Unhooking: On the Gigification of Intimacy
July 3, 2024 10:35 PM Subscribe
today, we’re not only free but also encouraged to remove ourselves from relationships that, albeit often only temporarily, are taxing or unpleasant. Someone who exhibits need—who “takes up space,” per the language of the day—is a thief. And sitting with someone through their needy times is lost profit rather than an earned privilege … or so we’re led to believe.
By Kelly Marie Coyne for the LA Review of Books
By Kelly Marie Coyne for the LA Review of Books
Who's Gigi?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:51 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:51 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
Who's Gigi?
gig-ification not Gigi-fication
anyhow, once again loving being married because modern dating life seems horrible
posted by Jacqueline at 7:18 AM on July 4 [7 favorites]
gig-ification not Gigi-fication
anyhow, once again loving being married because modern dating life seems horrible
posted by Jacqueline at 7:18 AM on July 4 [7 favorites]
This is really good, and points to a problem I’ve been noticing affecting relationships of all levels and have been worried about with younger folks who grew up only dating on apps. The idea that relationships are only for the good times, and can be cut off at any moment that they aren’t, keeps relationships constantly churning and burning back into the apps, and stops them from achieving any level of permanency. By not expressing any need, you are never able to get past the need to the place of security; by not allowing yourself to realize that you love someone despite your need, you never get to a place of unconditional love. It is creating a world of insecurity and unhappiness and desperation, and it deeply worries me.
posted by corb at 8:29 AM on July 4 [33 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:29 AM on July 4 [33 favorites]
Well said, corb ^^
posted by JoeXIII007 at 9:22 AM on July 4
posted by JoeXIII007 at 9:22 AM on July 4
Agreed, corb.
Relationships--platonic, romantic, casual--are messy. But if you only ever focus on the surface of those relationships and never dig down deep (both parties, not the just one), you will never know what it's like to have a support network, to be accepted for being a messy human alongside your fellow messy humans.
I think this is what is bothering me about a lot of the conversation around US politics. It encourages individuals to look for solutions on their own, without asking them to perhaps be messy and form support networks with others in the same boat. It makes us small and afraid, thinking we have to fight by ourselves. But we are living in a world where if people inconvenience you in the slightest, drop them like a hot potato. How we engage in current romantic relationships via apps, how we jump on the slightest bit of current outrage, how the world treats us in our everyday lives.
We all want the same things: to be safe, to be loved. But it's hard to do that when you shirk being vulnerable in so many ways.
posted by Kitteh at 9:36 AM on July 4 [6 favorites]
Relationships--platonic, romantic, casual--are messy. But if you only ever focus on the surface of those relationships and never dig down deep (both parties, not the just one), you will never know what it's like to have a support network, to be accepted for being a messy human alongside your fellow messy humans.
I think this is what is bothering me about a lot of the conversation around US politics. It encourages individuals to look for solutions on their own, without asking them to perhaps be messy and form support networks with others in the same boat. It makes us small and afraid, thinking we have to fight by ourselves. But we are living in a world where if people inconvenience you in the slightest, drop them like a hot potato. How we engage in current romantic relationships via apps, how we jump on the slightest bit of current outrage, how the world treats us in our everyday lives.
We all want the same things: to be safe, to be loved. But it's hard to do that when you shirk being vulnerable in so many ways.
posted by Kitteh at 9:36 AM on July 4 [6 favorites]
While there's a discourse (and enabling technology) to dump the motherfucker at the smallest of provocations, there's also a discourse that doing things to become or remain attractive, and not doing things that cut one's dating pool, is a moral outrage.
posted by MattD at 9:38 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 9:38 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
Also, I have serious abandonment issues due to my dad, so I definitely work on being vulnerable with my nearest and dearest. And sometimes strangers.
posted by Kitteh at 9:43 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 9:43 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
This article is interesting in how it baaaarely touches on the fact that the described situations take place between a privileged group and a person seeking to profit off said group. Which is not what I would describe as a normal situation that could apply to human relationships at large. It's a failing of elite writers to assume that what happens to rich people is universal and meaningful to everyone else, but we don't see any evidence that that is actually happening.
(Also I'm not poly but I take offense at her implication that poly relationships are about being able to swap people out easily, wtf).
