- Chandreyee Goswami
 |
| Source: Photo by Anna Shvets from Pexels |
What is it that strikes one first, when one
talks about friendship? The idea that friendship is not determined by birth. We
‘choose’ it. Sociologically, it is something we ‘achieve’, not inherit as part
of our ‘ascribed’ status. The story, however, could be more complex.
Let us try to understand what it means.
Referring to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, we can define friendship as not
a kin term, although it does imply some type of reciprocity and obligation
between otherwise unrelated individuals. This, however, varies in terms of
situation and context (Scott & Marshal, 2005).[i]
Thus, reciprocity is one of the important aspects of friendship but is not
adequate to understand what makes it a social relationship.
This brings us to the question of how do we
account for the obligation which friendship involves? Is it only on individual traits
that friendships are formed? Do our ‘social’ backgrounds matter? The
dominant nature of friendship research has tended to focus on friendships as a
phenomenon affecting individuals. Friendships were considered as personal
relationships formed at the level of a dyad. This made it difficult to connect it
with major sociological themes such as power, stratification systems, authority,
etc. which focuses on structural arrangements (Eve, 2002).[ii]
It was also because of this reason that they were largely studied within the field
of psychology. The focus was to look at an individual’s dispositions, choices,
and interests in deciding with whom one becomes a friend.
Consequently, in sociology, friendship
acquired the status of a residual category which was seen primarily in relation
to kinship. It is well known that both in social anthropology and sociology (particularly
of the non-western academia) kinship studies constitute one of the most crucial
units of analysis. It is even argued that preoccupation with kinship[iii]
specifically by anthropologists in investigating the social structures of
‘other’ societies has eclipsed separate studies on friendship (Killick &
Desai, 2010).[iv] Indeed,
most of the friendship studies have taken place within the matrix of kinship. It
is not to suggest that kinship and friendship are disparate entities as there
are overlaps between the two. But to develop a sociology of friendship, it is important
to look at friendship as it exists, without looking at it from the lens of a
pre-given social concept or category.
At this juncture, let us return to our
question about the voluntary nature of friendship. We usually talk about
matching of ‘wavelengths’, or an instant ‘click’ while recalling how we become
friends with someone. This is indeed true and friendship does seem like free-floating
devoid of the structural location where one can become who he or she is,
expressing one’s true ‘self’. However, this expression of self is contingent on
the social and economic locations of the individuals.
It is because the underlying basis of most
friendships is ‘equality of exchange’ i.e.; what one does now is reciprocated
in some equivalent form by the other (Adams & Allan, 1988).[v]
Friendships are thus, socially constructed, developed, and endured by
individuals in specific historical contexts, which have an ‘influencing effect in
structuring the relationship’ (Adams & Allan, 1988). With whom we become
friends is rarely just a personal matter. Rather, individual friendships are
susceptible to being influenced by personal networks (Allan, 2011).[vi]
Further, this reciprocity that exists in
modern friendships is usually seen as affective without any interest involved.
There is a very common sense understanding that friendship is not to be ‘used’,
rather it is ought to be disinterested
In western sociological studies on
friendship, class and growing individualism have become prominent vantage points
through which it has been studied. This is primarily because of the scale
and intensity of modern processes which has majorly affected the social
structure of western society. The idea of intimacy too has also changed. A
shift has taken place from intimacy based on ascribed relationships to that of individual
choices. There has been a growing interest in the value of examining human
relationships including non-conventional forms of sexual or love relationships
and friendships(Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004)[viii].
While looking at friendship in non-western
societies, we have to take into account that the process of modernisation may
not follow the same course as the west. For instance, in India, there has been
juxtaposition, contestation as well as aligning of the two sets of ideas, that
is, ‘modern’ and ‘tradition’. Tradition itself has been recast or reinvented.
In contemporary India, even as we are moving towards an increasingly individualised society, the affinity to one’s social group is still strong. In this context, how then do we look at the idea of equality and reciprocity which friendship entails? Studies on friendships in India has shown that young college going boys sometimes do transcend their caste and class location and challenge the community’s standardised notion of masculinity (Osella & Osella, 1998).[ix] The story is more difficult for women (Dyson, 2010).[x]
In India, traditional social hierarchies such as caste, class, ethnicities apart from regional variations and diverse cultures bear upon friendships. This also brings us to the question of equality expected of friendship that entails reciprocity. In the west, a true friendship would be one where one does not put one person above another. It doesn’t have a leader and a follower, there’s no hint at all of one person being better or worse than the other. It’s perfectly equal. In India, this may play out a bit differently. Stories of friendship in Indian films provide some answers. For friendships are influenced by both ideas of ascriptive ties akin to kinship. And kinship is already ingrained with power and hierarchy. It is within this curious mix that we need to look at friendship in our part of the world. The specificity of the context is crucial to unravel the meaning of friendship.
In the end, I would like to pose some more questions which might prompt us to think about friendship as one of the primary units of social life; not just within a dichotomy between voluntary-involuntary relationships. For instance, in what ways can we look at the role played by social and cultural capital while forming friendships? How do we understand agency and power in a friendship? What could be its possible role in a polarised yet multicultural and democratic society like India? The call for understanding these questions leave tremendous scope for greater reading and research on friendship.
[i] Scott, J., & Marshal, G. (2005). A Dictionary of Sociology. United
States: Oxford University Press.
[ii] Eve, M. (2002). Is Friendship a Sociological Topic? European Journal of
Sociology, 386-409.
[iii] Robin Fox in his book Kinship and Marraige: An
Anthropological Perspective states that kinship in simple terms is
defined as the relation between kin i.e.; persons related by real, putative or
fictive consanguinity. Consanguinity has been differentiated from affinity that
is relatives by blood from relatives by marriage (Fox, R. (1967). Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective.
England: Cambridge University Press).
[iv] Killick, E., & Desai, A. (2010). The Ways of
Friendship: Anthropological Perspectives.
[v] Adams, R., & Allan, G. (1988). Placing
Friendship in Context. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
[vi] Allan, G. (2011). Commentary: Friendships and Emotions. Sociological Research Online.
[vii] Pitt Rivers, J. (2016). The Paradox of Friendships. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 443-452.
[viii] Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of Intimacy and Care
Beyond the 'Family': Personal Life and Social Change in the early 21st Century. Current
Sociology, 135-159.
[ix] Osella, C., & Osella, F. (1998). Friendship and Flirting: Micro
Politics in Kerela, South India. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, 198-206.
[x] Dyson, J. (2010). Friendship in Practice: Girls' work in Indian Himalayas.
Wiley, 482-498.
Chandreyee
Goswami is an MPhil research scholar in the Centre for Studies in Sociology of
Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai.
Comments
Post a Comment