robert paine friendship

8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship

1/21

In Search of Friendship: An Exploratory Analysis in 'Middle-Class' Culture

Author(s): Robert PaineSource: Man, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1969), pp. 505-524Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2798192.

Accessed: 12/04/2011 17:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2798192?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2798192?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/21

IN

SEARCH

OF

FRIENDSHIP:

AN

EXPLORATORY

ANALYSIS IN 'MIDDLE-CLASS' CULTURE

ROBERT

PAINE

Memorial

University

fNewfoundland

Although

ocial

anthropologists

hemselves

ive

lives in which

friendship

s

probably

ustas mportant

s kinship,

nd

a good

dealmore

problematic

o handle,

in our

professional

ritings

e dwell

at length pon kinship

nd have

much

ess

to say about

friendship.

venture

ponthis

rticle

with

a

large

measure

f

dis-

belief t anthropologists'ffortsouncover riendship.he meagre ttentionthas

received

eems

obe a

function

fthe

formal

raditions

f our

discipline,

s

much

as

anything

lse.

For

example,

where

we

observe

ehaviour

n the

field

between

persons

who are

known

to

us

to be cousins,

we

are

very ikely

o

analyse

his

behaviour

n our

writings

s 'cousin

behaviour';

but

t

may

be no suchthing;

rather,

t

maybe

behaviour

etween

riends.

ignificantly,

ocio-anthropological

studies

ndertaken

y

someone

whose

formal

raining

as

not within

he

dis-

cipline e.g.

Laurence

Wylie's

1957)

monograph

n the

Vaucluse)

and auto-

biographies

y

the anthropologists'

primitives'

hemselves

e.g.

Baba of

Karo

recorded

yMrs

Mary

SmithI964))

frequently

evote

good

deal

of attention

o

friendship,oth san ntrinsicalueofhumanife ndas onewoven nto he abric

of

kinship,

conomics

nd

politics.

However,

also believe

hat here

reno

short uts

n the

omparative

ociology

of friendship.

o begin

with,

we have

to think

ard

bout

what

we mean

bythe

word

friendship'

hen we

use

it;

as Pitt-Rivers

emarks

n another onnexion

'let

us examine

heobjective

tatus

f the

terms

n which

the

quality

f inter-

personal

elations

redescribed'

I96I:

I

8i). Secondly,

hetradition

f

structural

analysis

n

our discipline

s surely

ndispensable

hen rying

o compare

he

nature

and

function

ffriendship

iththose

of

other

nterpersonal

elations

o

which

it

is close

n

oneway

or another.

hese

re the

wo objectives

f

this rticle.

heir

explicationeavesspacefor onlya preliminarynd partial reatmentf cross-

cultural

ifferences

n

friendship;

nstead,

he

argument

roceeds

o certain

on-

clusions

asedon

a notion

f

friendship

n ourown Western,

middle-class

ulture.

A

critical

pproach

Some anthropologists-e.g.

isenstadt

i956)

and Pitt-Rivers

i968a)-some-

times

ormally

efer

o

friendship

n

the

terms

f

Parsonian

ociology.

n

these

terms,

riendship

s,most

mportantly,

articularistic,

ffectively

oned

nd

diffuse-

ratherhanuniversalistic,ffectivelyeutral ndspecificParsons& Shils

g5i).

It

is

alsoregarded

s

other-oriented

ather

han elf-oriented,

hough

think

his

may

be questioned

s

being

misleading

see

below).

However,

the

Parsonian

framnework

as

not been

developed

o

much

effect

n the-

tudyof

friendship,


3/21


4/21

IN SEARCH OF FRIENDSHIP

507

The

affective

ontent.tsaffectiveature s,

all

agree,

one of the diagnostica

f

friendship;et o say s

much s to sayvery ittle xcept o present urselves ith

number f questions boutaffectiveelationships.itt-Riversaid sometime go

now, the criterion hich

distinguishesruefrom alse riendship

lees rom he

anthropologistnto he ealms fmotive'

I963: I39). Is

it

possible

o

carry

he

pursuit nto thisrealm?

