Résumés
Résumé
Cadre de la recherche : Dans un contexte caractérisé à la fois par une augmentation du nombre de séparations et par la pérennité d’un idéal conjugal, une rupture conjugale est un événement qui est vécu comme une épreuve personnelle et douloureuse par les individus concernés, notamment parce qu’elle signifie non seulement la fin d’un couple, mais va aussi de pair avec une transformation du réseau personnel.
Objectifs : Nous étudierons ici comment les individus reforment les frontières de leur réseau personnel autour des personnes qui leur ont apporté du soutien et de la reconnaissance au cours du processus de rupture conjugale, et examinerons les négociations visant un juste partage, entre les ex-conjoints, de ces relations auparavant communes, ainsi que les sentiments – notamment, d’injustice – engendrés par ce partage.
Méthodologie : Cet article se fonde sur une analyse fine d’entretiens qualitatifs réalisés en Suisse et en Angleterre auprès de jeunes adultes qui se sont séparés d’un(e) conjoint(e) avec qui ils(elles) habitaient et avaient formé un projet de vie commune.
Résultats : Nous montrerons qu’il y a à la fois des gains et des pertes à l’issue de ce processus, et distinguerons cinq types de reconfiguration du réseau personnel : expansion amicale, recul amical, en négociation, refuge parental et nouvelle union. Nous verrons que cette reconfiguration s’accompagne également d’un récit qui est centré sur un concept de justice se déclinant en trois principes : la propriété, le partage à parts égales et le degré de culpabilité.
Conclusions : Nous mettrons en lumière en quoi ce travail sur les frontières est à la fois concret (perte et ajout de relations ainsi que réévaluation du degré d’investissement) et sémantique (par le récit élaboré). Nous y constaterons à la fois un processus de fermeture des frontières autour des personnes qui ont su être soutenantes et un processus d’ouverture pour aller au-delà de la relation conjugale.
Contribution : Cet article invite à une réflexion sur la reconfiguration des frontières de l’intimité et sur un nouveau rapport à la conjugalité ; en effet, une rupture conjugale entre jeunes adultes s’accompagne souvent d’espoirs pour la formation d’un nouveau couple.
Mots-clés :
- réseaux personnels,
- couple,
- séparation,
- récits de vie,
- jeune adulte,
- intimité
Abstract
Research framework: In a context characterized both by an increase in the number of separations and by the persistence of the model of coupledom, an intimate relationship breakdown is an event that is experienced as a personal and painful ordeal by the individuals concerned. It is particularly the case since it does not only mean the end of a relationship, but also goes hand in hand with a transformation of their personal network.
Objectives: We study how individuals reform the boundaries of their personal network around the people who have provided them with support and recognition. We also look at the negotiations aiming toward a fair distribution – among ex-partners – of these formerly common relationships and at the feelings, notably of injustice, generated by this sharing process.
Methodology: This article is based on a detailed analysis of qualitative interviews conducted with young adults in Switzerland and England who separated from a partner with whom they used to live and had formed a common life project.
Results: We show that there are both gains and losses and that five types of network can be distinguished: friendly expansion, friendly retreat, in negotiation, parental refuge and new union. This reconfiguration is also accompanied by a narrative that is centred on a concept of justice based on three principles: ownership, equal sharing and degree of guilt.
Conclusions: We reveal that this work on boundaries is both concrete (loss and addition of relationships and reassessment of the degree of investment) and semantic (through the narrative developed). There is both a process of closing boundaries around people who have been supportive and a process of opening up to go beyond the couple relationship.
Contribution: This article is an invitation to reflect on the reconfiguration of the boundaries of intimacy and a new understanding of conjugality, since an intimate relationship breakdown for young adults is often accompanied by hopes for the formation of a new couple.
Keywords:
- personal networks,
- couple,
- separation,
- life stories,
- young adult,
- intimacy
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Aeby, G., J.-A. Gauthier et E. D. Widmer. 2019. “Beyond the Nuclear Family: Personal Networks in Light of Work-Family Trajectories”, Advances in Life Course Research, vol. 39, p. 51-60.
