FRIENDSHIP

Friendship



Friendship

Introduction

We are all to a greater or lesser degree influenced by the opinions of others. Apart, possibly, from hermits and those psychologically inhibited from any social contact, we all seek to belong to a group or group of significant others. By accepting advice or information from key influential, we are more likely to receive approval (Mitchell, 2008). Conformity is rewarding: by conforming to the norms of the group or of significant others, we are more likely to be valued as a friend or colleague. Such conformity and its implied meaningful association with others make friendships particularly important for understanding consumer cultures. Friendships influence what and how people consume in terms of communicating and moderating acceptable forms of consumer behaviour (Ellison, 2007).

Theme of Friendship

The word friend is an umbrella term covering a wide range of actual relationships with different functions and degrees of emotional involvement. Despite what was said previously about the importance of friendship homophily, it is clear that spatial and social mobility encourages the development of sets of social relationships as people move through different micro-social worlds in their life course (Schwartz, 2007). One consequence of this is that some friends with different social trajectories will be living in different parts of the country and will have different styles of consumption—more lavish than the other friend could afford, or embarrassingly less affluent, “tasteful,” or whatever.

Types of Friendship

The idea of a “best friend” might seem to be generally acceptable, being close to Aristotle's notion encompassing a special kind of communication—another self. However, some reject the phrase as carrying connotations of schoolgirl crushes (Spencer & Pahl, 2006). Likewise, at the other extreme, some refer to quite shallow acquaintances as “friends” when the use of the label may not be reciprocated or when it is really being used as an index of popularity. Hence, even if it were possible to define a hierarchy of friendship salience, the labels for the different forms of friendship would be unlikely to acquire general acceptance. Furthermore, there may be distinct hierarchies along different dimensions (Mitchell, 2008). Thus, Aristotle's “friends of utility”—who provide specific functions, such as sharing the school run—may not also serve as Aristotle's third type as “friends of pleasure.” So-called fun friends are a distinct category often (but not, of course, always) kept separate from the other types. This range of different types of friends may be seen as composing a “friendship repertoire.

Childhood Friends

In the literature on children's networks, researchers usually define network relationships by friendship or affiliation. Friendship networks assess which children are friends with one another, thus capturing exchanges of social and emotional resources like social support. In contrast, affiliation networks assess which children “hang out” together, thus focusing on relations of physical co-location (Schwartz, 2007). Although these conceptual distinctions appear fine-grained, empirical research has demonstrated that friendship and affiliation networks have limited overlap and look different. For example, friendship networks have more isolates (individuals who have no relationships with peers) and are less stable (less likely to persist over time) ...