What may we say aboutthe motives

f this

ffective

relationship?

Here theemphasisn anthropological ritings

eems o be onfriendship

s

the

act of

proferring

he

outstretched

and; suggest hat

t

may

be useful

o ook also

atthematter heotherwayround, amely, s the

ctoffinding

hand

whichwill

clasp

one's

own.

I mean that hebasic

motive',

or rather heaffective

eaning

and value, of friendships the ense fworthBriggs,

ersonal ommunication)

t

imparts o theperson njoyingt. f dared pell his utfurther,wouldsaythat

what

s

special'

about he ffective

spect

f

friendship

s that he riends someone

who understands

ne,

who

can

explain

ne to

oneself; lternatively,person

s

able

to see himself

n

his

friend.

This

point

of view casts

oubt

upon the utility

f

characterisingriendship

s

other- ather han self-orientedParsons

& Shils

ig5i);

indeed,

the notion of

'self-regardingentiment'Pitt-Rivers968b:503)

is

expressive,

n

part,

f what

I have

ust

said offriendship.owever,perhaps

he ffectiveature

f

friendship

is

bestcharacterised

n

sociological anguage

hat

laces

t outside

he

dichotomy

of other- r self-orientedelationships.

n his Reith

Lectures,

each remarks:

'In a formalense socialrelationships the inkbetween pairofopposed oles;'

and he

offersheexamples

ffather/son,usband/wife,octor/patient,mployer/

employeeI968: 57). However,friendshipelongs o

a class f relationshipsf

which his s not

true,

ut the

relationship

s

rather

etween ersons aired

n

the

same

ole i.e. friend/friend).

ther nstances-derivedrom he examples f op-

posed

roles offered

y

Leach-may include

relations

etweenparents, etween

married

ersons f the

samesex, between atients fthe same doctor, etween

employees

f the same

employer,

tc. These are

structurallyelatively

nen-

cumbered

elationships,

fact

which

s

often eflected

n

their ffective

ontent,

s

is

certainly

he ase with

friendship.2

Important

haracteristicsf

friendshiprising

rom his ffectiveontent re

thosehaving

o do

with

ts

fulfilment,

nd thenature fexchangeshat akeplace

within

t.

I

shall

ttempt

o

show-because

friendship

akes

mutual

emands

f

intimacy

ndconfidence

nd

because he

highest

ealisationfthese alues ccurs

n

a

relationship

hat s exclusive o the elected ew-how itsfulfilment

s

difficulto

attain nd to

maintain,

nd difficulto

perceive

rom utside herelationship.

Who

are

friends?

he

anthropologist

as

to

explain

the

conditions-indeed,

hemayfirst ave to discoverhem-underwhich uch strongffectiveond s

socially ermissiblend, econdarily,

heconditions nderwhich t s likely o be

a

lasting

ne.

Explanations

avehithertoended o oversimplifyatters. nc that

is

sometimes

iven

uns ike his:human

eings

eed

a

flow f affectivexchanges

with

ach

other;

n

societies here

kinship

oles re

strong

nd

unambiguous,

his

affectivexchange

s

normally uilt

nto

the scriptive

inship ystem;n societies


5/21

508

oB03ERT

PAINE,

where inship

olesre

mbiguousnd

optative,

owever,he ffective

xchange

takes lace

n the oluntary

nd

revocableelations

ffriendship.

n other

ords,

thererekinship-oriented.friendship-orientedocieties.hisview stoo

simn-

plistic,nd

at theroot

of t is a

misconception

bout

kinshipehaviour.

t is

precisely

n account

fthe

onstraintslaced

etween

insmen

here he

kin

role's

re

trongndunambiguous

hat

nemay

have o

move utside

he phere

of kinship roper,

o

findbrotherly

ove'-and

friendship

Burridge

957;

Schwimmer

.d.).What

itt-Rivers

ays f

ritual inship

salso

rue ffriendship

in many ituations:

s t

avoids

eingmplicated

nthe nternal

issensions

f

he

kinshiptructure,

or t

nvolves

o structural

ssues,. . it

swhat

ognaticinship

aspires

o,but cannot,

e'

(I968a:

4I2,

author's

mphasis).

