Ambivalencesbetweenthe
processof individualizationandtheresilientcharacterofgender relationsand life in
couple,asanodeofpersonal lifeprojectsandsocialstructures,areafruitfulground
forthemystificationofboththeaffectivebondandcommunication.Acertainideaand
ideal of communication appears as the very condition to make the precarious
character of contemporary intimate bonds certain, liveable and enjoyable, at least
temporarily.Whenconnectedto transparency,commonalityandcommunion (Carey,
1989;Peters,2000),communicationisusuallyinvokedasthekeytounderstandingand
as the irrefutable solution for the arguments and troubles people have to face. It is
takenasanunproblematicassumption:weassumeweknowwhatitmeans,wedeeply
trust in it,butwecanhardlydefine it.Thus,ourviewofcommunication,particularly
whenappliedtoloveandcoupledom,showsthefantasyofbelievingthatdifferences,
inequalities and conflicting interests would dissolve once we communicate and
understand each other’s feelings and intentions. The promise of ubiquitous and
Page 9
9
permanent contact and communication enacted by mobile media strengthens this
ideal(HashimotoandCampbell,2008).
However, this approachon communication fails to notice that understanding
and agreeing are not synonymous. Communication operates in reaching consensus,
butalsoinprocessesofdifferentiation,instrategicpurposes,aswhentryingtocontrol
the situation and ourselves, or just in making connections of all kinds including of
course arguments and controversies. That said, intimate relationships and
heterosexual bonds are not preciselywell equipped to face controversies under the
inertiaofgendereddifferentiationsand inequalities.Furthermore, the intimatebond
and domesticity have to face some new tensions about the uncertainties of
contemporarylife,withtwoindividualsubjectswithparticularplans,worries,troubles,
fears,tastes,beliefs,moralcommitmentsanddesireswillingtoconnect.
Couplerelationshipsyieldaparadoxregardingprivacy.Accordingtotheliberal
conceptionofindividualsaseconomicsubjects,privatepropertybecomestheultimate
basis for privacy and independence. The modern view of autonomy becomes
understood in terms of control, and ownership over personal space, time and
information. This clashes with how trust and love are sustained in intimate
relationships through mutual disclosure, producing expectations and obligations of
transparency and extended sharing (projects, tastes, beliefs, opinions, activities,
Page 10
10
groups).
Conflictsbetweenpersonalautonomyandmutualrecognitionanddependency
are enacted, embodied, traced, originated, mediated, and, sometimes, solved in
mobilephoneuses,practicesandinteractions.Mobilemediatakepartinthegameof
designing anddefendingpersonal and collective territories. Theyare involved in the
emergence, expression and management of these conflicts and in the ordinary
rearticulationofgenderedpowerrelations.
All these changes have taken place in Spain at a particularly high speed
following a traditionalist dictatorship (1939‐1975) (Casado, 2002). This historical
peculiarity can make the Spanish case a good place to see how gendered
differentiationanditsembodiedsubjectivities,farfrombeingprogressivelydissolved,
are ordinarily performed, and how the public/private divide is entwined in this
practicalreconstitution4.
Coupleobligationsandmobileaccessibility
Todisturbisatransitiveverband,assuch,itentailsanobjectthata)interferes
with the normal arrangement or functioning, b) interrupts the sleep, relaxation, or
privacy or c) makes someone anxious. To be disturbed, then, involves something
experienced as disturbing by a specific subject, which points to the relational and
Page 11
11
situational dimension of social life. As we have learnt from Goffman or the
ethnometodologists (Garfinkel,1967),nuisancesarea fruitfulgroundtorecreatethe
demarcationsandassumptionsofourordinarypractices.Focusingonwhatbecomes
disturbinginmobilecommunicationwithinheterosexualcouplesandforwhom,what
isthemargintoavoiditandhowitisexpressed,canbeveryusefulforsocialanalysis.
It can illustrate how mobile telephony remediate the gendered scene, adapting
simultaneously to its inertias, scripts, roles and divides, thus contributing to their
practicalreconstitution.
Significantly, the annoyances due to the device have much to do with the
overlapping of public and domestic settings that it facilitates and its effects on the
framingoftheinteractionsituation(Fortunati,2005;Rettie,2009).Thisisparticularly
relevant for couple life nowadays, as what was once taken for granted (the
public/privatedivide,thesexualdivisionoflabour,etc.)isnowopenforcontroversy.
