Marion Arent Modarresse
The sociologist and philosopher Zygmunt Bauman coined a concept: liquid modernity, a
metaphor that characterizes our contemporary society and its constant mobility. In a world of “fluid opportunities, changeable values and unstable rules” (Bauman, 2004:85), inconstancies are everywhere and anywhere. Velocity rules them. Flexibility and adaptation commands everyday life in all major settings: work, family relations, parenting, socialization, and dating.

In our “liquid modern world”, as named by Bauman (2004:46), everything that is permanent, solid, or long-term is rejected. Connections sway like bodies in water. Solid vs liquid, rigid vs flexible, permanent vs ephemeral, long term vs short term, joint vs disconnected, heteronomy vs autonomy, are paradoxes that carry complexity and generate conflicts (Matos, 2000; Tavares, 2002; Goldenberg, 2006). How does this social structure (or lack of structure) impact our social interactions and love life?

There is not one singular answer to address this intricate question. We agree with the French anthropologist and sociologist Michel Bozon (2004), when he says that
sexuality serves as language to society, as well as social relations and society norms build our sexuality.
Reinforcing this aspect, Heilborn, Cabral and Bozon (2006) consider sexuality as one of the richest areas to explore the complex processes of modernization, its practices, and principles. Modernization brings the ideal of symmetry into our gender relations. This equality appears in terms of an undifferentiation regarding values, that now replace the former highly differentiated norms for men and women, with an ideal of parity.

The Brazilian historian Maria Luiza Heilborn (2006) adds other factors, besides gender relations, that design individuals’ possibilities, opportunities and limits: social class, family history, life cycle stage. Both biography and social environment create models for our sexual and love life (Heilborn, Cabral and Bozon, 2006).

Bozon (2002, 2003) says that the main transformation in the way we express our sexuality started in the second half of the XXth century: the extension of our sexual life, particularly when it comes to women’s life journey. Female sexual trajectory, which in the past was restricted to fertility age and dependent on marital status, is now amplified. This significant change happens not only in quantitative aspects – in terms of time span – but also in attitudes: women tend to be more active and hedonist
regarding their sexual behavior nowadays, compared with the past (Bozon, 2002).

This combination of factors leads us to a new paradigm: instead of restrictions to the way we experience our sexuality, we now face an implicit and diffuse rule to never abandon completely our sexual activity, no matter our marital status, age, or health conditions (Bozon, 2004). In the past, only individuals in specific situations were entitled to have sexual interactions; now, it is mandatory for almost everyone.

This social expectation carries discrepancies between freedom and constraint: “the new imperative obligation to live our sexual life as a free  commitment” (Bozon, 2004: 150). Freedom and commitment are “a pair of concepts which are potentially contradictory” (Bozon, 2004:137). Free commitment brings us to the core paradox that sustains the dating scene in our liquid world. In the absence of clear models to structure our relationships, plurality and flexibility may guide us to (or leave us with) uncertainty and insecurity. In a society led by high levels of individualization, relationships “oscillate between dream and nightmare [….]. Most of the time, these two avatars coexist – but on different levels of conscience”

(Bauman, 2004:8). Bauman (2004:46) explains that “the liquid modern rationale” associates long term relationships with oppression and “disabling dependency” (Bauman, 2004:65) Relationships, a “close and continued emotional bond with another person”, as defined by the English sociologist Anthony Giddens (1993:68), are often replaced with what Bauman (2004:10) named “pocket relationships”, the type we can use when needed and then store for a potential future use (or not), based on immediacy and availability. When we face the absence of quality relationships, we tend to trade it for quantity, substituting partnerships with networks (Bauman, 2004), driven by novelty, variety, and speed.

These aspects are also deeply present in a society of consumption (Bauman, 2004). In
consumerism, what matters is not accumulating goods, but “use and dismiss them immediately, to make room for other goods and usages” (Bauman, 2004:67), which is an ideal environment for virtual interactions. There are always new options available; so, if they are perceived as unpleasant, not rewarding, weak or unsustainable, we quickly replace them. “Each connection can have a short life span, but its excess is indestructible” (Bauman, 2004:79) so we feel “safe” when we face the fragility of each temporary interactivity, because there’s always more to come! Instead of taking good care of our relationships, a process that demands time, energy, effort, empathy and emotional intelligence, we can consume series of multiple interactions, superficial enough to be deleted as soon as someone (or something) temporarily draws our attention and triggers our curiosity for novelty (or more of the same).

This constant mobility helps us avoid suffering from the feeling of loneliness. Social media speed makes us feel a sort of anesthesia to any pain related to fear of abandonment, isolation, inadequacy or rejection. Users rely on another profile to check, or new groups to join, while unfollowing some individuals and quit former communities. This incessant movement makes it difficult to nurture the important sense of belonging that builds our identity. We delete before knowing, go away instead of getting close, cut ties prior to fostering deep bonds. Instant – and constant – gratification, even when superficial and, at some level unrealistic, spares us from the risk of frustration that may come alongside long-term, deeper connections. When something is important to us, we fear losing it. By refraining from the pain related to this feeling, we prevent ourselves from enjoying the fulfilling satisfaction of establishing deep and meaningful relationships. To deny this fear of loss and keep it unconscious, abstaining ourselves from the frustrations related to the sensation of emptiness, we indulge in what Bauman calls “all-you-can-eat consumption” (2004: 68), where we swallow content without savoring it. We are full, but probably not satisfied.

We face a void. The most important accomplishment of virtual proximity seems to be the separation between communication and relationships. “Distance is not an obstacle to being in touch – but getting in touch is not an obstacle to being apart” (Bauman, 2004:82). Being “connected” online, following someone on social media, doesn’t lead to establishing meaningful connections or close bonds. Likes are definitely not links! As Bauman (2004:81) says, “the flip side of the coin of virtual proximity is virtual distance”.

How can we evolve love in these circumstances? Sigmund Freud (in Civilization and Its Discontents, originally published in 1930) affirms that one of the fundamentals of civilization is the capacity to develop love of others like we love ourselves. Bauman (2004) reinforces that this represents the passage from survival instinct to morality. Self-love depends on that, too; it’s built from the affection we receive from others, by being heard with attention and genuine interest, so that we feel respected and recognized. This raises our sense of dignity, by the understanding of having a “singular value, irreplaceable and not disposable” (Bauman, 2004:102). That is equivalent to “respecting each one singularity – the value of our differences” (Bauman, 2004:101). Uniqueness is what makes each human being a real “individual”.

All these paradoxes entail complexity. According to Mirian Goldenberg, the Brazilian
anthropologist (2006:132) “the contradiction between […] traditional values, such as stability, security, fidelity, and [alternative values] considered modern such as experimentation, privacy, autonomy or
independence” corner us in a challenging situation: finding our balance in the – plural – points of equilibrium between “me” and “us”, guided by an extremely personal, circumstantial, multifaceted and multi determined logic. There’s no possibility of “one size fits all”; by questioning ourselves, we thrive to find our personal – and unique – ways to build meaningful relationships with others, in a journey that fulfills us, and helps the world to be a better, safer and happier place for everyone, everywhere, now and
in the future.

NOTE: Quotes in this article were translated to English by the author.