сп. Критика и хуманизъм | кн. 60, бр. 1/2024 | Интимност: практики, дискурси и политики

водещи броя: Гергана Ненова, Татяна Коцева и Вероника Димитрова, кн. 60, бр. 1/2024, с. 332, ISSN:0861-1718

Купи изданието

Съдържание

 

* Изданието е достъпно на български език.

Уводни думи

Тематичният брой „Интимност: практики, дискурси и политики“ це- ли да отговори на предизвикателствата на бързо променящите се социо- културни измерения на интимността, като предложи различни теоретични и емпирични перспективи към нея. Амбицията му е не само да допринесе към научното познание на тази проблематика в български контекст, но и да създаде и консолидира академична общност, подготвена да се включи в международните научни дебати. Текстовете са обединени в пет тема- тични блока – „Интимността като теоретичен терен“, „Дигитални интим- ности“, „Рискове на интимността“, „Етнос и интимност“ и „Юношество и интимност“.

Издаването на този брой е възможно благодарение на финансовата подкрепа на Фонда за научни изследвания на МОН в рамките на проекта „Култури, практики и рискове на интимността на младите хора в Бълга- рия“ (2023–2026) (договор КП-06-Н65/8 от 12.12.2022 г., ръководител Гер- гана Ненова).

Автори: Гергана Ненова, Татяна Коцева и Вероника Димитрова

Интимността като теоретичен терен

Социологическите подходи към интимността – в търсене на теория на средно равнище

Abstract: The article explores the different theoretical understandings and approaches to intimacy inherent in the fields of family sociology, sociology of love and sociology of intimacy. A theoretical differentiation of three ideal-typical models of intimacy is proposed and elaborated – codified intimacy, democratic intimacy, and everyday intimacy. Codified intimacy includes the culturally established ideas and practices around love, democratic intimacy – the cultural ideal of equality in the intimate relations, and everyday intimacy – the habitual ways and meanings of „doing intimacy“ and creating coupledom in everyday life. The contemporary intimate relations of young people in Bulgaria are viewed as located at the intersection of these three types of intimacy.

Keywords: intimacy, intimate relationships, love

Автор: Гергана Ненова

Гергана Ненова е преподавател и изследовател към катедра „Социология“ на Софийски университет „Св. Климент Охридски“. Тя има докторска степен по социология и магистратура по социални изследвания на пола. Изследователските ѝ интереси са в полето на социология на семейството и социология на пола, а изследванията ѝ са посветени на теми като джендър неравенствата в платения и неплатения труд, родителството, правата на децата, антиджендър движенията и интимността.

Адрес:

СУ „Св. Климент Охридски“ Катедра „Социология“
Бул. Цариградско шосе 125 1113 София

Email: gergananenova@yahoo.com

 

Библиография

Abbey, R. (1999) Back to the future: Marriage as friendship in the thought of Mary Wollstonecraft. Hypatia, 14 (3), pp. 78–95.

Beck, U. (2013) Riskovoto obshtestvo. Translation from German Svetla Marinova. Sofia: Kritika i humanizam [Бек, У. (2013) Рисковото общество. Превод от немски Светла Маринова. София: Критика и хуманизъм].

Berger, P. and Kellner, H. (1964) Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 12 (46), pp. 1–24.

Castells, M. (2010) The power of identity (2nd edition). Oxford, U.K.; Malden, Mass: Wiley Blackwell.

Duncombe, J., Marsden, D. (1993) Love and Intimacy: The Gender Division of Emotion and Emotion Work’ A Neglected Aspect of Sociological Discussion of Heterosexual Relationships. Sociology, 27 (2), pp. 221–241.

Eldén, S. (2012) Scripts for the ‘good couple’: Individualization and the reproduction of gender inequality. Acta Sociologica, 55 (1), pp. 3–18.

Engels. F. (1975) Proizhod na semeystvoto, chastnata sobstvenost i darzhavata. Sofia: Partizdat. [Енгелс, Ф. (1975) Произход на семейството, частната собственост и държавата. София: Партиздат].

Gabb, J., and Fink, J. (2015) Couple relationships in the 21st century: Research, policy, practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity press.

Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Gillies, V. (2003) Family and intimate relationships: A review of the sociological research. Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group Working Paper No. 2. London: Families and Social Capital Research Group.
Goode, W. J. (1959) The theoretical importance of love. American Sociological Review, pp. 38–47. Gross, N. (2005) The detraditionalization of intimacy reconsidered. Sociological theory, 23 (3),pp. 286–311.
Hadzhiyski, I. (2002) Bit i dushevnost na nashiya narod. Vol. 1. Sofia: LIK izdaniya [Хаджийски, И. (2002) Бит и душевност на нашия народ. Т. 1. София: ЛИК Издания].
Hammack, P., Frost, D., and Hughes, S. (2019) Queer intimacies: A new paradigm for the study of relationship diversity. The Journal of Sex Research, 56 (4–5), pp. 556–592.
Illouz, E. (2007) Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Malden: Polity Press. Illouz, E. (2012) Why love hurts: a sociological explanation. Cambridge and Malden: Polity press.
Illouz, E. (2019) The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, L. (2005) Boundaries of intimacy. In: McKie, L., Cunningham-Burley, S. (ed.) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 189–206. Jamieson, L. (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’. Sociology, 33 (3), pp. 477–494.
Jamieson, L. (2011) Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentricism?. Sociological research online, 16 (4), pp.151–163. Karandashev, V. (2019) Cross-cultural perspectives on the experience and expression of love. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Koleva, D. Vavedenie. In: Koleva, D. (comp.), Lyubovta pri sotsializma. Obraztsi, obrazi, tabuta. Sofia: Riva, pp. 7–17 [Колева, Д. (2015). Въведение. В: Колева, Д. (съст.) Любовта при социализма. Образци, образи, табута. София: Рива, с. 7–17].
Luhmann, N. (1986) Love as passion: The codification of intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2010) Love: A sketch. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
Merton, R. (1998) Za sotsiologicheskite teorii na sredno ravnishte. In: Fotev, G. (comp.), Izvori na sotsiologiata. Stara Zagora: Trakia OOD, pp. 381–403 [Мъртън, Р. (1998) За социо- логическите теории на средно равнище. В: Фотев, Г. (съст.) Извори на социологията. Стара Загора: Тракия ООД, с. 381–403].

Mjöberg, J. (2009) Challenging the idea of intimacy as intimate relationships: Reflections on intimacy as an analytical concept. In: Cervantes Carson, A., Oria, B. (ed.) Intimate Explo- rations: Reading Across Disciplines. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, pp. 11–22.

Morgan, D. (2019) Family troubles, troubling families, and family practices. Journal of Family Issues, 40 (16), pp. 2225–2238.

Morgner, C. (2014) The theory of love and the theory of society: Remarks on the oeuvre of Niklas Luhmann. International Sociology Reviews, Vol. 29 (5), pp. 396–404.

Nenova, G., Kyurchiev, S. (2018). Lyubovta v hristiyanskite semeystva – otvad pazarnata logika? Seminar_BG, 17 [Ненова, Г., Кюркчиев, С. (2018). Любовта в християнските семейства – отвъд пазарната логика? Семинар_BG, 17 https://www.seminar-bg.eu/ spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17/738-lyubovta-v-hristiyanskite-semeystva.html [Accessed: 27.03.24].

Neykova, N. (2018) Vizualizatsiya na sapruzi. Machmeykingat i tehnikite na ekspertnata sadbovnost. Seminar_BG, 17. [Нейкова, Н. (2018) Визуализация на съпрузи. Мачмейкин- гът и техниките на експертната съдбовност. Семинар_BG, 17. https://www.seminar-bg. eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17/741-vizualizatsiya-na-sapruzi.html [Accessed: 27.03.24].

Parsons, T. (1955) The American family: Its relations to personality and to the social structure. In: Parsons, T., Bales, R. (eds) Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, pp. 3–33.

Petkov, V. (2018) Semeystvata na Shryodinger: nyakoi aspekti ot ezhednevieto na ednopolovite semeystva v Balgariya. Seminar_BG, 17. [Петков, В. (2018) Семействата на Шрьодин- гер: някои аспекти от ежедневието на еднополовите семейства в България. Семи- нар_BG, 17. https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17/739-semeystvata-na- schrodinger.html [Accessed: 27.03.24].

Petrov, M. (2013) Obrazi na intimnost: lyubov i polovi roli v balgarskata populyarna kultura ot 90-te godini na XX vek. Godishnik na Sofiyskiya universitet „Sv. Kliment Ohridski“, Kniga Sotsiologiya, tom 104, pp. 46–58 [Петров, М. (2013) Образи на интимност: любов и полови роли в българската популярна култура от 90-те години на XX век. Годишник на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“, Книга Социология, том 104, с. 46–58].

Plummer, K. (2003) Intimate citizenship: Private decisions and public dialogues. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.

Plummer, K. (2001) The square of intimate citizenship: Some preliminary proposals. Citizenship studies, 5 (3), pp. 237–253.

Roseneil, S., Budgeon, S. (2004) Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current sociology, 52 (2), pp. 135–159.

Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., Hellesund, T., Santos, A. C., Stoilova, M. (2020) The tenacity of the couple-norm: Intimate citizenship regimes in a changing Europe. London: UCL Press.

Rusu, M. (2018) Theorising love in sociological thought: Classical contributions to a sociology of love. Journal of Classical Sociology, 18 (1), pp. 3–20.