Given that you have something that youwant to utter to a particular other,
how do you go about getting into the circumstances that will allow you
appropriatelytodoso?(Theoppositequestionisofinteresttoo,namely,how
doyougoaboutavoidingthecircumstancesinwhichyouwouldbeobligedto
disclosesomethingyouwouldrathernot?)(Goffman,1983,p.32)
Page 12
12
Inourinterviews,womenperformafirmercompromisewiththefirstquestion
whilemasculineworriesarerelatedtothesecondone.Inwomen’sdiscoursesmobile
phones are representedmainly as a newpossibility to act and speak, although they
can also become a potential new source of control. Men’s discourses stress the
opposite:mobilephonesareapotential tool forcontrolbutatthecostofputtingat
risk their autonomy as they also becomemore available for others, particularly for
theirintimatepartners,andcanexperiencemorepressuretoself‐disclose.Therefore,
menperformgreaterresistancetothisdevice,highlightingitspotentialityasasource
of“musts”whichcandisturbtheirnormalarrangements,interrupttheirrelaxationor
privacyor,onewayoranother,makethemfeelanxious.
Idon’tlikehavingmoremuststhanneeded.IphoneyoubecauseIwantto.Do
notgetangrybecauseIcouldnotphoneyoubeforeorIcouldnotphoneyou
oneafternoonorwhatever(23‐year‐oldman)
Themobileisbecominganightmareforme(31‐year‐oldman)
However,thisperformanceisambivalentasmendisplayagreaterinterestboth
Page 13
13
for technical aspects of the device and brands5; but it is legitimized by their
professionalusagesandtechnicaldisposition,thusfreedofanyconsumeristsuspicion
whichcanthreatenthegenderedplayofdifferentiation:
Therearethingsthatarereallyimportantandthingsthatarenot.Idon’tmind
not having a plasmaTV. But for themobile phone there are things that I do
haveandwhicharenecessary(45‐year‐oldman)
Likewise,theusuallyavowedtensionbetweenbeingconnectedandthewishto
disconnectismorefirmlyperformedbyourmaleinterviewees,whodefendandcome
torepresenttherationalandefficientusagesofthemobilephone:
It is useful but, damn it!, depending on it for everything gets intimacy out.
Relishing a book, sitting peacefully, talking to your girlfriend and stop to be
talkingtoanobject... Iowntwomobilesand,unfortunately,oneofthemisa
PDAbecauseIneedit.Itpissesmeoff.Ithinkitisnecessarybut,aseverything
else,youshouldknowhowtouseit(Focusgroup,20‐45‐year‐oldmen)
This nostalgia of a purely human world freed from technology, with clear
Page 14
14
demarcations among professional and domestic spheres and public, private and
intimatescenes,expressesthegenderedstraintodefendthe“territoriesoftheself”in
thecontemporarydigital landscape:“ingeneral, thehighertherank, thegreater the
size of all territories of the self and the greater the control across the boundaries”
(Goffman, 1971, p. 40‐41). But, its defence clashes with the contemporary couple
obligation of transparency and disclosure as a way of supporting trust and
demonstrating love. This is highlighted by the obligation of a double accessibility
afforded by mobile phones: to the other person as well as to the device and its
content.Forinstance,theshareduseofthemobilephonebymembersofthecouple
(access to the partner’s device for answering calls, downloading and uploading,
sendingmessages,readinganddeletingcontent,etc.)revealsamodeofsubjectionto
theother throughan increasedmutual identificationand intimatedisclosure (Lasén,
2011).
Theseobligationssetthelimitsforindividualprivacyinsidethecouple.Insome
cases, they are accepted as a normal feature of being involved in a relationship,
especially for the younger, with less past couple experiences; in others, they elicit
tensions and rejections, in particular when this accessibility has contributed to
previous break‐ups and crisis. Theway people describe this accessibility reveals the
size and control of their territories but also a lack of acknowledgement of privacy
Page 15
15
within intimatebonds.Suchobligationsdevelopinparalleltotheexpectationsabout
self‐disclosurethataredistinctiveofbeinginarelationship,asitwasalreadynotedby
Simmel(1906)acenturyago,highlightingtheworryingconsequencesforthelastingof
thelovebond.However,thislackofprivacydoesnotseemtoworrytheparticipantsin
our research. They accept this “transparency” as normal and expected, as believing
andfearingthatanythingthatisnotaccessiblehidesthethreatofa“doublelife”.Itis
asifthewilltoachievecohesionandtrustpreventedautonomyandprivacy.
