1

This article has been accepted to be published by the journal Mobile Media andCommunication(Sage)

Whatisdisturbingandwhynottodisturb.Onmobilephones,genderandprivacy

withinheterosexualintimacy.

ElenaCasado

UniversityComplutenseofMadrid

AmparoLasén

UniversityComplutenseofMadrid

2

Abstract

Drawing on recent research conducted in Spain, this article analyses how mobile

telephony contributes to (re)create and (re)mediate gender, couple intimacy and

privacy. We take a Goffmanian approach to analyse the utterances of disturb* (to

disturb, disturbing, disturbed) in interviews and focus‐groups onmobile phone uses

andpracticeswithinheterosexual couples, showinghowgenderedwaysofeveryday

managementof intimatebondsand territoriesof the self contribute to theordinary

reconstitution of gender hierarchical differentiation. These gendered ways, in

conjunction with mobile telephony possibilities and constraints, are producing the

contextualnormsandexpectationswhichsettheconditionforprivacy,orthelackof

it,withincurrentcoupleintimacies.

Keywords Mobile telephony, gender, couple intimacy, privacy, ordinary

practices,heterosexuality

3

Whatisdisturbingandwhynottodisturb.Onmobilephones,genderandprivacy

withinheterosexualintimacy.

The diverse forms of considering privacy and the public sphere share two

fundamental kinds of opposing imagery: in one hand, what is hidden, withdrawn,

secretvs.what isopen,revealed,accessible,visible;and intheotherhand,personal

vs. collective. Digital mediations of couple relationships offer a privileged site to

observe the convergence and clashes between the shaping of the self and privacy,

understoodinthosetwoways.

The ubiquity and pervasiveness of mobile media and digital mediations

contribute to the multiplication of hybrids of public and private (Sheller and Urry,

2003) as they induce changes in the contextual norms of appropriateness and

distributionofinformation.Theyareindiscretetechnologies(Cooper,2001,p.24),not

justbecausetheyfacilitateformsofsocialindiscretion,butbecausetheydohavethe

capacitytoblurdistinctionsbetweenostensiblydiscretedomainsandcategories,such

as public and private, remote and distant, work and leisure. Formal and informal

norms,aswellasordinaryexpectationsaboutwhatisappropriateforwhominagiven

situation or relationship, show how different contexts and realms of everyday life

4

entaildifferentprivacies1whosedemarcations,meaningsandcontentsarethushighly

contextual (Nissenbaum, 2004; Thompson, 2011). These evolve in relation with the

materialityofsocial life,asthecontemporaryformsofmobileintimacy“inwhichthe

geographic and physical space is overlaid with an electronic position and relational

presence,whichisemotionalandsocial”(HjorthandLim,2012,p.478).

Methodsandapproach

Thispaperexploressomeofthesedynamicsrelatedtothearticulationbetween

mobilephonesusesandpractices,genderedsubjectivitiesandaffects.Oursociological

analysis is grounded in two lines of research: conflicts and violence in heterosexual

couplesandmobilephoneintimatecommunication,whichmergedintheprojectNew

communication technologies and the re‐articulation of gender relations: emergence,

expression and management of couple conflicts2. The fieldwork was carried out in

Madrid, from 2009 to 2011, involving 2 focus group, 24 semi‐structured individual

interviews,3semi‐structuredinterviewswithbothmembersofthecouple,124‐days‐

diaries ofmobile phone use from bothmembers of 6 couples and 1,000 telephone

interviews. However, this paper focuses specifically on the discourses collected

through the focus‐groups and the interviews, both individual and in couple, lasting

from1.30 to2.15hours,whoseparticipantswereheterosexualmiddle classwomen

5

and men, aged 20‐45. This age group was chosen because it presents a sufficient

familiaritywithdigital technologies, aswell as theprobability of having experienced

several couple relationships.Furthermore, theyhavegrown inademocratic context,

with egalitarianism as one of its emblems, which distances them from the Spanish

traditionalistandauthoritarianrecentpast.Therelativehomogeneityintheacademic

backgroundandincomelevelhelpstostrengththecomparisonbetweenthesocialand

sociological egalitarian portrait of contemporary “modern” couples (Giddens, 1992;

BeckandBeck‐Gernsheim,1995)andthedailypracticesofthosewhoarepresumedto

embodyandperform it.Thoughweselecteddifferentkindsofcouples,according to

the length of the relationship (less than one year, fromone to five years andmore

than five), with and without children, living together or not, our analysis here

highlightsthecommonalitiesofthegenderedinteractionorder.

This analysis focuses on how mobile telephony contributes to (re)mediate

(Bolter and Grusin, 2000) and (re)create performatively gender, privacy, couple

intimacyanddomesticitythroughordinarilyritualizedandmediatedpractices.Inorder

todosoweattendtohowtheparticipantsinourresearchusetheterm“disturb”and

its derivatives regarding mobile phone interactions within the couple.

Methodologically,itimpliestosituateouranalysisonwhatisdisturbingandforwhom

withinthedramaturgicalinteractionorder:

6

Who is brought or brings himself into the immediate orbit of another; who

initiatestalk,whoisselectedastheaddressedrecipient,whoself‐selectsintalk

turn‐taking,whoestablishes and changes topics,whose statements are given

attentionandweight,andsoforth.(Goffman,1977,p.324).