Most people continue to have relationships that are not gigs, though yeah, we have language around boundaries and balance that are new. But if younger people are having shallow, short-term relationships, I don't blame apps or therapy language, because I am old enough to remember the same thing happening before those were issues. In the 90s, we blamed AIDS fears for young people not being able to connect, as I recall. Video games, porn, feminism, queerness, have all been the focus of similar essays worried about the end of romance/ dating/ marriage.
Anyway, fretting about how Technology or New Ideas are Destroying Our Youth is an ancient genre, and I wouldn't rate this as one of its better entries.
posted by emjaybee at 9:43 AM on July 4 [13 favorites]
(Also I'm not poly but I take offense at her implication that poly relationships are about being able to swap people out easily, wtf).
Most people continue to have relationships that are not gigs, though yeah, we have language around boundaries and balance that are new. But if younger people are having shallow, short-term relationships, I don't blame apps or therapy language, because I am old enough to remember the same thing happening before those were issues. In the 90s, we blamed AIDS fears for young people not being able to connect, as I recall. Video games, porn, feminism, queerness, have all been the focus of similar essays worried about the end of romance/ dating/ marriage.
Anyway, fretting about how Technology or New Ideas are Destroying Our Youth is an ancient genre, and I wouldn't rate this as one of its better entries.
posted by emjaybee at 9:43 AM on July 4 [13 favorites]
I think the article leans way too hard on the premise of a silly movie. It's not like transactional relationships are new - Can't Buy Me Love came out in 1987. I guess the difference is the helicopter parents, but the ultimate story is exactly the same. Guy was also both a gig worker and a peer -a high school kid who mowed his date's lawn, who used their relationship transactionally.
I'm not an old movies guy, I assume it was borrowed from some other movie. Risky Business from 1983 - isn't the date an actual prostitute? None of this is new.
Also: starting relationships, even in apps for most people, are actually pretty hard, and so if I had to guess, your average person holds on to a bad relationship longer due to the friction of starting a new one. This is why people have a hard time escaping abusive relationships.
Maybe pretty people jump in and out at higher rates, and are able to use prettiness vs wealth more transactionally. I do know some people who have done that - it's not for everyone, but some people are ok with a more transactional relationship in exchange for a mansion and a pool, but it's something that doesn't last forever.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:08 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
I'm not an old movies guy, I assume it was borrowed from some other movie. Risky Business from 1983 - isn't the date an actual prostitute? None of this is new.
Also: starting relationships, even in apps for most people, are actually pretty hard, and so if I had to guess, your average person holds on to a bad relationship longer due to the friction of starting a new one. This is why people have a hard time escaping abusive relationships.
Maybe pretty people jump in and out at higher rates, and are able to use prettiness vs wealth more transactionally. I do know some people who have done that - it's not for everyone, but some people are ok with a more transactional relationship in exchange for a mansion and a pool, but it's something that doesn't last forever.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:08 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
I read the situations as the exaggerated/artistic representation of a trend, so that didn’t bother me.
I think people continue to generally have the ability to connect and form lasting relationships. But I also think there are a few groups that don’t. One is a marginal group in there that are trying, but don’t feel like they’ve achieved the relationships they want - maybe young adults but I also see it in people who’ve experienced career interruptions or caregivers who are isolated especially if their care receivers die or grow up. I think that boundary language and not realizing interdependency can be a feature not a bug can harm those. I have teenagers and I do worry about cutting through all that social media noise. They seem to have good friends and the elder seems to be dipping a toe into dating ok but…I do worry.
And then there are the anti socially inclined who co-opt boundary and self-care language. A group that has always existed but I think are experiencing a new set of rules where they can use apps to function like petty dictators.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:12 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
I think people continue to generally have the ability to connect and form lasting relationships. But I also think there are a few groups that don’t. One is a marginal group in there that are trying, but don’t feel like they’ve achieved the relationships they want - maybe young adults but I also see it in people who’ve experienced career interruptions or caregivers who are isolated especially if their care receivers die or grow up. I think that boundary language and not realizing interdependency can be a feature not a bug can harm those. I have teenagers and I do worry about cutting through all that social media noise. They seem to have good friends and the elder seems to be dipping a toe into dating ok but…I do worry.
