Category Archives: vocabulary and lexicon of love

concepts of love, words of love, lexical expressions of love

What Is Bedouin Culture?

Posted on by

“Bedouin culture” encompasses the traditional cultural practices of the nomadic Arabic-speaking peoples that have been living for centuries in the deserts of Jordan, Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, and Egypt in North Africa.

These people are commonly named in English as Bedouins (sometimes spelled Beduin), while they are originally known in Arabic as “Badawi”, or in plural, “Badw.”

Bedouins speak their own Arabic language (Bedawi), which has several dialects. In the Arabic language, “Bedu” means the people living out in the open, in the desert. Literally, the word “badawiyin” refers to desert dwellers. 

Some anthropologists consider Bedouin culture to be the purest form of Arab culture. Because of their rich oral poetic legacy, lifestyle, and code of honor, other Arabs still regard them as “ideal” Arabs.

And according to some recent estimates, the number of Bedouin inhabitants is only around 4 million. Anthropologists identify the Bedouins by their way of life, social structure, language, and culture.

The Appearance of Bedouins

Bedouins are recognizable by their specific appearance, such as their facial features and clothes.

“The men wear long “gallabeya” with a thin cotton pantalon down and a red/white (smaegh) or white (amemma) headscarf, sometimes held in place by a black cord (aghell).”

(retrieved from Bedouin Culture)

“The women wear colored long dresses and, when they go out, they dress in a thin, long, black coat (abaya), sometimes decorated with embroidery. They always cover their hair with a black, thin scarf (tarha). They cover their faces with decorated face veils (burqa’ah).”

(retrieved from Bedouin Culture)

Today, one can see this only in the oldest generation of women. The women of a younger generation simply cover their faces with their “tarha”, and some “dare” to wear more colorful ones (retrieved from Bedouin Culture).

The Way of Bedouin Life

Since the beginning of Islam, Egyptians have referred the Bedouin as ‘Arab,’ which is equivalent with the term “Nomad.” They belong to the nomadic culture that determine many things in their life. In ancient times, many people preferred to settle mostly near rivers. However, Bedouin people chose to live in the open desert.

Most Bedouins are herders who migrate into the desert during the wet winter months and return to cultivated land during the dry summer months. Bedouins herd camels, goats, cattle, and sheep. In the past, some Bedouin tribes raided trade caravans and communities of villagers at the boundaries of settled areas.

They consider themselves to be proud people and appreciate their lifestyle. They are quite suspicious and prefer to avoid talking about their personal lives.

The Family Life of Bedouins

Bedouin societies have tribal and patriarchal organizations. They consist of patrilineal, endogamous, and polygynous extended families. The heads of the families and larger social units that make up the tribal structure are “sheikhs” (or “sheikhs”). An informal tribal council of male elders assists the sheikh. Bedouin culture emphasizes the strong belief in tribal superiority and security that supports people’s ability to survive in a hostile environment. Their extensive kinship networks provide them with the basic needs they need to survive and community support. These traditional networks ensure the safety of families and protect their property. In modern times, however, only about 5% of the Bedouin people still live their pastoral (semi) nomadic life.

The Modern Life of Bedouins

Modern Arab countries tend to modernize their nomadic lifestyles and encourage their citizens to settle in urban areas. These adjustments allow society to provide children with education and health care. Contemporary Bedouin societies gradually change. Men have more leeway in adapting to modern Arab culture. However, many women are still bound by the tradition of an honor culture, urging them to stay within the family (retrieved from Bedouin Culture).

What Is Ingroup Bias?

Posted on by

Modern sociology and social psychology use the terms “in-group” and “out-group” to explain certain effects of interpersonal communication. The need to belong is probably at the foundation of the in-group versus out-group relationship in human mental perceptions. Ingroup versus outgroup perceptions are evolutionary or culturally developed stereotypes.

What Is an Ingroup?

An in-group is a group of people with which a person is psychologically associated and identifies himself or herself. The person feels that he or she belongs to this group.

Examples of such ingroups can be a person’s kin, own family, roommates, racial and ethnic groups, people of the same nationality—everything associated with the person’s social identity.

People use the term “we” to express themselves as the members of an ingroup. People of an ingroup tend to see similar values, opinions, norms, attitudes, and behaviors among the members of their ingroup.

People of an ingroup tend to like and tolerate each other, convey good will and help, and have a sense of solidarity. They feel unity and loyalty. They are cooperative and ready to support their ingroup members.

What Is an Outgroup?

