Sociol 322: A sociology of relational life Friendship

Allan, Graham. 2008. Flexibility, friendship, and family Allan, Graham. 2008. Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships 15 (1):1-16. & Miller, Daniel. 2016. Social media and social relationships. In Social media in an English village: Or how to keep people at just the right distance. London: UCL Press. NOTE: chapter change in Miller’s book!

‘…friendships have to be established; unlike family ties, workmates or neighbours, friendships are chosen rather than given. Indeed the fact that people decide to be friends with each other is highly prized aspect of friendship, because it affirms the someone has chosen you for ‘who you really are’ [Spencer & Pahl 2006, 59]

‘much that matters to people in terms of intimacy and care increasingly takes place beyond the ‘family’, between partners who are not living together ‘as family’ and within networks of friends’ [Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004, Cultures of intimacy and care, 135]. ‘whose lives are marginalized or do not map neatly onto normative sites of intimacy such as [hetero]sexual couple relationships and family’ [Cronin, 2015, Domestic Friends, 666].

‘Friendship is of a very diverse and complex, even ambiguous nature…The concept…can vary greatly in intensity, from simple well-wishers to familiar, close, dear, intimate, bosom, boon-companion friend, each with its own subtle quality.’ [Raymond Firth cited Spencer and Pahl 2006, 57]

‘Some people describe their spouse or partner as a friend ‘Some people describe their spouse or partner as a friend. Some reserve the word ‘friend’ for a select group of individuals, while others use the term in an expansive way to include all those whom they know well enough to call by their first name’ [Spencer and Pahl 2006, 33]

Personal communities = meaningful and active ties in which an individual is embedded ‘…Personal communities provide a kind of continuity through shared memories, and help to develop a person’s sense of identity and belonging; although their composition may alter as an individual moves through the life-course, a core part of their reality does not change.’ [Spencer and Pahl 2006, 45]

Friendship types

Emotional attachment & commitment   TYPE OF FRIEND Emotional attachment & commitment Simple friendship Complex friendship Associate Low High Useful contact Favour friend Fun friend Helpmate Comforter Confidant Soulmate

Fixed, progressive, Variable Friendship careers Fixed, progressive, Variable

What kind of friends are in your personal community? Do you have more fun friends than confidantes? Have your friendships changed over time and in what direction? Which friendships have changed over time? Do you imagine they will change again? Did this differ across your group?

Friendship repertoires The Basic Repertoire The Intense Repertoire The Focal Repertoire The Broad Repertoire Friendship repertoires Range of Friendship types What kind of repertoire characterises your personal community?

Friendship mode Stability and change The Bounded Friendship Mode The Serial Friendship Mode The Evolving Friendship Mode Ruptured Friendship Mode Friendship mode Stability and change

suffusion ‘Family relationships can become friend-like when people choose to spend time with their relatives rather than feeling obliged to do so, where they feel they have things in common, enjoy each other’s company or can trust the other as discrete and non-judgemental confidants. Conversely, friends can become family-like where there is a strong sense of obligation, where the relationship is of central importance, long-lasting and surviving a number of ups and downs. Where friends love as well as like each other, where they are utterly dependable and reliable, supporting each other no matter what, then they take on a family-like quality’ [Spencer and Pahl 2006, 112-

Expectations of a partner Family or Friend Like A chosen relationship Friend Based on   Love Family Liking Of central importance With mutual responsibilities Expected to last But the relationship can break down Providing Support Companionship Confiding

Spencer and Pahl 2006

Nelson ‘even when relationships of friendship grow to resemble those of family… a core issue of authority might well remain to separate these two sets of relationships. I thus suggest that access to legitimate authority to make decisions about another’s well-being is a key component of family membership but is not present in what we call friendship.’ (Nelson, 2011, p. 244) Nelson, Margaret K. 2011. Between family and friendship: The right to care for Anna. Journal of Family Theory & Review 3:241-255.

Nelson “Family members operate on the basis of generalized reciprocity (not expecting an immediate or balanced return, or perhaps no return at all), feel a deep commitment to the other and a deep sense of obligation to care, and exist in a legally privileged position to make care decisions. By way of contrast, one might anticipate that friends expect more balanced reciprocity, would feel a lesser commitment and a lesser sense of obligation to care, and would not be in a legally privileged position.” (Nelson, 2011, p. 247) Nelson, Margaret K. 2011. Between family and friendship: The right to care for Anna. Journal of Family Theory & Review 3:241-255.

Nelson “although I might have resented and resisted the ways in which a friendship began to have the entanglements of family and require more of me than I ever might have anticipated when I chose that friendship, those ‘‘extensions’’ themselves were not the source of the disquiet I interrogate. For me, the source of that disquiet lay in … the assumption of authority for and the right to make decisions about someone with whom I otherwise had no biological or legal connection.” [Nelson, 2011, p. 253] Nelson, Margaret K. 2011. Between family and friendship: The right to care for Anna. Journal of Family Theory & Review 3:241-255.