Conference | Framing intimacy. Plurality and Vulnerability in Ways of Building Relationships

The concept of intimacy is used widely today, both by individuals, in the way they consider their relationships, and by the media and academia. The number of recent scientific events addressing this concept signals a growing trend. Unlike the concept of conjugality, intimacy encompasses relationships governed only marginally by institutions, and unlike sexuality, it is not necessarily eroticised; it has an affective aspect but is not simply love. Intimacy does not overlap the concept of privacy. On the contrary, it is omnipresent in the public space (Berlant, 1997), as illustrated in cases of sexual violence. Through its plasticity, the concept of intimacy can be used to account for the transformations that in the last few decades have changed our ways of relating and being in couples and families, and, more broadly, the  relationships we form with the people we care about. These transformations include the decline of principle-based institutions, the diversification of individual life courses, and the recognition of gender and sexuality minorities (Lerch and Stacey, 2011; Bozon, 2018). The concept can also be used to incorporate diverse relational approaches not widely addressed by the social sciences, such as friendships, which nevertheless play a central role in contemporary sociability; short-lived non-conjugal relationships that are more than a mere one-night stand; and the ties formed in militant or minority communities, for example ‘sorority’
relationships (Ferrarese, 2012).

The success of the concept of intimacy comes hand in hand with definitional uncertainties, as the diversification and de-institutionalisation of relationships pose questions as to their boundaries and nature. This has brought the political aspect of intimacy to the fore, not just in the inequalities and power relations that characterise intimate relationships, but also in the operations and institutions that define what an intimate relationship is, acknowledge some and obscure others, and determine “good” intimacies while discrediting others. Who defines and what is an intimate relationship? What are the diverse ways in which we relate and how are they qualified? What political and historical issues are involved? Defining, subdividing and categorising intimacy is not the exclusive remit of the social sciences or scholars; it is something to which we all contribute. The issue is not simply about mapping intimacies but understanding how individuals, institutions and public discourse delimit them and give them meaning. The concept of framework is useful in this respect (Goffman, 1991). A framework enables us to understand how interactions are interpreted by individuals, how intentions and motivations are attributed, and how events are integrated into a context that lends them meaning, regularity and predictability. It is through frameworks that the multiplicity and singularity of affective relationships attain a social reality, one on which individuals have a hold over, can count on and, sometimes, defend as a necessary order (Boltanski, 2012). The very existence of frameworks implies the possibility of their disruption, new interpretations and ways of seeing – ultimately, the fragility of the world as it is and what we take for granted (Butler, 2010). Taking the
framing of intimacies seriously thus gives rise to the question of the tools and challenges involved in qualifying the concept, as well as the vulnerability of relationships.

Frameworks are situated in systems of intimacy composed of specific economic, social and cultural configurations that shape our relations with ourselves and others, and in which institutions determine what intimacy is and distinguish and order relationships (Gaillard, Gimenez and Rochefort, 2021). The political framing of intimacy and the roles played in this respect by the state and, more broadly, the organs of power have been highlighted by research on sex work (Bernstein,
2007; Mainsant, 2021), separations, divorces and family transmissions (Biland, 2019; Bessière and Gollac, 2020) and adoption (Perreau, 2012; Roux, 2022). These systems of intimacy are not interpreted solely in certain specific situations; they frame the ways in which we relate on a day-to-day basis. Ann Laura Stoler has shown how colonial governments were underpinned by a policy of intimacy inherent to racial hierarchies (Stoler, 2013). Similarly, Nazism was based on the promotion of a certain sexual and conjugal freedom, which made the regime desirable (Maïlander, 2021). Today, race informs the ways in which “bi-national” couples and “mixed” families are perceived and form relationships, as well as the power relations involved (Brun, 2024). The ways in which systems of intimacy tie in with systems of gender and race (Collins, 2004; Connell, 2014), sensitivity (Baldin, 2014) and age-related hierarchies (Rennes, 2019) call for fresh research. The diversity of intimacy frameworks and systems is first of all historical. Considering the contemporary period alone, standards have changed substantially between the 19th and 21st
centuries. The expectation of virginity on marriage no longer holds (Limbada, 2023; Mortas, 2017); the first partner is no longer systematically the first spouse, and the first spouse is no longer the last (Bajos and Bozon, 2008); separations are considered as ordinary (Brée, 2022); cohabitation, parenthood and sexual exclusivity are no longer a given for everyone (Rault and Regnier-Loilier, 2019); and relational configurations are diversifying, particularly among young people (Bergström
and Maillochon, 2024). These changes do not concern the entire population and have met with some resistance. Forming a couple and creating a family remain a broadly shared aspiration (Piazzesi, 2023; Maudet, 2024) and the persistence of gender norms limits opportunities for women and motivate ‘calls for order’ and violence (Ferrand et al., 2008; Clair, 2023).

