4. MARCO DE REFERENCIA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
4.3 COACHING COMO TÉCNICA PARA EL DESARROLLO DE COMPETENCIAS
4.3.7 Coaching en el Contexto del Liderazgo
In deconstructing participants’ talk about ‘things-that-are-romantic’, three distinct kinds of romance emerged. These three forms of romance will first be discussed and
129 contrasted, using the guidelines postulated by Illouz (1997) above – that is, along the four boundaries of time, space, artefacts and emotions; activity-orientation (gastronomic/ cultural/ touristic); and relationship to consumption (direct, indirect, none). It will be argued that these three forms of romance were positioned hierarchically by participants and can be conceptualised as following a pyramid shape.
At the bottom of the pyramid, I have placed romantic gestures, as the most commonly occurring form of romance. These had the fewest boundaries from everyday life (cf. Illouz, 1997); were the most flexible and diverse; and while constructed as romantic, were of less intensity and duration than the other forms of romance. At the top of the pyramid I have placed the grand romantic date, which had the most boundaries from everyday life; were constructed as most closely following discursive performative scripts; and were the most romantically intense of the three forms of romance. Casual dates have been placed in the middle of the pyramid.
Furthermore, two vital aspects of this hierarchical pyramid emerged from this deconstructed understanding of romance; namely, that these three forms of romance varied both in their romantic intensity, as well as in how loosely or tightly formulaic they were presented as being. In the second section, this talk will be discursively analysed to see what participants ‘do’ with it within the context of these interviews and within the broader landscape of their relationships. First, however, these three forms of romance will be explored.
4.3.1.1. The casual date
The first form of being-romantic that has been identified has been termed the ‘casual date’, as exemplified in the following extract:
EXTRACT 1:INTERVIEW 1.5
1. Sue: the things we’d usually do […] would be like going to dinner (.) y’know like at (.) 2. Spur=
3. Nicky: =ok[ay
4. Sue: [or like (.) Mugg n Bean, type of thing […] it’s (.) very much chilled […] 5. Nicky: Having (.) maybe like a budget °where you can go, maybe a bit more° […] 6. will that a-affect y’know e-e-maybe having (.) s-slightly different vibe to like (.) a 7. normal Spur or something like [that?
130
8. Sue: [YEAH, yeah [it will for sure because now I’m not 9. Nicky: [okay
10. Sue: actually wearing jeans and a [t-shi(h)rt ((small laugh)) 11. Nicky: [o(h)kay
The casual date was constructed as going to movies or to inexpensive, casual, family-friendly restaurants – or in the case of Couple 4, going on what they termed ‘safari dates’ (eating each course of a meal at a different restaurant or food kiosk, typically in a shopping mall). Casual dates were also constructed to include less conventional, activity- oriented ‘fun’ dates, such as going snorkelling or surfing (Couple 5); antique shopping (Couple 5); go-carting (Couple 1); fishing (Couple 3); gymming together (Couple 3); playing video games together (Couple 1, Couple 4); playing arcade games (Couple 4); window shopping (Couple 4); renting DVDs to watch at home (Couple 1, 3); camping or geo- caching22 (Couple 2). While these dates often took place at night, many were also
constructed as occurring during the day time and thus the time of the casual date was less central to its construction.
While food may be consumed on some of these dates, it was not specifically referred to and was not constructed as “delicious” in the same way as on the grand date (see below). The restaurants mentioned as examples in Extract 1 (as well as across the data set) are inexpensive or ‘popular’ restaurants with a casual atmosphere. Spur is a chain of South African ‘Native American’-themed family restaurants with cost-effective meals and an informal, child-friendly atmosphere23. Spur was referred to frequently as the site of casual dates in Interviews 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Mugg and Bean, another chain of South African restaurants, was another popular option mentioned by participants. Mugg and Bean serves moderately-priced American bistro-style foods and is described as
22 An outdoor recreational activity reminiscent of a modern-day treasure hunt, where a global positioning
system (GPS) device is used to locate hidden items (known as a ‘cache’). Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocaching and https://www.geocaching.com/guide/, accessed 1 September 2017.
