Individualisation versus the geography of ‘new’ families

Commitment and the changing sequence of cohabitation, childbearing, and marriage

“…In particular, educational level or social class may be important for shaping attitudes and norms. For example, individuals in professional occupations are more likely to prefer the traditional order of marriage before childbearing (Duncan and Smith 2006;Duncan and Phillips 2008), and the highly educated are more likely to have a birth within marriage than those who are less educated (Berrington 2001(Berrington , 2003Kiernan and Smith 2003;Perelli-Harris et al 2010). Thus, while the UK population may becoming more accepting of new sequences of family life events, the practice of new sequences may not be occurring among all groups.…”

“…In the UK, both quantitative and qualitative research has contested the individualisation thesis (Lewis 2001;Jamieson et al 2002;Duncan et al 2005;Duncan and Smith 2006;Carter 2012), arguing that "commitment cannot be abandoned so quickly to individualisation" (Carter 2012, p. 138). By examining commitment in intimate relationships, UK scholars have defined and deepened the understanding of how individuals understand commitment in marriage and cohabitation, and fundamentally challenged the idea that commitment in relationships has declined (Lewis 2001;Jamieson et al 2002;Carter 2012).…”

Living together in a sexually exclusive relationship: an enduring, pervasive ideal?

“…Giddens, 1992;Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995;Bauman, 2003), and may have encouraged and legitimated solo-living, cohabitation and relationship dissolution (Kaufmann, 2008: 143-6;193-4;Budgeon, 2008: 306). However, individualisation theorists have been criticised for inadequately-grounded assumptions of widespread, revolutionary change, which often ignore heterogeneity and continuities (Jamieson, 1998;Scott, 1998;Duncan and Smith, 2006). Furthermore, the 'transformation of intimacy' has not necessarily rendered coupledom undesirable (Giddens, 1992;Holmes 2004b: 255).…”

“…However, the extent to which the accepted existence of relationship-related diversity has been accompanied by changes in norms is disputed (Roseneil, 2000;Duncan and Smith, 2006;Weeks, 2007: 151). Jamieson (2004: 55) queries whether solo-living necessarily reflects coupledom declining as an ideal, and assessments of the implications of the growing importance of friendship networks for the normative role of exclusive sexual relationships vary markedly (Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004;Spencer and Pahl, 2006).…”

Mapping same-sex couple family households in Australia

“…However, with government agencies across the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and elsewhere now collecting information on same-sex couples -such as census bureaux, social security agencies and marriage/civil union registries -there are increasing quantitative records of sexual minority populations. Some scholars have started using these data, especially in the US (Brown and Knopp, 2006;Cooke, 2005;Cooke and Rapino, 2007;Gates and Ost, 2004), but also in the UK (Duncan and Smith, 2006) and Australia (Birrell and Rapson, 2002). Brown (2007, p. 208) thus argues that the "careful use of quantitative techniques and data" in geographies of sexuality is crucial for "providing an internal critique to scientific studies of sexuality, ... claiming space and ontology against those who would ignore or erase our very presence in their world, and ... avoid[ing] the trap of being the 'others' who are spoken of and about, but never heard themselves".…”