And then there are the anti socially inclined who co-opt boundary and self-care language. A group that has always existed but I think are experiencing a new set of rules where they can use apps to function like petty dictators.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:12 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]
I guess I see the author as using a couple recent cultural products as a jumping off point to talk about gig-ified relationships more generally, and specifically does talk about the social class (and interclass power differences) in these two works. They could have picked from a lot of other works, ones that aren't about rich people problems, but I found it a perfectly reasonable place to start. Not every article has to be everything.
Personally I don't think Apps Are Killing Relationships - but rather that we are in a cultural moment of reduced intimacy and human connection, where we increasingly see ourselves as both economic actors and products, and where we have an ever-increasing discomfort with just, being with other people (lots of recent social science data backs this up) and capitalism influences this cultural moment, as we also influence capitalism. We are socially reproducing, and performing, and creating this moment, as it also forms us.
Also, one thing this article doesn't talk about - is contemporary boundaries discourse does have value! I'm very grateful for example to live in a world where it's OK that I do make limits on the time and energy I share with others, or as you say above The_Vegetable, where I am encouraged by the culture not to stay in an abusive relationship, but I am also glad to have more inquiry into the negatives of increasingly transactional, shallow, and brittle social relations.
posted by latkes at 10:13 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
Personally I don't think Apps Are Killing Relationships - but rather that we are in a cultural moment of reduced intimacy and human connection, where we increasingly see ourselves as both economic actors and products, and where we have an ever-increasing discomfort with just, being with other people (lots of recent social science data backs this up) and capitalism influences this cultural moment, as we also influence capitalism. We are socially reproducing, and performing, and creating this moment, as it also forms us.
Also, one thing this article doesn't talk about - is contemporary boundaries discourse does have value! I'm very grateful for example to live in a world where it's OK that I do make limits on the time and energy I share with others, or as you say above The_Vegetable, where I am encouraged by the culture not to stay in an abusive relationship, but I am also glad to have more inquiry into the negatives of increasingly transactional, shallow, and brittle social relations.
posted by latkes at 10:13 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
I wish we could replace the word “needy” with “still healing from…”
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:35 AM on July 4
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:35 AM on July 4
one thing this article doesn't talk about - is contemporary boundaries discourse does have value! I'm very grateful for example to live in a world where it's OK that I do make limits on the time and energy I share with others
I think that one thing, and I’ve talked about this in a number of threads and ways, is that nebulous and shifting rules are the hardest for people and societies to adapt to, even if ultimately they may, once worked out, produce better results. The transitional times are the hardest.
So: we are transitioning from a time where the default relationship was all-or-nothing: where there were no obligations we owed to each other until such a time as relationships were labeled, at which point massive social obligations were incurred: either financial or socio-emotional. And at such a time, no boundaries were really able to be expressed: there was no ability to say “I’ll be financially responsible for you, but only so much” or “I’ll emotionally support you, but I can only take talking to you about this four nights a week and I need a break night with my friends.” And that default time sucked and had a lot of problems: but it did have a lot of protections against what the article calls the “invisible dog fence”. The fences in those relationships were clear and visible: don’t cheat, don’t leave, keep yourself relatively physically attractive and charming, and your relationship will probably continue: even if it doesn’t, there’s an exit ramp.
Now there are boundaries, but the fence is invisible and there is no exit ramp. Because people are able to figure their lines out for themselves, no one is really sure what’s reasonable. Is it reasonable to leave someone for crashing a car? For bombing at a party? For having too many off nights? For calling too many times? For needing too much support? How much support is too much support, and how are people supposed to know in advance? The shoe doesn’t pinch until it does. And there’s a fear of being a chump, of being the person who is walked on, whose boundary is pushed further than it should be, in this capitalist society where everyone is a commodity we have a visceral loathing of being the person who is being used.
But again, that means there is no safe refuge anywhere, that the fear and precarity of capitalism extends even into the home, that the fear of being fired at any moment without notice extends even to our most intimate spaces, and too often we don’t even recognize it as a problem. Because everyone *is* just trying to carve out space for themselves, boundaries, a tiny corner of peace. So how do you reconcile those?
posted by corb at 11:50 AM on July 4 [10 favorites]
I think that one thing, and I’ve talked about this in a number of threads and ways, is that nebulous and shifting rules are the hardest for people and societies to adapt to, even if ultimately they may, once worked out, produce better results. The transitional times are the hardest.