23 Information retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Steak_Ranches and http://www.spur.co.za/
131 having a “homely atmosphere24” and a “fast casual”25 style of service. Mugg and Bean was referred to in the context of a casual date in interviews 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and 4.3.
In these constructions, food was described as being consumed in casual settings, and romance was constructed in informal ways which required (moderately) more time, effort and money than eating a meal at home. However, this form of romance does not require a large expenditure, and thus was constructed as a practical option – something the couples could do regularly, such as described in Extract 1 above.
While there were a number of references to this form of romance, there were no explicit or direct references to or descriptions of the kinds of food that one would consume on this kind of date. In addition, these dates did not typically require dressing up too much, and participants tended to construct the ‘dress code’ as being in line with what they would wear on an everyday basis. For example,
EXTRACT 2:INTERVIEW 1.2
Luke: “we don’t actually have these big things that often […] if we can actually get an evening […] you just wanna relax, just have a night off, and then it’s (.) watching (.) movie(h)s or (.) so(h)(h)mething like that so, she’s usually in her pyjamas”.
Thus, there were very few boundaries constructed between casual dates and everyday life, and consequently, casual dates were constructed as less romantic than grand dates (See Section 4.3.1.3).
In addition, casual dates were often constructed as occurring more
frequently than grand dates, and as a result feeling less special. As will be argued in more detail below, this construction of the casual date as mundane provided a backdrop against which the grand date could be imbued with more romance through its distinctiveness from the ordinary.
24 Information retrieved from http://www.muggandbean.co.za/about.php on 25 January 2016. 25 Information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugg_%26_Bean on 25 January 2016.
132 4.3.1.2. The romantic gesture
The second form of being-romantic that will be discussed has been called the ‘romantic gesture’. ‘Romantic gestures’ refer to small daily acts of love or consideration (cf. Morrison, 2010) which, while often inexpensive, were described as requiring thought or effort and which would make their partner feel loved and special. This form of romance typically took place in everyday spaces, such as the home or at work and could occur at any time of day. Examples of romantic gestures included running a candlelit bath for their partner (Bruce, Couple 3); cooking surprise meals for their partners (Robyn, Couple 2; Louise, Couple 3; Anika, Couple 4; and Heidi, Couple 5); surprising partners at work with flowers (Louise and Bruce, Couple 3) or to take them out for coffee or for lunch (Luke, Couple 1; Heidi, Couple 5). Romantic gestures also included small tokens, such as inexpensive food items like sweets or chocolates; making him lunch (Robyn, Couple 2), breakfast (Heidi, Couple 5), or coffee (Tom, Couple 5); handmade gifts (Sue, Couple 1; Louise, Couple 3; Anika, Couple 4); or more expensive purchased gifts, chosen specifically because they knew their partner really wanted it or would appreciate it (examples included boots and perfume by Johan, Couple 4; superhero t-shirts by Sue, Couple 1; an Africa pendant necklace by Eddie, Couple 2; and tickets for the Playhouse by Tom, Couple 5).
As can be seen by the diversity of these examples, the ‘romantic gesture’ covers a broad range of acts, with differing levels of consumption. For example, purchasing a present entails direct consumption; making your partner a surprise romantic meal
involves indirect consumption; and running a candlelit bath involves almost no consumption at all. It does, however, make use of candles as romantic artefacts.
The use of candles in this instance is not only artefactual but also
transformative – it is a way of distinguishing, elevating and demarcating this space as a romantic one. Candles are positioned as creating both a metaphorical and a literal boundary between every-day and romantic spaces (cf. Illouz, 1997). It is a metaphorical boundary as its use acts as a sign or symbol of this being something different to everyday life. It also acts as a literal boundary as they are a visual element that physically changes the space because of the light they cast – a dim, soft light falling only on their immediate settings, therefore
133 only that which exists within the circle of candlelight is relevant. Candles literally cast the rest of the world into shadow, shining only on the couple and what they are doing.
