Through ‘thick and thin’ as long as it is healthy: shared meanings of commitment in long-term couple relationships, whether married or not

Abstract

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.