Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University of Tabriz, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Recently, extensive changes have occurred in the social and intimate relationships of the Iranian society, especially among women, and today young women show a different approach compared to the women of previous generations on intimate relationships. The area of family relationships in Tabriz, like the entire society of Iran, has undergone transformation in the last century. Among others, we can mention the increase in the divorce rate, the increase in the age of marriage, and the ongoing tensions in married life. On the other hand, the individual and social identity of women has also undergone changes subjected to social and political changes in the society. In the past decades, influenced by modernization and modernism, Tabriz women have experienced extensive structural and attitudinal changes in their role and status. The change in the role and status of women, more than anything else, can affect their attitudes to married life. The question that can be raised is whether the recent pervasive entrance of women into the public sphere has changed their attitudes to intimacy and intimate relationships?
The present research deals with the sociological study of intimate relationships between spouses, focusing on the experience and attitude of women, and their transformation in the city of Tabriz during the last three generations. The purpose of this research is to understand the transformation of Tabriz women's experiences and attitudes on intimacy and married life. Therefore, this article examines the intimate experiences of three generations of Tabriz women regarding to the social conditions of their adolescence and intends to highlight and analyze new dimensions of marital intimacy.
The research method used in this research is qualitative. Narrative interviews were used to collect information and grounded theory was used for analyzing data. Therefore, in this research, an attempt was made to clarify different dimensions of married life by using in-depth narrative interviews with women. For a more systematic investigation, three groups of women were separated: Young women, their mothers and grandmothers. The adolescence of these three age groups can be related to the social and political developments of the last century in Iran. In the first period, the forced modernization of the Pahlavi government, which started from the time of Reza Khan and reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, pushed at least some social groups of women into the public domain. In the second period, with the occurrence of the Islamic revolution, the emotional and traditional role of women as housewives was promoted and strengthened. And in the third period, which starts from the late 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century, with the spread of new communication technologies, the relationship of women with the public sphere changed once again and the presence of women in the public sphere of society was facilitated.
This article claims that there has been a transformation in the intimacy practices during the three generations under the study. The analysis of the findings shows that in the first generation and to some extent in the second generation, intense social control over social interactions led to adjusting intimate life, but in the third generation, pure intimacy gradually emerged, with the spread of modern forces. Also, in the first and second generations, intimate interactions took place behind the scenes of social life, but with the spread of modern forces and the reduction of the threshold of shame, the social veils of intimacy have become thinner, so that in the third generation, public expression of intimacy is considered a sign of being modern.
Finally, according to the findings of the research, it can be said that during the three generations under investigation, there has been an obvious transformation in the practices and patterns of intimacy, and the dominant pattern of intimate life in the third generation has obvious differences with the previous generations. Nowadays, marriages are mainly of an individual and romantic nature; Marital lives has a dynamic character and is based on negotiation; The nature of marital relationships tends to “pure relationship” and mutual interest; Women have an opposing approach to the patriarchal normative system; And expressing intimate actions in the presence of others is not much avoided, unlike the previous generations. The modernization of women has played an important role in this change. Therefore, this article describes the common pattern in the first and second generation with the term “traditional intimacy” and the common pattern in the third generation with the term “modern intimacy”.


Main Subjects

Abrahamian, E. (1998). Iran between two revolutions. Translated by K. Firouzmand, H. Shamsavari, & M. Modir Shanehchi. Tehran: Markaz. (In Persian)
Afary, J. (2009). Sexual politics in modern Iran. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aliahmadi, O. (2013). Speech of the month: the discourse changes in today family and the challenges of the future. The Book of the Month of Social Sciences, 64, 2-3. (In Persian)
Azad Armaki, T., & Ghaffari, G. (2004). Generational sociology in Iran. Tehran: Academic Center for Education, Culture, and Research. (In Persian)
Bashiriyeh, H. (2003). An introduction to the political sociology of iran: the period of the Islamic Republic. Tehran: Nigahe Moaser. (In Persian)
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid love: on the frailty of human bonds. Translated by E. Sabeti. Tehran: Qoqnoos. (In Persian)
Beauvoir, S. De (2000). The second sex. Vol. 2. Translated by G. San’avi. Tehran: Toos. (In Persian)
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Translated by M. Ritter & J. Wiebel, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bernardes, J. (2005). Family studies: an introduction. Translated by H. Ghazian. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
Blaikie, N. (2005). Designing social research. Translated by H. Chavoshian. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
Blatterer, H. (2015). Everyday friendships intimacy as freedom in a complex world. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). Distinction. Translated by H. Chavoshian. Tehran: Sales. (In Persian)
Butler, J. (2006). Gender Trouble. Translated by A. Ghazaei, Poetry Magazine Website. (In Persian)
Castells, M. (2001). The Power of Identity. Translated by H. Chavoshian. Tehran: Tarhe No. (In Persian)
Chitsaz Ghomi, M. (2007). Recognition of the Concepts of Generation and Generation Gap. Young People and Generational Relationships, 1(1), 85-112. (In Persian) DOI: JR_YOUTH-1-1_005
Das, N. (2013). Processes of Negotiating Intimate Heterosexual Identities and Relations: Narratives of Three Generations of Urban Middle-class Bengalis living in Kolkata, India. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of Birmingham. Department of Political Science and International Studies.