In addition to being positioned as a way of creating these boundaries, candles were also constructed as a symbol of romance itself, and were a widely used trope
throughout the data set. Other examples included: “She has surprised me quite a few times… (with) like a candle-lit dinner on the table” (Bruce, Interview 3.3); “we as a family are hopelessly romantics ((Nicky: Okay)) We will plan the beach and we will plan the … um candle-lit dinners” (Anika, Interview 4.5); “I’m just like ‘a:h whatever we don’t have the money for it’ like… it’s dumb, cause I mean (.) we could just- put some candles on a table and have a nice meal here” (Tom, Interview 5.3).
Thus, the use of candles is an important cultural practice/ artefact (cf. Illouz, 1997), which was discursively linked to being-romantic and which mark an occasion as ‘romantic’. It could be argued that the use of candles assists in marking or delineating the spatial boundaries of everyday spaces and reconstituting it as a romantic one, for a specific duration of time. Hence, the use of candles in ordinary spaces makes the ordinary special – it simultaneously marks the boundaries of romance and constitutes romance in an
unromantic everyday space.
As can be seen from the examples above, while many of these gesture
required little financial expense, others required more expense, such as purchasing perfume or boots for their partner (Johan, Couple 4) or buying tickets to the Playhouse Theatre. While these examples involved more costs than the other examples I have defined as ‘romantic gestures’, I have included these expensive examples because of the other
similarities they shared with the category as a whole – namely that it required effort and/or time to plan and execute these gestures, especially in terms of finding and purchasing an item. These items, as well, as the other examples, were all constructed in a similar way: as a sacrifice made for the benefit of one’s partner, to demonstrate that the participant was thinking of them and cares for them.
Therefore, while the examples of romantic gestures differed in financial costs, there were other anticipated costs involved, namely, that these were all constructed
134 as requiring time and effort to orchestrate. For example, it is the combined act of thinking to run a bath for one’s partner, with the use of candles that produces this gesture as romantic. Thus, romantic gestures were positioned as (often extremely) romantic because of the thought and effort that went into the gesture – they were constructed as sending the message ‘you are special to me’ and ‘I’m thinking of you’ and thus that the participants’ relationship is uniquely romantic and caring (this will be referred to as ‘the soulmate discourse’ and will be discussed further in the following chapter). Often, these gestures increased in romance by being positioned as a surprise, for example:
EXTRACT 3:INTERVIEW 1.1
1. Nicky: ((la[ughs))
2. Sue: [((laughs)) he actually surprised me at work yesterday with lunch ((la[ughs)) 3. Nicky: [a:::w 4. ((both laugh))
5. Nicky: That’s so sweet
EXTRACT 4:INTERVIEW 3.1
1. Louise: he goes in the bathroom and he- he runs a bubble bath and puts candles out 2. [and he’s like ‘why don’t] you go have a bath and I’ll start dinner’ and you walk in it’s
like
3. Nicky: [ Oh ( ) ]
4. Louise: ‘aah’ [ .hhh uh ] ((small laugh)) .hhh (.) um (.) a couple of times he’s sent 5. Nicky: [Aw ((small laugh))]
6. Louise: flowers to school 7. Nicky: Ja=
8. Louise: =ja .hhh and (.) ja so just doing like little things unexpectedly.
EXTRACT 5:INTERVIEW 4.5
1. Johan: .hhh (.) but I’ll feel roma- I’m romantic in a way I mean (.) [you] do t- things to make 2. Nicky: [Mm]
3. Johan: her feel special and [.hhh ] you go out of your way to- to surprise her (with ma-) or or 4. Nicky: [Mhm]
5. Johan: (.) (like) to see her smile .hhh=
6. Nicky: =Yeah
My responses in lines 3 and 5 of Extract 3 and line 5 of Extract 4, show the discursive effect of the partners’ gestures: they are received as being extremely positive and ‘sweet’. In these extracts, this aspect of surprise (“doing little things unexpectedly”, line 7 of
135 Extract 4) is constructed as conveying thoughtfulness, consideration and care (in order to “make her feel special” and “see her smile”, Extract 5). It is a way of positioning the
recipient – and the relationship as a whole – as ‘special’. Thus, rather than extravagant acts of consumption, it is the thought and the effort involved in producing these surprise
gestures that makes these gestures romantic.