Thequestionisthenwhodecides,wholeads,andwhofollowsinthedanceofdigitally

mediatedand face‐to‐face interactions,andwhat thebroadersymbolicandmaterial

implications of these choreographic arrangements are. Moving from the

methodologicaltothetheoretical,Goffmanalsoprovidesuswithachoreographicview

ofgenderwhichrevealsitsorderingpotentialasa"remarkableorganizationaldevice”

–upto thepoint that itcanbestatedthat“gender,not religion, is theopiateof the

masses”(Goffman,1977,p.315).Intheritualityofeverydayordinaryencountersand

digitallymediatedformsofcommunicationincouples,genderrelationshipsemergeas

a particular choreography, a performance in which one’s position, subjectivity and

movementsarearrangedregardingtheposition,subjectivityandmovementsofone’s

partner while simultaneously other orders and hierarchies are performed and re‐

enacted as well, such as professional/domestic, public/private or

information/communication. The different uses and meanings of disturb in the

interviews illustrate this complex articulation of gendered ways of everyday

managementofcouplebondsandpersonalspace,aswellastheyrevealhowgender

7

hierarchicaldifferentiation is reconstitutedandkeepsonservingasabasis forother

social orderings. At this point, Goffman’s proposal contrasts with some common

assumptions on contemporary couple relations and dynamics, which presume the

progressive dissolution of gender and its asymmetric orderings:when “some of our

citizenry no longer believe thatwomen's traditional place is a natural expression of

theirnatural capacities […], if the traditionalpattern is sustained itwillbe sustained

lesscomfortably”(Goffman,1977,p.309).Analysingtheusesoftheverbdisturbcan

helpustounderstandthis lesscomfortably‐sustainedorderwithoutdenyingtherole

ofgenderasakey“remarkabledevice”.

Framingcontemporarycouplecommunication

Couple relationships undergo diverse interconnected transformations related

tothegeneralsocio‐historicalcontext(theso‐calledrisk,uncertaintyorinformational

society),togenderrelationsandsubjectivities,tofamilynotionsandstructures,aswell

as toordinarypractices and interactions, such as digitalmediationsof relationships,

communication and everyday life. Some of the most influential contemporary

sociologists have analysed those processes as a shift from traditional to more

consensualbondsor“purerelationships”(Giddens,1992),wherelovebecomescrucial

butchaotic(BeckandBeck‐Gernsheim,1995,p.2)3.Thus,couplerelationshipsbecome

8

a paradigmatic example of “cruel optimism” (Berlant, 2011: 1): a double‐bindwhen

theobjectthatdrawsyourattachmentsustainsyouin lifeatthesametimeas it isa

threattoyourflourishing.Thisis,aclashbetweenthe“fantasiesofbelonging”andthe

“conditionsofbelonginginparticularhistoricalmoments”(Berlant&McCabe,2011).

Aswehavealreadydiscussed(Lasén&Casado,2012),communicationplaysa

centralroleinthischanginglandscapeforintimatebonds.Ambivalencesbetweenthe

processof individualizationandtheresilientcharacterofgender relationsand life in

couple,asanodeofpersonal lifeprojectsandsocialstructures,areafruitfulground

forthemystificationofboththeaffectivebondandcommunication.Acertainideaand

ideal of communication appears as the very condition to make the precarious

character of contemporary intimate bonds certain, liveable and enjoyable, at least

temporarily.Whenconnectedto transparency,commonalityandcommunion (Carey,

1989;Peters,2000),communicationisusuallyinvokedasthekeytounderstandingand

as the irrefutable solution for the arguments and troubles people have to face. It is

takenasanunproblematicassumption:weassumeweknowwhatitmeans,wedeeply

trust in it,butwecanhardlydefine it.Thus,ourviewofcommunication,particularly

whenappliedtoloveandcoupledom,showsthefantasyofbelievingthatdifferences,

inequalities and conflicting interests would dissolve once we communicate and

understand each other’s feelings and intentions. The promise of ubiquitous and

9

permanent contact and communication enacted by mobile media strengthens this

ideal(HashimotoandCampbell,2008).

However, this approachon communication fails to notice that understanding

and agreeing are not synonymous. Communication operates in reaching consensus,

butalsoinprocessesofdifferentiation,instrategicpurposes,aswhentryingtocontrol

the situation and ourselves, or just in making connections of all kinds including of

course arguments and controversies. That said, intimate relationships and

heterosexual bonds are not preciselywell equipped to face controversies under the

inertiaofgendereddifferentiationsand inequalities.Furthermore, the intimatebond

and domesticity have to face some new tensions about the uncertainties of

contemporarylife,withtwoindividualsubjectswithparticularplans,worries,troubles,

fears,tastes,beliefs,moralcommitmentsanddesireswillingtoconnect.

Couplerelationshipsyieldaparadoxregardingprivacy.Accordingtotheliberal

conceptionofindividualsaseconomicsubjects,privatepropertybecomestheultimate

basis for privacy and independence. The modern view of autonomy becomes

understood in terms of control, and ownership over personal space, time and

information. This clashes with how trust and love are sustained in intimate

relationships through mutual disclosure, producing expectations and obligations of

transparency and extended sharing (projects, tastes, beliefs, opinions, activities,

10

groups).

Conflictsbetweenpersonalautonomyandmutualrecognitionanddependency

are enacted, embodied, traced, originated, mediated, and, sometimes, solved in

mobilephoneuses,practicesandinteractions.Mobilemediatakepartinthegameof

designing anddefendingpersonal and collective territories. Theyare involved in the

emergence, expression and management of these conflicts and in the ordinary

rearticulationofgenderedpowerrelations.

All these changes have taken place in Spain at a particularly high speed

following a traditionalist dictatorship (1939‐1975) (Casado, 2002). This historical

peculiarity can make the Spanish case a good place to see how gendered

differentiationanditsembodiedsubjectivities,farfrombeingprogressivelydissolved,

are ordinarily performed, and how the public/private divide is entwined in this

practicalreconstitution4.

