Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidered Agency: Why Do People Live Apart?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender and Family Practices

Part of the book series: Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences ((GSSS))

  • 184 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on various ways in which women exercise their agency in their mundane, everyday family lives. Discussions about the extent to which people choose (or are forced) to engage in non-cohabiting intimate relationships question dualist understandings of agency as either enabled or constrained. The analysis shows that the ways in which people’s agency in living in a desired co-residential partnership intersect closely with practices of gender, social norms about family values and life stages as circumstances and contexts change. In the split households that are a result of structural constraints, family life is essentially shaped and constructed surrounding gendered family roles and maintained through gender inequalities. Although there is evidence of the growth of individual reflexivity, especially among the young generation in making individual choices, the interaction and contradiction between individualism and familism have significantly shaped the ways people negotiate and make sense of their personal lives. This empirical-based study provides an important insight into how relational agency is experienced as people’s life stages change under different circumstances and contexts, through which the complex interplay of social circumstances, gender roles, and relational bonds with others are captured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The phrase nu qiang ren literally means female supermen, and refers to career-oriented professional women who are considered capable of developing work-related skills, while less emphasis is placed on family and housework.

References

  • Allan, G. (2008). Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships, 15, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borell, K., & Karlsson, S. G. (2003). Reconceptualizing intimacy and ageing: Living apart together. In S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginn (Eds.), Gender and ageing: Changing roles and relationships (pp. 47–62). Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A. (2005). Individualisation, choice and structure: A discussion of current trends in sociological analysis. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00559.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budgeon, S. (2008). Couple culture and the production of singleness. Sexualities, 11(3), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015591426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. (2017). Why marry? The role of tradition in women’s marital aspirations. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.4125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J., & Duncan, S. (2018). Reinventing couples: Tradition, agency and bricolage. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., & Dong, X. (2011). Harsh choices: Chinese women’s paid work and unpaid care responsibilities under economic reform. Development and Change, 42(4), 947–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01721.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, A. (2015). Gendering friendship: Couple culture, heteronormativity and the production of gender. Sociology, 49(6), 1167–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. S., & Friedman, S. (2014). Wives, husbands, and lovers: Marriage and sexuality in Hong Kong, Taiwan and urban China. Hong Kong University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delphy, C., & Leonard, D. (1992). Familiar exploitation. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S. (2015). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy and vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63(3), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2011). People who live apart together (LATs): New family form or just a stage? International Review of Sociology, 21, 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermisch, J., & Seidler, T. (2009). Living apart together. In M. Brynin & J. Ermisch (Eds.), Changing relationship (pp. 45–59). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evertsson, L., & Nyman, C. (2013). On the other side of couplehood: Single women in Sweden exploring life without a partner. Families, Relationships and Societies, 2(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faircloth, C. (2015). Negotiating intimacy, equality and sexuality in the transition to parenthood. Sociological Research Online, 20(4), 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, C. C., Sun, M., & Zheng, S. (2011). Migration and split households: A comparison of sole, couple, and family migrants in Beijing, China. Environment and Planning A, 43(9), 2164–2185. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, V. L. (2002). China’s one-child policy and the empowerment of urban daughters. American Anthropologist, 104(4), 1098–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabb, J. Klett-Davies, M., Fink, J., & Thomae, M. (2013). Enduring love? Couple relationships in the 21st century. Survey findings report. The Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (2000) ‘Preface’ to Hakim, C. In Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory (p. vii). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Work-life balance: A matter of choice? Gender, Work and Organization, 16(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, N. (2005). The detraditionalization of intimacy reconsidered. Sociological Theory, 23(3), 286–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb02083.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X. (2021). You are not young anymore!: Gender, age and the politics of reproduction in post-reform China. Asian Bioethics Review, 13(1), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and Living Apart Together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockey, J., Meah, A., & Robinson, V. (2007). Mundane heterosexualities: From theory to practices. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. (2004a). An equal distance? Individualisation, gender and intimacy in distance relationships. The Sociological Review, 52(2), 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. (2004b). The precariousness of choice in the new sentimental order: A response to Bawin-Legros. Current Sociology, 52(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392104041811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. (2006). Love lives at a distance: Distance relationships over the lifecourse. Sociological Research Online, 11(3). [Online]. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/holmes.html