Another

matters that

hewaymay

be openfor

kinsmen

o choose

friendsrom

among themselves,hroughncluding voluntary ole within-and in large

measure

ndependent

f-their ascribed

elationship

s kinsmen. ut

in

what

conditions

s this

ikelyto occur,

and-who

are

friends? nce

thisquestion

s

before

s,

there re a

number f others

hatneed

answers;

his s so

not simply

becausefriendshipas

a high

affectiveharge

but also

because t is,

in varying

degrees, voluntary

nda personal

elationships

well.

What

are the

principles

y

which

persons

elect nd

reject

ach

other sfriends?

What knowledges there

n a

communityf

thefriendships

here?

Whichkinds

f

personsre

permitted,

n

differentocieties,

o enjoya

relationship

f their

wn

choosingand

making?Put

in another

way:

to which already

xisting and

approved) elationshipsetween wopersonss itpermissibleo add friendship?

For instance, s friendship

verrecognised

n the

father/son

elationship?

Or

with

a

mother-in-law?

lternatively,

hich

relationships

re

precluded

between

wo

personsn

account f

their

xisting

riendship?

The importance

f these

questions

may

best be

brought

home

through

reference

o 'joking'

and other voidance

relationships.

hese

conventions

f

'avoidance'

areconstructed

o

avoid

structural

nd

psychological

spects

f

erious

roleconflictscf.

Radcliffe-Brown

952). This

s

doneeven

though

here

may

be

a

strong lement

f ascriptiononcerning,

.g.

who

becomeswhose

on-in-law,

nd

even though here reother scriptionslacedupon

the

son-in-law elationship.

In

thisperspective,

t would

be amazing

were friendship

lways

able

to

slip

by,

as it were,unfettered.

t

is a relationship

n

which trong

ffectiveonds

may

beestablished

hat

ouldwellembarrass,

o the

oint

f

hallenging

and

ometimes

do

so),

ets

f

rights

nd

obligations

hat re

developmentally

rior

o such

friend-

ship

ndare conceived

s indispensable

o

the

proper

unctioning

f

the

society.

Stated n this

way,

friendship

s the

polar

opposite

of

the

oking

relationship.

However,

s

friendship,

n

fact,

eft

unfettered'?

believe

t

may

be shown

hat

friendship

s a 'luxury'

that

annotbe afforded

either

y

the

ndividual

r

his

group)

nmany tructural

ituations.3

he

structure

f our own

society

s

peculiar

intherelative ermissivenesstaffordsn this espect.

I

will

now explore

athermore

systematically

ome of the ssues aised o far.

In

doing

o,

t s

necessary,

euristically,

o

posit

ome

firm

otion

f

what

friend-

ship

s-its

cultural

omplexity

nd variations otwithstanding.

nd

for

reasons

that must

extmake

lear, will

use

a notion

f

friendship

hat s

abstracted

rom

observation

f our

own

society.


6/21

IN SEARCH

OF

FRIENDSHIP 5 09

Friendships

ani

niterpersontal

elationshipn

Viddle-class

ulture

Methodology.n a theoreticalssay n friendshipnd ritualisedersonal elations,

Eisenstadt

I956:

90)

commented:

The various thnographicalapers

..

are nutmerous,ut usually ontainvery

ittle

comparativenalysis.While maniy f these nalyses how much nsight,t is nevertheless

my feeling hatmost f them o not analyse

n

a

systematicnoughwaythe onditionsn

which hese ypes frelationsxist. or

do

they ecognizeufficiently-iftall-someof he

basic haracteristics

nd

conditions

hich recommon o most f these

henomena.

The present ituation

s much

s

Eisenstadt

ortrayed

t n

1956.4

t

is

therefore

desirable

o

disregardnitially

he

factor f cultural

niqueness-of he different

forms

riendship

akes

n

differentultures-in avour

f an

effort

o

see which ew

factors

ave generative rimacy

n theformationf

friendshipompared

o

other

interpersonalelationshipsn a given ultural rameworkcf.Barth 966a).