Coupleobligationsandmobileaccessibility

Todisturbisatransitiveverband,assuch,itentailsanobjectthata)interferes

with the normal arrangement or functioning, b) interrupts the sleep, relaxation, or

privacy or c) makes someone anxious. To be disturbed, then, involves something

experienced as disturbing by a specific subject, which points to the relational and

11

situational dimension of social life. As we have learnt from Goffman or the

ethnometodologists (Garfinkel,1967),nuisancesarea fruitfulgroundtorecreatethe

demarcationsandassumptionsofourordinarypractices.Focusingonwhatbecomes

disturbinginmobilecommunicationwithinheterosexualcouplesandforwhom,what

isthemargintoavoiditandhowitisexpressed,canbeveryusefulforsocialanalysis.

It can illustrate how mobile telephony remediate the gendered scene, adapting

simultaneously to its inertias, scripts, roles and divides, thus contributing to their

practicalreconstitution.

Significantly, the annoyances due to the device have much to do with the

overlapping of public and domestic settings that it facilitates and its effects on the

framingoftheinteractionsituation(Fortunati,2005;Rettie,2009).Thisisparticularly

relevant for couple life nowadays, as what was once taken for granted (the

public/privatedivide,thesexualdivisionoflabour,etc.)isnowopenforcontroversy.

Given that you have something that youwant to utter to a particular other,

how do you go about getting into the circumstances that will allow you

appropriatelytodoso?(Theoppositequestionisofinteresttoo,namely,how

doyougoaboutavoidingthecircumstancesinwhichyouwouldbeobligedto

disclosesomethingyouwouldrathernot?)(Goffman,1983,p.32)

12

Inourinterviews,womenperformafirmercompromisewiththefirstquestion

whilemasculineworriesarerelatedtothesecondone.Inwomen’sdiscoursesmobile

phones are representedmainly as a newpossibility to act and speak, although they

can also become a potential new source of control. Men’s discourses stress the

opposite:mobilephonesareapotential tool forcontrolbutatthecostofputtingat

risk their autonomy as they also becomemore available for others, particularly for

theirintimatepartners,andcanexperiencemorepressuretoself‐disclose.Therefore,

menperformgreaterresistancetothisdevice,highlightingitspotentialityasasource

of“musts”whichcandisturbtheirnormalarrangements,interrupttheirrelaxationor

privacyor,onewayoranother,makethemfeelanxious.

Idon’tlikehavingmoremuststhanneeded.IphoneyoubecauseIwantto.Do

notgetangrybecauseIcouldnotphoneyoubeforeorIcouldnotphoneyou

oneafternoonorwhatever(23‐year‐oldman)

Themobileisbecominganightmareforme(31‐year‐oldman)

However,thisperformanceisambivalentasmendisplayagreaterinterestboth

13

for technical aspects of the device and brands5; but it is legitimized by their

professionalusagesandtechnicaldisposition,thusfreedofanyconsumeristsuspicion

whichcanthreatenthegenderedplayofdifferentiation:

Therearethingsthatarereallyimportantandthingsthatarenot.Idon’tmind

not having a plasmaTV. But for themobile phone there are things that I do

haveandwhicharenecessary(45‐year‐oldman)

Likewise,theusuallyavowedtensionbetweenbeingconnectedandthewishto

disconnectismorefirmlyperformedbyourmaleinterviewees,whodefendandcome

torepresenttherationalandefficientusagesofthemobilephone:

It is useful but, damn it!, depending on it for everything gets intimacy out.

Relishing a book, sitting peacefully, talking to your girlfriend and stop to be

talkingtoanobject... Iowntwomobilesand,unfortunately,oneofthemisa

PDAbecauseIneedit.Itpissesmeoff.Ithinkitisnecessarybut,aseverything

else,youshouldknowhowtouseit(Focusgroup,20‐45‐year‐oldmen)

This nostalgia of a purely human world freed from technology, with clear

14

demarcations among professional and domestic spheres and public, private and

intimatescenes,expressesthegenderedstraintodefendthe“territoriesoftheself”in

thecontemporarydigital landscape:“ingeneral, thehighertherank, thegreater the

size of all territories of the self and the greater the control across the boundaries”

(Goffman, 1971, p. 40‐41). But, its defence clashes with the contemporary couple

obligation of transparency and disclosure as a way of supporting trust and

demonstrating love. This is highlighted by the obligation of a double accessibility

afforded by mobile phones: to the other person as well as to the device and its

content.Forinstance,theshareduseofthemobilephonebymembersofthecouple

(access to the partner’s device for answering calls, downloading and uploading,

sendingmessages,readinganddeletingcontent,etc.)revealsamodeofsubjectionto

theother throughan increasedmutual identificationand intimatedisclosure (Lasén,

2011).

Theseobligationssetthelimitsforindividualprivacyinsidethecouple.Insome

cases, they are accepted as a normal feature of being involved in a relationship,

especially for the younger, with less past couple experiences; in others, they elicit

tensions and rejections, in particular when this accessibility has contributed to

previous break‐ups and crisis. Theway people describe this accessibility reveals the

size and control of their territories but also a lack of acknowledgement of privacy

15

within intimatebonds.Suchobligationsdevelopinparalleltotheexpectationsabout

self‐disclosurethataredistinctiveofbeinginarelationship,asitwasalreadynotedby

Simmel(1906)acenturyago,highlightingtheworryingconsequencesforthelastingof

thelovebond.However,thislackofprivacydoesnotseemtoworrytheparticipantsin

our research. They accept this “transparency” as normal and expected, as believing

andfearingthatanythingthatisnotaccessiblehidesthethreatofa“doublelife”.Itis

asifthewilltoachievecohesionandtrustpreventedautonomyandprivacy.