An outgroup is a group of people that a person considers outside of his or her internal social circle. The person feels that he or she does not belong to that group. People of the outgroup can be the members of another tribe, another family, or people of another race, ethnicity, or nationality—anything not associated with the person’s social identity. These are outside groups.

People use the term “they” to identify others as members of an outgroup. They tend to see the values, opinions, attitudes, norms, and behaviors of members of outgroups as being dissimilar from their own ingroup. And they tend to dislike and avoid people from outgroups, showing them indifference, intolerance, or even hostility.

What Is Ingroup Bias? And Why Does It Matter in Love?

Individuals exhibit a positive attitude towards their own ingroup and its members. In-group bias is a person’s favorable predisposition toward people of his or her own group, their values, traits, attributes, and everything associated with their in-group. Such favoritism is especially pronounced in comparison to another group, which is known as “ingroup bias.”

Individuals exhibit negative attitudes towards their outgroup and its members. The tendencies to favor one’s own ingroup and its attributes are more evident than the tendencies to reject the outgroup and its attributes. Situations of intergroup contact activate both tendencies.

Members of an ethnic ingroup tend to exhibit ethnocentrism. And ingroup bias is a psychological mechanism that naturally works to support ethnocentrism.

An Evolutionary Perspective on Ingroup Bias and Love

Throughout evolutionary history, natural selection began to prefer “ingroup” prosocial dispositions and cooperation over antagonism. A set of human social traits and skills for favoritism arose and evolved. Neurobiological, paleoanthropological, and developmental studies are in support of his evolutionary conception (Hare, 2017).

Social bonds, care, and support within groups appeared to serve the evolutionary mechanism of human cultural evolution. Care was an active behavioral love for assisting others who were in need. People cared about those they loved.

In the early times of evolutionary history, love for kin, extended family, and one’s own tribal group evolved as a human survival mechanism. Later in social development, such community and family love evolved into ingroup favoritism and ingroup bias. This love in many cases was dutiful rather than free and voluntary.

“Love as a duty” was a type of love important for survival in the interdependent context of people’s lives (Karandashev, 2022).

The free romantic love became a luxury of life much later in human history. Some evolutionary theories, like Helen Fisher‘s, say that romantic love was one of the first things that brought people together to have children.

Actually, early people in a tribe were bound to love their kin and extended family (de Munck et al., 2016).

What Is the “Propinquity Effect”?

Posted on by

Generally, “propinquity” refers to proximity and nearness in space and time. It is the state of being close to something or someone. Sometimes, propinquity refers to a similarity of nature between people. What effect does the “propinquity effect” have on our liking and loving? 

Varieties of Propinquity

In sociology and social psychology, the term “propinquity” refers to the physical closeness and spatial proximity of one person to another. This can be, for instance, “residential propinquity”, acquaintance propinquity” or “marital propinquity.”

“Residential propinquity” refers to the tendency of people residing in the same neighborhood area to come together. Residential propinquity frequently works as a factor in friendship and marriage selection (see another article). For example, residential neighbors and residents living near a stairway in an apartment building tend to become friends more easily than those living further apart.

“Acquaintance propinquity” refers to the tendency of people living close to each other and seeing each other frequently to develop special bonds of interpersonal attraction. Propinquity predisposes people with a greater degree of physical proximity to being attracted to each other and becoming friends. For example, children and teenagers living in the same neighborhood, in the same apartment building, or going to the same school are more likely to become friends than others.

“Propinquity marriage” refers to the tendency of people residing in physical proximity to each other (within several blocks of each other) to select marital partners within such residential propinquity (see another post). It was based on real statistics of marriages when sociologists first investigated it in the first part of the 20th century (see another post).

In the last few decades, the increasing social mobility of people and the growing influence of virtual propinquity have changed the role of the propinquity effect.

Propinquity Effect in Social Psychology

In social psychology, this power of spatial or virtual proximity between persons is called the “propinquity effect.” This is the tendency of people to like others and develop an attraction to people they frequently encounter. Frequent exposure and interaction with another person act as driving forces in the formation of our close bonds with others.

American social psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–1989) and his colleagues proposed the “propinquity effect” in their paper “The Spatial Ecology of Group Formation” in the 1950s (Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1963/1950) . The authors of the article explained how frequent interaction with people aided in the formation of friendships.

Individuals encountering others in such spatial proximity began to like them, find them attractive, and develop close bonds. This propinquity effect can happen in schools, sports clubs, colleges, neighborhoods, workplaces, and other places where people see each other often. The propinquity effect is lower and the bonds are weaker with those we meet and interact virtually. 

The “propinquity effect” is closely related with the “mere exposure effect.” The mere exposure effect explains why propinquity increases liking of others. The more frequently a person perceives something or someone, the more they like them. Yet, such a mere exposure must be positive, not aversive. Only in this case does the propinquity effect work.

Among the Other Topics of Interest in this Regard Are:

How Expressive Is the Culture of Intimacy in a Relationship

Posted on by

The feeling of intimate belonging fulfills people’s needs for intimacy. However, people can satisfy their need to belong in various ways in different cultures, depending on their norms. A distinction between collectivistic (interdependent) and individualistic (independent) values is especially important for our understanding of intimacy as a fulfilled need to belong.

The Cultures of Intimacy in Collectivistic and Individualistic Societies

People in an individualistic, independence-oriented society like the United States are constantly assured from childhood that they belong and are loved. Yet, as they grow in childhood, parents encourage them to be independent and autonomous. Over time, they feel proudly autonomous, yet they may feel a little lonely. Parents are busy with their jobs and own problems. Therefore, teenagers strive to break through such lonely autonomy and look for other intimate bonds, such as moving in with someone else, marriage, and family.

People in a collectivistic, family-oriented society like Japan feel embedded in a family group from childhood. They implicitly feel these intimate ties with other members of the family. Therefore, they do not really need the reassurance of intimacy in family bonds. This is why they don’t really feel the need for another source of reassurance of intimate belonging from their marital partner, at least not to the same degree as people in individualistic cultures do.

What Is Special about Japanese Intimacy?

Some studies have shown that Japanese intimacy is not low – just different from North American and Western European views and notions of intimacy (see for review, Karandashev, 2019).

As I said above, Euro-Americans living in individualistic, middle-class, or urban cultures are proud of being independent in relationships. However, despite this feeling of being autonomous, they feel an obvious need to belong to their parents’ family.

When pushed out of their parental nest, they look for another source (a partner) to whom they could belong. And, as before in childhood, they need to feel from others that they are accepted and doing a “good job!” And they frequently do this to each other, both verbally and explicitly. It is because they have an implicit feeling of autonomy and independence. They need to hear that “they are doing great!” explicitly and repeatedly. Yet their need to belong must also be assured through direct verbal communication.

On the other hand, Japanese people have different cultural socialization strategies and childrearing philosophies. Children living in a collectivistic culture from birth already feel embedded in their family ties. Their model of attachment in childhood is culturally different. They are already aware of their intimate connections with other members of their family. Therefore, they don’t need constant and explicit verbal confirmation that they belong, as European Americans do (see, for instance, Keller, 2013, 2018).

This is why the Japanese may appear less direct in their intimate communication. It is because they understand it implicitly. However, Japanese couples in committed love relationships are high only in such qualities of intimacy as mind reading, compassion, assurance, and social network support (Roland, 1988).

Expressive versus Low-expressive Intimacies

The comparison of Japanese culture, as an East-Asian collectivistic culture, with European-American culture, as a Western individualistic culture of expressions of intimacy, might be simplistic. Many other non-collectivistic cultures can still be reserved and emotionally inhibited in their communicative preferences.

The difference in high-contact versus low-contact cultural values could be another explanation. Not only are Asian societies low-contact cultures (Barnlund, 1975; Klopf & Thompson, 1991; McDaniel & Andersen, 1998).

The Cultures of Low-Expressive Intimacies

People in Scandinavian and Nordic societies also display a low-expressive style of interpersonal interaction (see more in Karandashev, 2021).

Finns, like Norwegians and Swedes, prefer silent speech with relatively long pauses and slow-moving turns of speech. They often listen to each other without external evidence or feedback, yet this is their way of listening most attentively (Nishimura, Nevgi, & Tella, 2008; Tella, 2005).

For instance, in Finnish culture, people use the word “rakkaus” (love) only occasionally. Several other Finnish words implying the emotions of love without direct reference to the word “rakkaus” are also used by Finns (Haavio-Mannila & Roos, 1999).

Here is a folklore anecdote on Nordic marital intimacy. A Finnish couple, husband Eino and wife Aino, are celebrating their 5-year anniversary of marriage. She asked:

  • Eino, do love me?

Eino answered:

  • Yes, Aino, I already told you about this five years ago. If something changes, I will let you know.

This joking folklore anecdote is surely an exaggeration. But the reserved expression of intimacy is quite common for Nordic people, such as in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, as well as for East-Asian people, such as in Japan, China, and Korea.

Japanese Marital Intimacy

Posted on by

I noted in another article, “The Japanese Dating Culture of “Tsukiau” Relationships“, that men and women enjoy the tsukiau relationship to explore the freedom of intimate emotional and sexual relations. They do not feel any pressure or expectation to marry. Yet their relationship could lead to marriage.

What Is Japanese “miai”?

The tradition of “miai” (or, with the Japanese honorific prefix o- “omiai”) is a Japanese custom of relationship transition to marriage. It is similar to matchmaking in other cultures. This tradition has been modified in the context of modern Japanese lifestyles. After kokohaku (“confession”), a man and a woman enter a new chapter of their relationship development, which ultimately evolves into miai. An introduction to the parents follows, and marriage is seriously considered.

Some may see the process of “Omiai” as akin to arranged marriages. Sometimes, there is an outsider’s general assumption that arranged marriages are culturally normative in Japan. However, it is largely not the case nowadays. The real arranged marriages happen in Japan now quite rarely (probably less than in the 10-20% cases), mostly in rural areas, and substantially less in modern times (Relationships and Sexuality in Modern Japan. Last updated in 2011).

These days, many more marriages are formed out of mutual love for one another. Once the Omiai begins, actual dating means less than before. Successful “Omiai” implies that the man and woman go on a series of dates that result in a decision about whether they decide to marry or not.

  • If they decide to marry, they go through a formal marriage process called “miai kekkon.” The groom’s family typically arranges miai kekkon.
  • If they decide not to marry, they each go their separate ways.

Public and Private Sides of Japanese Intimacy

In Japanese culture, public displays of affection for a loved one—such as holding hands, kissing, hugging, or any intimate physical contact—are considered impolite, rude, or shameful. Many times, one would never guess that partners are actually a married couple. Publicly, Japanese tend to pretend that they are not in love.

This is why kissing is uncommon in Japanese films. Many people condemn kissing in public places. The majority of men would never kiss a woman in public. But if they would, they would feel embarrassed.

Any form of intimacy should be kept in private areas. In the home, children commonly say that they have never seen their parents kiss or express affection in any way.

It should be noted, however, that modern men and women of a young generation, especially in the larger cities, are slowly changing these old customs of public displays of affection.

Problems with Marital Intimacy in Japanese Culture

In general, traditional Japanese culture places a low value on psychological intimacy in marriage. Therefore, sharing one’s intimate self in companionship with one’s spouse has been less common (e.g., DeVos, 1985; Roland, 1988).

Even among many middle-class Japanese couples, psychological intimacy in marriage is still uncommon. There are two contextual factors that impede the formation of intimate relationships in marriage (Roland, 1988).

The men’s intimate psychological needs have usually been fulfilled in the circle of other men in the workplace. The intimacy of their friendship outside of work is uncommon among Japanese men.

The women’s intimacy needs have been satisfied in their friendships with other women and their relationships with their children. Because men generally spend long hours at work and then have rituals of lengthy socializing after work, it is difficult for women to create closeness in their marriage relationships.

The Japanese Dating Culture of “Tsukiau” Relationships

Posted on by

This article describes the Japanese dating culture. It is evident in the cultural practices of “tsukiau” relationships between men and women. These are some kinds of romantic relationships with Japanese cultural characters.

In another place, I consider when and how young Japanese start dating, what Japanese “group dating” is, and how “confession” serves as a step towards intimacy.

The Japanese word “tsukiau” (“going steady”) means steady dating relationships. Farrer and colleagues studied what and how young Japanese experience being involved in such relationships (Farrer et al., 2008).

What Are the Functions of Tsukiau Relationships?

Men and women engage in tsukiau relationships to enjoy the pleasure of intimate emotional and sexual relations and to experience feelings of closeness, comfort, and support. Like American dating, Japanese tsukiau relationships do not assume the imminence or expectations of a wedding or marriage.

Partners are aware of the various circumstances involved. And before making a marriage commitment, they weigh several conditions, such as personal, family, career, and financial obstacles. Therefore, they know they should wait for such a responsible decision.

However, their dreams, thoughts, and conversations about marriage still allow partners to express themselves. They discuss their prospects for the future. They believe that their romantic love (“renai“) and relationship will keep going.

How Intimate Japanese Men and Women Are in Their Tsukiau Relationships

When men and women are in “tsukiau” relationships, they perceive intimacy, along with passion and commitment, as their primary experiences. Partners assume and appreciate closeness, intimacy, and comfort. They like spending more time together (issho ni sugosu). For them, just being together brings psychological support (sasae), comfort (anshin, kokochiyosa), and even healing (iyashi).

When Japanese men and women are in a tsukiau relationship, then just being together is a way to express their personal feelings of love. A desire to be together is accompanied by an expectation of communication (komyunicasyon), dialogue (taiwa), and conversation (kaiwd) between partners.

They enjoy seeing each other by meeting up and talking in person (issho ni ini). They pay special attention to such events as the relationship anniversary, a partner’s birthday, Valentine’s Day, and “White Day.” They often exchange gifts and go to locations that have special meanings for them, such as the place of their first date. They go out, catch a movie, eat at a restaurant, or spend special time at home. These things bring joy and delight to their tsukiau relationship. All this communication reignites and strengthens their feelings of commitment while their relationships progress.

How Sexually Intimate the Japanese Are in the Tsukiau Relationship

Men and women in tsukiau relationships frequently engage in sexual intimacy. The expressed desire for sex (ecchi wo suru) is a central expression of passion (netsujou) and romance (koi). A formal “confession” (kokuhaku) establishes an expectation of sex. Having sex is a matter of course. It is the key feature that distinguishes being in a tsukiau relationship from simply being a friend. Many may have sex at least once a week.

For Japanese boys and girls, having sex is a way to increase communicative intimacy in the relationship. For many, sex looks like an intimate form of verbal and physical communication. Others pursue sex for the fulfillment of other motivations and emotions.

Excessive Intimacy and over-commitment can be a burden for Japanese men and women

Japanese men and women recognize that excessive intimacy and over-commitment can be perceived negatively as a burden (Farrer et al., 2008).

Expansive and accepted intimacy and commitment can restrict partners. In a tsukiau relationship, emotional attachments can evolve into implicit or explicit restrictions on a partner’s and their own behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Men and women in a relationship acknowledge that they restrict their partners, just as their partners restrict themselves.

For example, controlling and monitoring the partner’s actions, thoughts, and jealousy impose such constraints. Excessive intimacy can make a person or their partner feel tethered and controlled. They can feel a loss of their independence. Therefore, sometimes they think of avoiding excessive restrictions (sokubaku), and feelings of excessive “restrictions” are among their frequent complaints.

According to the study, in more than 50% of cases, young Japanese people say they take restrictive measures against their partner. They also admit they have experienced such restrictions from a partner. Persistent expectations of the need for conversations, emails, and other messages sometimes make men and women in a tsukiau relationship feel irritated. Therefore, they tend to dislike, argue, and loathe such restrictions (Farrer et al., 2008).

Restrictive Intimacy, Obligations, and Trust in the Tsukiau Relationship

Emotional intimacy presumes and advances interpersonal trust. Nevertheless, apprehensive jealousy—even without any reasonable basis—is inevitable for some possessive people.

The obsessive thoughts and actions can become annoyingly restrictive. The explicit display of jealousy can undermine trust in a tsukiau relationship. Then, it is expected that partners should avoid expressing their feelings of jealousy.

Men and women in a tsukiau relationship may feel the intense and anxious emotions of their partners as overly weighty. When a partner is emotionally over-involved in a relationship, a person feels and expresses concerns, which the Japanese call “heaviness” (omoi). Many partners believe that such pressure and the “heaviness” of an overly committed partner should be avoided. Such serious over-involvement, feelings of heaviness, and disbalanced devotion can trigger a breakup (Farrer et al., 2008).

Interpersonal Self-Disclosure Differs in Different Cultures 

Posted on by

Self-disclosure is the way an individual communicates and shares personal information with another. Values and opinions, goals and aspirations, plans and thoughts, feelings and preferences, achievements and failures, fears and hopes, dreams and disappointments—all these internal personal things can be disclosed. They can be private and confidential to a greater or lesser extent. Some information can be sensitive because it makes a person vulnerable in a relationship.

Self-disclosure can be verbal or nonverbal. People differ in their willingness to self-disclose.

Cultural patterns of self-disclosure in romantic and marital relationships vary across societies. Societies differ in their cultural norms of how close the interpersonal relationship between partners should be and how emotionally intimate they should be in a close relationship.

Intimacy as Self-disclosure

Self-disclosure of personal information is the way to express intimacy in relationships. Partners do this both verbally and nonverbally. Many Western scholars and laypeople conceptualize intimacy as self-disclosure, as the way of revealing personal values, thoughts, and feelings to another person. Many European Americans consider such experiences and expressions as important things for personal growth and relationship satisfaction, while many Asians and Asian Americans don’t think this way.(Altman & Taylor, 1973; Derlega, et al., 1993; Ignatius & Kokkonen, 2007; Jourard, 1971; Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004, see Karandashev, 2019, for review).