Spasovska, L. (1980) Semejstvoto. Sotsiologicheski ocherk. Sofia: Partizdat [Спасовска, Л. (1980). Семейството. Социологически очерк. София: Партиздат].

Springgay, S. (2021) Feltness: On how to practice intimacy. Qualitative Inquiry, 27 (2), pp. 210–214.

Stone, L. (1979) The family, sex and marriage in England 1500–1800. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Törnqvist, M. (2018) Rethinking intimacy: Semi-anonymous spaces and transitory attachments in Argentine tango dancing. Current Sociology, 66 (3), pp. 356–372.

Vukov, N. (2015) Mladezhta i neynite „lyubovni trepeti“ pri sotsializma: obyavite za zapoznan- stva i chitatelskite pisma v sp. Mladezh. In: Koleva, D. (comp.), Lyubovta pri sotsializma. Obraztsi, obrazi, tabuta. Sofia: Riva, pp. 146–176 [Вуков, Н. (2015). Младежта и нейните „любовни трепети“: обявите за запознанства и читателските писма в сп. Младеж. В: Колева, Д. (съст.) Любовта при социализма. Образци, образи, табута. София: Рива, с. 146–176].

Wilson, A. (2012) Intimacy: A useful category of transnational analysis. In: The global and the intimate: Feminism in our time, In: Pratt, G., Rosner, V. (eds.). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 31–56.

Zelizer, V. (2007) The purchase of intimacy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Forstie, C. (2017) A new framing for an old sociology of intimacy. Sociology compass, 11 (4), pp. 1–14.

 

Да бъдеш собственост, да бъдеш интимна: брак и гражданство

Abstract: This paper explores the nexus between marriage and citizenship. Its basic assumption is that, historically, marriage imposed limits on the right to equal participation in citizenship for women. In order to support this hypothesis, modes of historical formation of marriage are examined, first in the Middle Ages, then in the era of so-called abstract equality, and finally in the 19th century, when citizenship had been established as a political institution. Marriage as a legal institution is situated within the historical development of the public and the private, and the transformation of absolute rights of persons. The paper focuses on the state of coverture: the situation of married women in Anglo-Saxon legislature. This examination of the specificities of the dual development of private persons finds that the specific position of married women not only delayed their acquisition of the status of citizen, but also remained deeply interwoven in the texture of citizenship itself.

Кeywords: citizenship, marriage, women, privacy, property, representation

Автор: Адриана Захариевич

Адриана Захариевич е главен научен сътрудник в Института по философия и социална теория в Университета в Белград. Нейната работа съчетава политическа философия, джендър изследвания и социална история. Тя е автор на четири книги, като последната е Judith Butler and Politics (Edinburgh University Press, 2023) и е публикувала в Signs, European Women’s Studies Journal, East European Politics and Societies и Cultures, Redescriptions and Women’s Studies International Forum. Нейни текстове са превеждани на албански, немски, унгарски, италиански, македонски, пор- тугалски, словенски, турски и украински, а самата тя превежда философия и феминистка теория на сръбски.

Email: adriana.zaharijevic@gmail.com

Библиография

Blackstone, W. (1765) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bodichon, B. (1854) A Brief Summary in Plain Language of the Most Important Laws Concerning Women. London: Holyoake and Co.

Bok, G. (2005) Žena u istoriji Evrope. Beograd: Clio.

Dietz, M. (1992) Context is All: Feminism and Theories of Citizenship. In: Mouffe, Ch. (ed.)

Dimensions of Radical Democracy, Pluralism and Community. London: Verso, pp. 63–85. Erickson, A. (2005) Coverture and Capitalism. History Workshop Journal, 59, pp. 1–16. Habermas, J. (2012) Javno mnjenje. Novi Sad: Mediterran.

Harrison, J. (1989) The Common People. A History from the Norman Conquest to the Present. Glasgow: Fontana.

Jones, K. (1997) Introduction to Special Issue: Citizenship in Feminism. Hypatia, 12 (4), pp. 1–5. Josephson, J. (2005) Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage. Perspectives on Politics, 3 (2), pp. 269–284.

Layser, H. (2004) Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450–1500. London: Phoenix.

Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Towards a Feminist Synthesis. Feminist Review, 57, pp. 28–48. Locke, J. (1924) Two Treatises of Government. London: Rivington.

Marshall, T. (2009) Citizenship and Social Class. In: Manza, J., Sauder, M. Inequality and Society: Social Science Perspectives on Social Stratification. New York: W. W. Norton and Co, pp. 148–154.

Pejtmen, K. (2001) Polni ugovor. Beograd: Feministička 94.

Ruskin, J. (1865) Sesame And Lilies, Great Literature Online, http://ruskin.classicauthors.net/ SesameAndLilies [Accessed: 02.02.15].