Youcanhaveyourlittleprivacy,butIdon’thaveanyproblemifI’mdrivingand

I receive a text. I say: “please seewho it is”.Noproblemat all. I don’t have

anythingtohideand I’d lovetohavethesamefeeling. I’mnottellingthat I’ll

takeyourphoneeverydaytocheckwhatyou’vedone,ofcoursenot.Butifone

day you are on Facebook and I sit close to you, I’d like not to have the

impressionthatI’mwatchingsomethingprivateandthatIhavetogo,because

that’sthefeelingIgetnow.OrwhenyouaredoingyouremailandIstandnext

toyoutoseethepicturesthatyouare lookingat,and Ihavetogobecause I

don’twanttohavethefeelingthatI’mtakingawayyourfreedom(28‐year‐old

woman)

16

This notion of trust requiring a total transparency is expressed in some

interviews when particularly women do not understand the resistance to a total

intimatedisclosure,unlessonehassomethingtohide.6

Hedoesn’tcheckmymobile,butifIcaughthimdoingitIwouldn’tcare.Ihave

nothingtohide.I’dfinditfunny(32‐year‐oldwoman)

It’s likesharingyour lifecompletely. I thinkthatyouhavetoshareeverything

[…]. He entrusts me with his life. It’s the same for the mobile (39‐year‐old

woman)

Even those far from the romantic love narratives share this view.As this 35‐

year‐oldwomanwho,despiteofdefiningherselfas“zeroromantic”andthinkingthat

fallinginloveis“becomingidiot”,states:“I’venevergoneoutonmyownorhadvery

privatethingswhenI’minarelationship.Everythinghastobetoldandthereisalotof

trust”.Transparencyjustifiesacceptingthepartner’smonitoringviathemobilephone,

whilstcontrolisassociatedwithsuspicionanddoublelife,withjealousy,butnotwith

the obligation of being localized, accessible and available. Therefore when we are

“verytransparent”and“donothaveanythingtohide”,weareneithercontrollernor

17

controlled. The immediacy and connectivity afforded by mobile phones become

distinctivefeaturesofintimaterelationships:

When you call and there is no answer you say: “it is not possible, theymust

answer”. You become more demanding with communication (35‐year‐old

woman)

Attheendacouplerelationshipsiscommunicationsandamobilephonehelps

tocommunicateimmediately(39‐year‐oldwoman)

Formyfriends[…]ifthreedayspasswithoutacallbackisnotthatimportant,it

doesn’tmatter.Butwithmygirlfriend I expect aquickeranswer (23‐year‐old

man)

Thisobligationofaccessibilityfacilitatedbymobilecommunication ingeneral,

increases for couples: the greater intimacy, transparency and immediacy, thehigher

obligations to fulfil the expectations. Those features of mobile connectivity fit well

with the logic of (asymmetric) des‐differentiation and recognition within couple

relationships.

18

Knowing about the other’s life, the everyday life, being able to come into

contact…, this is formebasically. If something unexpectedhappens, goodor

bad, I like calling him to tell it and when you don’t have the phone this

possibilitydoesn’texistanymore.Thisfacilitatesmetocomeintocontactwith

him.(27‐year‐oldwoman).

This is also revealed by the anger when a call or a text message are not

answered, thesuspicionofadark intention fornotdoing it,or theannoyancewhen

thepartnerforgetstheritualcall.Stating“howmuch”contactis“toomuch”depends

bothongenderrelationsandexpectationstowardstheirpartnersandonthestageof

therelationitself.Thus,theinterestforconnectionatthebeginningoftherelationship

canencourage–orhelp toadmit–amore intense flowofaffectivecommunications,

while, as times goes by, practical issues tend to play a main role, increasing that

potential tension between will for autonomy (mostly expressed by our male

interviewees)andwillforsharing(mostexplicitlyreferredbyfemaleparticipants).

Interviewer:Doyouphoneeachotherwhenyouneedtomakeadecision?

He:MostofthetimesIdon’t.

19

She:No,hedoesn’t.He…[laughs]

He:Imakeitdirectly.

She:Hedoeseverythingstraightaway.Ilikephoning,organising,consulting.He

doesn’t.Heismore…“Idoitwithoutconsulting”[laughs]

He:Ofcourse.Yes,Ido.

She: I do likephoning foreverything (unmarriedcoupleofa28‐year‐oldman

and25‐year‐oldwoman)

Territoriesoftheselfandgenderarrangements

Thetensionbetweenautonomyandsharing takesusback to the issueof the

defenceoftheterritoriesoftheselfandgenderrelationswithinthecouple.Ourmale

intervieweesexpressadeepertensionbuttheyembodiedamoreadvantagedposition

in its management. Gender stereotypes, displayed as particular personality traits,

servetolegitimizetheirdefenceagainstwhatispresentedastheirrationalusagesof

technology by women and youngsters. “For what I say in a minute she needs one

hour”, states a 32‐year‐old man. Thus, mobile phone practices seem to slip easily

towards “nonsense” when used by or with women, this nonsense covering a huge

rangeofpossibilitiesstartingfromdatingandflirting:

20

At thebeginning you can spend threehoursmessagingeachother, then you

don’t. You settledowna littlebit and say: “let’s give it abreak” (45‐year‐old

man).

Definingsomeusesasnonsensicalcanbeawaytoaddressdiscomfortingissues

regardingnegativefeelingsorpotentialinterferencesinone’sownactionorself‐image

or to avoid the kind of topics that does not deserve enough value or attention.

Significantly,masculineresistancetotheoverlappingofspheresisexpressedasacall

for “respect”,which now is not due to a traditional patriarchal authority but to the

individuality they traditionally embody. This masculine performance is discursively

reinforcedandlegitimizedthroughthediscourseofindividualisation:

He is in his right, becausewhy are you going to be obliged to answer every

phonecallifyoudonotwantto(28‐year‐oldwoman)

Socialpracticesandspheresarehierarchically(re)producedinthismove.Daily

genderedpractices reconfigure thematrix of asymmetrical dichotomousoppositions

thatgivesthemsenseandconsistency.Thus,efficientinformationisopposedtoritual

(nonsensical)communication(Carey,1989).Furthermore,thedomesticspherehasto

21

accommodate (and it does) the requirements of paid labour –the first presented as

routine,thesecondasadventurous–reinforcinggendereddifferentiations:

GenerallyIamtheonethatphones.Herlifeismuchmorepatterned;inmylife

everydayisdifferent.IlikeitandIappreciatethatmywifeacceptsit(39‐year‐

oldman)

Thus, work and sexual division of labour legitimizes social demarcations of

mobileavailability.Here,“IdonotphonehimtosaysillystuffbecauseIdonotwantto

bother him”, stated by a 25‐year‐old woman, fit in with “I am available during the

hoursIamavailable,Imean,inworkhoursitisknownthatIamnot”,statedbya45‐

year‐old man. According to our interviews, this choreography does not change

significantly:whatever thework situationsare,genderdisplaysauthorizemalemore

than female to wish and demand not to be disturbed, reinforcing the attached

normative value to the masculine, to its tasks and representatives. One way or

another, gender arrangements help men to avoid convincingly and assertively the

tensions:

Whenshereproachesme[fornotansweringthephone]Idonotallowherto

22

doit.(23‐year‐oldman)

Male assertiveness (“I do not allow her”) fits in asymmetrically with female

acceptanceandcaution. Infact,womeninterviewedhardlyuttertheverbtodisturb:

“It bothers me is maybe a little excessive word” (32‐year‐old woman). Thus, they

express lesscontrolover their territories. In theseeverydaypractices subalternityas

wellasautonomyandreflexivecapacityarethusordinarilyreconstituted.Although,in

contemporaryequalitarianlandscapes,thesebecomedeeplypersonalized,minimising

thesignificanceofgenderwhilereinforcingitsorderings.

Heneedslikemoreroomtomeditateandtoreflectonhiswork.AsIhavemore

orlessreflectedalreadyonit,Ijustkeepgoing[…].Itisnotthatitbothersme

(31‐year‐oldwoman)

Our male interviewees “do not like to be disturbed”, they rarely recognize

themselves disturbing others, and when they refer to their partners’ irritation (for

instancefortheirlackofresponsetophone‐calls)theytendtominimizethelegitimacy

orrationalityoffemininedemands;ontheotherside,womenstateandperformthat

they“donotwanttodisturb”theirpartners:

23

Ithinkitisduetoinsecurity,maybebythinkingthatitismyfault,thathecan

becomeboredofme,thathecanfeelannoyed,thatIcandisturbhim(31‐year‐

oldwoman)

Since social validation for subalternpositionsdependsonnotdemanding too

much(Branaman,2010,p.248),femininediscoursesrevealastraintoavoidbothering,

as it could attach them to traditional feminine stereotypes (“the pest” or “the

chatterbox”) risking both their public image of modernity and their intimate

relationship:

Therearemomentsinwhichobviouslyhecannotanswerthephone.ButIam

notapest(35‐year‐oldwoman)

Thesedisplaysreorganizeahierarchicalordering:menperformtheentitlement

toregulatetheinteractionwhilewomenfollowtheirfootsteps,withaccessibilityand

heteronomyexpressedandreconstructedinmobilecommunication.

Interviewer:Howdoes thatsituation inwhichyouphonehimmore frequently

24

andhefeltalittlecontrolledevolve?

Well,givingupphoningsomuch.Indirectly,itmakeshimfeelfreerandheacts

differently(34‐year‐oldwoman)

Therefore the interaction order in mobile phone communication within

heterosexual couples rests mainly upon the feminine adaptation to masculine

definitionsofthesituation(whentophone,howlongtotalk,whennottoexpectan

answer,whatnottotalkabout),basedontheirembodied legitimacyforestablishing

andmonitoringthesocialframesandlines:

Hereallybothers if Iamnotavailable[…].But inhisdaybydayworkheonly

phonesmeforchildrenarrangements:“Listen,Icannotarriveontimetopick

themupattheirmusicclass,sogoyourself”.(40‐year‐oldwoman)

ItisdisturbingonlyifIneedsomethingurgent[…],ifwehaveanappointment

andIhavebeenphoningherbecauseIneedtochangeitandsheisnotpaying

attentiontohermobile.(23‐year‐oldman)

Whenheisthere,Itrynottousethephone.AndifsomebodyphonesmeIsay

25

“Iwillphoneyoubacktomorrow”.(24‐year‐oldwoman)

Those gender ritual performances, reinforced through multiple forms of

institutional reflexivity (Goffman, 1987), recreate a masculine fortress‐self and a

femininerelational‐self,whichseeksforconnectionasaformofrecognition(Lasén&

Casado,2012).Theycanbeapprehendedthroughtheadjectivesthatourinterviewees

attributed to themselvesandtoeachother,or throughthegreater feminine fluency

whenexplainingwhattheirpartnersprovidethemintheirrelationship.

He is different. I ammuchmore dependant,muchmore about doing things

together,youknow,ofachievingthingsincommon(28‐year‐oldwoman)

As apartner, heprovidesmewhat Iwant in aman:protection, security, the

feeling that you have someone there who understands and helps you, who

makesyoulaugh.(31‐year‐oldwoman)

These gendered selves frame the conditions in which intimate bond is

established,withdifferentexpectations,demands,andsubjectivities:

26

IfIsharemylifewithsomeone,itisnotthatIamjustgoingtodowhateverhe

said,butIdohavetoconsulthim,Ihavetocountwithhim,Ihavetothinkof

him,Icannotgoalone.That’sthewayitis.(31‐year‐oldwoman)

I can spend threehourson the computer and she can stay there, but I need

thatshedoesnotneedme[…].Ineedtobeconcentratedonthisandaloneand

tobesurethatIhavethisundercontrol(32‐year‐oldman)

Themain thing is the individual.There isacore that isyours,unyielding,and

youmustpromoteit.Onceyouhavethisreally,withyourlifeprojectofwhat

youwanttodo,youtrytoshare itwithsomebodyandyou lookfortheright

person(34‐year‐oldman)

As Goffman (1977) noticed, “males will have an opportunity of doing and

femalesofshowingrespect,ifnotgratitude,forwhatisdone.Butobservehowsocial

practice has made it possible for men and women to stage these self‐confirming

scenes”(p.320):

It isasacrificehedoes[…]Iaminfinitelygratefultohim[…].Iamthekindof

27

personwhoneedstobetoldconstantlywhatisfeltforme.It’sacondition,you

know,quotationsmarks, that I poseandheperfectly accepts and satisfies it.

And I love it, because he does it. […] It makes me feel more happy and

supportive. And thus I think we get a harmonious relationship (31‐year‐old

woman)

Insummary,couplingpatterns,7inconjunctionwithidealsovermasculinityand

femininity,thesubordinationofthedomestictotheprofessionalandoftheemotions

to reason, all of them reinterpreted from equalitarianism, institute the gender

arrangements that simultaneously sustain those demarcations. There are gendered

performances to understand and embrace each other, to achieve intimate harmony

that,farfromcancelasymmetries,reconfigurethemchoreographically:

In all of this, intimacy certainlybringsno corrective. […]Cross‐sex affectional

gestures choreograph protector and protected, embracer and embraced,

comforterandcomforted,supporterandsupported,extenderofaffectionand

recipientthereof;anditisdefinedasonlynaturalthatthemaleencompassand

thefemalebeencompassed.Andthiscanonlyremindusthatmaledomination

isaveryspecialkind,adominationthatcanbecarriedrightintothegentlest,

28

mostlovingmomentwithoutapparentlycausingstrain‐indeed,thesemoments

canhardlybeconceivedofapartfromtheseasymmetries(Goffman,1987,p.8‐

9)

Conclusionsandconnections:Remediatedprivacies, sharedagenciesandgendered

choreographies

Theanalysisoftheusesofthetermdisturbanditsderivativesregardingmobile

phoneusesandpracticesquestions,at leastpartially, thecontemporarydescriptions

ofmoderncouples,whichhavecertain truth‐value–in fact theyare trulyperformed

andsustainthefantasyofthe“goodcouplerelationship”withallitspotentialtoelicit

formsof crueloptimism (Berlant,2011)–butarepartial.Genderarrangementshave

become indeed less comfortabledue to significant social transformations,but this is

far from implying that, under the rubric of equality, our ordinary practices are

progressivelygenderlessorinthewayofbecomingsuch.Asfaras“genderexpressions

are by way of being a mere show; but a considerable amount of the substance of

societyisenrolledinthestagingofit”(Goffman,1987,p.8),andasfarasthestageis

being mediated and remediated thanks to the multiple digital participants, the

demarcations among public sphere, privacy and intimacy (Hjorth and Lim, 2012)

becomesimultaneouslycontextuallyrearticulated.

29

In this sense, contemporary gender arrangementswithin couple relationsare

highlyremediated,accordingtobothaspectsofremediationdescribedbyBolterand

Grusin(2000):subjecttoextendedmediationsregardingmultipledevices,applications

andmostaspectsofeverydaylife,aswellasaimingtowardsanidealofimmediacyand

transparency. The uses and practices of mobile media highlight their ambivalent

potentialities (Cooper, 2001), supporting both a growing possibility of mobility and

flexibility, as well as an increased ability to track communications, networks and

activities,andtomonitorotherpeople(Green,2001).

Social practices and the ways people use these media reveal forms of

(gendered)attachment:amongpeople,andbetweenpeopleandtechnologies.Tobe

attached toothers throughmobilemediationmeans tobeaccessible. This increases

theneedtomanageavailability,asitrearrangesthelimitsforprivacyandterritoriesof

the self. This ambivalence fits in with the paradoxical male position found in our

research: a certain nostalgia for a pre‐digital and disconnected world when the

territoriesoftheselfweremorefirmlydefined,handledandsupported,coexistswith

theusual“lovefortechnology”duetothepromiseofcontrolovertheworld,others

and self. Digital technologies asmobile phones dismiss that promise, as they afford

accessibility,connectivityandincreaseopennesstoothersandtheworld,makingtheir

territoriesoftheselfmorevulnerable.Themobilephonepotentialitiestolocalizeand

30

exert control over the partner, the wireless leash (Qiu, 2007), are also part of this

genderedandmediatedchoreography.Assecrecy, inaccessibilityandpersonal realm

clashwith ahegemonic viewof the intimatebondas a relationwhere transparency

and full sharing seem tobe thegroundsofmutual recognition.Mobilephoneshave

thepotentialtosupportandreinforcetheindividualrealmofactivities,andtomanage

andextend themobilityofaffectsandaffiliations.Within thecouple, thisautonomy

andprivacy,particularlyprotectedandsustainedbymen,arefoughtanddownplayed

bymobilephoneusesandexpectationssetmostlybywomen.

Theunderstandingofthesocialimplicationsofmobilemediaforprivacyandits

contextual integrity needs to take into account this complex articulation ofmobility

and attachment that stress or play down different features of the technologies,

accordingnotonlytopeople’sparticularwillorintention,buttoothersocialorderings

andconstraints.Thusdigitalmediaremediateandcontributetoreconfigureprevious

contextual and relational arrangements of private and public. This clarifies the

difficulty of considering both realms as dichotomous spheres. A short fieldwork tale

canillustratethisparticularentanglement.Ayoungmarriedwomanwithachildliving

withherfamilyinasmallflat,whereshedoesnothavearoomofherown,saysthat

her privacy is her laptop. For her, surfing theweb, exchangingmails andmessages,

tweetingandfacebooking, takingpart inonlinepublics,all theseonlineactivitiesare

31

waysofachievingapersonalspace,herterritorywithinthehousehold,affordingthe

necessarydistancefromcoupleandfamilyrequirements.

Therefore,digitalmediaplayaroleintheconfigurationofpeople’ssubjections

and dependencies, not only related to a growing attachment to the devices and

applications, but also by the new social obligations, accessibility and ways of

monitoring that these technologies are facilitating. They take part in the shaping of

contemporary individuals and their interpersonal bonds, and thus, in contemporary

(gendered)subjectivationprocesses: inthe“wayahumanbeingturnshimorherself

intoasubject”(Foucault1982,p.208)throughavarietyof“operationsontheirown

bodies,ontheirownsouls,ontheirthoughts,ontheirownconducts”(Foucault1988,

p.18).Theshapingoftheselfentailsdifferentmodesofdependenceorsubjection.In

this sense, “subject” has a double meaning: as being subjected to something or

someone, under the power, control or dependence of another person, group or

institution, and as constraint to a particular identity, self‐conscience and self‐

knowledge(Foucault,1982).Bothmeaningssuggestaformofpowerthatsubjugates

and shapes our subjectivities. The remediated gendered choreographies of couples’

everydaylivesrevealhowmobilephonesplayaroleinbothaspects:identityandself‐

knowledge on the one hand, and monitoring, self‐control and dependence on the

other.

32

Thepervasivenessandubiquityofmobilemediamakeitsroleintheshapingof

the self more intense: the dependence and attachment to the device are both

narrowly linked to the dependence and attachment to other people, and to our

expectations and our obligations towards them. Gendered choreographic

arrangements perform a shared agency between people andmobile telephony. The

notionofsharedagencystressesthemutualshapingandtrainingregardingpeopleand

technologies involved in the learning process of digital uses and practices. Using

mobilephonesentailssharingouragency,asthedevicesandtheirapplicationsafford

somepracticesandactivitiesaswellaspreventothers.Inourcasestudydifferentuses

arisefromthemeetingofthedeviceandapplications,withtheirfeatures,possibilities

and constraints, and people, with their socio‐historically situated and changing

subjectivities, necessities, aims and particularities. There is a cultural, social and

personal shaping of digital technologies while, reciprocally, individuals and

interpersonal relationships become shaped by the presence, uses and practices of

digitaldevices.

Thisisacollectivelearningprocessinvolvingmodesofcollaborationaswellas

multiple and potential clashes. It includes people and devices, and institutional

regulationsandotherkindofnorms.Aswehaveseen,amobilephoneconversation

mobilizes several activities and forms of social practical knowledge on gender and

33

otherintertwinedsocialorderings,embodiment,technologicalliteracy,linguisticskills,

etiquette rules, personal creativity and emotionalmanagement. This shared agency

contributestosetthecontextualnormsthatdelimitprivacyandterritoriesoftheself,

regarding appropriateness and the information flow. Looking at the specific case of

norms and expectations about mobile phone uses and communication within

heterosexual couple helps us to grasp the gendered way privacy is configured,

protectedorundermined.

Notes

1Thenotionofprivacyisembeddedinlargertrendsofpoliticalandsocialchanges(cf.

thefivevolumesHistoryoftheprivatelifeeditedbyArièsandDuby1987–1991).

2. The research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

(CSO2008‐05207).RubénBlancoandAntonioGarcíaarealsopartoftheteam.

3 A critic of these views on heterosexual intimacy can be found in Eldén, 2012;

Jamieson,1999andGross,2005.

4Therelevanceofthiscaseisgroundedaswellinthewidespreadadoptionanduseof

mobile phones in Spain for bothmen (94%) and women (94,30%), similar to other

Europeancountries,withamobilephonepenetrationrateof118,2%andthehighest

penetration in Smartphones in Europe with 66 percent (data of the INE (National

34

Institute of Statistics), July 2013,

http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t25/p450/a2013/&file=pcaxis)

5 This technical interest can be interpreted as an enactment of their embodied

masculinity,asbothhavebeenmutuallyshapedinmodernsocieties.“Thisisnottosay

that there is onemasculinityorone formof technology: rather, it is tonote that in

contemporaryWesternsociety,hegemonicmasculinity […] is still stronglyassociated

with technical prowess and power” (Wajcman, 2000, p. 454), as most research on

gender and (communication) technology has shown (Caputi, 1988; Faulkner, 2001;

LohanandFaulkner,2004).

6 Apparently they share the same view as Zuckerberg when trying to justify the

changes of privacy settings in Facebook or as U.S. officials and journalists trying to

justifytheNSAPRISMprogram.