Cultural Differences in Self-disclosure

Cross-cultural studies have shown that the degree of self-disclosure between American partners is usually higher than between Japanese or Chinese partners. These cultural differences might be due to their differences in individualism and collectivism as cultural values (Barnlund, 1975; Chen, 1995; Hocker and Wilmot, 1995; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1991; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

For instance, spouses in North America communicate verbally more than Chinese spouses. Self-disclosure is frowned upon in Chinese culture, which encourages greater self-restraint in marital communication and limited self-disclosure. These differences can be due to differences in corresponding cultural values. Alternatively, people in different cultures can express their personal information and feelings in various ways (Chen, 1995; Hocker & Wilmot, 1995; Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Juang & Tucker, 1991; see Karandashev, 2019 for a review). 

The boundaries and meanings of privacy, intimacy, and self-expression may differ across cultures. Various aspects of what is viewed as private, intimate, and public are culturally determined (Coffey, 2017; Heitler, 2012; Moore, 2003).

Self-disclosure in Individualistic Western Cultures

Western individualistic cultures consider self-disclosure as the prototypical expression of intimacy (Jamieson, 1998, 1999). For example, North American culture encourages men and women to communicate in relationships in an open, direct, and assertive manner. As a result, Americans naturally use self-disclosure to lower emotional distance and foster marital intimacy (Bradford et al., 2002; Hocker & Wilmot, 1995; Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

American men and women believe that self-disclosure with a partner is a vital process to achieve closeness in a relationship. This possibility reflects their individualistic ideals like independence, autonomy, self-assertion, and directness. This perspective appears to be more consistent with an American emphasis on verbal and non-verbal self-expression than with a Chinese emphasis on restraint and silence.

Self-disclosure in Collectivistic Eastern Cultures

Sharing personal information and the exchange of feelings are less important in East Asian cultural settings (Chen, 1995; Goodwin & Lee, 1994). For example, Chinese and Japanese cultural norms teach people to be restrained and reserved in interpersonal interactions. Societies frown upon being too expressive.

These cultural factors determine the manner of reserved self-disclosure in Chinese marital relationships. According to research findings, Chinese native spouses disclose less than North American spouses. For Chinese men and women, self-disclosure can reflect their collectivistic values like harmony, connectivity, and solidarity (Chen, 1995; Hocker and Wilmot, 1995; Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Wolfson & Pearce, 1983; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

In Chinese households, disclosure is layered: the most intimate expressions are shared with the spouse, while less sensitive information is shared with other family members or strangers. As a result, in both cultures, a married relationship can be intimate yet linked to different social values (Ow & Katz, 1999).

What Is Closeness in a Relationship? It Is Culturally Diverse.

Posted on by

Scholars and laypeople frequently refer to psychological closeness in interpersonal relationships as “intimacy.” It might be either physical or emotional proximity, or their combination. It can be bodily, sexual, physical, emotional, or intellectual. The understanding of intimacy is also culturally diverse.

Intimacy is not the same as sex or sexual intimacy. “Being intimate and close” does not necessarily mean being in a romantic relationship. To various people, intimacy and closeness can mean different things.

Experience of Interpersonal Closeness in Love

Interpersonal closeness is behaviorally evident in such indicators as partners’ sleeping privacy and proximity, the organization of their eating, spending leisure time together, the husband attending the birth of his child, and other qualities of their interactions (de Munck & Korotayev, 2007).

Partners experience closeness in subjective feelings such as openness to self-disclosure. They express closeness through the sharing of intimate thoughts, feelings, and experiences, interdependence, and emotional warmth (see Karandashev, 2019 for a detailed review).

Romantic and marital interactions are not necessarily intimate or close. Intimacy as closeness is the feelings which develop through time when we connect with someone, grow to care for them, and become more and more comfortable being with them. Cultural values and norms for closeness between husband and wife are related to women’s status in a society. Intimate relations imply relative equality and a friendly disposition toward another with whom we are in a relationship.

Western European and European American Values of Interpersonal Closeness

The feeling of interpersonal closeness assumes that the other person is different and unique, that a person has a sense of self, and that he or she is autonomous from others. Western, individualistic societies that place a high value on interdependence also place a high value on interpersonal closeness.

The value of closeness varies across cultures (see, for example, Karandashev, 2019).