A key goal of these gestures is constructed as being to make his partner “feel special” (lines 1-3) and to “smile” (line 5). Other examples of surprise romantic gestures in the data set included:
EXTRACT 6:INTERVIEW 1.1
Sue: “in his being romantic he will (.) like buy me little chocolates and sweets […] buy me little teddies […] he’ll come to me with a packet of sour worms, ’cause I >love sour worms and he hates them<” and “my love language is (.) buying stuff for him […] I always try and get him something small”.
EXTRACT 7:INTERVIEW 2.5
Eddie: “she put garlic chilli sauce on my hamburger she made me for lunch ((Nicky: oh ni(h)(h)ce)) and I thought it was tomato sauce, and I was really pleasantly surprised ((Nicky laughs))”.
EXTRACT 8:INTERVIEW 3.1
Louise: “in the garage he made it a (.) portion of it into an art studio for me”.
EXTRACT 9:INTERVIEW 3.2
Bruce: “Like I try and just do something out of the ordinary (.) p- sp- spontaneous (.) maybe try and surprise her something you know”.
EXTRACT 10:INTERVIEW 3.3
Bruce: “She has surprised me quite a few times, and that was awesome”.
EXTRACT 11:INTERVIEW 4.1
Johan: “So say for instance sh- she looks at a certain type of clothes .hhh and then uh okay next (time be-) if you wanna surprise her, okay (.) you know what she likes[…] basically that’s b- uh how romantic it gets” and “we bik- big on surprises ((small laugh)) you know? [...] I’ll just get her something that she really wants or .hhh same with me vice versa […] even though you don’t always do something romantic it’s that thought the ele- essence of surprise”.
136
EXTRACT 12:INTERVIEW 4.5
Johan: “that is (.) a surprise and I (.) and that is her being romantic […] tryna be doing something special for me”.
These gifts often carried personal meaning – for example in Couple 1, Luke’s gift to Sue is sour worms – a sweet that he does not personally like (the insinuation is that this increases the selflessness and consideration of the act); and Luke – a fan of comic books – receives T-shirts with superheroes on them from Sue. Eddie (Couple 2) tracks down a particular necklace Robyn’s been wanting. Louise (Couple 3) surprises Bruce with a work- related present (a silver-plated whistle) when he is promoted, and Bruce surprises Louise with a candle-lit bath after a long day and converts a part of their garage into an art studio for her. Johan (Couple 4) pays special attention on shopping trips to see what his fiancée likes so he can buy her a surprise later on. Anika (Couple 4) makes gifts for Johan using meaningful items like photographs; printed text messages; and sweet wrappers; and so on. The more personally meaningful these gifts were, the more they were constructed as demonstrating thought and effort, and the more productive they were of romance.
The combination of thoughtfulness, personal meaning and the element of surprise and self-sacrifice are constituents of romance in this version of being-romantic. These unexpected gestures were positioned as showing consideration and care, and were a way of imbuing their relationship with meaning (by drawing from the trope of soulmate narrative – see Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 for a discussion). Romantic gestures are thus identified as an area of academic interest, as their construction appears to differ from the discourse of strict-boundaries-between-life-and-romance, as suggested by Illouz (1997; and as seen in the discourse of the grand date, see below).