Vogel, U. (1994) Marriage and the Boundaries of Citizenship. In: van Steenbergen, Ur. (ed.) The Condition of Citizenship. London: Sage, pp. 76–89.

Walby, S. (1997) Gender Transformation. New York and London: Routledge.

Yuval-Davis, N. (1991) The Citizenship Debate: Women, Ethnic Processes and the State. Feminist Review, 39, pp. 58–68.

Zaharijević, A. (2014) Ko je pojedinac? Genealoško propitivanje ideje građanina. Loznica: Karpos.

Zaharijević, A. (2015) Biti svojina, biti privatnost: brak i građanstvo. In: Dremel, A., Feldman, L., Dujić, L., Borić, R., Prlenda, S., Grdesić, Kirin, R. (eds.) Kako će to biti divno! Uzduž i poprijeko. Brak, zakon i intimno građanstvo u povijesnoj i suvremenoj perspektivi. Zagreb: Centar za ženske studije.

Рискове на интимността

Уязвимата интимност: рискове и несигурност в интимните отношения на младите хора в България

Abstract: The current article presents some outcomes of a qualitative study among female victims of domestic violence, police officers and experts from sheltering services in Bulgaria. Eight focused groups, from four different regions, with 63 respondents were developed by a Grounded-theory analysis. The finding shows “mistrust in the system” as a core concept, shared by all types of respondents in all discussion settings. The axial codes include systematic, cultural, and personal nodes. The basic barriers at that level include: “negative previous experience”, “cumbersome procedures”, “rushed protection”, “mutual negative stereotypes”, “professional culture” [of the police officers], “revictimization”, “inefficient protection”, “concerns about the future quality of life”, and “severe social vulnerability”. Some limitations of the study such as non- selection bias of non-reported IPV cases, underreported violence against male partners, and IPV cases in LGBTQ+ communities, as well as lack of focused group with healthcare providers are discussed at the end of the article.

Keywords: gender-based intimate partner violence, violence against women, domestic abuse in Bulgaria

Автори: Татяна Коцева, Елица Димитрова

Библиография

Bandinelli, C., Gandini, A. (2022) Dating Apps: The Uncertainty of Marketised Love. Cultural Sociology, 16 (3), pp. 423–441 https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211051559.

Bauman, Z. (2003) Obshtnostta v tarsene na bezopasnost v nesigurnia svyat. Sofia: LIK [Ба- уман, З. (2003) Общността в търсене на безопасност в несигурния свят. София: ЛИК].

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2003) Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2002) Shto e globalizatsia. Sofia: Kritika i humanizam. [Бек, У. (2002) Що е глобализация. София: Критика и хуманизъм].

Beck, U. (2001) Svetovnoto riskovo obshtestvo. Sofia: Obsidian. [Бек, У. (2001) Световното рисково общество. София: Обсидиан].

Beck, U., Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2014) Distant Love: Personal Life in the Global Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Reinventing the Family: In Search for New Lifestyles. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bolgurova, R. (2018) Mobilnite prilozhenia za zapoznanstva: noviyat Kupidon v telefona. Seminar_BG, 17 Algoritmi na lyubovta [Болгурова, Р. (2018) Мобилните приложения за запознанства: новият Купидон в телефона. Семинар_BG, 17. Алгоритми на лю- бовта]. https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17.html?start=10 [Accessed:

16.02.24].
Coon, R. (2006) Theorizing sex in heterodox society: postmodernity, late capitalism and nonmonogamous sexual behavior. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 9. https://link.gale. com/apps/doc/A154757387/AONE?u=anon~d110490&sid=googleScholar&xid=56659b eb.

Dalessandro, C. (2018) Internet Intimacy: Authenticity and Longing in the Relationships of Millennial Young Adults. Sociological Perspectives, 61 (4), pp. 626–641. https://doi. org/10.1177/0731121417753381.

Fromm, E. (2021) Byagstvo ot svobodata. Sofia: Ciela. [Фром, Е. (2021) Бягство от свобо- дата. София: Сиела].

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N. and Lai, Ch-H. (2010) First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Inves- tigation of Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating. Communication Research, 38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091.

Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity.

Gross, N. (2005) The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered. Sociological Theory, 23 (3), pp. 286–311.

Holmes, M. (2010) The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44 (1), pp. 139–154.

Hristov, T. (2018) Bezopasni vrazki. Upravlenie na riskove i onlayn sablaznyavane. Seminar_ BG, 17, Algoritmi na lyubovta [Христов, Т. (2018) Безопасни връзки. Управление на рискове и онлайн съблазняване. Семинар_BG, 17, Алгоритми на любовта]. https://

www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17.html?start=10 [Accessed: 16.02.24]. Illouz, E. (2007) Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Illouz, E. (2012) Why Love Hurts. A Sociological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Illouz, E. (2019) The End of Love. A Sociology of Negative Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jamieson, L. (1999) Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the Pure Relationship. Sociology 33, pp. 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0038038599000310.

