“The Conjugal Ideal” Between Personal Choice and Parental Vision

Authors

  • Andreea Greta Dragne University of Bucharest, Romania

Keywords:

Love, functionality, marital partner, extended family, marital commitment

Abstract

Love is a theme at the center of everyday life, one we all experience regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or religion. It is interesting to observe how love is regarded as important by individuals and how we choose to focus all our resources - social, economic, and material - to attain it. For this reason, relationships have not truly changed, but rather the angle from which we come to perceive them has shifted - this being due to the factors to which society exposes us. Classic sociologists demonstrate that the social nature of our most intimate feelings and the way we rethink love are tied to broader social changes. Factors such as passion, stability, stereotypes, and social pressure influence the choice of a future partner in a society often labeled as open, but which, in the end, has merely replaced the rules of the game. Illouz (2003) explains how the concept of love has evolved in contemporary society under the influence of several factors, such as the rationalization of suffering, aspirations shaped by society, and the ways in which modernity has brought about cultural and economic changes that, in turn, have fostered a certain affinity for a specific type of partner. In this context, the present research aims to explore how young people in modern society choose their “ideal” partner in relation to the expectations of their parents and the fluid society. It also investigates the factors projected by society onto the individual, which contribute to the “choice of the ideal partner.”

Author Biography

Andreea Greta Dragne, University of Bucharest, Romania

University of Bucharest, Romania

References

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Polity Press.

Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 417-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595123006

Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848-861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x

Chicu, V. (2020). Interferențe ale stilului de atașament și limbajele iubirii la tineri [Interferences between attachment style and love languages among young people]. Studia Universitatis Moldaviae - Științe ale Educației.

Giddens, A. (1999). Transformarea intimității: Sexualitatea, dragostea și erotismul în societățile moderne [The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies]. Antet.

Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3), 301-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00206983

Illouz, E. (2013). Why love hurts: A sociological explanation. Wiley.

Keuth, H. (2015). The positivist dispute in German sociology: A scientific or a political controversy? Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(2), 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/

X14536537

Lawrence, B. S., & Shah, N. P. (2020). Homophily: Measures and meaning. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 513-597. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0052

Luhmann, N. (1998). Love as passion: The codification of intimacy. Stanford University Press.

Schwarz, O. (2018). Cultures of choice: Towards a sociology of choice as a cultural phenomenon. The British Journal of Sociology, 69(4), 845-864. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12321

Taras, S. (2014). Relația dintre stilurile de dragoste și satisfacția în cuplu [The relationship between love styles and couple satisfaction]. Buletin de Perinatologie, 4(64), 67.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/

Downloads

Published

2025-05-17