Eichler, M. (1981). Power, dependency, love and the sexual division of labour: A critique of the decision-making approach to family power. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 4(2), 201-219.
Elias, N. (1939/1994). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Field, J. (2006). Social Capital. Translated by J. Mottaghi. Tehran: Research Institute of Social Security. (In Persian)
Finch, J., & Morgan, D. (1991). Marriage in the 1990s. In Marriage, Domestic Life and Social Change, Edited by D. Clark. London: Routledge.
Flick, U. (2008). An introduction to qualitative research. Translated by H. Jalili. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1999). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Translated by N. Movaffaghian. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
Giddens, A. (2005). Global Perspectives. Translated by M. Jalaeipour. Tehran: Tarhe No. (In Persian)
Giddens, A. (2007). Sociology. Translated by Chavoshian, H. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
Gillies, V. (2003). Family and intimate relationships: a review of the sociological research. Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group. Working Paper No. 2.
Gross, N. (2005). The detraditionalization of intimacy reconsidered. Sociological Theory, 23, 3, pp. 286-311. September 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00255.x
Illouz, E. (1997). Consuming the romantic utopia, California: University of California Press.
Illouz, E. (2012). Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jalaeipour, H. (2013). Socilogy of Iran. A Malformed Society. Tehran: Elm. (In Persian)
Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity.
Jamieson, L. (2005). Boundaries of intimacy. Families in Society: Boundaries and relationships. Edited by Linda McKie and Sarah Cunningham-Burley, pp. 189-206, Bristol: Policy Press.
Jamieson, L. (2011). Intimacy as a Concept: Explaining Social Change in the Context of Globalisation or Another Form of Ethnocentricism? Sociological Research Online, 16(4), 15. DOI: 10.5153/sro.2497
Jamieson, L., Morgan D., Crow G., & Allan G. (2006). Friends, neighbours and distant partners: extending or decentring family relationships? Sociological Research Online, 11(3). DOI: 10.5153/sro.1421
Layder, D. (2009): Intimacy and power: the dynamics of personal relationships in modern society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mills, C. W. (1982). The sociological imagination. Translated by A. Ansari. Tehran: Publishing Stock Company. (In Persian)
Mojtahedi, M. (2000). Figures of Azarbaijan in the Mashrouteh era. Tehran: Zarrin. (In Persian)
Paidar, P. (1995). Women and the political process in twentieth-century Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pakizegi, B. (1978). Legal and Social Positions of Iranian Women. In Women in the Muslim World. L. Beck & N. Keddie (Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Rampage, C. (1994). Power, gender, and marital intimacy. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 125-137. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6427.1994.00783.x
Richardson, D. (1996). Heterosexuality and Social Theory. In Theorizing heterosexuality: telling it straight. Edited by D. Richardson, Buckingham: Open University Press. pp. 1-20.
Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current Sociology, 52(2), 135–159. DOI: 10.1177/0011392104041798
Salmasizadeh, M. (2010). Tabriz, the first center of progressivism and modernism in Qajar Iran. In The History of Iran after Islam, 1(1), 69-89. (In Persian)
Sarookhani, B. (1991). An introduction to the sociology of family. Tehran: Soroush. (In Persian)
Scott, S. (2009). Making sense of everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smart, C. (2007). Personal life: new directions in sociological thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press.
VanHooff, J. (2013). Modern Couples: Continuity and Change in Heterosexual Relationships. Farnham: Ashgate Pub Co.