Social theorists have suggested relationship practice changes such as rising rates of
nonmarital cohabitation imply external anchors are lifting with relations become increasingly
individualised and fragile. These suppositions are in part based on theories of commitment
which have taken conventional characteristics of marriage as a ...
Social theorists have suggested relationship practice changes such as rising rates of
nonmarital cohabitation imply external anchors are lifting with relations become increasingly
individualised and fragile. These suppositions are in part based on theories of commitment
which have taken conventional characteristics of marriage as a blueprint from which to
compare. Reporting findings from an in-depth qualitative study in England, in this paper, what
it means to be committed and how commitment is displayed within ten long-term (fifteen
plus years) couple relationships across forms (same-sex, opposite-sex, married, civil
partnership, cohabitant) is explored. The findings challenge conventional signifiers by which
cohabitants are deemed less committed than married couples. In line with the
individualisation thesis, couples described an importance attached to autonomy and equality.
Instead of public promises for a lifetime together, sexual intimacy, and financial
interdependence, couples displayed commitment through mutual reciprocity. However,
contrary to the notion that individualised relationships are sustained only to the extent of
personal satisfaction, moral consistency values to stick together through adversity, unless the
relationship became unhealthy, signified what it meant to be committed; whether the
relationship was formalised or not. Further research is needed to further explore these
findings and develop theories of commitment which better reflect the diversity of
contemporary relationship practices.