This ask

s

attempted

ere

n

two

stages. irstly,

wo universal iacriticaf

nter-

personal elationships

orwhich

generative rimacymay

be claimcd re posited

anddescribed.

hese

are

rules

frelevancy

nd

standards

fequivalency;haracter-

istics f whatwe identify

s the

relationship

f

friendship

re

derived romn

hem.

Secondly, ther

kinds

f

interpersonalelationshipsccurring

n

the

same broad

cultural ramework

re examined

n

the

ame

way n

order hat

we

mayverify

he

distinctions

laimed

for

friendship.

I

will work,

s

suggested,

ith

n abstractionf

friendship

ased on our

own

Western,middle-class,

ultural ramework. ne reason

or

his

hoice

s

that

his

kind ffriendshipas receivedll too ittlettentionnanthropologicaliscussions

of

friendship;

hese

re notable

or

beginning

nd

endingwith,

et

us

say,

tribal

bond-friendship

r

theMesoamerican ond of

compadrazgo.

nother

easons that

our kind

of

friendships,

or

so

I

will

argue,

he one that

xists

n

greatestnde-

pendence

f

kinship

nd other nstitutional

rrangementsand

takes are

of our

affective

eeds

tolerablywell).

Thismakes

t a

felicitous

hoice

with

which

to

work, nitially,

n the

problems

f the nature nd

maintenance

f

friendship.

A

difficulty

n the

nthropologicalpproach

o

friendship

tems

rom hefact

hat

the

term

friendship'

s drawn

from he

stockof

everyday

words n

our own

culture,nd is explained yother veryday

erms

whoseexactmeaningsrenot

necessarilygreed pon.

The

choiceof

our own

Western ulture s

the

etting

f a

discussion

f the

meaning

f

friendship,

eansthat

t least

semantic

mbigui-

ties

re

more

ikely

o be

exposed

o

view,

and

perhaps

ome

of them

liminated.

One

problem

hat rises oncerns hedelineation

f social

relationships

n

terms

of

the

bounds f their

ermitted

ontent nd conduct. tructural

nthropologists

have

demonstrated,y

means

of the

concept

f

status,

hat

relationships ay

be

defined

hrough

eferenceo the

ural

constraints

laced upon

them.The

pro-

cedure

s not

adequate y tself, owever,mainly

or hereason hat

t

produces

definition

f a

relationship

ith

unchanging

oundaries.

t s this ind

of

nadequacy

thatGoffman's

I959)

workon impression-management'fstatusesxposes.The

present lea

s that

more

ttention

e

paid

to the

nterrelationf

he

wo

approaches.

When

Fortes

I95

3),

for

xample, peaks

f

jural'

constraints

e s

concerned

ith

rights y

charter

corporate tructure);

hen Goffman

peaks

f the

definition

of

the

situation',

e is concernedwith

rights

r

advantages

hat re

acquired y

strategy,

nd

for his eason

hey

will

be

changingights.

hese re

ognate

matters-


7/21

5IO

ROBERT PAINE

indeed, hey re

complementarycf Barth

966a;

i966b).

Yet they re

alienated

in

some

analysescf.Gluckman

968). I

believe

t s only hrough heir ombined

usethat nemayresolve he roblem fhow a particularelationshipsbounded-

of

its ocation

n a

socialsystem nd the operational onstraintsr

opportunities

placedupon t oraffordedo t.

Specifically,

think his

means recognisingnterpersonalelations

which s

really s much field f

enquiry orFortes s forGoffman)s comprisingsocial

infra-structure

o

the corporate

tructure elineated y Fortes nd

others. he

crucial uestions

oncern he

margins

hat re

available o persons orstrategic

dispositions,

)

within

he

frameworkf the corporate tructure,nd 2)

within

that of the infra-structuretself.

As

suggested lready p.

5o8),

friendships a

relationship hose meaning an

only be graspedby answering hesekinds of

questions.

