The need for emotional connection and the development of intimate relationships with others has always constituted a crucial part of human nature. Combined with the instinctive search for a partner as a part of the biological function, the specified social phenomenon has been shaped by significant changes in the cultural perception of intimacy and marriage. Similarly, their role in relationships, and the function that they play in the broader context of social interactions between individuals within modern society have affected people’s perceptions of the subject matter. Due to the increase in the extent of cultural exchange within the modern globalized community, as well as the increase in the pace of social development, the idea of intimacy as sharing opinions, feelings, and needs, has shifted toward a more consumerist approach, defining the respective alterations in marriage.
The changes to the understanding of intimacy on a personal level are, perhaps, one of the more obvious changes in the perception of the subject matter over decades. Linking the described alteration to the context of the present-day global setting, one will realize that the removal of boundaries in communication and social interactions between individuals has muddied their perception of intimacy (Toft & Yip, 2018). Therefore, it is vital to encourage individuals to reevaluate their understanding of intimacy as a profound emotional connection.
At the same time, one could argue that, with the increase in the globalization process and the development of a unique setting for constant global interactions, the appreciation for intimacy has increased. Specifically, the increased pace of life combined with a rise in the role of consumerism have accentuated the uniqueness of an intimate connection and the importance of having it in an individual’s life (Toft & Yip, 2018). However, while the described trend is taking place in the modern community, the obstacles to intimacy prompt the development of deeply-seated dissatisfaction (Umberson et al., 2018). For this reason, a personal change must be made in each individual to acknowledge the issue and strive to improve.
Arguably, along with the outlined negative change in the perception and understanding of intimacy, a rather positive trend in its interpretation has also emerged. Specifically, due to the increased role of self-exploration and personal development, a more nuanced interpretation of intimacy and its multiple facets, has surfaced in the modern global society (Toft & Yip, 2018). As a result, the concept of intimacy has been expanded to the idea of developing a profound personal connection with another person, including emotional rapport, spiritual growth, mutual psychological support, and the associated issues (Umberson et al., 2018).
In turn, the alterations mentioned above have percolated into people’s understanding of the related social constructs and institutions, marriage being one of them. Previously viewed as a crucial milestone of an individual’s life and a necessary attribute, it has been stripped of its merit of legitimizing intimate relationships between individuals.
The changes that the concepts of intimacy and marriage have undergone over the past decade can be summarized as the tendency to view the act of intimate connection as an increasingly difficult task, Moreover, the latter, has led to viewing marriage as an unnecessarily taxing way of ensuring social and emotional commitment of a partner. Although it would be wrong to brand all of the described changes as negative, the tendency to minimize the importance of intimacy is quite troubling, which calls for a significant social change.
References
Toft, A., & Yip, A. K. T. (2018). Intimacy negotiated: The management of relationships and the construction of personal communities in the lives of bisexual women and men. Sexualities, 21(1-2), 233-250. Web.
Umberson, D., Donnelly, R., & Pollitt, A. M. (2018). Marriage, social control, and health behavior: A dyadic analysis of same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 59(3), 429-446. Web.