Practices and perceptions of living apart together

This study focuses on living apart together (LAT) partnerships in Belgium (Flanders) and uses semi-structured interview data from a sample of 54 LAT individuals aged 30–68 years to investigate the extent to which such unions are comparable to marriage with respect to five relationship dimensions: a couple dimension, an enterprise dimension, a value dimension, a role dimension and a form dimension. Although key relationship values put LAT on an equal footing with marriage, our findings indicate that transitional LAT partnerships exhibit far greater similarities to a marital relationship than permanent LAT partnerships in terms of perceptions of coupledom, joint enterprise and partners’ roles and responsibilities within the union. These similarities with marriage again diminish as the form dimension is taken into account.

Drawing on a European cross-national biographical-narrative study of intimate life, this article discusses the complexity of experiences of ‘togetherness’ and ‘apartness’ amongst people in living apart relationships. We explore the five main ways in which interviewees spoke about and understood their current living apart relationships (as: chosen; temporary; transitional; undecided; and unrecognisable), which we argue shows the need for a broader conceptualisation of this form of intimate relationship than is suggested by the established notion of ‘living apart together’. The article points to interviewees’ varying experiences of receiving or being denied recognition and acceptance by others as belonging to a couple, as well as to their differing degrees of desire for, or rebellion against, expectations that living apart relationships should ‘progress’ towards cohabitation.

2020

Drawing on a European cross-national biographical-narrative study of intimate life, this paper discusses the complexity of experiences of "togetherness" and "apartness" amongst people in living apart relationships. We explore the five main ways in which interviewees spoke about and understood their current living apart relationships (as chosen; temporary; transitional; undecided; and unrecognizable), which we argue suggests the need for a broader conceptualisation of this form of intimate relationship than is suggested by the established notion of "living apart together". The paper points to the varying experiences of receiving or being denied recognition and acceptance by others as belonging to a couple, as well as to the differing degrees of desire for, or rebellion against, expectations that living apart relationships should "progress" towards cohabitation.

Families, Relationships and Societies, 2013

Interpretations of living apart together (LAT) have typically counter-posed ‘new family form’ versus ‘continuist’ perspectives. Recent surveys, however, construct LAT as a heterogeneous category that supports a ‘qualified continuist’ position – most people live apart as a response to practical circumstances or as a modern version of ‘boy/girlfriend’, although a minority represents something new in preferring to live apart more permanently. This article interrogates this conclusion by examining in depth why people live apart together, using a nationally representative survey from Britain and interview accounts from 2011. Our analysis shows that LAT as a category contains different sorts of relationship, with different needs and desires. While overall coupledom remains pivotal and cohabitation remains the goal for most, LAT allows people flexibility and room to manoeuvre in adapting couple intimacy to the demands of contemporary life. Hence, we suggest, LAT is both ‘new’ and a ‘continuation’.

Advances in Life Course Research

The non-institutionalised, flexible nature of living-apart-together (LAT) raises questions about partner commitment in the context of the debate about the individualisation of society. We explored how partner commitment in LAT relationships in the Netherlands is shaped by individuals' satisfaction with, alternatives to, investments in and social support for their relationship. The underlying theoretical framework is an extended version of the Investment Model of Commitment. We conducted 22 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with men and women. The major themes that were addressed in the analysis were commitment, satisfaction, alternatives, investments, social support, relationship history and future plans. Participants were emotionally highly attached to their partner, but they doubted their commitment to maintaining their relationship in the future. Satisfaction with the current partner and intrinsic investments, such as emotions and effort, were described as contributing the most to feelings of commitment. Social support, quality of alternatives and extrinsic investments, such as material ties, were felt to contribute the least. Relationship history and life experience played an important role in how middle-aged and older individuals, of whom many were divorced, perceived the four determinants and experienced commitment. In this context, the LAT arrangement expressed fear of commitment and getting hurt, which was further reflected in limited investments. The paper concludes that although emotional attachment appears to be high among people in LAT relationships, they may have a relatively limited belief and interest in lifelong partnerships. 1. Introduction Partner relationship arrangements have diversified profoundly in many western countries since the 1960s. Amongst other phenomena, this diversification revealed itself in a rise in unmarried cohabitation, divorce and extramarital childbirth (Lesthaeghe, 2010), and in the increased prevalence or visibility of living-apart-together (LAT) relationships (Carter,

International Review of Sociology, 2011

‘Living apart together’ – that is being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else (LAT) – is increasingly recognised and accepted as a specific way of being in a couple. On the face of it, this is a far cry from the ‘traditional’ version of couple relationships, where co-residence in marriage was placed at the centre and where living apart from one's partner would be regarded as abnormal, and understandable only as a reaction to severe external constraints. Some commentators regard living apart together as a historically new family form where partners can pursue a ‘both/and’ solution to partnership – they can experience both couple intimacy, but at the same time maintain personal autonomy and pre-existing commitments. Alternatively, others see LAT as just a ‘stage’ on the way to cohabitation and marriage, where LATs are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative, and simply show a lack of commitment. Behind these rival interpretations lies the increasingly tarnished spectre of individualisation theory. Is LAT some sort of index for a developing individualisation in practice? We take this debate further by using information from the 2006 British Social Attitudes Survey and from in-depth interviews with LAT partners. We find that LATs do resemble cohabitating (unmarried) couples in demographic and social terms, but also display quite diverse origins and motivations. One group of LATs do not see themselves as couple partners at all, but more as special boy/girlfriends. Others live apart mainly in response to external circumstances. But some LATs do seem to be developing a new way of living in their relationships, as a means of balancing both couple intimacy and personal autonomy over the longer term.

2009

Many individuals are not married or in a common-law relationship, but are in a stable relationship without living under the same roof. These couples are 'living apart together.' How many individuals are in this situation in Canada? Is this type of relationship increasing? Are these relationships motivated by lifestyle choices?

2013

Many people classified as “single” are actually in living apart together relationships. Living alone doesn’t necessarily mean being alone. Intimacy doesn’t always mean sharing a home.

Recent research suggests that women can use living apart together (LAT) for a reflexive and strategic undoing of the gendered norms of cohabitation. In this article we examine this assertion empirically, using a representative survey from Britain in 2011 and follow-up interviews. First, we find little gender differentiation in practices, expectations, or attitudes about LAT, or reasons for LAT. This does not fit in with ideas of undoing gender. Secondly, in examining how women talk about LAT in relation to gender, we distinguish three groups of ‘constrained’, ‘strategic’ and ‘vulnerable’ female interviewees. All valued the extra space and time that LAT could bring, many welcomed some release from traditional divisions of labour, and some were glad to escape unpleasant situations created by partnership with men. However, for the constrained and vulnerable groups LAT was second best, and any relaxation of gendered norms was seen as incidental and inconsequential to their major aim, or ideal, of the ‘proper family’ with cohabitation and marriage. Rather, their agency in achieving this was limited by more powerful agents, or was a reaction to perceived vulnerability. While the strategic group showed more purposeful behaviour in avoiding male authority, agency remained relational and bonded. Overall we find that women, at least in Britain, seldom use LAT to purposefully or reflexively undo gender. Equally, LAT sometimes involves a reaffirmation of gendered norms. LAT is a multi-faceted adaption to circumstances where new autonomies can at the same time incorporate old subordinations, and new arrangements can herald conventional family forms