Jamieson, L. (2011) Intimacy as a Concept: Explaining Social Change in the Context of Glo- balization or Another Form of Ethnocentrism? Sociological Research Online, 16 (4), p. 15 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/15.html>10.5153/sro.2497.

Jones, D. (2007) The Art of Internet Dating: The Definite Practical Guide. Melville: The Oracle Press.

Kotzeva, T., Kostova, D. (2007) Mladite hora i intimnostta v usloviyata na sotsialna promyana. Sofia: Akad. Izd. „Prof. Marin Drinov“ [Коцева, Т.,

Костова, Д. (2007) Младите хора и интимността в условията на социална промяна. София: Акад. изд. „Проф. Марин Дринов“].

Lee, R. (2008) In search of second modernity: reinterpreting reflexive modernization in the con- text of multiple modernities. Social Science Information, 47 (1), pp. 55–69.

Mitev. P-E. and Kovacheva, S. (2014) Mladite hora v evropeyska Bulgaria – sotsiologicheski portret 2014. Sofia: Fondatsia „Fridrih Ebert“ [Митев. П-Е. и Ковачева, С. (2014) Младите хора в европейска България – социологически портрет 2014. София: Фондация „Фридрих Еберт“].

Neykova, N. (2015) Mobilni fantasmagorii. Sofia: Fondatsia „Mediyna demokratsia“ [Нейкова, Н. (2015) Мобилни фантасмагории. София: Фондация „Медийна демокрация“]. Neykova, N. (2018) Uvod. Empirichen prochit na lyubovta. Seminar_BG, 17, Algoritmi na lyubovta [Нейкова, Н. (2018) Увод. Емпиричен прочит на любовта. Семинар_BG, 17, Алгоритми на любовта]. https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy17.html [Accessed: 16.02.24].

Ohwovoriole, T. (2023) Polygamy vs Polyamory: What’s the Difference?, https://www.verywellmind.com/polygamy-vs-polyamory-what-s-the-difference-7486975 [Accessed: 16.02.24].

Padilla, M., Hirsch, J., Munoz-Laboy, M., Sember, R., Parker, R. (2007) Love and Globalization: Transformations of Intimacy in the Contemporary World. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Rezeanu, C.-I. (2016) Reflexive Transformation of Intimacy in Late Modernity Theories: Some Critiques and Conceptual Alternatives. Postmodern Openings, 7 (1), pp. 35–54. http:// dx.doi.org/10.18662/po/2016.0701.03.

Sorys, S. (2020) Transformation of family ties. Family Forum, 10, pp. 15–35, http://dx.doi. org/10.25167/FF/1969.

Thompson, K. (2023) The Postmodern Perspective on the Family. More individual freedom and choice means more family and life course diversity. https://revisesociology.com/2015/04/03/ postmodern-perspective-family/?utm_content=cmp-true [Accessed: 16.02.24].

Turkle, Sherry. (2015) Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin.

„Навират те в устата на вълка“ (Бариери при идентификацията и разследването на насилието срещу жени в България, когато е упражнено от интимния им партньор)

Abstract: Based on a conceptual framework for detraditionalization and individualization as characteristics of change in intimacy in global societies (U. Beck, E. Beck-Gernsheim, Z. Baumann, A. Giddens, E. Illouz), this article aims to understand how young people in Bulgaria conceptualize the risks and uncertainties in their intimate relationships. As an additional interpretative code, we use the idea of overlapping and co-existence of elements of traditional, modern and postmodern relationships, through which the traditional values of lasting and monogamous relationships based on romantic love coexist with free choices for personal self-realization, dignity and satisfaction with the quality of intimate relationships. The risks we analyze based on an empirical qualitative study are in two areas: in terms of digital communication and dating, and in terms of non-traditional forms of intimacy associated with polyamory, multiple relationships, and casual sexual contacts. The analysis shows that young people associate risks in the digital environment with deceptive and manipulable pro- files, limited means of expression for emotional communication, devaluation of relationships, as well as sexual messages on social media.

Keywords: intimacy, sexuality, risks, insecurity, digital communication, polyamory, infidelity, one-night stands/casual sex, young people, Bulgaria

Автор: Алексей Пампоров

Алексей Пампоров е магистър по културология (2001) и доктор по социология (2001). Специализира методология за набиране и представяне на данни в Института за демографски изследвания „Макс Планк“ – Росток, Германия (2003–2005), и методи на преподаване и оценяване в Централно- европейския университет – Будапеща, Унгария (2006). Ръководи изследователското звено на Институт„Отворенообщество– София“(2007–2016) и проект „Швейцарско-българско сътрудничество за идентификация и дългосрочно подпомагане на деца и възрастни, жертви на трафик на хора“ към НКБТХ (2016–2018). От 2014 г. е доцент по социология в Института по философия и социология на БАН.

