Introduction

Chapter 3 builds on some of the debates outlined in Chapter 2 and focuses on how the late modern era has changed the way we experience and act on our emotions. The chapter demonstrates an increased awareness and experience of emotional complexity in late modernity by challenging the emotional/rational divide. The chapter also reveals tensions between collectivized and individualized– privatized emotions in investigating emotions. Part I of the chapter examines relational complexity in late modernity and examines the work of a number of theorists who have contributed to understanding such relational complexity, including Giddens (1991, 1992), Bauman (2003) and Archer (2012) among others. By relational complexity, we understand the increased emphasis on a ‘liberation’ from traditional conceptions of relationships and a focus on ‘individualization’ as discussed by these theorists. Part II of the chapter looks at the relationship between gender and emotional complexity in late modernity, examining different gender responses to emotions such as anger. Finally, Part III of the chapter looks at the complexity of emotions in late modernity, focusing on loneliness and contextualizing this in relation to intimacy and relationships.

Part I. Relational complexity in late modernity

This quote from Illouz highlights some of the issues raised by the reflexive modernization thesis as well as reflecting the relational complexity that accompanied it. As is well established, Anthony Giddens (1991, 1992) is one of the key proponents of the reflexive modernization thesis, as Patulny et al (2019) observe. In his argument within the reflexive modernization thesis, Giddens's (1991) point is that Western developed societies are distinctly different from those of the past. In response to the characteristics of neoliberalism, including consumer-oriented economic relationships, Giddens argues that this is paralleled by individuals who can be seen to be increasingly individualized and reflexive (Elliott and Lemert, 2006) and who prefer self-responsibility and freedom. In addition, individuals also prefer self-responsibility over a reliance on traditional forms of authority (Davis, 2008; Archer, 2012).