- Aeby, G. et S. Heath. 2019. “Post Break-up Housing Pathways of Young Adults in England in Light of Family and Friendship-based Support”, Journal of Youth Studies.
- Aeby, G. et J. van Hooff. 2019. “Who Gets Custody of the Friends? Online Narratives of Changes in Friendship Networks Following Relationship Breakdown”, Families, Relationships and Societies, vol. 8, no 3, p. 411-426.
- Aeby, G., E. D. Widmer et I. D. Carlo. 2014. “Bonding and Bridging Social Capital in Step- and First-Time Families and the Issue of Family Boundaries”, Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, vol. 8, no 1, p. 51-69.
- Allan, G. 2008. “Flexibility, Friendship, and Family”, Personal Relationships , vol. 15, p. 1-16.
- Amato, P. R. 2010. “Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments”, Journal of Marriage and Family , vol. 72, n o 3, p. 650-666.
- Ammar, N., J.-A. Gauthier et E. D. Widmer. 2014. “Trajectories of Intimate Partnerships, Sexual Attitudes, Desire and Satisfaction”, Advances in Life Course Research.
- Antonucci, T. C., K. L. Fiori, K. Birditt et L. M. H. Jackey. 2010. “Convoys of Social Relations: Integrating Life-Span and Life-Course Perspectives”, dans The Handbook of Life-Span Development, sous la dir. de R. M. Lerner et W. F. Overton, New York, John Wiley et Sons Inc., p. 434-473.
- Antonucci, L., M. Hamilton et S. Roberts (dir.) 2014. Young People and Social Policy in Europe Dealing with Risk, Inequality and Precarity in Times of Crisis, Royaume-Uni, Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bastaits, K. et D. Mortelmans. 2017. “Parenting and Family Structure After Divorce: Are They Related?”, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, vol. 58, no 7, p. 542-558.
- Baxter, L. A. et D. O. Braithwaite. 2002. “Performing Marriage: Marriage Renewal Rituals as Cultural Performance”, Southern Communication Journal, vol. 67, no 2, p. 94-109.
- Becquet, V. et C. Bidart (dir.) 2013. Normes sociales et bifurcations dans les parcours de vie des jeunes, Paris, Les presses de Sciences Po.
- Beer, A., D. Faulkner, C., Paris et T. Clower. 2011. Housing Transitions Through the Life Course, Bristol, Policy Press.
- Bellotti, E. 2008. “What are Friends for? Elective Communities of Single People”, Social Networks, vol. 30, n°4, p. 318 329.
- Bidart, C. 2008. « Dynamiques des réseaux personnels et processus de socialisation : évolutions et influences des entourages lors des transitions vers la vie adulte », Revue française de sociologie, vol. 49, no 3, p. 559-583.
- Bidart, C., A. Degenne et M. Grossetti. 2011. La vie en réseau. Dynamique des relations sociales, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
- Bonvalet, C. et E. Lelièvre (dir.) 2012. De la famille à l’entourage : l’enquête. Biographies et entourage, Paris, Institut national d’études démographiques.
- Bonvalet, C. et J. Ogg (dir.) 2007. Measuring Family Support in Europe, Londres, Southern Universities Press.
- Brockmeier, J. 2000. “Autobiographical Time”, Narrative Inquiry, vol. 10, no 1, p. 51-73.
- Brückner, H. et K. U. Mayer. 2005. “De-Standardization of The Life Course: What It Might Mean? And If It Means Anything, Whether It Actually Took Place?”, Advances in Life Course Research, vol. 9, p. 27-53.
- Bruner, J. 1991. “Self-Making and World-Making”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 25, no 1, p. 67-78.
- Buchmann, M. et I. Kriesi. 2011. “The Transition to Adulthood in Europe”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 37, p. 481-503.
- Budgeon, S. 2006. “Friendship and Formations of Sociality in Late Modernity: The Challenge of Post Traditional Intimacy”, Sociological Research Online , vol. 11, n o 3.