4.3.1.3. The grand date
The form of being-romantic which had the most consensus and was the most narrowly defined of the three forms is what I will call the grand date. This construction of being-romantic involved the consumption of delicious dinners at expensive restaurants. In
137 terms of the boundaries identified by Illouz (1997), this form of romance was the most readily definable in terms of the temporal, spatial, artefactual and emotional boundaries she described. This was constructed as being the ‘recipe’ or ‘formula’ for a successful night out, which, while constructed by some participants as being ‘safe’ or ‘unoriginal’, would however ensure that the night went well.
4.3.1.3.1. The grand date as formulaic and susceptible to disruptions
As in the studies mentioned above (Illouz, 1997; Morrison, 2010; Schwarz, 2010; Storey & McDonald, 2013; Tukachinsky, 2008), my participants seemed to orient to the ‘script-like’ nature of this formulation of being-romantic, and participants often referred to “the media” and to Western movies to provide examples, explanations and justifications for the rhetorics used to explain the grand date (12 of 25 interviews: 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 5.3). For example, when asked “have you guys like learnt anything about yourselves through the process, either as individuals or as a couple?”, Heidi replies:
EXTRACT 13:INTERVIEW 5.3
Heidi: “I’ve learnt that like (.) romance isn’t something that- (.) cause typically in the movies (.) it will always be like the guy planning something for the girl ((Nicky: mhm)) that’s –well, I dunno, it seems like it. But I’m like, it doesn’t have to be like that, like I must plan romantic things for Tom ((Nicky: Mhm)) Ja”.
Here, Heidi orients to the discourse that men romance women (developed further in Chapter 6), positioning this as a societal expectation, a discursive performative script which has influenced her through the medium of “movies”. Through this discourse, she justifies why she does not normally initiate romance in their relationship – it acts as an explanation, an excuse. She then describes an imperative that she should plan a romantic date for Tom, which constructs her as being willing to resist this discursive performative script. This explanation for the normative influence of the grand date was evident in other participants’ accounts as well:
138
EXTRACT 14: INTERVIEW 2.5
Eddie: “when you grow up i-in a Western culture and ((Nicky: mm)) you go through (.) a:: (.) dvd store and (.) go to the romance section ((Nicky: ja)) and […] it’s all exactly the same thing ((Nicky: ja, ja)) so:: (.) you think okay well that’s (.) w-how the role you have to (.) slot into, to do this ((Nicky: ja)) you know”.
EXTRACT 15:INTERVIEW 3.1
Louise: “I think kind of the perception of (.) of romantic and going out is very kind of ruled by Hollywood ((small laugh))”.
EXTRACT 16:INTERVIEW 4.5
Anika: “we usually, things that we (.) haven’t done before, .hhh things that we .hhh that will make our relationship interesting […] if you go to- for instance (.) that- that seems (.) if you (.) watch movies it will be that thing ‘wow I want that to be happening’”.
EXTRACT 17:INTERVIEW 5.3
Tom: “I’m sure a lot of what we think is romantic is informed by like (.) ((Nicky: ja)) like our culture. Specially like Western (.) like, Hollywood, kind of stuff ((Nicky: ja))”.
Thus, participants constructed the grand romantic date as having a narrow scope of affordances “to slot into”, as it is rooted in a discursive performative script which is heavily influenced and tightly defined by the media and Hollywood. This provided a
justification for restricted ways they constructed grand dates, especially in comparison to the two other forms of romance discussed above (cf. Edwards, 1997). For example, in the following extract, Tom describes feeling pressured to come up with an original idea for his date for the study, and then deciding to rely on the comfortable and familiar discursive performative script of the grand date:
EXTRACT 18:INTERVIEW 5.3
1. Nicky: A:nd what was it like planning it?
2. Tom: (.) U::H (.) I was super-stressed, like (.) [six weeks ago? 3. Heidi: [((laughs)) 4. Nicky: okay?
5. Tom: like when we first talked about it because [like flip okay, now I have to plan like the 6. Nicky: [ja?
7. Tom: most romantic date ever 8. Nicky: ((laughs))
139
9. […]
10. Tom: ’cause I was tryna think like (.) what (.) amazing different thing, other than dinner can 11. I do for a date