Има над 20 години опит в провеждане на емпирични социологически изследвания както с качествени, така и с количествени методи. Ръководил е международни изследвания в България с възложители Световна банка, УНИЦЕФ, ВКБООН, СЗО, различни публични институции и множество неправителствени организации. Чете лекции по „Ромска история и култура“, „Демография и публични политики“, „Социология на семейството“ и „Електорални изследвания“ в СУ „Св. Климент Охридски“ и ПУ „Паисий Хилендарски“.

Email: apamporov@gmail.com

Библиография

Ahladova, D. (2023) Eskalatsiya na domashnoto nasilie i zakonodatelni resheniya za podobryavane na normativnata baza. Mezhdunarodna politika, 1, pp. 92–105. [Ахладова. Д. (2023) Ескалация на домашното насилие и законодателни решения за подобряване на нормативната база. Международна политика, 1, с. 92–105].

Bridges, A., Karlsson, M., Jackson, J., Andrews, A., Villalobos, B. (2018) Barriers to and methods of help seeking for domestic violence victimization: A comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women residing in the United States. Violence Against Women, 24 (15), pp. 1810–1829.

Brunnbauer, U. (2007) „Die sozialistische Lebensweise“: Ideologie, Gesellschaft, Familie und Politik in Bulgarien (1944–1989) („The socialist way of life“: Ideology, society, family, and politics in Bulgaria [1944–1989]). Vienna: Bohlau.

Burman, E., Chantler, Kh. (2005) Domestic violence and minoritisation: Legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28 (1), pp. 59–74.

Burt, M. (1980) Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 38 (2), pp. 217–230.

[CEDAW] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981). https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm [Accessed: 25.03.24].

Chifchieva, M. (2016) Administrativna prinuda pri prilagane merkite za zashtita ot domashno nasilie. De Jure, 1, pp. 73–81. [Чифчиева, М. (2016) Административна принуда при прилагане мерките за защита от домашно насилие, De Jure, 1, с. 73–81].

Chomarova, M. (1999) Socialni nagasi kam zheni, prezhiveli sexualno nasilie v Bulgaria. Psy- chological studies, 1–2, pp. 41–53. [Чомарова, М. (1999) Социални нагласи към жени, преживели сексуално насилие в България, Психологични изследвания, 1–2, с. 41–53].

Donovan, C., Barnes, R. (2019) Domestic violence and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGB and/or T) relationships. Sexualities, 22 (5–6), pp. 741–750.

Femi-Ajao, O., Kendal, S., Lovell, K. (2020) A qualitative systematic review of published work on disclosure and help-seeking for domestic violence and abuse among women from ethnic minority populations in the UK. Ethnicity & Health, 25 (5), pp. 732–746.

Francis, L., Loxton, D., James, C. (2016) The culture of pretence: A hidden barrier to recognizing, disclosing and ending domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26, pp. 2202–2214. Georgiev, I. (2016) Nyakoi specifichni osobenosti na sadebnoto proizvodstvo za zashtita ot domashno nasilie. Contemporary law, 1, рр. 94–107. [Георгиев, И. (2016) Някои специфични особености на съдебното производство за защита от домашно насилие. Съвременно право, 1, с. 94–107].

Gerger H., Kley H., Bohner G., Siebler F. (2007) The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33 (5), pp. 422–440.

Goranov, K. (2023) Zadarzhaneto ot policeyski organi pri neizpalnenie na zapovedi za zashtita po Zakona za zashtita ot domashno nasilie. De Jure, 2, pp. 273–282 [Горанов, К. (2023) Задържането от полицейски органи при неизпълнение на заповеди за защита по Закона за защита от домашното насилие. De Jure, 2, с. 273–282].

Hasselle, A., Howell, K., Bottomley, J., Sheddan, H., Capers, J., Miller-Graff, L. (2019) Barriers to intervention engagement among women experiencing intimate partner violence proximal to pregnancy. Psychology of Violence, 10 (3), pp. 290–299.

Heron, R. L., Eisma, M. C. (2021) Barriers and facilitators of disclosing domestic violence to the healthcare service: A systematic review of qualitative research. Health & social care in the community, 29 (3), pp. 612–630.

Hillman, J. (2020) Intimate Partner Violence Among Older LGBT Adults: Unique Risk Factors, Issues in Reporting and Treatment, and Recommendations for Research, Practice, and Pol- icy. In: Russell, B. (ed.) Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community. Springer, pp. 237–254

Huntley, A., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., Feder, G. (2019) Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): A systematic review and qualita- tive evidence synthesis. BMJ Open, 9, Article e021960.