Intimate closeness in relationships is a highly valued experience in current Western societies. Many men and women in Western individualistic societies (such as countries in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) expect to establish emotional intimacy with their romantic partner and spouse. In their romantic and marital relationships, the higher degree of closeness is related to their higher physical, psychological, and relational well-being.

Western European and Euro-American research on romantic and marital relationships widely explores intimacy in the sense of a high degree of interpersonal closeness. C. Hendrick and S. Hendrick (1989), in their factor analysis of five love scales, identified closeness as one of the five major factors of love in their studies of American students.

The Value of Closeness in Eastern Cultures

On the other hand, traditional Eastern cultures may have different attitudes toward love and marital intimacy. Many collectivist and interdependent Eastern cultures place a lower normative value on romantic and marital intimacy.

In Eastern societies, the intimacy of heterosexual love has traditionally been less important. However, in those cultural contexts, conceptions of intimacy may be different (Karandashev, 2019).

Early cross-cultural studies revealed that American men and women have higher levels of intimacy in their love relationships than do Japanese people. East Asians have less intimacy in their marital relationships than Westerners (for a detailed review, see Karandashev, 2019). 

Interpersonal Closeness in Relationships Depends on Gender Equality

Gender roles and the status of women determine the norms of interpersonal intimacy in premarital and marital relationships. If a society values intimate relationships, then interpersonal relationships can develop beyond their “functional” requirements. For instance, the formation of intimate bonds between husband and wife is substantially less likely if the wife’s status is significantly lower than her husband’s (de Munck & Korotayev, 2007).

The extensive cross-cultural investigation conducted by de Munck and Korotayev (2007) has demonstrated several other interesting and important tendencies for public understanding.

  • Polygyny appears to stifle wife–husband intimacy in at least three ways: by increasing socialization for violence, lowering parental warmth levels, and lowering female kin power.
  • Large family sizes and dependence training may also restrain the development of wife–husband closeness.
  • When boys are socialized for aggressiveness, the development of close relations between wives and husbands within a given society is substantially less likely.

If, in a given culture, mothers expend a high level of maternal warmth toward their sons, then the development of intimate relations between wives and husbands is substantially more likely.

What Is Emotional Intimacy? It Is Culturally Diverse.

Posted on by

The word “intimacy” is widely utilized in modern scholarship and public discourse. Its frequent usage is perhaps comparable to the word “love.” Both are commonly used in diverse and vague senses. Some scholars and laypeople extensively use the word “intimacy” as a synonym for “love,” even though not every love is an intimate relationship. Others often use the word “intimacy” as a synonym for physical intimacy and sex, even though not every sex is intimate.

What Is Emotional Intimacy?

Many scholars use the word “intimacy” to describe psychological closeness and emotional intimacy between people. Relationship closeness deserves special attention from a cultural perspective.

The latter is the most adequate meaning, according to modern English and psychological science. Certainly, there are other directly associated meanings, such as togetherness, emotional connectedness, and affinity. Nevertheless, these words have different meanings.

The concept of intimacy is widely utilized in modern scholarly theories and research. For example, psychologists strive to understand and measure the physical, emotional, intellectual, experiential, and spiritual experiences of intimacy in love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

Positive and Negative Sides of Intimacy

In loving relationships, intimacy can have both positive and negative consequences. Intimacy produces the pleasurable feelings of comfortable attachment and trust. Yet it can bring a feeling of vulnerability, for example, in the case of dishonesty and deception. Romantic novels across languages and societies are full of intriguing stories of betrayals. It seems that “no one hurts us more than those who are closest and most intimate.”

Sounds familiar?

“They know it hurts me, but they do it anyway.”

Why so? Why do we hurt the most those we love the most?

The Cultural Diversity of Intimacy

The notion of intimacy appears even more intricate once we consider its diverse cultural interpretations and values. For instance, researchers have demonstrated that Western and Eastern cultures differ in their conceptualizations, experiences, and expressions of intimacy. Some cultures encourage intimacy between lovers, romantic partners, and spouses, while others do not (Castaneda, 1993; Hsu, 1985; Kumar, 1991; Seki, Matsumoto, & Imahori, 2002).

In various cultures, intimacy is more closely associated with a broad range of practices, such as sharing, caring, giving, providing resources, cooking, taking care of the house, and other practical ways.

The views from different cultural perspectives help us explore the diversity of intimacy. As researchers suggested, the differences in intimacy might be more complex, including different cultural understandings of intimacy, because patterns of intimacy are grounded in the cultural contexts of societies. Many case studies in diverse West African and North American cultures illustrate how the experience of intimacy reflects specific constructions of social reality and self (Adams et al., 2004; Karandashev, 2017, 2019; Seki, Matsumoto, & Imahori, 2002).

