It tries to understand the processes that lead to social and cultural change in society. Not that change only occurred in modern times yet with the ascendancy of industrialisation change acquired a new dynamism that exceeded any previous transformations in pre modern societies. Sociologists are notoriously disagreed as to what initiated the various processes of change and as to how to describe them accurately. anthony giddens rsquo s notion of the pure relationship added a new dimension to the debates amongst sociologists about the catalysts and phenomena of social transformations. His concept of the pure relationship tries to capture the development of novel foundations for personal relationships, while applying it by no means only to sexual interaction. In fact, giddens is at pains to point out that the private and the public stand in a relation of mutual influence giddens 1992, p.195. The pure relationship thus can be usefully employed in conceptualisations of the public as well as the personal space in modern society.

The essay will look at the way in which giddens conceives of the interaction between trust, modernity and intimacy and why he believes this may lend particular credence to his notion of the pure relationship. His thesis, in a nutshell, is that trust in modern societies requires a new basis which can be adequately described as a process of mutual disclosure. The second part of the essay will try to articulate some criticism of giddens rsquo s ideas.

It will be argued that giddens formulation of the pure relationship feeds upon a particular perspective of the therapeutic practice, one that often has effects contrary to those giddens ascribes to the concept of the pure relationship. Giddens work has been a poignant formulation of the disastrous effects of modernity on social relationships. He focuses in his work on the idea of trust and how trust is created between individuals. With the onslaught of the forces of rationalisation and industrialisation giddens broadly concurs here with marxist and weberian portrayals of the origins of modern capitalist societies , personal relationships undergo a radical transformation. While they used to be based on a face to face interaction in which trust was created by direct communication and institutionalised connections such as family, kinship, or wider networks of friendship or community, modern relationships are distinctly impersonal. They are characterised by the absence of direct interaction between the individuals. In fact, so giddens writes, people have to rely increasingly on abstract systems in which personalised types of trust are impossible to build up.

The various mechanisms to engender trust between individuals are profoundly altered. Face to face interaction is replaced by ideational connections between individuals and abstract systems. This new form of trust building mechanism however is very fragile and often breaks down. People who experience something like fear of flying say that it is brought about by an absence of faith in planes to defy the laws of gravity. Although there may be a whole range of factors that contribute to this fear, many who suffer from this fear often indicate that their fear subsides to a certain degree once they hear the pilot rsquo s voice. Within giddens sociological framework to explore the notion of trust, this is a classic example when faith in abstract systems in this instance modern technology represented by the plane is supplanted by the creation of a more or less lsquo personal rsquo relationship with a particular individual who appears trustworthy in virtue of his expertise. Giddens thinks that the fragility of trust in modern society often requires this additional process to complement impersonal trust relationships with personal ones, in a way signalling a residue of pre modern societies.

Democracy, epitomised by principles of equality and participation in public affairs, determines social and personal aspects of citizen rsquo s lives. For the time being it is important to note that giddens believes that the processes generating modern society are intricately linked to the ideas of democracy and a new foundation of mutual trust. In fact, so giddens argues, both issues are two sides of the same coin, ideas that condition each other.

With the fundamental changes brought about by modernity, giddens suggests that personal relationships are de institutionalised, borrowing this notion from peter berger berger 1980. While trust was previously embedded firmly in communities that prescribed and sanctioned certain traditions and practices, with the dissolution of these communities and their co operative framework, personal relationships acquire an unprecedented freedom. The formation of identity that was previously predetermined by communal forces largely outside of the individual rsquo s control, is now replaced with an area of self exploration. Lsquo where large areas of a person rsquo s life are no longer set by pre existing patterns and habits, the individual is continually obliged to negotiate life style options.

Moreover and this is crucial such choices are not just lsquo external rsquo or marginal aspects of the individual rsquo s attitudes, but define who the individual lsquo is rsquo. In other words, life style choices are constitutive of the reflexive narrative of self. Rsquo giddens, 1992, p.75 this new gained freedom however also demands additional efforts of orientation and commitment from individuals, something that, for many, diminishes the advantages of liberation from parochialism. In a time of increased existential risks, human beings try to enhance the sources of mutual trust and this process runs parallel to and is influenced by the process of self formation.

