Friendship Matters

Communication, Dialectics and the Life Course

William Rawlins

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351518949
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In this volume, Dr. Rawlins traces and investigates the varieties, tensions, and functions of friendship for males and females throughout the life course. Using both conceptual and illustrative chapters, the book portrays the degrees of involvement, choice, risk, ambivalence, and ambiguity within friendships, and explores the emotional texture of interactions among friends. A concluding section examines the prospects for friendship in the course of our post-modern blurring of public and private domains and discursive sites.

Chapter 1

A Dialectical Perspective on Communication in Friendship

I begin by describing the dialectical perspective informing this analysis of the communication of friends. Then I examine in depth two sets of dialectical principles inherent in the communicative management of friendship. Contextual dialectics include the dialectic of the private and the public, and the dialectic of the ideal and the real. Interactional dialectics involve the dialectic of the freedom to be independent and the freedom to be dependent, the dialectic of affection and instrumentality, the dialectic of judgment and acceptance, and the dialectic of expressiveness and protectiveness. These principles are employed throughout this book in developing an intelligible frame for understanding the practices and predicaments of communicating in friendships at various moments in the life course.

A Dialectical Perspective

Totality, contradiction, motion, and praxis are basic elements of the dialectical perspective employed here.¹ Analyzed as a totality, communicating in friendships involves the constant interconnection and reciprocal influence of multiple individual, interpersonal, and social factors. Contradictions and dialectical tensions are central features of a dialectical analysis. These antagonistic yet interdependent aspects of communication between friends form the pulse of routine as well as volatile and transitional moments of such dyads. Motion, activity, and change are thus fundamental properties of social life in a dialectical perspective, and the present state of any relationship is considered an incessant achievement. Finally, the concept of praxis describes the human communicator as an ongoing producer and product of his or her choices within an encompassing cultural matrix. In this book individuals are depicted as conscious, active selectors of possible choices from a field that is partially conceived by them, partially negotiated with others, and partially determined by social and natural factors outside of their purview. The choices a person makes throughout life in concrete circumstances simultaneously engender and restrict options.

From this perspective, configurations of contradictions compose and organize friendships through an ongoing process of change across the life course. However, questions arise: What appear to be the principal or secondary contradictions or aspects of contradictions constituting specific friendships? What contradictions are created by the friends’ attempts to manage strategically the incompatible requirements of their relationship? What contradictions shape or reflect a friendship’s position vis-à-vis other social spheres, such as family and work settings, and larger cultural orders? Such arrangements are clarified by examining how friendships are situated hierarchically and developmentally in social space over time. Studying the synchrony or asynchrony of temporal sequences also provides perspective on the contradictions patterning friendships. Riegel (1976) argues that synchronization is “the most critical issue in dialectical theory” (p. 693). He views asynchronies as responsible for most crises in human development and resultant change. Accordingly, short- and long-term changes in individuals and their relationships must be examined in relation to both rapid and drawn-out life course and cultural developments.

The time grain of these various processes and the extent of their coordination or disorder are key factors in a dialectical analysis. Thus dialectical inquiries are intrinsically historical investigations concerned with the developmental and historical specificity of the process in question (Rossi, 1983). How are human beings consciously acting in this concrete situation and what implications do their actions have for the ongoing constitution of their social worlds in which friendships function as a particular part?

Dialectical Principles Inherent in the Communicative Management of Friendship

Communicating within friendships involves inherent dialectical features. Two broad analytical classes, contextual and interactional dialectics, are examined next, though in actuality these principles extensively interconnect in the communication of friends.

Contextual Dialectics

Contextual dialectics derive from the place of friendship in the prevailing social order of American culture. They describe cultural conceptions that frame and permeate interaction within specific friendships yet are conceivably subject to revision as a result of significant changes in everyday practices. I will consider the dialectic of the private and the public and the dialectic of the ideal and real, while suggesting their theoretical and practical interdependence.

The Dialectic of the Private and the Public. This principle articulates the tensions produced as experiences and behaviors of friendship transcend private and public realms. The interweaving of these generic, discursive contexts presents significant challenges and opportunities requiring various strategies of communicators.