Youcanhaveyourlittleprivacy,butIdon’thaveanyproblemifI’mdrivingand
I receive a text. I say: “please seewho it is”.Noproblemat all. I don’t have
anythingtohideand I’d lovetohavethesamefeeling. I’mnottellingthat I’ll
takeyourphoneeverydaytocheckwhatyou’vedone,ofcoursenot.Butifone
day you are on Facebook and I sit close to you, I’d like not to have the
impressionthatI’mwatchingsomethingprivateandthatIhavetogo,because
that’sthefeelingIgetnow.OrwhenyouaredoingyouremailandIstandnext
toyoutoseethepicturesthatyouare lookingat,and Ihavetogobecause I
don’twanttohavethefeelingthatI’mtakingawayyourfreedom(28‐year‐old
woman)
Page 16
16
This notion of trust requiring a total transparency is expressed in some
interviews when particularly women do not understand the resistance to a total
intimatedisclosure,unlessonehassomethingtohide.6
Hedoesn’tcheckmymobile,butifIcaughthimdoingitIwouldn’tcare.Ihave
nothingtohide.I’dfinditfunny(32‐year‐oldwoman)
It’s likesharingyour lifecompletely. I thinkthatyouhavetoshareeverything
[…]. He entrusts me with his life. It’s the same for the mobile (39‐year‐old
woman)
Even those far from the romantic love narratives share this view.As this 35‐
year‐oldwomanwho,despiteofdefiningherselfas“zeroromantic”andthinkingthat
fallinginloveis“becomingidiot”,states:“I’venevergoneoutonmyownorhadvery
privatethingswhenI’minarelationship.Everythinghastobetoldandthereisalotof
trust”.Transparencyjustifiesacceptingthepartner’smonitoringviathemobilephone,
whilstcontrolisassociatedwithsuspicionanddoublelife,withjealousy,butnotwith
the obligation of being localized, accessible and available. Therefore when we are
“verytransparent”and“donothaveanythingtohide”,weareneithercontrollernor
Page 17
17
controlled. The immediacy and connectivity afforded by mobile phones become
distinctivefeaturesofintimaterelationships:
When you call and there is no answer you say: “it is not possible, theymust
answer”. You become more demanding with communication (35‐year‐old
woman)
Attheendacouplerelationshipsiscommunicationsandamobilephonehelps
tocommunicateimmediately(39‐year‐oldwoman)
Formyfriends[…]ifthreedayspasswithoutacallbackisnotthatimportant,it
doesn’tmatter.Butwithmygirlfriend I expect aquickeranswer (23‐year‐old
man)
Thisobligationofaccessibilityfacilitatedbymobilecommunication ingeneral,
increases for couples: the greater intimacy, transparency and immediacy, thehigher
obligations to fulfil the expectations. Those features of mobile connectivity fit well
with the logic of (asymmetric) des‐differentiation and recognition within couple
relationships.
Page 18
18
Knowing about the other’s life, the everyday life, being able to come into
contact…, this is formebasically. If something unexpectedhappens, goodor
bad, I like calling him to tell it and when you don’t have the phone this
possibilitydoesn’texistanymore.Thisfacilitatesmetocomeintocontactwith
him.(27‐year‐oldwoman).
This is also revealed by the anger when a call or a text message are not
answered, thesuspicionofadark intention fornotdoing it,or theannoyancewhen
thepartnerforgetstheritualcall.Stating“howmuch”contactis“toomuch”depends
bothongenderrelationsandexpectationstowardstheirpartnersandonthestageof
therelationitself.Thus,theinterestforconnectionatthebeginningoftherelationship
canencourage–orhelp toadmit–amore intense flowofaffectivecommunications,
while, as times goes by, practical issues tend to play a main role, increasing that
potential tension between will for autonomy (mostly expressed by our male
interviewees)andwillforsharing(mostexplicitlyreferredbyfemaleparticipants).
Interviewer:Doyouphoneeachotherwhenyouneedtomakeadecision?
He:MostofthetimesIdon’t.
Page 19
19
She:No,hedoesn’t.He…[laughs]
He:Imakeitdirectly.
She:Hedoeseverythingstraightaway.Ilikephoning,organising,consulting.He
doesn’t.Heismore…“Idoitwithoutconsulting”[laughs]
He:Ofcourse.Yes,Ido.
She: I do likephoning foreverything (unmarriedcoupleofa28‐year‐oldman
and25‐year‐oldwoman)
Territoriesoftheselfandgenderarrangements
Thetensionbetweenautonomyandsharing takesusback to the issueof the
defenceoftheterritoriesoftheselfandgenderrelationswithinthecouple.Ourmale
intervieweesexpressadeepertensionbuttheyembodiedamoreadvantagedposition
in its management. Gender stereotypes, displayed as particular personality traits,
servetolegitimizetheirdefenceagainstwhatispresentedastheirrationalusagesof
technology by women and youngsters. “For what I say in a minute she needs one
hour”, states a 32‐year‐old man. Thus, mobile phone practices seem to slip easily
towards “nonsense” when used by or with women, this nonsense covering a huge
rangeofpossibilitiesstartingfromdatingandflirting:
Page 20
20
At thebeginning you can spend threehoursmessagingeachother, then you
don’t. You settledowna littlebit and say: “let’s give it abreak” (45‐year‐old
man).
