Discussion

Undertaking a deconstructive analysis of relationship discourses has provided an exploration of the constructions of 'infidelity' and 'monogamy' as ascribed to by participants. The analysis explored subject positions made available and drawn on by participants in terms of how the discourses of 'Man: A Sexual Being', 'Relationship Parameters' and 'Passive/Aggressive Infidelity' were deployed rhetorically by participants. Whilst particular forms of inter-personal and sexual relationships were supported others were seen to be undermined, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly. These discourses do not examine entities that exist independently; rather they are constructive of the relationship, productive of contradictory and non-essential identities and generative of emotional experience (Stenner 1993:151).

The present research project builds on and complements contemporary social constructionist research pertaining to aspects of personal relationships. The talk and texts examined within this project highlight that discourses involving relationships, 'infidelity' and 'monogamy' are not unitary tangible entities, but neither are they randomly fragmented. Conversation is organised into contradictory sets of discursive resources that are deployed by participants with equal rhetorical force (Lawes 1999:15-16). The relationship discourses reviewed in the analysis section are interdependent and the speakers orientate themselves to different constructs reliant on the context of which they speak. The constructs of 'infidelity' and 'monogamy' do not exist in any material sense, but are politically contested objects of reference; these function to constitute different kinds of social relations during interactions (Shotter 1993, Lawes 1999). As these discourses are flexible, their meaning is repeatedly contested, there is always a potential for the renegotiation of subject positions and relationship constructs within interactions (Willott & Griffin 1997:109). Examining how the discourses are employed contextually illustrates their dependence upon and embeddedness within socially and historically available knowledges (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:367). Discourses, and the (negotiated) 'realities' to which they refer, can only be established within such a social, historical framework of reference (Hollway 1989:53).

The cultural ascendancy of these discourses, marked by the fact that they have become part of 'common-sense' talk, is supported by specific structural and discursive patterns (Willott & Griffin 1997:107); such as that surrounding the institute of marriage, which has contributed to the discourses encompassing 'monogamy'. As Hollway (1989:55) states the principles of the 'have/hold' discourse, that sex should take place within the framework of a lasting (heterosexual) relationship, is somewhat echoed in the Anglican Church's marriage vows. Through conversational interactions people produce and reproduce the social order at the micro level (Stokoe 2000:555). Furthermore, discourses are affected by and have effects upon practices in a historical context (Hollway 1989:56). For example, when participants drew on the 'Man: A Sexual Being' discourse the heterosexual male is constituted as sexually privileged. Here 'scripted sexual behaviour' is manufactured through the implementation of a powerful hegemonic discourse (Whittle 2001). From this hegemonic masculinity is (re)produced by discursively constituting men as primarily -above all else- a sexual being. The construction of gendered differences in emotions and experience of sexual relationship is continually reconstituted, and again it is women's sexuality (and emotions) that are only understood in relation to and as a reaction to such dominant male discourses of sexual 'emotions' (Burns 2000:484). Women are positioned by their discursive reproduction of hegemonic masculinity, and as such continue to see themselves to some extent through men's eyes (Crawford 1994:573).

The hegemonic relationship discourses ascribed to by participants are shown to be rhetorically challenged during conversations. The discourses examined within this paper could pose a significant structural, cultural and ideological challenge to dominant constructions of appropriate sexual relationships and from that 'infidelity' and 'monogamy'; facilitating an imaginative and strategic use of discourse analysis to undermine dominant meaning systems (Weatherell & Walton 1999:479). Participants are able to locate themselves in multiple positionings, made available through their decomposition of the categories of 'infidelity' and 'monogamy'; this challenge to macro-level boundaries of what is considered appropriate and inappropriate relationship behaviour is seen to be manifested at the micro-level. Such deconstruction of these categories of reference also has far reaching consequences for traditional psychological studies, given the conspicuous inconsistency that saturates the accounts produced by the individual respondents (Lawes 1999:16). No longer would 'gender difference' studies of the attitudes and behaviours relating to 'monogamy' and 'infidelity' be 'valid', as 'infidelity' and 'monogamy' are both functionally situated during conversation, 'gender' itself is located in interactions, it is a routine accomplishment situated in conversational activity (Stokoe 1997:555)

By demonstrating the discursively constituted 'nature' of relationship constructions interest is maintained in conducting research into the sorts of rhetorical effects such relationship discourses achieve. Variability in accounts would provide an interesting focus for future research. This research should not allude to unitary notions of 'infidelity' and 'monogamy', but investigate the constitutive effects of them, both at personal and social micro and macro levels. Research into the discursive constructions of homosexual (Male/female) 'monogamy' and 'infidelity' would function as a lever for undermining the 'essentialist' and complementary nature of 'sexual male' and 'emotional female' constructs. The social constructionist research that has taken place here has allowed for the elaboration and inclusion of the researcher in the research process and the resultant research product. The researcher then is acknowledged as being grounded in and at the forefront of the research process (Coyle, 2001). In conclusion, it is important to note that wider discourses and points of inference are available to all of us dependent on the subject positions that we construct as available. By paying close attention to how we may differently construct appropriate/inappropriate relationships may be of functional importance to those trying to 'repair' and 'overcome' such things as relationship 'infidelity' or to those seeking to articulate 'alternative' atypical forms of relationships. It is important to note finally that there is no such thing as a solid unitary account of what a successful/unsuccessful relationship 'is', the message then is, lets get 'real' and look at difference!

Back Next