This thesis investigates how relationality is imagined, managed and performed by twenty-seven UK-based couples during their wedding and civil partnership rituals. The methodology involves a case study approach with eleven of the couples, who were followed through the planning of their ritual, retrospective interviews with sixteen couples and a photograph project with eight of these couples. Diversity in the sample in terms of age, gender and class allows these factors to be explored along with differences of sexuality between the couples. Commitment rituals put relationality into sharp focus as they demand practices of inclusion and exclusion. Each chapter of analysis (The Decision to Marry, Wedding Work and The Big Day) highlights how tradition and relationality are particularly significant to an understanding of the fateful moments that commitment rituals represent. The perceived expectations of family members and friends are implicated in the performance of traditional symbols, while these symbols also provide a recognised form for these relationships to take. The Discussion chapter builds upon these ideas in drawing the key themes, of imagining, managing and performing that run through each chapter, together in outlining a typology of strategies. This typology challenges a central idea of the reflexive modernisation thesis, as asserted particularly by Giddens (1991, 1992, 1994, 2002), that reflexivity involves the disembedding of individuals from their relational networks. In this way the research builds upon theorisations of relationality and embeddedness, particularly those developed by Smart (2007a) and Bottero (2010). The intersubjective nature of reflexivity is emphasised with the introduction of the terms ‘reflexive coupledom’ and ‘relational reflexivity’ alongside ‘individual reflexivity’. ‘Strategies of tradition’ is also included in the typology to emphasise how meaningconstitutive tradition continues to shape ritual action. These concepts aim to be of use in future exploration of these rituals as well as in relation to other areas of personal life.

It is clear that unmarried cohabitation is increasing in Chile. It is less clear what unmarried cohabitation is and why is it rising. In Latin America cohabitation is common among low income groups, and has been described as a surrogate marriage for the disadvantaged. Cohabitation in the region entails conventional gender roles and having children. It has been explained by colonial dominance, poverty, kinship, and machismo. The evidence amassed here indicates that although in practice cohabitation is similar to marriage, they are not the same. In fact, cohabitation has decreased social visibility. Cohabitation does not entail any social ceremony or rite. As it is not institutionalised it remains concealed from both social recognition and social scrutiny. Thus it tolerates partners who are dissimilar, or can be sustained despite a higher level of difficulties in a relationship. The findings validate previous research as cohabitation is sparked by pregnancy, parental tolerance - mainly through not enforcing marriage -, a close mother-son bond –which inhibits marriage-, and the material costs of marriage. The research follows a life course perspective. It is based on twenty four qualitative life histories of urban deprived young people, women and men, involved in a consensual union and with children. In Chile from the 1990s onwards cohabitation started to show a sharp increase. Prevalent views explain rising cohabitation as an outcome of processes of individualization, democratization of relationships, and female emancipation. This research suggests that rising cohabitation, among young people from low income groups in Chile, is linked to enhanced autonomy (i.e. declining patriarchy), and to social benefits targeted to single mothers. Young people are gaining autonomy as union formation is increasingly an outcome of romantic love and not of being forced into marriage. Furthermore cohabitation rose right at the end of Pinochet’s dictatorship, at a time of enhanced freedom and autonomy. By contrast, rising cohabitation does not seem to be related to female emancipation. Interviewees themselves reproduce conventional gender roles, and social policies targeted to the single mother are based on conventional views on womanhood.

Cohabitation is a complex phenomenon with a multifaceted trajectory. It carries different meanings for couples. It is not a permanent state but a transition, which is characterised by uncertainty pertaining to its future. Its future lies with men who still have the prerogative to decide its progression. Women can only live in hope. A qualitative, phenomenological, explorative, descriptive, and contextual study was undertaken with 21 participants whose ages ranged from 25 to 35 years. The goals of this study were threefold: (i) to develop an in-depth understanding of the place of cohabitation in the context of changing family patterns and lessons for social work intervention; (ii) to gain insight into the participants’ experiences in cohabiting relationships in relation to the benefits, challenges, and mechanisms to address any challenges; and (iii) to proffer lessons for social work intervention based on the participants’ perspectives. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews and analysed following Tesch’s (in Creswell, 2009) framework. Lincoln and Guba’s model was utilised for data verification. The major findings of this study indicate that the majority of dating couples slide into cohabitation without a clear agreement on the progression of the transition or relationship. The meaning of cohabitation is gendered as most women regard it as a transition to marriage, hoping that one day their partners will propose marriage. Conversely, men simply enjoy the presence of a woman in the house. Surprisingly, none of the participants consulted social workers when they were experiencing challenges in their relationships. / Social Work / D. Phil. (Social Work)