Definingsomeusesasnonsensicalcanbeawaytoaddressdiscomfortingissues
regardingnegativefeelingsorpotentialinterferencesinone’sownactionorself‐image
or to avoid the kind of topics that does not deserve enough value or attention.
Significantly,masculineresistancetotheoverlappingofspheresisexpressedasacall
for “respect”,which now is not due to a traditional patriarchal authority but to the
individuality they traditionally embody. This masculine performance is discursively
reinforcedandlegitimizedthroughthediscourseofindividualisation:
He is in his right, becausewhy are you going to be obliged to answer every
phonecallifyoudonotwantto(28‐year‐oldwoman)
Socialpracticesandspheresarehierarchically(re)producedinthismove.Daily
genderedpractices reconfigure thematrix of asymmetrical dichotomousoppositions
thatgivesthemsenseandconsistency.Thus,efficientinformationisopposedtoritual
(nonsensical)communication(Carey,1989).Furthermore,thedomesticspherehasto
Page 21
21
accommodate (and it does) the requirements of paid labour –the first presented as
routine,thesecondasadventurous–reinforcinggendereddifferentiations:
GenerallyIamtheonethatphones.Herlifeismuchmorepatterned;inmylife
everydayisdifferent.IlikeitandIappreciatethatmywifeacceptsit(39‐year‐
oldman)
Thus, work and sexual division of labour legitimizes social demarcations of
mobileavailability.Here,“IdonotphonehimtosaysillystuffbecauseIdonotwantto
bother him”, stated by a 25‐year‐old woman, fit in with “I am available during the
hoursIamavailable,Imean,inworkhoursitisknownthatIamnot”,statedbya45‐
year‐old man. According to our interviews, this choreography does not change
significantly:whatever thework situationsare,genderdisplaysauthorizemalemore
than female to wish and demand not to be disturbed, reinforcing the attached
normative value to the masculine, to its tasks and representatives. One way or
another, gender arrangements help men to avoid convincingly and assertively the
tensions:
Whenshereproachesme[fornotansweringthephone]Idonotallowherto
Page 22
22
doit.(23‐year‐oldman)
Male assertiveness (“I do not allow her”) fits in asymmetrically with female
acceptanceandcaution. Infact,womeninterviewedhardlyuttertheverbtodisturb:
“It bothers me is maybe a little excessive word” (32‐year‐old woman). Thus, they
express lesscontrolover their territories. In theseeverydaypractices subalternityas
wellasautonomyandreflexivecapacityarethusordinarilyreconstituted.Although,in
contemporaryequalitarianlandscapes,thesebecomedeeplypersonalized,minimising
thesignificanceofgenderwhilereinforcingitsorderings.
Heneedslikemoreroomtomeditateandtoreflectonhiswork.AsIhavemore
orlessreflectedalreadyonit,Ijustkeepgoing[…].Itisnotthatitbothersme
(31‐year‐oldwoman)
Our male interviewees “do not like to be disturbed”, they rarely recognize
themselves disturbing others, and when they refer to their partners’ irritation (for
instancefortheirlackofresponsetophone‐calls)theytendtominimizethelegitimacy
orrationalityoffemininedemands;ontheotherside,womenstateandperformthat
they“donotwanttodisturb”theirpartners:
Page 23
23
Ithinkitisduetoinsecurity,maybebythinkingthatitismyfault,thathecan
becomeboredofme,thathecanfeelannoyed,thatIcandisturbhim(31‐year‐
oldwoman)
Since social validation for subalternpositionsdependsonnotdemanding too
much(Branaman,2010,p.248),femininediscoursesrevealastraintoavoidbothering,
as it could attach them to traditional feminine stereotypes (“the pest” or “the
chatterbox”) risking both their public image of modernity and their intimate
relationship:
Therearemomentsinwhichobviouslyhecannotanswerthephone.ButIam
notapest(35‐year‐oldwoman)
Thesedisplaysreorganizeahierarchicalordering:menperformtheentitlement
toregulatetheinteractionwhilewomenfollowtheirfootsteps,withaccessibilityand
heteronomyexpressedandreconstructedinmobilecommunication.
Interviewer:Howdoes thatsituation inwhichyouphonehimmore frequently
Page 24
24
andhefeltalittlecontrolledevolve?