- Burkitt, I. 2008. Social Selves: Theories of Self and Society , Londres, Sage.
- Cronin, A. M. 2015. “Gendering Friendship: Couple Culture, Heteronormativity and the Production of Gender”, Sociology , vol. 49, n o 6, p. 1167-1182.
- Colman, E., S. Symoens et P. Bracke. 2012. “Professional Health Care Use and Subjective Unmet Need for Social or Emotional Problems: A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Married and Divorced Population of Flanders”, BMC Health Services Research, vol. 12.
- D’Andrade, R. G. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Dette-Hagenmeyer, D. E. et B. Reichle. 2016. “Justice in the Couple and the Family”, dans Handbook of Social Justice. Theory and Research, sous la dir. de C. Sabbagh et M. Schmitt, New York, Springer, p. 333-347.
- De Singly, F. 1996. Le soi, le couple et la famille, Paris, Nathan.
- De Singly, F. 2011. Séparée.Vivre l’expérience de la rupture, Paris, Armand Colin.
- Eurostat, 2018. Marriage and Divorce Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Marriage_and_divorce_statistics#Fewer_marriages.2C_more_divorces
- Finch, J. et J. Mason. 1990. “Divorce, Remarriage and Family Obligations”, The Sociological Review, vol. 38, no 2, p. 219-246.
- Furlong, A. (dir.) 2016. Routledge Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood (2e éd.), New York, Routledge.
- Fuchs Ebaugh, H. R. 1988. Becoming an Ex. The Process of Role Exit. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
- Giraud, C. 2017. L’amour réaliste. La nouvelle expérience amoureuse des jeunes femmes. Paris, Armand Colin.
- Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no 6, p. 1360-1380.
- Heath, S., et E. Calvert. 2013. “Gifts, Loans and Intergenerational Support for Young Adults”, Sociology, vol. 47, no 6, p. 1120-1135.
- Hilton, J. M. et T. L. Anderson. 2009. “Characteristics of Women With Children Who Divorce in Midlife Compared to Those Who Remain Married”, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, vol. 50, no 5, p. 309-329.
- Hippert, D. 2018. « Les effets perturbateurs du désamour sur l’organisation de la séparation », Recherches familiales, vol. 15, p. 55-75.
- Kalmijn, M. 2003. “Shared Friendship Networks and the Life Course: An Analysis of Survey Data On Married and Cohabiting Couples”, Social Networks , vol. 25, n o 3, p. 231-249.
- Kellerhals, J., J. Coenen-Huther et M. Modak. 1988. Figures de l’équité. La construction des normes de justice dans les groupes, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
- Kellerhals, J., E. Widmer et R. Levy. 2004. Mesure et démesure du couple : cohésion, crises et résilience dans la vie des couples, Paris, Payot.
- Kohli, M. 1989. « Le cours de vie comme institution sociale », Enquête, vol 5.
- Kohli, M. 2007. “The Institutionalization of the Life Course: Looking Back to Look Ahead”, Research in Human Development , vol. 4, n o 3-4, p. 253-271.
- Kumbasar, E., A. K. Rommey et W. H. Batchelder. 1994. “Systematic Biases in Social Perception”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 100, no 2, p. 477-505.
- Maillochon, F.. 2001. « “Entrer en couple” ou “sortir ensemble” », Agora débats / jeunesses, p. 35-50.
- Maillochon, F. 2016. La passion du mariage, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
- Martial, A. 2003. S’apparenter : Ethnologie des liens des familles recomposées, Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
- Martin, C. 1994. « Diversité des trajectoires post-désunion. Entre le risque de solitude, la défense de son autonomie et la recomposition familiale », Population, vol. 49, no 6, p. 1557-1583.
- Mayer, K. U. 2001. “The Paradox of Global Social Change and National Path Dependencies: Life Course Patterns in Advanced Societies”, dans Inclusions and Exclusions in European Societies , sous la dir. de A. E. Woodward et M. Kohli, Londres, Routledge, p. 89-110.