Rulesofrelevancy.

he

rules

f

relevancy

re

offereds a

necessary

mediating

notion

between he by

charter' nd

by strategy',

nd

the group-centric'nd

'ego-centric' cf

Boissevain

968)

views

of

the

bounds of human

relationships.

Even

n the

ase

of

relationships

hat re

generated y

the

orporatetructure,

uch

as

militaryelationships,

he

operational

oundaries

re

open

to

contextual

djust-

ments.Where

relationships

re

founded ess

upon connexionwiththecorporate

structurend

more

on the

trategicispositions

f

the

persons, .g.

some

partner-

ships, cquaintanceships,

nd-above

all-friendships,heirboundaries

may be

determinedlmostwholly ontextually.t is thecontextual efinitionf bound-

aries

hat

may give

riseto what one

may

term

discoursewithin he

culture)

concerning

he

rules

f

relevancy;

hat

s

to

say,

bout

what

s

permissible

nd/or

desirablen the

relationship.

One

striking xample

s

the

rigorous

nd

explicit

ttention

aid

to

what is

permissible-in

ontent nd

conduct-in

the

English

court of law

procedure,

where

the

prosecuting

nd

defending

arristers

ake their

leas

and

raisetheir

'objections'

with

he

presiding

udge.

What

the

udge

is

adjudicating

n

this

hase

of

a

court ase

are, ndeed,

he

rules

f

relevancy.

n

quite

nother

ultural

etting,

there s Firth's

I963) description

f

the

laborate

onfrontationetween

Tikopia

chief nd

Tikopia

of

lower

echelons;

his

hows

how

the

principles y

which

power

s exercised

n

Tikopia

cannot e inferredrom he

tatuses

f the

persons

alone,

.e. from

he

nvariable oundaries

f the

charter'.5

Friendship,

n

this

onnexion,

s

remarkable

n

two

respects. irstly,

tsrules f

relevancymay

be

largely

iddenfrom

view

to all

outside he

relationship,

nd

from he

tandpoint

f

society

his an be

tantamounto an

absence

f

suchrules.

Secondly, riendship

oes not

have rules of

relevancy mposed upon

it from

outside.

Both

characteristics

pring

rom he

ntimate nd

confidentialature f

friendship.

his

meansthat

great

deal of

independence

s

provided

rom

he

basic lusterf tatusestherwisettachedopersons.t s,for xample, ot work

relationship,

nd

society

oes

not

recognise

ts

dependence pon

the

existence f

personal riendships

or

ts

smooth

functioningwhich

s not

to

say

that

uch

dependence

oes

not

exist).

As

friends, ersons

re not subordinates

r

super-

ordinates;

or s t much

of an over-statement

o

say

that

riends

ay

do

anything

and behave

n

any way

that

they gree upon,

within

psychological

nd

legal


8/21

IN SEARCH OF FRIENDSHIP 5 I I

restrictions.his may mean that behaviourbetween

friends eflects-is

ven

based

n-idiosyncratic

valuations

f

various

tatusesnd

roles

n

society

t

arge.

These valuationseednotat all accordwith hose xpressednthepublic ulture

(cf.

Szwed

966)

or

corporate

tructure.or

example,

friendship

etween wo

young rmy fficers

ay

ariseout of the

evaluation hat

hey

both

have

of the

officertatus s

providing

he occasionfor a

fuller

ocial

life,

rather han the

exercise

f

discipline,ower

or valour.

It is to

be emphasised hat

longside

nusual

closure' of the

relationship

n

regard o theworld

outside,

here xists nusual

openness'

between riendshem-

selves. orrowing

rom immel

I950: 32I),

we

may ay

hat

etween

riends,

'what

s

not

concealed

may

be

known',

and

very

ittle

s

concealed;

whereas n

relationshipshat re

ess han

riendship,

what

s

not

revealedmust

ot

be

known',

and thismaybe a greatdeal. The rulesof relevancyffriendship,hen, efer

principallyo the nternal

rrangement

f

the

relationship

ather

han o rules f

impression-management

or the

world

outside;

nd

within he

relationship

he

rules

efer

ess

ocontentnd more o conduct.