Well,givingupphoningsomuch.Indirectly,itmakeshimfeelfreerandheacts
differently(34‐year‐oldwoman)
Therefore the interaction order in mobile phone communication within
heterosexual couples rests mainly upon the feminine adaptation to masculine
definitionsofthesituation(whentophone,howlongtotalk,whennottoexpectan
answer,whatnottotalkabout),basedontheirembodied legitimacyforestablishing
andmonitoringthesocialframesandlines:
Hereallybothers if Iamnotavailable[…].But inhisdaybydayworkheonly
phonesmeforchildrenarrangements:“Listen,Icannotarriveontimetopick
themupattheirmusicclass,sogoyourself”.(40‐year‐oldwoman)
ItisdisturbingonlyifIneedsomethingurgent[…],ifwehaveanappointment
andIhavebeenphoningherbecauseIneedtochangeitandsheisnotpaying
attentiontohermobile.(23‐year‐oldman)
Whenheisthere,Itrynottousethephone.AndifsomebodyphonesmeIsay
Page 25
25
“Iwillphoneyoubacktomorrow”.(24‐year‐oldwoman)
Those gender ritual performances, reinforced through multiple forms of
institutional reflexivity (Goffman, 1987), recreate a masculine fortress‐self and a
femininerelational‐self,whichseeksforconnectionasaformofrecognition(Lasén&
Casado,2012).Theycanbeapprehendedthroughtheadjectivesthatourinterviewees
attributed to themselvesandtoeachother,or throughthegreater feminine fluency
whenexplainingwhattheirpartnersprovidethemintheirrelationship.
He is different. I ammuchmore dependant,muchmore about doing things
together,youknow,ofachievingthingsincommon(28‐year‐oldwoman)
As apartner, heprovidesmewhat Iwant in aman:protection, security, the
feeling that you have someone there who understands and helps you, who
makesyoulaugh.(31‐year‐oldwoman)
These gendered selves frame the conditions in which intimate bond is
established,withdifferentexpectations,demands,andsubjectivities:
Page 26
26
IfIsharemylifewithsomeone,itisnotthatIamjustgoingtodowhateverhe
said,butIdohavetoconsulthim,Ihavetocountwithhim,Ihavetothinkof
him,Icannotgoalone.That’sthewayitis.(31‐year‐oldwoman)
I can spend threehourson the computer and she can stay there, but I need
thatshedoesnotneedme[…].Ineedtobeconcentratedonthisandaloneand
tobesurethatIhavethisundercontrol(32‐year‐oldman)
Themain thing is the individual.There isacore that isyours,unyielding,and
youmustpromoteit.Onceyouhavethisreally,withyourlifeprojectofwhat
youwanttodo,youtrytoshare itwithsomebodyandyou lookfortheright
person(34‐year‐oldman)
As Goffman (1977) noticed, “males will have an opportunity of doing and
femalesofshowingrespect,ifnotgratitude,forwhatisdone.Butobservehowsocial
practice has made it possible for men and women to stage these self‐confirming
scenes”(p.320):
It isasacrificehedoes[…]Iaminfinitelygratefultohim[…].Iamthekindof
Page 27
27
personwhoneedstobetoldconstantlywhatisfeltforme.It’sacondition,you
know,quotationsmarks, that I poseandheperfectly accepts and satisfies it.
And I love it, because he does it. […] It makes me feel more happy and
supportive. And thus I think we get a harmonious relationship (31‐year‐old
woman)
Insummary,couplingpatterns,7inconjunctionwithidealsovermasculinityand
femininity,thesubordinationofthedomestictotheprofessionalandoftheemotions
to reason, all of them reinterpreted from equalitarianism, institute the gender
arrangements that simultaneously sustain those demarcations. There are gendered
performances to understand and embrace each other, to achieve intimate harmony
that,farfromcancelasymmetries,reconfigurethemchoreographically:
In all of this, intimacy certainlybringsno corrective. […]Cross‐sex affectional
gestures choreograph protector and protected, embracer and embraced,
comforterandcomforted,supporterandsupported,extenderofaffectionand
recipientthereof;anditisdefinedasonlynaturalthatthemaleencompassand
thefemalebeencompassed.Andthiscanonlyremindusthatmaledomination
isaveryspecialkind,adominationthatcanbecarriedrightintothegentlest,
Page 28
28
mostlovingmomentwithoutapparentlycausingstrain‐indeed,thesemoments
canhardlybeconceivedofapartfromtheseasymmetries(Goffman,1987,p.8‐
9)
Conclusionsandconnections:Remediatedprivacies, sharedagenciesandgendered
choreographies
Theanalysisoftheusesofthetermdisturbanditsderivativesregardingmobile
phoneusesandpracticesquestions,at leastpartially, thecontemporarydescriptions
ofmoderncouples,whichhavecertain truth‐value–in fact theyare trulyperformed
andsustainthefantasyofthe“goodcouplerelationship”withallitspotentialtoelicit
formsof crueloptimism (Berlant,2011)–butarepartial.Genderarrangementshave
become indeed less comfortabledue to significant social transformations,but this is
far from implying that, under the rubric of equality, our ordinary practices are
progressivelygenderlessorinthewayofbecomingsuch.Asfaras“genderexpressions
are by way of being a mere show; but a considerable amount of the substance of
societyisenrolledinthestagingofit”(Goffman,1987,p.8),andasfarasthestageis
being mediated and remediated thanks to the multiple digital participants, the
demarcations among public sphere, privacy and intimacy (Hjorth and Lim, 2012)
becomesimultaneouslycontextuallyrearticulated.