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inoguchi, T., & Shin, D. C. (2009). The quality of life in Confucian Asia: From physical welfare to subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 92(2), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2010). Materialist feminism, the self and global late modernity: Some consequences for intimacy and sexuality. In A. G. Jónasdóttir, V. Bryson, & K. B. Jones (Eds.), Sexuality, gender and power: Inter-sectional and transnational perspectives (pp. 15–29). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., & Ho, P. S. Y. (2020). Women doing intimacy: Gender, family and modernity in Britain and Hong Kong. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy transformed? Sociology, 33(10), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190209528804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, L. (2013). Personal relationship, intimacy and the self in a mediated and global digital age. In K. Ortan-Johnson and N. Prior, (Eds.), Digital sociology: critical perspectives (pp. 13–33). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji, Y. (2017). A mosaic temporality: New dynamics of the gender and marriage system in contemporary urban China. Temporalités, 26, 3773. https://doi.org/10.4000/temporalites.3773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, Y., & Yeung, W. J. J. (2014). Heterogeneity in contemporary Chinese marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 35(12), 1662–1682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14538030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, L. Y. (2015). The demand for a “normal life”: Marriage and its discontents in contemporary China. In M. McLell & V. Mackie (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sexuality studies in East Asia (pp. 77–86). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, K. (2012). The intimate couple, family and the relational organization of close relationships. Sociology, 46(3), 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, A. (2017). Urbanization and the transformation of kinship practice in Shandong. In G. Santos & S. Harrell (Eds.), Transforming patriarchy: Chinese families in the twenty-first century (pp. 113–128). University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392104041809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., Poortman, A., & Seltzer, J. A. (2015). Why do intimate partners live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32(8), 251–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, H. J., & Skinner, T. (2012). Culture and motherhood: Findings from a qualitative study of east Asian mothers in Britain. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F. (2008). Constructing the autonomous middle-class self in today’s China: The case of young-adult only-children university students. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(2), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, C., Yang, X., Li, S., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Love or bread? What determines subjective wellbeing among left-behind women in rural China? Gender Issues, 34(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9171-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2004). Personal narratives, relational selves: Residential histories in the living and telling. The Sociological Review, 52(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00463.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, V. (2011). Sociology of personal life. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McNay, L. (2004). Agency and experience: Gender as a lived relation. The Sociological Review, 52(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00530.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, M. (1997). Exploring the invisible: Listening to mid-life women about heterosexual sex. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(1), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. (1996). Family connections: An introduction to family studies. Cambridge Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. B. (2001). Specifying agency: The comaroffs and their critics. Interventions, 3(1), 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Y., & Jin, Y. (2018). Women’s fertility autonomy in urban China: The role of couple dynamics under the universal two-child policy. Chinese Sociological Review, 50(3), 275–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2018.1428895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, S. (2020). Chinese ‘study mothers’ in living apart together (LAT) relationships: Educational migration, family practices, and gender roles. Sociological Research Online, 25(3), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780419871574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M., & Jackson, S. (2010). Gender and sexuality: Sociological approaches. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. (2015). Reconceptualising the mundane and the extraordinary: A lens through which to explore transformation within women’s everyday footwear practices. Sociology, 49(5), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515591942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S. (2006). On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and cohabitation. Sociological Research Online, 11(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S., & Ketokivi, K. (2016). Relational persons and relational processes: Developing the notion of relationality for the sociology of personal life. Sociology, 50(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514561295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C. (2007). Personal life: New directions in sociological thinking. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C. (2011). Relationality and socio-cultural theories of family life. In R. Jallinoja & E. D. Wildmer (Eds.), Families and kinship in contemporary Europe: Rules and practices of relatedness (pp. 13–28). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Carter, J., Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2016). Constructions, reconstructions and deconstructions of ‘family’ amongst people who live apart together (LATs). The British Journal of Sociology, 68(1), 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twamley, K. (2012). Gender relating among Indian couples in the UK and India: Ideals of equality and realities of inequality. Sociological Research Online, 17(4), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton-Davis, K. (2015). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living Apart Together for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.861346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. (王跃生). (2013). 中国家庭结构变动分析----基于2010年人口普查资料 [Analysis on the rural family structural changes in China – Based on 2010 census data]. Social Sciences in China, 12, 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Dong, X. (2010). Childcare provision and women’s participation in off-farm employment: Evidence from China’s low-income rural areas. In X. Dong & S. Cook (Eds.), Gender equality and China’s economic transformation: Informal employment and care provision (pp. 228–241). Economic Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, M. R. (1989). Virtuous wives and kind mothers: Concepts of women in urban China. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(5), 505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. (1985). Revolution postponed: Women in contemporary China. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W., Shen, Y., Hu, B., & Du, M. (2020). Non-familial coresidence and life satisfaction: Evidence from China. Habitat International, 100, 102188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y. (2013). Gender and family in contemporary China. In Population Studies Center (Vol. 13, p. 808).

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Q., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2015). Continuity and change in Chinese marriage and the family: Evidence from the CFPS. Chinese Sociological Review, 47(1), 30–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, W. J. J., & Hu, S. (2016). Paradox in marriage values and behavior in contemporary China. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 2(3), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X16659019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., & Xie, Y. (2011). The Varying Display of “Gender Display”. Chinese sociological review, 44(2), 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarafonetis, N. (2017). Sexuality in a changing China: Young women, sex and intimate relations in the reform period. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social, Political and Global Studies, Keele University, Keele, UK

    Shuang Qiu

Authors
  1. Shuang Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Qiu, S. (2022). Reconsidered Agency: Why Do People Live Apart?. In: Gender and Family Practices. Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17250-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17250-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17249-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17250-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation