This article has been accepted to be published by the journal Mobile Media and

Communication(Sage)

Whatisdisturbingandwhynottodisturb.Onmobilephones,genderandprivacy
withinheterosexualintimacy.

ElenaCasado
UniversityComplutenseofMadrid
AmparoLasn
UniversityComplutenseofMadrid


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 focusgroups on mobile phone uses
and practices within heterosexual couples, showing how gendered ways of everyday
management of intimate bonds and territories of the self contribute to the ordinary
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


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fundamental kinds of opposing imagery: in one hand, what is hidden, withdrawn,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.whatisopen,revealed,accessible,visible;andintheotherhand,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

entaildifferentprivacies1whosedemarcations,meaningsandcontentsarethushighly
contextual (Nissenbaum, 2004; Thompson, 2011). These evolve in relation with the
materialityofsociallife,asthecontemporaryformsofmobileintimacyinwhichthe
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 rearticulation 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 semistructured individual
interviews,3semistructuredinterviewswithbothmembersofthecouple,124days
diaries of mobile phone use from both members of 6 couples and 1,000 telephone
interviews. However, this paper focuses specifically on the discourses collected
through the focusgroups and the interviews, both individual and in couple, lasting
from 1.30 to 2.15 hours, whose participants were heterosexual middle class women

and men, aged 2045. This age group was chosen because it presents a sufficient
familiarity with digital technologies, as well as the probability of having experienced
several couple relationships. Furthermore, they have grown in a democratic 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;
BeckandBeckGernsheim,1995)andthedailypracticesofthosewhoarepresumedto
embody and perform it. Though we selected different kinds of couples, according to
the length of the relationship (less than one year, from one to five years and more
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
todosoweattendtohowtheparticipantsinourresearchusethetermdisturband
its derivatives regarding mobile phone interactions within the couple.
Methodologically,itimpliestosituateouranalysisonwhatisdisturbingandforwhom
withinthedramaturgicalinteractionorder:

Who is brought or brings himself into the immediate orbit of another; who
initiatestalk,whoisselectedastheaddressedrecipient,whoselfselectsintalk
turntaking, who establishes and changes topics, whose statements are given
attentionandweight,andsoforth.(Goffman,1977,p.324).
Thequestionisthenwhodecides,wholeads,andwhofollowsinthedanceofdigitally
mediated and facetoface interactions, and what the broader symbolic and material
implications of these choreographic arrangements are. Moving from the
methodologicaltothetheoretical,Goffmanalsoprovidesuswithachoreographicview
ofgenderwhichrevealsitsorderingpotentialasa"remarkableorganizationaldevice
up to the point that it can be stated that gender, not religion, is the opiate of the
masses(Goffman,1977,p.315).Intheritualityofeverydayordinaryencountersand
digitallymediatedformsofcommunicationincouples,genderrelationshipsemergeas
a particular choreography, a performance in which ones position, subjectivity and
movementsarearrangedregardingtheposition,subjectivityandmovementsofones
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

hierarchical differentiation is reconstituted and keeps on serving as a basis for other

social orderings. At this point, Goffmans 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 that women's traditional place is a natural expression of
their natural capacities [], if the traditional pattern is sustained it will be sustained
lesscomfortably(Goffman,1977,p.309).Analysingtheusesoftheverbdisturbcan
helpustounderstandthislesscomfortablysustainedorderwithoutdenyingtherole
ofgenderasakeyremarkabledevice.

Framingcontemporarycouplecommunication
Couple relationships undergo diverse interconnected transformations related
tothegeneralsociohistoricalcontext(thesocalledrisk,uncertaintyorinformational
society),togenderrelationsandsubjectivities,tofamilynotionsandstructures,aswell
as to ordinary practices and interactions, such as digital mediations of relationships,
communication and everyday life. Some of the most influential contemporary
sociologists have analysed those processes as a shift from traditional to more
consensualbondsorpurerelationships(Giddens,1992),wherelovebecomescrucial
butchaotic(BeckandBeckGernsheim,1995,p.2)3.Thus,couplerelationshipsbecome

a paradigmatic example of cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011: 1): a doublebind when

theobjectthatdrawsyourattachmentsustainsyouinlifeatthesametimeasitisa
threattoyourflourishing.Thisis,aclashbetweenthefantasiesofbelongingandthe
conditionsofbelonginginparticularhistoricalmoments(Berlant&McCabe,2011).
Aswehavealreadydiscussed(Lasn&Casado,2012),communicationplaysa
centralroleinthischanginglandscapeforintimatebonds.Ambivalencesbetweenthe
process of individualization and the resilient character of gender relations and life in
couple,asanodeofpersonallifeprojectsandsocialstructures,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. When connected to transparency, commonality and communion (Carey,
1989;Peters,2000),communicationisusuallyinvokedasthekeytounderstandingand
as the irrefutable solution for the arguments and troubles people have to face. It is
takenasanunproblematicassumption:weassumeweknowwhatitmeans,wedeeply
trustinit,butwecanhardlydefineit.Thus,ourviewofcommunication,particularly
whenappliedtoloveandcoupledom,showsthefantasyofbelievingthatdifferences,
inequalities and conflicting interests would dissolve once we communicate and
understand each others feelings and intentions. The promise of ubiquitous and

permanent contact and communication enacted by mobile media strengthens this

ideal(HashimotoandCampbell,2008).
However, this approach on 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 precisely well equipped to face controversies under the
inertiaofgendereddifferentiationsandinequalities.Furthermore,theintimatebond
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,

groups).
Conflictsbetweenpersonalautonomyandmutualrecognitionanddependency
are enacted, embodied, traced, originated, mediated, and, sometimes, solved in
mobilephoneuses,practicesandinteractions.Mobilemediatakepartinthegameof
designing and defending personal and collective territories. They are 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 (19391975) (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

10

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

ethnometodologists(Garfinkel,1967),nuisancesareafruitfulgroundtorecreatethe
demarcations and assumptions of our ordinary practices. Focusing on what becomes
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 you want 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)

11


Inourinterviews,womenperformafirmercompromisewiththefirstquestion
whilemasculineworriesarerelatedtothesecondone.Inwomensdiscoursesmobile
phones are represented mainly as a new possibility to act and speak, although they
can also become a potential new source of control. Mens discourses stress the
opposite:mobilephonesareapotentialtoolforcontrolbutatthecostofputtingat
risk their autonomy as they also become more available for others, particularly for
theirintimatepartners,andcanexperiencemorepressuretoselfdisclose.Therefore,
menperformgreaterresistancetothisdevice,highlightingitspotentialityasasource
ofmustswhichcandisturbtheirnormalarrangements,interrupttheirrelaxationor
privacyor,onewayoranother,makethemfeelanxious.

Idontlikehavingmoremuststhanneeded.IphoneyoubecauseIwantto.Do
notgetangrybecauseIcouldnotphoneyoubeforeorIcouldnotphoneyou
oneafternoonorwhatever(23yearoldman)

Themobileisbecominganightmareforme(31yearoldman)

However,thisperformanceisambivalentasmendisplayagreaterinterestboth

12

for technical aspects of the device and brands5; but it is legitimized by their
professionalusagesandtechnicaldisposition,thusfreedofanyconsumeristsuspicion
whichcanthreatenthegenderedplayofdifferentiation:

Therearethingsthatarereallyimportantandthingsthatarenot.Idontmind
not having a plasma TV. But for the mobile phone there are things that I do
haveandwhicharenecessary(45yearoldman)

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,2045yearoldmen)

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

13

demarcations among professional and domestic spheres and public, private and
intimatescenes,expressesthegenderedstraintodefendtheterritoriesoftheselfin
thecontemporarydigitallandscape:ingeneral,thehighertherank,thegreaterthe
size of all territories of the self and the greater the control across the boundaries
(Goffman, 1971, p. 4041). 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 partners device for answering calls, downloading and uploading,
sendingmessages,readinganddeletingcontent,etc.)revealsamodeofsubjectionto
the other through an increased mutual identification and intimate disclosure (Lasn,
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 breakups and crisis. The way people describe this accessibility reveals the
size and control of their territories but also a lack of acknowledgement of privacy

14

withinintimatebonds.Suchobligationsdevelopinparalleltotheexpectationsabout
selfdisclosurethataredistinctiveofbeinginarelationship,asitwasalreadynotedby
Simmel(1906)acenturyago,highlightingtheworryingconsequencesforthelastingof
thelovebond.However,thislackofprivacydoesnotseemtoworrytheparticipantsin
our research. They accept this transparency as normal and expected, as believing
andfearingthatanythingthatisnotaccessiblehidesthethreatofadoublelife.Itis
asifthewilltoachievecohesionandtrustpreventedautonomyandprivacy.

Youcanhaveyourlittleprivacy,butIdonthaveanyproblemifImdrivingand
I receive a text. I say: please see who it is. No problem at all. I dont have
anythingtohideandIdlovetohavethesamefeeling.ImnottellingthatIll
takeyourphoneeverydaytocheckwhatyouvedone,ofcoursenot.Butifone
day you are on Facebook and I sit close to you, Id like not to have the
impressionthatImwatchingsomethingprivateandthatIhavetogo,because
thatsthefeelingIgetnow.OrwhenyouaredoingyouremailandIstandnext
toyoutoseethepicturesthatyouarelookingat,andIhavetogobecauseI
dontwanttohavethefeelingthatImtakingawayyourfreedom(28yearold
woman)

15

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

Hedoesntcheckmymobile,butifIcaughthimdoingitIwouldntcare.Ihave
nothingtohide.Idfinditfunny(32yearoldwoman)

Itslikesharingyourlifecompletely.Ithinkthatyouhavetoshareeverything
[]. He entrusts me with his life. Its the same for the mobile (39yearold
woman)

Even those far from the romantic love narratives share this view. As this 35
yearoldwomanwho,despiteofdefiningherselfaszeroromanticandthinkingthat
fallinginloveisbecomingidiot,states:Ivenevergoneoutonmyownorhadvery
privatethingswhenIminarelationship.Everythinghastobetoldandthereisalotof
trust.Transparencyjustifiesacceptingthepartnersmonitoringviathemobilephone,
whilstcontrolisassociatedwithsuspicionanddoublelife,withjealousy,butnotwith
the obligation of being localized, accessible and available. Therefore when we are
verytransparentanddonothaveanythingtohide,weareneithercontrollernor

16

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, they must
answer. You become more demanding with communication (35yearold
woman)

Attheendacouplerelationshipsiscommunicationsandamobilephonehelps
tocommunicateimmediately(39yearoldwoman)

Formyfriends[]ifthreedayspasswithoutacallbackisnotthatimportant,it
doesnt matter. But with my girlfriend I expect a quicker answer (23yearold
man)

Thisobligationofaccessibilityfacilitatedbymobilecommunicationingeneral,
increases for couples: the greater intimacy, transparency and immediacy, the higher
obligations to fulfil the expectations. Those features of mobile connectivity fit well
with the logic of (asymmetric) desdifferentiation and recognition within couple
relationships.

17


Knowing about the others life, the everyday life, being able to come into
contact, this is for me basically. If something unexpected happens, good or
bad, I like calling him to tell it and when you dont have the phone this
possibilitydoesntexistanymore.Thisfacilitatesmetocomeintocontactwith
him.(27yearoldwoman).

This is also revealed by the anger when a call or a text message are not
answered, the suspicion of a dark intention for not doing it, or the annoyance when
thepartnerforgetstheritualcall.Statinghowmuchcontactistoomuchdepends
bothongenderrelationsandexpectationstowardstheirpartnersandonthestageof
therelationitself.Thus,theinterestforconnectionatthebeginningoftherelationship
can encourage or help to admit a more intense flow of affective communications,
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:MostofthetimesIdont.

18

She:No,hedoesnt.He[laughs]
He:Imakeitdirectly.
She:Hedoeseverythingstraightaway.Ilikephoning,organising,consulting.He
doesnt.HeismoreIdoitwithoutconsulting[laughs]
He:Ofcourse.Yes,Ido.
She: I do like phoning for everything (unmarried couple of a 28yearold man
and25yearoldwoman)

Territoriesoftheselfandgenderarrangements
The tension between autonomy and sharing takes us back to the issue of 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 32yearold man. Thus, mobile phone practices seem to slip easily
towards nonsense when used by or with women, this nonsense covering a huge
rangeofpossibilitiesstartingfromdatingandflirting:

19

At the beginning you can spend three hours messaging each other, then you
dont. You settle down a little bit and say: lets give it a break (45yearold
man).

Definingsomeusesasnonsensicalcanbeawaytoaddressdiscomfortingissues
regardingnegativefeelingsorpotentialinterferencesinonesownactionorselfimage
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, because why are you going to be obliged to answer every
phonecallifyoudonotwantto(28yearoldwoman)

Socialpracticesandspheresarehierarchically(re)producedinthismove.Daily
gendered practices reconfigure the matrix of asymmetrical dichotomous oppositions
thatgivesthemsenseandconsistency.Thus,efficientinformationisopposedtoritual
(nonsensical)communication(Carey,1989).Furthermore,thedomesticspherehasto

20

accommodate (and it does) the requirements of paid labour the first presented as
routine,thesecondasadventurousreinforcinggendereddifferentiations:

GenerallyIamtheonethatphones.Herlifeismuchmorepatterned;inmylife
everydayisdifferent.IlikeitandIappreciatethatmywifeacceptsit(39year
oldman)

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

mobileavailability.Here,IdonotphonehimtosaysillystuffbecauseIdonotwantto
bother him, stated by a 25yearold woman, fit in with I am available during the
hoursIamavailable,Imean,inworkhoursitisknownthatIamnot,statedbya45
yearold man. According to our interviews, this choreography does not change
significantly: whatever the work situations are, gender displays authorize male more
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

21

doit.(23yearoldman)

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

acceptanceandcaution.Infact,womeninterviewedhardlyuttertheverbtodisturb:
It bothers me is maybe a little excessive word (32yearold woman). Thus, they
express less control over their territories. In these everyday practices subalternity as
wellasautonomyandreflexivecapacityarethusordinarilyreconstituted.Although,in
contemporaryequalitarianlandscapes,thesebecomedeeplypersonalized,minimising
thesignificanceofgenderwhilereinforcingitsorderings.

Heneedslikemoreroomtomeditateandtoreflectonhiswork.AsIhavemore
orlessreflectedalreadyonit,Ijustkeepgoing[].Itisnotthatitbothersme
(31yearoldwoman)

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

themselves disturbing others, and when they refer to their partners irritation (for
instancefortheirlackofresponsetophonecalls)theytendtominimizethelegitimacy
orrationalityoffemininedemands;ontheotherside,womenstateandperformthat
theydonotwanttodisturbtheirpartners:

22


Ithinkitisduetoinsecurity,maybebythinkingthatitismyfault,thathecan
becomeboredofme,thathecanfeelannoyed,thatIcandisturbhim(31year
oldwoman)

Since social validation for subaltern positions depends on not demanding 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(35yearoldwoman)

Thesedisplaysreorganizeahierarchicalordering:menperformtheentitlement
toregulatetheinteractionwhilewomenfollowtheirfootsteps,withaccessibilityand
heteronomyexpressedandreconstructedinmobilecommunication.

Interviewer: How does that situation in which you phone him more frequently

23

andhefeltalittlecontrolledevolve?
Well,givingupphoningsomuch.Indirectly,itmakeshimfeelfreerandheacts
differently(34yearoldwoman)

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),basedontheirembodiedlegitimacyforestablishing
andmonitoringthesocialframesandlines:

HereallybothersifIamnotavailable[].Butinhisdaybydayworkheonly
phonesmeforchildrenarrangements:Listen,Icannotarriveontimetopick
themupattheirmusicclass,sogoyourself.(40yearoldwoman)

ItisdisturbingonlyifIneedsomethingurgent[],ifwehaveanappointment
andIhavebeenphoningherbecauseIneedtochangeitandsheisnotpaying
attentiontohermobile.(23yearoldman)

Whenheisthere,Itrynottousethephone.AndifsomebodyphonesmeIsay

24

Iwillphoneyoubacktomorrow.(24yearoldwoman)

Those gender ritual performances, reinforced through multiple forms of

institutional reflexivity (Goffman, 1987), recreate a masculine fortressself and a
femininerelationalself,whichseeksforconnectionasaformofrecognition(Lasn&
Casado,2012).Theycanbeapprehendedthroughtheadjectivesthatourinterviewees
attributed to themselves and to each other, or through the greater feminine fluency
whenexplainingwhattheirpartnersprovidethemintheirrelationship.

He is different. I am much more dependant, much more about doing things

together,youknow,ofachievingthingsincommon(28yearoldwoman)

As a partner, he provides me what I want in a man: protection, security, the

feeling that you have someone there who understands and helps you, who
makesyoulaugh.(31yearoldwoman)

These gendered selves frame the conditions in which intimate bond is

established,withdifferentexpectations,demands,andsubjectivities:

25

IfIsharemylifewithsomeone,itisnotthatIamjustgoingtodowhateverhe
said,butIdohavetoconsulthim,Ihavetocountwithhim,Ihavetothinkof
him,Icannotgoalone.Thatsthewayitis.(31yearoldwoman)

I can spend three hours on the computer and she can stay there, but I need
thatshedoesnotneedme[].Ineedtobeconcentratedonthisandaloneand
tobesurethatIhavethisundercontrol(32yearoldman)

The main thing is the individual. There is a core that is yours, unyielding, and
youmustpromoteit.Onceyouhavethisreally,withyourlifeprojectofwhat
youwanttodo,youtrytoshareitwithsomebodyandyoulookfortheright
person(34yearoldman)

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 selfconfirming
scenes(p.320):

Itisasacrificehedoes[]Iaminfinitelygratefultohim[].Iamthekindof

26

personwhoneedstobetoldconstantlywhatisfeltforme.Itsacondition,you
know, quotations marks, that I pose and he perfectly 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 (31yearold
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 certainly brings no corrective. [] Crosssex affectional

gestures choreograph protector and protected, embracer and embraced,
comforterandcomforted,supporterandsupported,extenderofaffectionand
recipientthereof;anditisdefinedasonlynaturalthatthemaleencompassand
thefemalebeencompassed.Andthiscanonlyremindusthatmaledomination
isaveryspecialkind,adominationthatcanbecarriedrightintothegentlest,

27

mostlovingmomentwithoutapparentlycausingstrainindeed,thesemoments
canhardlybeconceivedofapartfromtheseasymmetries(Goffman,1987,p.8
9)

Conclusions and connections: Remediated privacies, shared agencies and gendered

choreographies
Theanalysisoftheusesofthetermdisturbanditsderivativesregardingmobile
phoneusesandpracticesquestions,atleastpartially,thecontemporarydescriptions
of modern couples, which have certain truthvalue in fact they are truly performed
andsustainthefantasyofthegoodcouplerelationshipwithallitspotentialtoelicit
forms of cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011) but are partial. Gender arrangements have
become indeed less comfortable due to significant social transformations, but this is
far from implying that, under the rubric of equality, our ordinary practices are
progressivelygenderlessorinthewayofbecomingsuch.Asfarasgenderexpressions
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.

28

In this sense, contemporary gender arrangements within couple relations are

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 to others through mobile mediation means to be accessible. This increases
theneedtomanageavailability,asitrearrangesthelimitsforprivacyandterritoriesof
the self. This ambivalence fits in with the paradoxical male position found in our
research: a certain nostalgia for a predigital and disconnected world when the
territoriesoftheselfweremorefirmlydefined,handledandsupported,coexistswith
theusuallovefortechnologyduetothepromiseofcontrolovertheworld,others
and self. Digital technologies as mobile phones dismiss that promise, as they afford
accessibility,connectivityandincreaseopennesstoothersandtheworld,makingtheir
territoriesoftheselfmorevulnerable.Themobilephonepotentialitiestolocalizeand

29

exert control over the partner, the wireless leash (Qiu, 2007), are also part of this
gendered and mediated choreography. As secrecy, inaccessibility and personal realm
clash with a hegemonic view of the intimate bond as a relation where transparency
and full sharing seem to be the grounds of mutual recognition. Mobile phones have
thepotentialtosupportandreinforcetheindividualrealmofactivities,andtomanage
and extend the mobility of affects and affiliations. Within the couple, this autonomy
andprivacy,particularlyprotectedandsustainedbymen,arefoughtanddownplayed
bymobilephoneusesandexpectationssetmostlybywomen.
Theunderstandingofthesocialimplicationsofmobilemediaforprivacyandits
contextual integrity needs to take into account this complex articulation of mobility
and attachment that stress or play down different features of the technologies,
accordingnotonlytopeoplesparticularwillorintention,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 the web, exchanging mails and messages,
tweetingandfacebooking,takingpartinonlinepublics,alltheseonlineactivitiesare

30

waysofachievingapersonalspace,herterritorywithinthehousehold,affordingthe
necessarydistancefromcoupleandfamilyrequirements.
Therefore,digitalmediaplayaroleintheconfigurationofpeoplessubjections
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:inthewayahumanbeingturnshimorherself
intoasubject(Foucault1982,p.208)throughavarietyofoperationsontheirown
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, selfconscience 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, selfcontrol and dependence on the
other.

31

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 and mobile 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 sociohistorically 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

32

otherintertwinedsocialorderings,embodiment,technologicalliteracy,linguisticskills,
etiquette rules, personal creativity and emotional management. 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.
thefivevolumesHistoryoftheprivatelifeeditedbyArisandDuby19871991).
2. The research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(CSO200805207).RubnBlancoandAntonioGarcaarealsopartoftheteam.
3 A critic of these views on heterosexual intimacy can be found in Eldn, 2012;
Jamieson,1999andGross,2005.
4Therelevanceofthiscaseisgroundedaswellinthewidespreadadoptionanduseof
mobile phones in Spain for both men (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

33

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 one masculinity or one form of technology: rather, it is to note that in
contemporary Western society, hegemonic masculinity [] is still strongly associated
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 show of control he exhibits in social situations (p.
321).

References
Aris, Ph. & Duby, F. (Eds) (19871991). History of the private life, five volumes.

34

HarvardUniversityPress.
Beck, U. & BeckGernsheim, E. (1995). The Normal 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. In M. H. Jacobsen (Ed.), Contemporary
Goffman(pp.232255).NewYork:Routledge,.
Caputi, J. (1988). Seeing elephants: The myths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies
14(3),487524.
Carey,J.(1989).CommunicationasCulture.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
Casado, E. (2002). La construccin sociocognitiva de las identidades de gnero de las
mujeres espaolas (Doctoral dissertation), Universidad Complutense Madrid,
Spain.Retrievedfromwww.ucm.es/BUCM/tesis/cps/ucmt26344.pdf(accessed
2September2013)
Cooper, G. (2001). The Mutable Mobile: Social Theory in the Wireless world. In B.

35

Brown, N. Green & R. Harper (Eds). Wireless World. Social and Interactional
AspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.1931).London:SpringerVerlag.
Eldn,S.(2012).Scriptsforthegoodcouple:Individualizationandthereproduction
ofgenderinequality,ActaSociologica,55(1):318.
Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist
technologystudies,Women'sStudiesInternationalForum24(1):7995.
Fortunati,L.(2005).MobileTelephoneandthePresentationofSelf.InR.Ling&P.E.
Pedersen (Eds.) Mobile communications. Renegotiation of the Social Sphere
(pp.203218).London:Springer.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and the power. Afterword. In H.L. Dreyfus & P.
Rabinow(Eds.)BeyondStructuralismandHermeneutics(pp.208225).Chicago:
TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Foucault,M.(1988).TechnologiesoftheSelf.InL.H.Martin,H.Gutman&P.H.Hutton,
TechnologiesoftheSelf:ASeminarwithMichelFoucault(pp.1649).London:
Tavistock.
Garfinkel,H.(1967).StudiesinEthnomethodology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Gidddens,A.(1992).Thetransformationofintimacy.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Goffman,E.(1987).GenderAdvertisements.NewYork:Harper&RowPublishers
Goffman,E.(1983).Felicityscondition.AmericanJournalofSociology,89,153.

36

Goffman, E. (1977). The Arrangement between the Sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3),
301331
Goffman,E.(1971).RelationsinPublic.NewYork:BasicBooks
Green, N. (2001). Whos watching whom? Monitoring and accountability in mobile
relations.InB.Brown,N.Green&R.Harper(Eds).WirelessWorld.Socialand
InteractionalAspectsoftheMobileAge(pp.3245).London:SpringerVerlag.
Gross, N. (2005). The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered, Sociological
Theory23(3):477494.
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),477484.
Jamieson,L.(1999).IntimacyTransformed?ACriticalLookatthePurerelationship.
Sociology33(3):286311.
Lasn,A.(2011).Mobilesarenotthatpersonal:theunexpectedconsequencesofthe
accountability,accessibilityandtransparencyaffordedbymobiletelephony.In
R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.) The Mobile Communication Research Series:
Volume II, Mobile Communication: Bringing Us Together or Tearing Us Apart?

37

(pp.83105).Edison,NJ:Transactionbooks.
Lasn, A. & Casado, E. (2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple
intimacy.FeministMediaStudies,12(4):550559.
Lohan,M.&Faulkner,W.(2004).MasculinitiesandTechnologies.SomeIntroductory
Remarks.Menandmasculinities,6(4):319329.
Nissenbaum,H.(2004).PrivacyasContextualIntegrity.WashingtonLawReview79(1),
119158.
Peters,J.D.(2000).SpeakingintotheAir.Chicago:TheChicagoUniversityPress.
Qiu, J.L. (2007). The Wireless Leash: Mobile Messaging Service as a Means of
Control.InternationalJournalofCommunication1,7491.
Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile Phone Communication: Extending Goffman to Mediated
Interaction.Sociology43(3),421438.
Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2003). Mobile Transformations of Public and Private life.
Theory,CultureandSociety20(3),107125.
Simmel,G.(1906).Thesociologyofsecrecyandofsecretsocieties,Americanjournalof
sociology,11:441498.
Thompson, J.B. (2011). Shifting BoundariesofPublicand PrivateLife.Theory,Culture
andSociety28(4),4970.
Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies. Social Studies of

38

Science30(3),447464.

39