In the same historical space, various manners of relating also exist. These may concern love, family and friendships and are not necessarily characterised by specific practices or statutes; sexual relations may exist without intimacy, as may intimate relationships without sexuality. Reflecting on the continuum of relational intimacy (Gaillard, 2024) enables us to consider the diversity of frameworks and the distinctions between ways of relating, which can be friendly, family-related, sexual, conjugal and professional. By considering all the nuances of relational intimacies, we can study practices in all their diverse configurations without resorting to polarisations (strengthened by normative discourses in the 19th century) between legitimate and illegitimate sexuality, between the public and private spheres, and between the worlds of men and women. Conjugality and the family have often been seen by the social sciences as stabilising mechanisms and desirable relations conducive to happiness. This irenic stance has long been criticised, most recently through the feminist denunciation of sexist violence and the #Me Too movement (Dussy, 2021; Lévy-Guillain, 2023). Since the 1970s, feminist research has made the question of gender violence a question of framing. For C. MacKinnon, the distinction commonly made between rape and consensual sex, which defines the first by distinguishing it from the second, does not take account of the ordinary place that violence occupies in women’s lives; that which is considered as desire from a male standpoint is considered as violence from a female standpoint. It is not only
imposed sexuality that needs to be condemned, but the frameworks and categories that make it possible while at the same time obscuring it (MacKinnon, 2005). The concept of the ‘grey area’ – used today to refer to relationships in which the positions of perpetrators and victims of violence are difficult to establish, and in which uncertainty as to what has occurred is central – is a further example of the issues involved in the framing of intimate violence (Lejbowicz, 2022).

Contemporary criticisms of bad relationships also place the emphasis on their “toxic” nature, “narcissistic perverts” and situations of “control” (Joly and Roquebert, 2021; Trachman and Amado, 2024). This urges us to consider the negativity of intimate relationships above and beyond physical or moral violence. As stressed by Lauren Berlant, unpredictability and uncertainty, as well as the fact that partners engage in relationships with no clear knowledge of where they will take them, are central aspects of intimacy (Berlant, 1998). Intimacy can be seen as a relationship initiated by individuals to which at least one of the people involved gives a place and attention that he or she does not give to others (Zelizer, 2005). Intimacy is signified by words, acts and objects, the limited circulation of which lends the relationship its singularity. From this standpoint, framing intimacy is an emotional and interpersonal endeavour, one that involves a notably gender-based division of labour (Hochschild, 2003) as well as investments (of varying degrees), withdrawals and coming back to oneself (Bozon, 2016). This perspective also places the emphasis on the possibility of suffering generated by intimate relationships, in which trust can always be broken. What meaning would an intimate relationship have if an individual failed to expose themselves or gave no emotional foothold to the other (Trachman, 2020)? Several studies have thus stressed the negative aspect of intimate relationships, by focusing either on their end and the loss of loved ones (Illouz, 2020) or on the ways in which individuals become attached to people or relationships harmful to their well-being (Berlant, 2011).

While hegemonic systems of intimacy exist, research on gender and sexuality minorities often concentrates on how they have invented new ways of relating and redefining the family, parenthood and couples: in situations of exclusion or stigmatisation, friendships can be powerful affective commitments (Halperin, 2000; Marcus, 2007); families can be chosen and kinship relationships invented according to romantic configurations and life courses (Weston, 1991; Courduriès and
Fine, 2014; Hérault, 2014); militant commitments, including feminist causes, raise questions on new ways of relating (Masclet et al., 2018 ; Masclet, 2025); and sexual sociability venues serve to establish new ties based on specific erotic practices (Rubin, 2010; Warner, 2000; Race, 2018). Queer intimacies, deviant, stigmatised and in the minority, may aim to break with the hegemonic frameworks of relational approaches or some of their aspects (Berlant and Warner, 2018; Madesta, 2022). While the distinction is useful, the aim is not simply to oppose ‘safe’ intimacy and heteronormative intimacy: power relations and violence are present among gender and sexuality minorities (Lejbowicz, 2020; Scodellaro et al., 2024) and homosexual unions are not always distinct from heterosexual unions (Courduriès, 2011). With the diversification of intimacy frameworks, it is not easy to determine what a queer relationship is. But we can ask questions about how minority lifestyles develop singular ways of relating. The analysis of intimacy frameworks draws on materials serving to document relationships and the ways in which they are perceived. What, then, are the archives of intimacy? To leave a trace, intimate relationships must, in one way or another, be made visible. The framing of intimacies thus contributes to determining the conditions of their access to social existence and memory. The biases limiting our knowledge of them are well known. Ego-documents and personal archives provide information first of all on the individuals with the resources to produce them by dint of their social class (for example, intimate journals and correspondence from the 19th and 20th century, see Artières and Laé, 2014; Muller, 2019; Vidal-Naquet, 2014). Violence also exists,
primarily from the standpoint of legal proceedings, necessarily partial and biased (Lett et al., 2020; Demartini et al., 2024). A further key aspect here is conservation. This is a long-standing issue, calling for mountains of documents that are less systematically archived than institutional documents, the historical legitimacy of which appeared to be evident (Schlagdenhauffen, 2025).

These traces of intimacy have thus been disseminated more in the memoirs of families or associations and, lacking the support of political institutions, their existence is fragile, even if community archives have today become a much considered issue (Trou noir, 2024). The question here is not just the privilege of certain intimacies, hegemonic and destined to be remembered; it is also about the archives of minority or dominated lives, the affects they carry, and their shameful or problematic aspects (Cvetkovich, 2003). More generally, the methods used to investigate intimacy also merit discussion. An interest in the archives of intimacy may be marked by a fascination for the singular or the meaningfully subtle, but archives of a more institutional naturemay also document the norms of intimacy and the challenges to those norms. Taking as its starting point the frameworks and systems of intimacy, as well as the diversity in the ways we relate, this international conference proposes four avenues of research.

– The political framing of intimacy by the state and law.
– The skills, resources and positions involved in the framing of intimate relationships.
– The diversity and diversification of relational approaches and ways of qualifying them.
– The dark side of intimate relationships, including violence, conflict and dependency.

These avenues are not exhaustive; other approaches are possible. The conference is open to all geographical eras and historical periods, the aim being to compare and contrast different approaches in the human and social sciences. Consequently, methodological thinking on the methods of investigating intimacy is also welcome.