The case of emotional intimacy Japanese tsukiau relationships and the case of the long path of Japanese marital intimacy deserve special consideration.

Love in Bedouin Culture

Posted on by

Bedouin culture is the culture of the nomadic Arab people who live in Arabia, the territory that stretches from the deserts of North Africa to the rocky sands of the Middle East. Living in tribes, they have a common culture of herding camels and goats. Most Bedouins follow Islam, but there are also a small number of Christian Bedouins. In Arabic, they are known as the ʾAʿrāb (أعراب).

One example of such a society is that of the Bedouins in the Western Desert of Egypt. Another example is the Arab-Palestinian people in southern Israel. Some Bedouins still follow their traditional culture, living in clan structures. The others, however, have acquired a modern urban lifestyle, abandoning their nomadic and tribal traditions.

In another article, I talked more about “Bedouin Culture.”

Two Realms of Love in Bedouin Culture

In Bedouin societies, love exists in two realms: real and ideal (Karandashev, 2017). The traditional Bedouin culture is a patriarchal society, keeping boys and girls, men and women, segregated. The moral discourse comprising modesty and honor has a high value. Cultural norms discourage autonomy and individual choice in relationships. As in many other traditional South Asian cultures, kinship, family honor, and social hierarchy are valued more than individual emotions and preferences. Therefore, both men and women usually feel uncomfortable in intimate relationships (Abu-Lughod, 1986/2016).

The Ideology of Gender Inequality in Bedouin Culture

Bedouin cultural ideologies declare gender inequality and social hierarchy. Individuals have the freedom to make choices about their lives. However, the value of autonomy is normally associated with masculinity. The cultural value of autonomy is for men, while the cultural value of dependency is for women. In Bedouin communities, patriarchal control over women is still existent and prevalent (Aburabia 2011, 2017; Kook, Harel-Shalev, and Yuval 2019).

The traditional extended family—the hamula (clan)—continues to maintain high authority and control over women’s lives. Every woman can choose what she wants, but she must know the limit (Aburabia, 2011; Daoud et al., 2020; Harel-Shalev, Kook, & Elkrenawe, 2020, p. 493).

An extended family puts limitations on and also keeps control over men’s lives, yet men are allowed to have more autonomy and freedom. For instance, the practice of polygyny is still common among the Bedouin community, even though it is legally forbidden. The approximate rates of polygamy are 20–30%. In some villages, it could be 60% (Aburabia, 2011).

Cultural Dreams of Romantic Love in Bedouin Culture

On the other hand, stories, poems, and songs in modern Bedouin culture cherish romantic love as a high value. It is worth noting that passion seems more valuable than intimacy. Love is bound by controversial emotions. Poems of love may express an individual’s strength, autonomy, mastery of passions, and support of the values of honor and modesty. On the other hand, the poetry of love expresses attachment, vulnerability, loss, and bitterness related to the state of “being in love.” Romantic poetry is valued, relishing a declared freedom from social domination. It conveys subversive messages. Thus, despite the patriarchal and segregated society in which Bedouins live, their stories, poems, and songs of romantic love cherish the imaginations of people in modern Bedouin culture. Romantic poems, songs, and stories about love offer important expressions of deeply held human emotions and desires that are considered unacceptable and disturbing by the dominant culture (Orsini, 2006, pp. 22–23).

The amorous feelings expressed in poems and the seeming rigidity of modesty in daily communications are evidently at odds with each other in modern Bedouin culture. Does it mean that these poetic sentiments illuminate the more authentic selves of men and women? Not necessarily.

Ideal and Real Love in Bedouin Culture

The romantic, poetic expression of love is not always evidence of a person’s more genuine self. The psychological interactions between the social hierarchy of power, the moral sentiment of modesty and submissive reverence, and the poetic discourse of love are far more complex than just defying authority. These cultural experiences cannot be reduced to such straight interpretations and cannot be simply contrasted with Western understandings.

The structure of Bedouin love is more tangled than Western scholars tend to interpret it. Poems, songs, and romantic stories enrich men’s and women’s cultural understanding of emotions, but do not refuse or rebel against the reality of the love life. Their selves rearrange priorities and integrate other people and social obligations into their extended “collectivistic self.” Their freedom of choice integrates with social affordances and communal responsibility. Such perspectives on love appear to contrast with European American individualistic culture, which emphasizes an individual’s freedom of choice while minimizing responsibility for the choices individuals make.  (Abu-Lughod, 1986/2016).