Page 29
29
In this sense, contemporary gender arrangementswithin couple relationsare
highlyremediated,accordingtobothaspectsofremediationdescribedbyBolterand
Grusin(2000):subjecttoextendedmediationsregardingmultipledevices,applications
andmostaspectsofeverydaylife,aswellasaimingtowardsanidealofimmediacyand
transparency. The uses and practices of mobile media highlight their ambivalent
potentialities (Cooper, 2001), supporting both a growing possibility of mobility and
flexibility, as well as an increased ability to track communications, networks and
activities,andtomonitorotherpeople(Green,2001).
Social practices and the ways people use these media reveal forms of
(gendered)attachment:amongpeople,andbetweenpeopleandtechnologies.Tobe
attached toothers throughmobilemediationmeans tobeaccessible. This increases
theneedtomanageavailability,asitrearrangesthelimitsforprivacyandterritoriesof
the self. This ambivalence fits in with the paradoxical male position found in our
research: a certain nostalgia for a pre‐digital and disconnected world when the
territoriesoftheselfweremorefirmlydefined,handledandsupported,coexistswith
theusual“lovefortechnology”duetothepromiseofcontrolovertheworld,others
and self. Digital technologies asmobile phones dismiss that promise, as they afford
accessibility,connectivityandincreaseopennesstoothersandtheworld,makingtheir
territoriesoftheselfmorevulnerable.Themobilephonepotentialitiestolocalizeand
Page 30
30
exert control over the partner, the wireless leash (Qiu, 2007), are also part of this
genderedandmediatedchoreography.Assecrecy, inaccessibilityandpersonal realm
clashwith ahegemonic viewof the intimatebondas a relationwhere transparency
and full sharing seem tobe thegroundsofmutual recognition.Mobilephoneshave
thepotentialtosupportandreinforcetheindividualrealmofactivities,andtomanage
andextend themobilityofaffectsandaffiliations.Within thecouple, thisautonomy
andprivacy,particularlyprotectedandsustainedbymen,arefoughtanddownplayed
bymobilephoneusesandexpectationssetmostlybywomen.
Theunderstandingofthesocialimplicationsofmobilemediaforprivacyandits
contextual integrity needs to take into account this complex articulation ofmobility
and attachment that stress or play down different features of the technologies,
accordingnotonlytopeople’sparticularwillorintention,buttoothersocialorderings
andconstraints.Thusdigitalmediaremediateandcontributetoreconfigureprevious
contextual and relational arrangements of private and public. This clarifies the
difficulty of considering both realms as dichotomous spheres. A short fieldwork tale
canillustratethisparticularentanglement.Ayoungmarriedwomanwithachildliving
withherfamilyinasmallflat,whereshedoesnothavearoomofherown,saysthat
her privacy is her laptop. For her, surfing theweb, exchangingmails andmessages,
tweetingandfacebooking, takingpart inonlinepublics,all theseonlineactivitiesare
Page 31
31
waysofachievingapersonalspace,herterritorywithinthehousehold,affordingthe
necessarydistancefromcoupleandfamilyrequirements.
Therefore,digitalmediaplayaroleintheconfigurationofpeople’ssubjections
and dependencies, not only related to a growing attachment to the devices and
applications, but also by the new social obligations, accessibility and ways of
monitoring that these technologies are facilitating. They take part in the shaping of
contemporary individuals and their interpersonal bonds, and thus, in contemporary
(gendered)subjectivationprocesses: inthe“wayahumanbeingturnshimorherself
intoasubject”(Foucault1982,p.208)throughavarietyof“operationsontheirown
bodies,ontheirownsouls,ontheirthoughts,ontheirownconducts”(Foucault1988,
p.18).Theshapingoftheselfentailsdifferentmodesofdependenceorsubjection.In
this sense, “subject” has a double meaning: as being subjected to something or
someone, under the power, control or dependence of another person, group or
institution, and as constraint to a particular identity, self‐conscience and self‐
knowledge(Foucault,1982).Bothmeaningssuggestaformofpowerthatsubjugates
and shapes our subjectivities. The remediated gendered choreographies of couples’
everydaylivesrevealhowmobilephonesplayaroleinbothaspects:identityandself‐
knowledge on the one hand, and monitoring, self‐control and dependence on the
other.