- McAdams, D. P. 2005. “Studying Lives in Time: A Narrative Approach”, dans Towards an Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Life Course, sous la dir. de R. Levy, P. Ghisletta, J.-M. Le Goff, D. Spini et E. D. Widmer, Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 237-258.
- McDermott, R., J. H. Fowler et N. A. Christakis. 2013. “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else Is Doing It Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample”, Social Forces, vol. 92, no 2, p. 491-519.
- McDonald, S. et C. A. Mair. 2010. “Social Capital Across the Life Course: Age and Gendered Patterns of Network Resources”, Sociological Forum, vol. 25, no 2, p. 335-359.
- Neugarten, B. L., J. W. Moore et J. C. Lowe. 1965. “Age Norms, Age Constraints, and Adult Socialization”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 70, no 6, p. 710-717.
- Paechter, C. 2013. “Concepts of Fairness in Marriage and Divorce”, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, vol. 54, no 6, p. 458-475.
- Pages, M. 2008. L’amour et ses histoires : Une sociologie des récits de l’expérience amoureuse, Paris, L’Harmattan.
- Pahl, R. et D. J. Pevalin. 2005. “Between Family and Friends: A Longitudinal Study of Friendship Choice”, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 56, no 3, p. 433-450.
- Perrig-Chiello, P., S. Hutchison et D. Morselli. 2015. “Patterns of Psychological Adaptation to Divorce After a Long-Term Marriage”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 32, no 3, p. 386-405.
- Phoenix, C. et A. C. Sparkes. 2008. “Athletic Bodies and Aging in Context: The Narrative Construction of Experienced and Anticipated Selves in Time”, Journal of Aging Studies, vol. 22, p. 211-221.
- Reese, E., C. A. Haden, L. Baker-Ward, P. Bauer, R. Fivush et P. A. Ornstein. 2011. “Coherence of Personal Narratives across the Lifespan: A Multidimensional Model and Coding Method”, Journal of Cognition and Development: Official Journal of the Cognitive Development Society, vol. 12, no 4, p. 424-462.
- Riessman, C. K. 1990. Divorce Talk: Women and Men Make Sense of Personal Relationships , New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press.
- Rebughini, P. 2011. “Friendship Dynamics Between Emotions and Trials”, Sociological Research Online, vol. 16, no 3, 1.
- Sabbagh, C. et M. Schmitt (dir.) 2016. Handbook of Social Justice. Theory and Research, New York, Springer.
- Sandel, M. J. 2009. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? , New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
- Smart, C., K. Davies, B. Heaphy J. et Mason 2012. “Difficult Friendships and Ontological Insecurity”, The Sociological Review, vol. 60, no 1, p. 91-109.
- Spencer, L. et R. Pahl. 2006. Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
- Sweeney, M. M. 2010. “Remarriage and Stepfamilies: Strategic Sites for Family Scholarship in the 21st Century”, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 72, no 3, p. 667-684.
- Terhell, E. L., M. I. Broese van Groenou et T. van Tilburg. 2007. “Network Contact Changes in Early And Later Postseparation Years”, Social Networks, vol. 29, no 1, p. 11-24.
- Théry, I. 1993. Le démariage: justice et vie privée, Paris, Odile Jacob.
- Tuval-Mashiach, R., J. Hanson et S. Shulman. 2015. “Turning Points in the Romantic History of Emerging Adults”, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 18, no 4, p. 434-450.
- Vaughan, D. 1986. Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationships, New York, Oxford University Press.
- van Hooff, J. 2017. “An Everyday Affair: Deciphering the Sociological Significance of Women’s Attitudes Towards Infidelity”, The Sociological Review, vol. 65, no 4, p. 850-864.
- Widmer, E. D., G. Aeby et M. Sapin. 2013. “Collecting Family Network Data”, International Review of Sociology, vol. 23, no 1, p. 27-46.
- Widmer, E. D., N. Favez, G. Aeby, I. De Carlo et M.-T. Doan. 2012. Capital social et coparentage dans les familles recomposées et de première union, Genève, Université de Genève, coll. « Sociograph ».