Within the observable public matrix of American interpersonal relationships, friendship occupies a marginal position. Unlike kin, it is not a certifiable blood relationship. It lacks the religious and legal warrants and the culturally sanctioned procreative function of marriage. And it is generally regarded differently from the possessive and sexual nature of romantic love (Brain, 1976). Nor is friendship objectively defined by economic contracts as are work or professional relationships. Basically, friendship has no clear normative status within publicly constituted hierarchies of role relationships; yet it may compete with, complement, substitute for, or fuse with these other types of social bonds (Hess, 1972). In short, the degree of public recognition of friendship as a category of interpersonal relationship renders it an “institutionalized non-institution” (Paine, 1969, p. 514).

Contrasting with friendship’s vagrant position in the public realm is its peculiar moral character as a private bond. Friendship cannot be imposed on people; it is an ongoing human association voluntarily developed and privately negotiated. Consequently, the rights and obligations of friendships can transcend formal, objective, or material institutional requirements and statuses (Paine, 1969). This autonomous quality makes friendship potentially more “pure” than are relationships governed by wider social structures like labor and power, especially if the friends experience those structures as threatening essential human values (Eisenstadt, 1974). Disturbingly, however, sinister, nihilistic, or violent values may also characterize a given friendship’s private morality, as, for example, when two friends carry out a suicide pact. Appropriate behavior is determined within the friendship and is upheld principally by each individual’s affection for and/or loyalty and commitment to the other. Personal responsibility and trust are the lynchpins of this private order, which may be as evanescent as human caprice or as enduring as human dedication allows.

In its dialectical character, combining public marginality and private morality, friendship weaves in and out of the larger social order like a “double agency,” fulfilling both individual and social functions. Sometimes friends wear “feathers” borrowed from other culturally sanctioned roles so that their relationship is viewed publicly as acceptable (Parsons, 1915). For example, this costuming occurs frequently in adult cross-sex friendships in which one or both parties are married to others (Rawlins, 1982). Such a publicly acknowledged cross-sex friendship may threaten the culturally endorsed marriage relationship in others’ eyes, whereas defining the bond as a professional one would not. Ironically, although this “disguised” cross-sex friendship might be pursued primarily as a self-serving release from the pressures of an overly constricting marriage, it may function simultaneously to strengthen that socially favored bond.

In contrast, cultivating the private morality and manners of a friendship within, for example, ostensibly political or professional relationships often allows for the special treatment of one’s friend or standards of evaluation that differ from public statements. Such arrangements may result in friends as happier clients or constituents, or even more valid appraisals of an individual’s performance because of the added concern and insight of one’s friend. However, “greasing the wheels” in this fashion can also undermine fair practice and publicly accountable procedures.

Thus the liberating potential of friendship for two individuals might be regarded as its subversive potential from a broader social perspective. Conversely, behaviors that civic-minded people could view as preserving public decorum, friends might perceive as stultifying their freedom of action and expression. Because friendships are constrained but not determined by public roles or institutions, tensions between public and private comportment persist. A given friendship may duplicate culturally encouraged actions but for idiosyncratic reasons. And some partners may conduct themselves in the personalized manner of friends, but clearly for publicly redeemable purposes. The ongoing rhetorical challenge to friends, therefore, is to develop and share private definitions and practices while orchestrating desired social perceptions of their relationship (Paine, 1969).

The dialectic of the private and the public delineates a critical facet of managing friendship. These terms not only reference realms of actual behavior and experience but also comprise interpretive categories used rhetorically by commentators in the service of moral visions (Wells, 1985). Different cultural moments privilege one sphere over the other. During the reign of an “ideology of intimacy/’ for example, private and personal relationships like friendship are celebrated for their potential to confirm individuals’ self-conceptions (Sennett, 1978). From this ideology, Suttles (1970) argued that a primary basis of friendship was negotiated remissions from public expectations. He observed, “Friendship demands a verifiable self and it cannot be one that complacently complies with public propriety” (p. 107). Still, as Naegele (1958) commented, such an exclusive conception of friendship negates certain readings of the meanings of democracy. Accordingly, in more public-spirited times, Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985) have praised civic friendships for facilitating the larger community by serving the social order and derided private relationships for their “therapeutic” cast.