bove

all

else, he ules

frelevancy

in

friendship

elate o

thefact

hat riendsre

closely

oncerned

ith he

valuation

each

places

on

the

other.

deally,

friends

more

oncerned boutthis

han

he

is,

for

example,

bout the evaluation

ther

eople

make of his

friends. his

means

that

friendship

s

unusual lso

in

its

relative

isregard

f

the social

costs t

may

incur;compare

he

careful

way

this

ame matters

handled n

some

professional

relations

n

our

society. It

is

perhaps

n

knowledge

f this

temerity,

r

fool-

hardiness,hatwe at times ttempto protect hosenearto us bymoralisingo

them,

Remember

-A

person

s

udged by

thefriends e

keeps.')

The importance,

o

friends,

f the

evaluation ach

places

on the otherdraws

attention

o a

process

f

bonding'

as an

element

f

friendship

n

our

society. or

it

is

true hat ne

is

udged,

n

manyways,by

thekind

of

friends ne

has. This

view

recognises

s a

fact hat

riends,

t

east,

re

persons

f

one's

own

choosing;

that

they

re

one's own

responsibility,

nd

eventually

ecome a

part

of one's

social

person.

t is thebond whichfriends

esire o

exist

etween

hem-perhaps

jealously

nd

anxiously

esire-that

s

itself he

major

value

in

friendship.

his

bond

is

being

renewed

r

reaffirmed,

r

rejected,

n all

the

exchangeswithinfriendship.ut howmaywe measure his?

Standards

f

equivalency.

ll

interpersonal

elationshipsecessarilynclude

exchanges

etween

he

parties;

he

nature f

the

exchanges aries nd its

des-

cription,

n

each

case,

tells ne

much

aboutthe

nature

f the

relationship.

That

friendship

s based

upon

equivalency-though erhapsmutuality

s the

better

ord-should

not

be lost

from

ight.

ur

difficulty

rises

rom

he

fact hat

the

balance of

reciprocal

ehaviour'which

Pitt-Rivers

I968a: 4i2)

attributeso

friendship

s

usually

ot

discernible,

east

f

all

to

someone

utside

friendshipnd

perhaps otevento the friends hemselves.t is, n part, n act offaith orthe

friends;

or he

observert

s

argely

supposition,

n

the

ame

way as we

suppose

there o have

been an absence f balance

n

instances

here

riendshipsreakup.

But this

may

be

all too

flimsy,

s

well

as

hazy.

We

recognisehat

person

maybreak

his

friendshipespite pparent

eciprocity,

nd

we

know that

friendmay be

valued

as

one,

although

he does not

appear

to

reciprocateavours.

How often


9/21

512 ROBERT

PAINE

do

we

say,'

...

Can't

thinkwhy they're

riends '

r'

...

Can't

thinkwhat

X

sees

n

Y '?

I

think hepertinentointhere

s

that ne shouldnot try o impose

upon an analysis f friendshipdeas fromeconomic anthropologybout reci-

procity. his

s

because he equivalencymay

be

unique

n

each

nstance.n

parti-

cular,tmaybe independent

f

nstitutionalisedodes

f

equivalencye.g.money

or

exchange

f

ocio-economic

r

domesticervices)

ndfor his eason

may

not

be

recognised y other ersonsn

the

ommunity.

Friendships, perhaps, pure nstance f what Barth calls a 'relationship

f

incorporation' herea high compatibilityf assets romotes commonvalue

commitment,o that

a

value optimum

s

sought by all]for he um

f

partners'

(I966a:

4). (In the

aseof

friendshiphe

ssets re

quite ikely o be intangiblesnd,

at all events, ot readily ecognisableo theoutsideworld.)This being so,

is

friendshipereftfbargaining rocesses?hiscannot e so; but there o appear

to be

important

lterations

n

the tructure

nd

function

f

the

ordinarybargain'.

In othernterpersonal

elations

see below)

the

principle

f

the

bargain

s

to

each

what

he wants, n

proportion

o

what

he can

give';

and a

'good' bargain

or

person

s

one n which hevalue

of

what

he

receives

s

greater,

or

him,

han hat

which

he

gives cf. transaction',

arth

966a).