So: we are transitioning from a time where the default relationship was all-or-nothing: where there were no obligations we owed to each other until such a time as relationships were labeled, at which point massive social obligations were incurred: either financial or socio-emotional. And at such a time, no boundaries were really able to be expressed: there was no ability to say “I’ll be financially responsible for you, but only so much” or “I’ll emotionally support you, but I can only take talking to you about this four nights a week and I need a break night with my friends.” And that default time sucked and had a lot of problems: but it did have a lot of protections against what the article calls the “invisible dog fence”. The fences in those relationships were clear and visible: don’t cheat, don’t leave, keep yourself relatively physically attractive and charming, and your relationship will probably continue: even if it doesn’t, there’s an exit ramp.
Now there are boundaries, but the fence is invisible and there is no exit ramp. Because people are able to figure their lines out for themselves, no one is really sure what’s reasonable. Is it reasonable to leave someone for crashing a car? For bombing at a party? For having too many off nights? For calling too many times? For needing too much support? How much support is too much support, and how are people supposed to know in advance? The shoe doesn’t pinch until it does. And there’s a fear of being a chump, of being the person who is walked on, whose boundary is pushed further than it should be, in this capitalist society where everyone is a commodity we have a visceral loathing of being the person who is being used.
But again, that means there is no safe refuge anywhere, that the fear and precarity of capitalism extends even into the home, that the fear of being fired at any moment without notice extends even to our most intimate spaces, and too often we don’t even recognize it as a problem. Because everyone *is* just trying to carve out space for themselves, boundaries, a tiny corner of peace. So how do you reconcile those?
posted by corb at 11:50 AM on July 4 [10 favorites]
None of this article resonates with me but I find hearing other people’s responses to it interesting and helpful. I grew up fundamentalist Christian and internalized “giving grace” way too hard and never managed to give it up even when I found out all the adults were lying to me about that unconditional love thing. Primed me well for becoming a therapist, not so well for leaving relationships that have been all take and no give for a long time.
I don’t know if it’s actually better for intimacy though; I’ve spent years wasting all my energy on relationships that never built real connections because the other half wasn’t interested in giving anything back. Interestingly I don’t think I’ve experienced this “drop someone if they become inconvenient” from the other side either; but maybe I have and haven’t realized it. I’ve had friends who only seem to engage when it’s convenient for them, but they’re still perfectly willing to come to me with their needs and get upset if I’m not immediately there for them. So I guess I’ve never been fully dropped, but I have had people drop their side of the mutual interdependency while expecting me to hold up mine. Is that something that fits into this gigification of intimacy idea?
posted by brook horse at 5:37 PM on July 4 [3 favorites]
I don’t know if it’s actually better for intimacy though; I’ve spent years wasting all my energy on relationships that never built real connections because the other half wasn’t interested in giving anything back. Interestingly I don’t think I’ve experienced this “drop someone if they become inconvenient” from the other side either; but maybe I have and haven’t realized it. I’ve had friends who only seem to engage when it’s convenient for them, but they’re still perfectly willing to come to me with their needs and get upset if I’m not immediately there for them. So I guess I’ve never been fully dropped, but I have had people drop their side of the mutual interdependency while expecting me to hold up mine. Is that something that fits into this gigification of intimacy idea?
posted by brook horse at 5:37 PM on July 4 [3 favorites]
corb> It is creating a world of insecurity and unhappiness and desperation, and it deeply worries me.
It's good for the economy though so hey..
posted by jeffburdges at 6:00 PM on July 4 [1 favorite]
It's good for the economy though so hey..
posted by jeffburdges at 6:00 PM on July 4 [1 favorite]
When a society ceases to make things of any real value, but capitalism fails to be replaced by a system that's more relevant to the needs of post-manufacturing, humanity itself becomes a product. What else is there to buy and sell?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:19 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:19 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
« Older Diver forms months-long friendship with octopus in... | Turn Out to Vote Out Newer »
for that critique, i’ve appreciated Jacobin’s extensive writing
an image in one of the OP links out was poignant: “this is the outside you have made” [pioneerworks] also, always happy to see a reference to Martha Nussbaum [content note: Hiding From Humanity/gbooks]
posted by HearHere at 3:46 AM on July 4 [1 favorite]