Thus friendship’s role as a double agency is categorically vulnerable in American culture. Within a particular dyad, a friend can be criticized or congratulated for asserting a public or private aspect of the relationship in a given situation. Simultaneously, depending on the cultural mood of the day, that same person may be, in contrast, publicly condemned or praised for the same actions. This private/public dialectic interacts with the ideals and realities of communicating in friendship.

The Dialectic of the Ideal and the Real. This dialectic formulates the interplay between the abstract ideals and expectations often associated with friendship and the nettlesome realities or unexpected rewards of actual communication between friends. Indeed, refined and idealized images and forms of friendship develop in the public domain at given historical junctures and are culturally transmitted. Therefore, despite its marginal status vis-à-vis other social roles, people are socialized into normative expectations regarding certain ideal conceptions and practices of friendship (Sampson, 1977; Brown, 1981).

The following characteristics are common to ideal-typical descriptions of friendship as a close dyadic relationship in our culture. First, friendships are essentially voluntary. People make and unmake friendships of their own choosing and according to their own standards; outside sources cannot impose friendship on two persons. If individual choice is ruled out, friendship is precluded (Naegele, 1958). Second, related to its voluntary nature, friendship is a personal relationship that is privately negotiated between particular individuals. One views a friend as a unique individual and not as a representative of a certain group or class, what Suttles (1970) calls the “person-qua-person” orientation of friendship. Third, a spirit of equality pervades friendship. Although friendship may develop between individuals of different status, ability, attractiveness, or age, some facet of the relationship functions as a leveler. Friends tend to emphasize the personal attributes and styles of interaction that make them appear more or less equal to each other. Stressing equality minimizes the risk of exploitation in the relationship (Fiebert & Fiebert, 1969; Kurth, 1970). Next, mutual involvement characterizes friendships. The bonds of friendship result from the collaboration of two individuals in constructing a shared social reality. This interpersonal reality evolves out of and furthers mutual acceptance and support, trust and confidence, dependability and assistance, and discussion of thoughts and feelings. Friendships comprise ongoing, mutual achievements (Harre, 1977). Finally, as a voluntary, personal, equal, and mutual relationship, friendship implies affective ties. Positive feeling, caring, and concern for the other, the touchstones of companionship, exist between friends. And while friends may feel profound love for each other, the love of friendship is usually distinguished from sexual or romantic loving, with their overtones of possessiveness and exclusivity. Even so, relationships involving these latter forms of loving may also include or aspire to the ideal-typical characteristics of friendship as well (Brain, 1976; Rawlins, 1982).

Of course, the extent to which the above combination of qualities is possible, encouraged, or actually practiced by friends depends on their encompassing social circumstances. For instance, Naegele (1958), maintaining that a dialectical relationship between “norms of personal and impersonal conduct” produces a given epoch’s guidelines for both types of interpersonal activity, observes, “Indeed, ideals of impersonal relations are necessary for the elaboration of our kind of ideals of personal relations” (p. 236). If a given era encourages less reserve with relative strangers, heightened strategies for revealing oneself to another may be endorsed to distinguish friends. When people are encouraged to be friendly with everybody, certain practices become necessary for indicating friendship. In contrast, if the norms of impersonal communication promote distance and considerable politeness, more personalized dyads may deviate from rigid stylized expectations without exposing significantly private thoughts and feelings. As mentioned earlier, these practices will receive differential endorsement in terms of a particular cultural epoch’s valuations of the public and private spheres, and the appropriate communicative strategies for linking them (Rawlins, 1985).

