FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2028238775> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2028238775 endingPage "568" @default.
• W2028238775 startingPage "565" @default.
• W2028238775 abstract "Reviewed by: Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare Gina Bloom (bio) James M. Bromley. Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pp. viii + 210. $95.00. As courtrooms and chat rooms across the nation fiercely debate which couples have the right to have their until-death-do-you-part unions recognized under law, some queer theorists have asked us to consider why marriage is considered the sine qua non of intimate relationality in the first place. James M. Bromley’s book offers an important contribution to this conversation by providing a history of marriage’s association with intimacy. Bromley locates “in the age of Shakespeare” an alternate conception of intimacy that, had it not ultimately been foreclosed, [End Page 565] would have made the current marriage debates virtually moot. According to Bromley, the definition of intimacy often taken for granted today began to be codified in the early modern period, ultimately becoming the foundation for modern views of intimacy as inextricably linked to coupledom and heterosexual monogamy in particular. Marriage has come to be seen as the most privileged form of heterosexual monogamy because it presumably balances perfectly two key elements: interiorized desire and futurity. The first of these is the view of desire as internal to the subject such that to become intimate with another is to pursue “interpsychic connectedness” (4), penetrating beneath the surface of the body to something deeper below. The second key element in modern definitions of intimacy, Bromley explains, is the sense of a relationship’s potential to last into the future, evinced especially through the expectation that marriages produce offspring. Bromley’s book shows that this two-part definition of intimacy was not fully instantiated in the early modern period, however; thus, it was still possible then to imagine “alternate forms of relationality” and to “challenge the authority of couple form intimacy” (2). For early modern writers, the intimate could be fleeting and nonpenetrative (as in the unconsummated desire in Christopher Marlowe’s Hero and Leander); nonreproductive (as in the anal pleasures of William Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well); surface-level (as in the sadomasochistic skin markings that create pleasure in Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher’s The Maid’s Tragedy); and experienced not between two individuals but among a group (as in the erotic exchanges of the cloistered nuns imagined in the anonymous The Merry Devil of Edmonton). Bromley demonstrates how a range of literary texts, including poetry, prose, and drama, represent these alternate forms of relationality, which he calls “failures of intimacy”(3)—failures not because they are unable to provide satisfaction and pleasure but because they do not interiorize desire and/or allow access to futurity. The book’s most original contribution to early modern studies and the history of sexuality can be found in its rethinking of interiority, an area that has received so much attention by scholars within and beyond these fields in the last several decades that there would appear to be nothing more to say on the subject. But Bromley points out that there is much at stake in querying the assumption, for instance, that desire is located on the inside of a body. He observes that critical approaches to inwardness—many of which are grounded in psychoanalytic views of desire and subjectivity—tend to be so invested in a distinction between internal and external spheres, with the former seen as hierarchically superior to the latter, that they overlook relationships that “reverse this hierarchy, make the external and internal equivalent, or completely avoid the distinction altogether” (13). In these latter relationships, intersubjective knowledge is not a precondition for or evidence of intimacy, as intimate pleasure can be found through “corporeal [End Page 566] proximity and even anonymity” (14). The significance of Bromley’s insights becomes especially clear in his discussion of masochism, a sexual practice that “locates pleasures at the body’s surface, uncoupling inwardness from affective relations” (80). Insofar as the masochist sets the terms of his or her submission, this sexual practice has the potential to destabilize the supposedly entrenched social hierarchies of places like the Renaissance court, as it is depicted in Thomas..." @default.
• W2028238775 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2028238775 creator A5075794405 @default.
• W2028238775 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2028238775 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2028238775 title "<i>Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare</i> (review)" @default.
• W2028238775 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cdr.2012.0033" @default.
• W2028238775 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2028238775 type Work @default.
• W2028238775 sameAs 2028238775 @default.
• W2028238775 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2028238775 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2028238775 hasAuthorship W2028238775A5075794405 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C26517878 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C2778584255 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C2781291010 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C53813258 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C107038049 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C107993555 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C142362112 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C144024400 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C161191863 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C18903297 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C26517878 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C2777200299 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C2777855551 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C2778584255 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C2781291010 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C41008148 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C46312422 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C53813258 @default.
• W2028238775 hasConceptScore W2028238775C86803240 @default.
• W2028238775 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2028238775 hasLocation W20282387751 @default.
• W2028238775 hasOpenAccess W2028238775 @default.
• W2028238775 hasPrimaryLocation W20282387751 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W1686260547 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W2003239925 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W2025778081 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W2428754206 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W2611477069 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W3092454225 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W3208936079 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W4211160787 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W4309450747 @default.
• W2028238775 hasRelatedWork W4372319626 @default.
• W2028238775 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W2028238775 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2028238775 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2028238775 magId "2028238775" @default.
• W2028238775 workType "article" @default.