Page 32
32
Thepervasivenessandubiquityofmobilemediamakeitsroleintheshapingof
the self more intense: the dependence and attachment to the device are both
narrowly linked to the dependence and attachment to other people, and to our
expectations and our obligations towards them. Gendered choreographic
arrangements perform a shared agency between people andmobile telephony. The
notionofsharedagencystressesthemutualshapingandtrainingregardingpeopleand
technologies involved in the learning process of digital uses and practices. Using
mobilephonesentailssharingouragency,asthedevicesandtheirapplicationsafford
somepracticesandactivitiesaswellaspreventothers.Inourcasestudydifferentuses
arisefromthemeetingofthedeviceandapplications,withtheirfeatures,possibilities
and constraints, and people, with their socio‐historically situated and changing
subjectivities, necessities, aims and particularities. There is a cultural, social and
personal shaping of digital technologies while, reciprocally, individuals and
interpersonal relationships become shaped by the presence, uses and practices of
digitaldevices.
Thisisacollectivelearningprocessinvolvingmodesofcollaborationaswellas
multiple and potential clashes. It includes people and devices, and institutional
regulationsandotherkindofnorms.Aswehaveseen,amobilephoneconversation
mobilizes several activities and forms of social practical knowledge on gender and
Page 33
33
otherintertwinedsocialorderings,embodiment,technologicalliteracy,linguisticskills,
etiquette rules, personal creativity and emotionalmanagement. This shared agency
contributestosetthecontextualnormsthatdelimitprivacyandterritoriesoftheself,
regarding appropriateness and the information flow. Looking at the specific case of
norms and expectations about mobile phone uses and communication within
heterosexual couple helps us to grasp the gendered way privacy is configured,
protectedorundermined.
Notes
1Thenotionofprivacyisembeddedinlargertrendsofpoliticalandsocialchanges(cf.
thefivevolumesHistoryoftheprivatelifeeditedbyArièsandDuby1987–1991).
2. The research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(CSO2008‐05207).RubénBlancoandAntonioGarcíaarealsopartoftheteam.
3 A critic of these views on heterosexual intimacy can be found in Eldén, 2012;
Jamieson,1999andGross,2005.
4Therelevanceofthiscaseisgroundedaswellinthewidespreadadoptionanduseof
mobile phones in Spain for bothmen (94%) and women (94,30%), similar to other
Europeancountries,withamobilephonepenetrationrateof118,2%andthehighest
penetration in Smartphones in Europe with 66 percent (data of the INE (National
Page 34
34
Institute of Statistics), July 2013,
http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t25/p450/a2013/&file=pcaxis)
5 This technical interest can be interpreted as an enactment of their embodied
masculinity,asbothhavebeenmutuallyshapedinmodernsocieties.“Thisisnottosay
that there is onemasculinityorone formof technology: rather, it is tonote that in
contemporaryWesternsociety,hegemonicmasculinity […] is still stronglyassociated
with technical prowess and power” (Wajcman, 2000, p. 454), as most research on
gender and (communication) technology has shown (Caputi, 1988; Faulkner, 2001;
LohanandFaulkner,2004).
6 Apparently they share the same view as Zuckerberg when trying to justify the
changes of privacy settings in Facebook or as U.S. officials and journalists trying to
justifytheNSAPRISMprogram.
7EchoingGoffman(1977),“thecustomaryagedifferentialbetweenthepairingsexes
ensuresthat,byandlarge,themalewillbemoreexperiencedandmoneyedthanthe
female, this, too, supporting the showof control he exhibits in social situations” (p.
321).
References
Ariès, Ph. & Duby, F. (Eds) (1987‐1991). History of the private life, five volumes.
Page 35
35
HarvardUniversityPress.
Beck,U.&Beck‐Gernsheim, E. (1995).TheNormal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Berlant,L.(2011).CruelOptimism.DurhamN.C.:DukeUniversityPress.
Berlant,L.&McCabe,E.(2011).Depressiverealism.AninterviewwithLaurenBerlant,
Hypocrite Reader, Issue 5, June. http://hypocritereader.com/5/depressive‐
realism(accessed7February2014).
Bolter, J.D.&Grusin,R. (2000).Remediation:UnderstandingNewMedia.Cambridge:
MITPress.