In addition, Liebow (1967) argues that the public and private realities impinging on the tenuous nature of friendship as a cultural double agency result in its frequent idealization. He states:

Lacking depth in both past and present, friendship is easily uprooted by the tug of economic or psychological self-interest or by external forces acting against it. The recognition of this weakness, coupled with the importance of friendship as a source of security and self-esteem, is surely a principal source of the impulse to romanticize relationships, (pp. 206-207)

In his view, idealized images of friendship derive from, yet serve to mute, concerns about its sometimes harsh situational realities and vulnerabilities.

Whether it is championed as a vital, idiosyncratic haven from a humdrum, bureaucratized social order or simply endorsed as a humanizing complement to a complacent conventional society, the notion of friendship retains idealistic overtones. The Western conception of this bond, Van Vlissingen (1970) maintains, reflects a constant from ancient Greek thought, “In order for a friendship to last it must be permeated with ethical concerns” (p. 230). Thus, as a cultural ideal, friendship appears to be a categorical repository for the hope of a mutually edifying moral covenant voluntarily negotiated between people.

The discursive practices of friendship both manage and regenerate the tensions between its ideal and real forms. According to Bloch (1971), the terminology of relationships can pivot between “moral and tactical meanings.” The moral meaning of friendship terms indexes its idealistic connotations in our cultural system of values. Describing someone as a friend or speaking in the name of friendship draws on cherished categorical notions. In contrast, the tactical meaning of friendship labels uses their moral associations in the interest of transforming social situations and strategically defining certain types of relationships. As a result, the specific meanings of these friendship terms derive from how they are operationalized in given cases.

Actual discourse within and about friendships appears to blend moral and tactical meanings in constituting a range of relationships that runs the gamut from private to public in scope and responsibility, and from idealistic to realistic in primary impulse. Thus the word friend itself has multiple meanings, including moral ones, and can be employed tactically to reflect changing social circumstances and various definitions of self and others. For example, the term may be used to acknowledge someone who has fulfilled various expectations personally or culturally associated with friendship, to recognize an affectionate and loyal other, or to ingratiate oneself to another person. The word may be withdrawn under contrasting conditions to emphasize social distance (Jacobson, 1976). Maines (1981) states that the unspecified use of the word friend renders it “a catchall term which is conventionally understood and recognized as having no fixed referent outside of the situation itself” (p. 172).

However, the prevalence of distinctions between “real friends” versus “casual acquaintances” and the preoccupations with determining gradations of friendship register the problematic aspects of managing friendships in the face of such situational definitions and the persistence of and need for moral meanings of the term. A variety of expressions and nicknames are typically developed to indicate degrees of intimacy and the communicative aspects of relationships (Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980). People reflect cultural values in developing core conceptions of what they variously term “best” or “real” friendship and then identify and rank other relationships according to their achievement of its defining attributes (Rawlins & Holl, 1987; Rawlins, Leibow-itz, & Bochner, 1986). Investigators have shown that these categories are rather resilient and are preserved by certain strategies. For example, a person who actually achieves a “best” friendship typically will view it as continuing even without identifiable rewards or interaction (Allan, 1979; Rose & Serafica, 1986). Yet, should a best friendship unequivocally end, persons may decide that it could not really have been a best friendship in the first place. In both cases, one revises the perceptions of a given friendship while maintaining the ideals of friendship (Allan, 1979; Rose & Serafica, 1986).

Consequently, although friendship persists as an enduring cultural ideal, its purer forms are frequently experienced as elusive personal realities. There may be great ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 A Dialectical Perspective on Communication in Friendship
• 2 Childhood Friendships
• 3 Illustrative Analysis: Children’s Interaction in Friendships
• 4 Adolescent Friendships
• 5 Illustrative Analysis: Quandaries of Adolescent Friendship
• 6 Young Adult Friendships
• 7 Illustrative Analysis: The Communicative Management of Young Adult Friendships
• 8 Adult Friendships
• 9 Illustrative Analysis: Circumstances of Adult Friendships
• 10 Friendships During Later Adulthood
• 11 Illustrative Analysis: Patterns of Friendship in Later Life
• Conclusion: Vistas of Friendship: Individuation, Intimacy, and Community
• References
• Index