Ivanova, E., Krastev, V. (2008) Romskata zhena. Stara Zagora: Litera print. [Иванова, Е., Кръстев, В. (2008) Ромската жена. Стара Загора: Литера принт].

Johnson, S. (2006) Physical Abusers and Sexual Offenders: Forensic and Clinical Strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Karamihova, M. (2003) Romskata zhena i domashnoto nasilie. Sofia: Utre. [Карамихова, М. (2003) Ромската жена и домашното насилие. София: Утре].

Kelly, H. (1994) Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick. Journal of Legal Education, 44 (3), pp. 341–365.

Kolbe, V., Büttner, A. (2020) Domestic Violence Against Men-Prevalence and Risk Factors. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 117 (31–32), pp. 534–541.

Kovacheva, К. (2008) Psihologicheski posledici pri zheni, prezhiveli domashno nasilie. Law Journal of NBU, 3, рр. 34–44 [Ковачева, К. (2008) Психологически последици при жени, преживели домашно насилие. Юридическо списание на НБУ, 3, с. 34–44].

Marcheva, D. (2020) „Sex“ versus „Gender“ in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (How the Lack of Feminist Legal Studies in Bulgaria Led to Distortion of the Basic Cat- egory of „Gender“ in the Legal Discourse?). Yearbook of the Law Department, 9 (10), pp. 264–283.

Molyneux, M. (1995) Superwomen and the Double Burden: Women’s Experience of Change in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Feminist Studies, 21 (3), pp. 637–645.

Pamporov, A. (2007) Sold like a donkey?: Bride Price among the Bulgarian Roma. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13, pp. 471–476.

Petrov, V. (2015) Domashnoto nasilie kato pravoporazhdasht yuridicheski fakt i negovoto doka- zvane v proizvodstvoto po Zakona za zashtita ot domashnoto nasilie. In: Nikolova, R. (ed.) The Law of the Right or the Superiority of the Law, pp. 245–250. [Петров, В. (2015) Домашното насилие като правопораждащ юридически факт и неговото доказване в производството по Закона за защита от домашното насилие. В: Николова, Р. (ред.) Законът на правото и правото на закона, с. 245–250].

Popova,G.(2011)Preodolyavanetonapolaprezparvotodesetiletiesled9septemvri1944– utopichnata kulminaciya na Marksistkiya feminisam. In Daskalova, K., Kmetova, T. (eds.) Pol i Prehod: 1938-1958, pp. 299–310. [Попова, Г. (2011) Преодоляването на пола през първото десетилетие след 9 септември 1944 г. – утопичната кулминация на марксисткия феминизъм. В: Даскалова, К. и Т. Кметова (ред.) Пол и преход: 1938-1958, с. 299–310].

Popova, Z. (2018) Prisuedinyavane na Evropeyskia sayuz kam Konvenciyata na Saveta na Ev- ropa za prevenciya i borba s nasilieto nad zheni i domashnoto nasilie, Legal world, 2, pp. 28–37. [Попова, З. (2018) Присъединяване на Европейския съюз към Конвенцията на Съвета на Европа за превенция и борба с насилието над жени и домашното на- силие. Юридически свят, 2, с. 28–37].

Rathnayake, J., Pozian, N., Carroll, J., King, J. (2023) Barriers Faced by Australian and New Zealand Women When Sharing Experiences of Family Violence with Primary Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 11 (18), p. 2486.

Saxton, M., Jaffe, P., Dawson, M., Straatman, A., Olszowy, L. (2022) Complexities of the Police Response to Intimate Partner Violence: Police Officers’ Perspectives on the Challenges of Keeping Families Safe. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37 (5–6), pp. 2557–2580.

Schwendinger, J., Schwendinger, H. (1974) Rape Myths: In Legal, Theoretical, and Everyday Practice. Crime and Social Justice, 1, pp. 18–26.

Serra, N. Queering International Human Rights: LGBT Access to Domestic Violence Remedies. American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law 21, no. 3 (2013): 583–607

Sprague, Sh., Madden, K., Simunovic, N., Godin, K., Pham, N. K., Bhandari, M., Goslings J. C. (2012) Barriers to Screening for Intimate Partner Violence. Women & Health, 52 (6), pp. 587–605.

Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Todorov, P. (2022) Detsata kato zhertvi na domashno nasilie. Yearbook – Visshe uchilishte po sigurnost i ikonomika, 1, pp. 205–216. [Тодоров, П. (2022) Децата като жертви на до- машнонасилие.Годишник– Висшеучилищепосигурностиикономика,1,с.205–216.

Trend (2024) Domashnoto nasilie v balgarskoto obshtestvo. Crosstabulation folio, January 2024 [Домашното насилие в българското общество. Табличен доклад]. София, Тренд, яну- ари 2024, folio].

