Established sociological accounts of what I am terming the transformation of intimacy have mostly juxtaposed the communal character of traditional orders with the impersonality of modern social life. In capturing this conceptual distinction, Ferdinand Tönnies's contrast of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft is the classic source; whether they have used this specific terminology or not, others have drawn a very similar opposition. We may distinguish three main ways in which the contrast has been further fleshed out, each roughly linked to different political positions. One view, broadly associated with political conservatism, portrays the development of modernity as breaking down the old forms of "community," to the detriment of personal relations within modern societies. This standpoint was prominent in the late nineteenth century and still claims its representatives today. Thus Peter Berger, borrowing a notion from Arnold Gehlen, argues that the private sphere has become "deinstitutionalised," as a result of the dominance of large-scale bureaucratic organisations and the general influence of "mass society." The sphere of public life, on the other hand, has become "overly institutionalised." The result is that personal life becomes attenuated and bereft of firm reference points: there is a turning inward toward human subjectivity, and meaning and stability are sought in the inner self.

Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Moderni…, loc. 273