Abstract
This article critically engages with the conceptualization of intimacy pertaining to the works of Anthony Giddens and Lynn Jamieson. Informed by insights from psychoanalysis, philosophy, and neuroscience, it challenges the two authors’ assumed unproblematic ability to consciously access and communicate intimate knowledge. The article further explores the ontological differences between lived intimacy and symbolic intimacy, privileging the concept of lived intimacy as an experience that evades focused attention and refuses to conform to our will and rational thought. In addition, it disputes the assumption that individual autonomy is a necessary condition for achieving intimate bonds, highlighting instead the relevance of openness and vulnerability. Lastly, the article engages with the concept of boundary work, making the case that boundaries could be an effect of intimacy rather than a cause of intimacy. Reassessing boundaries as delimitations between ontological planes suggests that intimacy is enabled by keeping at bay the reign of the Imaginary and Symbolic registers, namely finding a place where the subject can shield herself from the pervasive gaze of the Other.