7EchoingGoffman(1977),“thecustomaryagedifferentialbetweenthepairingsexes

ensuresthat,byandlarge,themalewillbemoreexperiencedandmoneyedthanthe

female, this, too, supporting the showof control he exhibits in social situations” (p.

321).

References

Ariès, Ph. & Duby, F. (Eds) (1987‐1991). History of the private life, five volumes.

35

HarvardUniversityPress.

Beck,U.&Beck‐Gernsheim, E. (1995).TheNormal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Berlant,L.(2011).CruelOptimism.DurhamN.C.:DukeUniversityPress.

Berlant,L.&McCabe,E.(2011).Depressiverealism.AninterviewwithLaurenBerlant,

Hypocrite Reader, Issue 5, June. http://hypocritereader.com/5/depressive‐

realism(accessed7February2014).

Bolter, J.D.&Grusin,R. (2000).Remediation:UnderstandingNewMedia.Cambridge:

MITPress.

Branaman, A. (2010). The Protean Goffman. InM. H. Jacobsen (Ed.), Contemporary

Goffman(pp.232‐255).NewYork:Routledge,.

Caputi, J. (1988). Seeing elephants: Themyths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies

14(3),487‐524.

Carey,J.(1989).CommunicationasCulture.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.

Casado,E. (2002).Laconstrucciónsociocognitivade las identidadesdegénerode las

mujeres españolas (Doctoral dissertation), Universidad Complutense Madrid,

Spain.Retrievedfromwww.ucm.es/BUCM/tesis/cps/ucm‐t26344.pdf(accessed

2September2013)

Cooper, G. (2001). The Mutable Mobile: Social Theory in the Wireless world. In B.

36

Brown, N. Green & R. Harper (Eds).WirelessWorld. Social and Interactional

AspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.19‐31).London:Springer‐Verlag.

Eldén,S.(2012).Scriptsforthe“goodcouple”:Individualizationandthereproduction

ofgenderinequality,ActaSociologica,55(1):3–18.

Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist

technologystudies,Women'sStudiesInternationalForum24(1):79–95.

Fortunati,L.(2005).MobileTelephoneandthePresentationofSelf. InR.Ling&P.E.

Pedersen (Eds.)Mobile communications. Re‐negotiation of the Social Sphere

(pp.203‐218).London:Springer.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and the power. Afterword. In H.L. Dreyfus & P.

Rabinow(Eds.)BeyondStructuralismandHermeneutics(pp.208‐225).Chicago:

TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Foucault,M.(1988).TechnologiesoftheSelf.InL.H.Martin,H.Gutman&P.H.Hutton,

Technologiesof theSelf:ASeminarwithMichelFoucault (pp.16‐49).London:

Tavistock.

Garfinkel,H.(1967).StudiesinEthnomethodology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice‐Hall.

Gidddens,A.(1992).Thetransformationofintimacy.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Goffman,E.(1987).GenderAdvertisements.NewYork:Harper&RowPublishers

Goffman,E.(1983).Felicity’scondition.AmericanJournalofSociology,89,1‐53.

37

Goffman, E. (1977). The Arrangement between the Sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3),

301‐331

Goffman,E.(1971).RelationsinPublic.NewYork:BasicBooks

Green, N. (2001). Who’s watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile

relations. InB.Brown,N.Green&R.Harper(Eds).WirelessWorld.Socialand

InteractionalAspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.32‐45).London:Springer‐Verlag.

Gross, N. (2005). The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered, Sociological

Theory23(3):477‐494.

Hashimoto, S. D. & Campbell, S. W. (2008). The occupation of ethereal locations:

Indicationsofmobiledata.CriticalStudiesinMediaCommunication,25(5),537‐

558.

Hjorth, L. & Lim, S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media.

FeministMediaStudies12(4),477‐484.

Jamieson,L.(1999).IntimacyTransformed?ACriticalLookatthe“Purerelationship”.

Sociology33(3):286‐311.

Lasén,A.(2011).“Mobilesarenotthatpersonal”:theunexpectedconsequencesofthe

accountability,accessibilityandtransparencyaffordedbymobiletelephony.In

R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.) The Mobile Communication Research Series:

Volume II,MobileCommunication:BringingUsTogetherorTearingUsApart?

38

(pp.83‐105).Edison,NJ:Transactionbooks.

Lasén, A. & Casado, E. (2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple

intimacy.FeministMediaStudies,12(4):550‐559.

Lohan,M.&Faulkner,W. (2004).MasculinitiesandTechnologies.Some Introductory

Remarks.Menandmasculinities,6(4):319‐329.

Nissenbaum,H.(2004).PrivacyasContextualIntegrity.WashingtonLawReview79(1),

119‐158.

Peters,J.D.(2000).SpeakingintotheAir.Chicago:TheChicagoUniversityPress.

Qiu, J.L. (2007). “The Wireless Leash”: Mobile Messaging Service as a Means of

Control.InternationalJournalofCommunication1,74‐91.

Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile Phone Communication: Extending Goffman to Mediated

Interaction.Sociology43(3),421‐438.

Sheller,M. & Urry, J. (2003).Mobile Transformations of “Public” and “Private” life.

Theory,CultureandSociety20(3),107‐125.

Simmel,G.(1906).Thesociologyofsecrecyandofsecretsocieties,Americanjournalof

sociology,11:441‐498.

Thompson, J.B. (2011).ShiftingBoundariesofPublicandPrivateLife.Theory,Culture

andSociety28(4),49‐70.

Wajcman, J. (2000).ReflectionsonGender andTechnologyStudies.Social Studiesof

39

Science30(3),447‐464.