Velinova, N. (2021) Politicheski i obshtestveni debati okolo Istanbulskata konvenciya v konteksta na novata komunikacionna mediina sreda 2018–2020. In: Valkanova, V. et al. (eds.) Kachestvena zhurnalistika i nova komunikatsionna sreda. Sofia: Fakultet po zhurnalistika i masova komunikatsiya, Sofiyski universitet „Sv. Kl. Ohridski“, pp. 403–418 [Велинова, Н. (2021) Политически и обществени дебати относно Истанбулската конвенция в контекста на новата комуникационна медийна среда – 2018–2020 г. В: Вълканова, В. и др. (ред.) Качествена журналистика и нова комуникационна среда. София: Факултет по журналистика и масова комуникация, Софийски университет „Св. Кл. Охридски“, с. 403–418].

Vranda, M., Kumar, C., Muralidhar, D., Janardhana, N., Sivakumar, P. (2018) Barriers to Disclosure of Intimate Partner Violence among Female Patients Availing Services at Tertiary Care Psychiatric Hospitals: A Qualitative Study. Journal of neurosciences in rural practice, 9 (3), pp. 326–330.

Walz, T., and Cuno, K. (2011) Magic, Theft, and Arson: The Life and Death of an Enslaved Afri- can Woman in Ottoman İzmit. In Walz, T., Cuno, M. (eds.) Race and Slavery in the Middle East: Histories of Trans-Saharan Africans in 19th-Century Egypt, Sudan, and the Ottoman Mediterranean. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.

Zlatanova, V. (2001) Domashnoto nasilie. Sofia: UI „St. Kliment Ohridski“. [Златанова, В. (2008) Домашното насилие. София: УИ „Св. Климент Охридски“].

Zakon za zashtita ot domashnoto nasilie (ZZDN) (2009) [Закон за защита от домашното насилие]. https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135501151 [Accessed: 25.03.24].

Proekt na zakon za zashtita sreshtu domashnoto nasilie (PZZDN) (2003). No 354-01-22/17.04.2003 [Проект на закон за защита срещу домашното насилие (ПЗЗДН) (2003). No 354-01- 22/17.04.2003], No 354-01-22/17.04.2003 https://parliament.bg/bills/39/354-01-22.pdf [Accessed: 25.03.24].

„Токсичната връзка“ в пресечната точка на търсенето на „себе си“ и на равенство: употреби на категорията „токсичен“ в разказите на младите хора за интимността

Abstract: The article explores the premises of the popular notion of toxic relationship and the way they express and sustain the cultural contradictions of intimacy in late modernity. Through analysis of the multifaceted meanings and uses of the term “toxic” in the interviews with young people aged 16 to 26 the study elucidates the way they are permeated with the ideas of self-discovery and equality in relationships. The various uses of “toxic” reflect the contradictory place of “the self” both as a center and as a problem in intimate relations, as well as the persistent gender inequality manifested in controlling behaviours, abuse and violence.

Keywords: toxic relationship, intimacy, youth, equality

Автори: Гергана Ненова, Илияна Василева

Библиография

Bourdieu, P. (2002) Мazhkoto gospodstvo. Sofia: LIK [Бурдийо, П. (2002) Мъжкото господ- ство. София: ЛИК].

Eldén, S. (2012) Scripts for the ‚good couple‘: Individualization and the reproduction of gender inequality. Acta Sociologica, 55 (1), pp. 3–18.

Foucault, M. (1997) Istoriya na seksualnostta. Sofia: Evraziya-Abagar [Фуко, М. (1997) История на сексуалността. София: Евразия-Абагар].

Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Hristov, T. (2021) Vryava i yarost. Arheologiya na domashniya skandal. Sofia: University Press „St. Kliment Ohridski“ [Христов, Т. (2021) Врява и ярост. Археология на домашния скандал. София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“].

Illouz, E. (2007) Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Malden: Polity Press. Illouz, E. (2012) Why love hurts: a sociological explanation. Cambridge and Malden: Polity press.

Illouz, E. (2019) The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jamieson, L. (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‚purе relationship‘. Sociology, 33 (3), pp. 477–497.

Kyurkchiev, S. (2015) Subektat v reda i redat v subekta – „Grizhata za sebe si kato grizha za chistoto i mrasnoto. Critique and Humanism, (44/1), pp. 45–64 [Кюркчиев, С. (2015) Субектът в реда и редът в субекта – „Грижата за себе си“ като грижа за чистото и мръсното. Критика и хуманизъм (44/1), с. 45–64].

Luhmann, N. (1986) Love as passion: The codification of intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sennett, R. (2003) The fall of public man. WW Norton & Company. London: Penguin Books. Taylor, Ch. (1999) Bezpokoystvoto na modernostta. Sofia: Critique and Humanism [Тейлър, Ч. (1999) Безпокойството на модерността. София: Критика и хуманизъм].