Branaman, A. (2010). The Protean Goffman. InM. H. Jacobsen (Ed.), Contemporary
Goffman(pp.232‐255).NewYork:Routledge,.
Caputi, J. (1988). Seeing elephants: Themyths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies
14(3),487‐524.
Carey,J.(1989).CommunicationasCulture.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
Casado,E. (2002).Laconstrucciónsociocognitivade las identidadesdegénerode las
mujeres españolas (Doctoral dissertation), Universidad Complutense Madrid,
Spain.Retrievedfromwww.ucm.es/BUCM/tesis/cps/ucm‐t26344.pdf(accessed
2September2013)
Cooper, G. (2001). The Mutable Mobile: Social Theory in the Wireless world. In B.
Page 36
36
Brown, N. Green & R. Harper (Eds).WirelessWorld. Social and Interactional
AspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.19‐31).London:Springer‐Verlag.
Eldén,S.(2012).Scriptsforthe“goodcouple”:Individualizationandthereproduction
ofgenderinequality,ActaSociologica,55(1):3–18.
Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist
technologystudies,Women'sStudiesInternationalForum24(1):79–95.
Fortunati,L.(2005).MobileTelephoneandthePresentationofSelf. InR.Ling&P.E.
Pedersen (Eds.)Mobile communications. Re‐negotiation of the Social Sphere
(pp.203‐218).London:Springer.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and the power. Afterword. In H.L. Dreyfus & P.
Rabinow(Eds.)BeyondStructuralismandHermeneutics(pp.208‐225).Chicago:
TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Foucault,M.(1988).TechnologiesoftheSelf.InL.H.Martin,H.Gutman&P.H.Hutton,
Technologiesof theSelf:ASeminarwithMichelFoucault (pp.16‐49).London:
Tavistock.
Garfinkel,H.(1967).StudiesinEthnomethodology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice‐Hall.
Gidddens,A.(1992).Thetransformationofintimacy.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Goffman,E.(1987).GenderAdvertisements.NewYork:Harper&RowPublishers
Goffman,E.(1983).Felicity’scondition.AmericanJournalofSociology,89,1‐53.
Page 37
37
Goffman, E. (1977). The Arrangement between the Sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3),
301‐331
Goffman,E.(1971).RelationsinPublic.NewYork:BasicBooks
Green, N. (2001). Who’s watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile
relations. InB.Brown,N.Green&R.Harper(Eds).WirelessWorld.Socialand
InteractionalAspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.32‐45).London:Springer‐Verlag.
Gross, N. (2005). The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered, Sociological
Theory23(3):477‐494.
Hashimoto, S. D. & Campbell, S. W. (2008). The occupation of ethereal locations:
Indicationsofmobiledata.CriticalStudiesinMediaCommunication,25(5),537‐
558.
Hjorth, L. & Lim, S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media.
FeministMediaStudies12(4),477‐484.
Jamieson,L.(1999).IntimacyTransformed?ACriticalLookatthe“Purerelationship”.
Sociology33(3):286‐311.
Lasén,A.(2011).“Mobilesarenotthatpersonal”:theunexpectedconsequencesofthe
accountability,accessibilityandtransparencyaffordedbymobiletelephony.In
R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.) The Mobile Communication Research Series:
Volume II,MobileCommunication:BringingUsTogetherorTearingUsApart?
Page 38
38
(pp.83‐105).Edison,NJ:Transactionbooks.
Lasén, A. & Casado, E. (2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple
intimacy.FeministMediaStudies,12(4):550‐559.
Lohan,M.&Faulkner,W. (2004).MasculinitiesandTechnologies.Some Introductory
Remarks.Menandmasculinities,6(4):319‐329.
Nissenbaum,H.(2004).PrivacyasContextualIntegrity.WashingtonLawReview79(1),
119‐158.
Peters,J.D.(2000).SpeakingintotheAir.Chicago:TheChicagoUniversityPress.
Qiu, J.L. (2007). “The Wireless Leash”: Mobile Messaging Service as a Means of
Control.InternationalJournalofCommunication1,74‐91.
Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile Phone Communication: Extending Goffman to Mediated
Interaction.Sociology43(3),421‐438.
Sheller,M. & Urry, J. (2003).Mobile Transformations of “Public” and “Private” life.
Theory,CultureandSociety20(3),107‐125.
Simmel,G.(1906).Thesociologyofsecrecyandofsecretsocieties,Americanjournalof
sociology,11:441‐498.
Thompson, J.B. (2011).ShiftingBoundariesofPublicandPrivateLife.Theory,Culture
andSociety28(4),49‐70.
Wajcman, J. (2000).ReflectionsonGender andTechnologyStudies.Social Studiesof
Page 39
39
Science30(3),447‐464.