Giddens writes: lsquo the establishing of basic trust is the condition of the elaboration of self identity just as much as it is of the identity of other persons and of objects. Rsquo giddens 1991, p.41 42 giddens now uses the concept of intimacy to describe the processes that allow people to produce a stability in their interpersonal relationships. Intimacy, as giddens understands it, extends way beyond the realm of sexual interaction. All three fields were intensely affected by the rise of modernity and the concomitant transformation of trust. Intimacy thus is a conceptual tool for giddens to explore the foundations of social stability that he believes have been put in place following the disintegration of the personal, face to face connections amongst individuals. In a passage clarifying the methodological approach he favours, giddens writes: lsquo the transformation of intimacy can be analysed in terms of the building of trust mechanisms and.

Are closely bound up with a situation in which the construction of the self becomes a reflexive project. Rsquo giddens 1990, p.114 with some verve he declares that intimacy is the lsquo promise of democracy rsquo giddens 1992, p.188 in the personal sphere. But why does intimacy feature this close link to democracy? what is democratic in the nature of intimacy? we have already seen that giddens attaches much significance to the fact that modernity is tied up with the various ideas and maxims of democracy. Modernity, so giddens argues, has often come to be synonymous with the development of individual freedom and equality. These ideas however are central to the institutional framework of democracy and a democratic society cannot exist without individual autonomy. He elaborates extensively on this idea of autonomy simply because it is the missing link that indicates that processes of modernisation are of similar character and structure in the public and the private sphere.

While the call for political participation leads to empowerment of individuals in the political sphere, growing autonomy in the private realm echoes these developments. Giddens even argues that the increasing degree of autonomy is heavily reliant on the advancement of reasoning in shaping the basic institutions of society giddens 1992, p.186 and p.200. As people find traditional forms of social organisations less legitimised, they turn to forms of public deliberation, a process that accelerates the dependence on reason. Status, position and distribution of resources within the family increasingly require justification beyond the legitimation through traditions and customs. This gives rise to two elements of modernity that shape the structure and character of intimacy. Giddens argues that democracy in the public and private sphere in essence is a framework of rules 1 and the reliance on dialogue 2 as a procedure for building consensus. It is non coerced, rests on the voluntary consent of those affected by the rules and outcomes of the deliberation process, and it is negotiated fairly.

This dualistic pair of rules and dialogue makes up the foundation of what he calls the pure relationship. In the public sphere just as in the private sphere, rights and duties are accorded to fair rules and the distribution of resources and tasks is negotiated in a spirit of justice and mutual respect. Intimacy is thus the conceptual means to explain the way in which people ensure social stability in modern societies. Giddens rsquo s notion of intimacy extends to the public and private realm and generates a pattern of human interaction which conforms to the most fundamental principles of democracy: equality and justice.

Let us now look at the particular aspects of the pure relationship that inform giddens rsquo theory of intimacy. Having explained how the foundations of trust are being transformed and how it acquires new forms, the notion of the pure relationship becomes transparent. The pure relationship is in fact the lsquo ethical framework for democracy in the personal order rsquo giddens 1992, p.188 , something that giddens previously declared as the conceptual purpose of intimacy. Lsquo a pure relationship is one in which external criteria have become dissolved: the relationship exists solely for whatever rewards that relationship can deliver. In the context of the pure relationship, trust can be mobilised only by a process of mutual disclosure.

Rsquo giddens 1991, p.6 given the similar characterisation of intimacy and the pure relationship the latter can at best be seen as the mirror image of intimacy in personal relationships. At worst it is a conceptual duplication that adds little to his notion of intimacy. Be this as it may, as the maxim of autonomy is the lsquo guiding thread rsquo for intimacy so it is for the pure relationship giddens 1992, p.189. It is the outcome of the lsquo reflexive project of self formation, realised by relating yourself to others in an egalitarian way rsquo giddens1992, p.189. The ground rules are laid down by individuals negotiating in an environment which is characterised by mutual respect. In fact autonomy sustains the principle of respect that should regulate the interactions between individuals and marks the boundaries of individual space.