This notion f

bargain

lso

rests

upon

the

assumption

hat

heneeds nd valuesof A are not the ame as

B's,

but

those

f both

may

be forwarded

n

a

complementaryelationship.

his

may

ook

like

friendship,specially

n

regard

o

complementarity

f

needs,

nd it is

fre-

quently

educed

o

this; yet friendship ay

be

distinguishedonceptually.

s

suggested arlier,t is not a relationshiphat inks pposedroles.Expressed s a

bargain, ,

in his concernwithhisown ide f a

bargain

with

B, is,

n

friendship,

alsoconcerned

ith

's,

and vice

versa.6

Yet perhaps he

nature f the

xchange

nd

fellowship

n

friendships presented

with

most

erspicacityy

the

psychiatrist

.

D.

Laing,

wherehe

s

speaking

fthe

synthesisccurring

n

an us'

group or

a

'nexu&s'):

... [its]

nification

s

achieved

hrough

he

reciprocalnteriorizationy eachi f eachother,

in whichneither

'common

bject'

nor

organizational

r

nstitutionaltructurestc.have

a

primary

unction

s a

kind

f

group

cement' . .

(Laing 968: 72).

To this ne mayadd thatfriendshipsrebroken rom nside he relationship,

not from utside

t.

Further,ny ttenmpty

friends

o make n explicit tatement

of

what

their

riendship

hould

e

(in

order o

save

t) will probably nlyhasten

its

demise.

ignificantly,

his

s

less true

f

spouses nasmuch s their elationship

is

always,

n some

measure,

ased

upon

institutional

odes of equivalency,nd

also because

their

elationship

ith

each

other

bligates oth of

thenm

o other

people

as well.

Friendship

s

a

personal

nd

rivateelatiotnship.

herevert

s reported,riendship

is

considered

o

be a personal

elationship.Cf

the

Parsonian haracterisationf

friendships a 'particularistic'elationship.)riendshipn our kind of society,

however,

s

remarkable,

n the

omparativeiew,

s a

personal nd rivate elation-

ship.

This s

implicit

n

the

descriptionsgave

of

therules f relevancynd stan-

dards

f

equivalency.

et

us ook

at

the erms

personal'

nd

private' nd at their

respectivepposites,group'

and

public'.

First f

all,

we are

not

concerned erewith

hepurely ffectiveense f

personal


10/21

IN

SEARCH OF

FRIENDSHIP

5

1

3

as

warm' and

theopposite f impersonal', ut

with ts

ociological

imension.

Here, he pposite fa personal

elationships a

group elationshipcf. heParsonian

'universalistic').he probabilityf a high ffectiveontentna personal elation-

ship s apparent;

his eature,owever, s not

exclusive o t and

maybe presentn

group elations.

A

personal

elationships between articular

ndividuals. group

relationship

is between

mutuallyubstitutableersons,s

members f a group. t s n a

personal

relationshiphat man' . .

.

defines isrelationshipith nother

n thebasis fthe

experiencee hashad withhim'

Chiaramontenpress ) and

where'.

. . a

udge-

ment s

made t

eachpoint man hares n

experience ith nother'

Chiaramonte

in press ).

On

the

basis

of thisfundamental istinction

etween personal

nd

group

relations,nemay be able to pointto cultures here he elementsfa personal

relationshipre

so weak that here s nothing

pproaching urkindof friendship

(cf. isenstadt956; Cohen

96I). The distinctions, of course, hekind

spoke

f

earliers being

asedupon the jural' or by

charter' iew of

relationships;

ut

by

itself,t is too crude.Also

necessarys a contextual nd by

strategy' istinction

which

s

found n the

polar terms

private' nd public'.

This will

help

to refine

themeaning ffriendshipn our

culture,articularlyhrough

eferenceo relation-

ships

n

yet ther ultures

hich,

while hey re

personal ndrecognisablen many

respectss

friendship,redifferentrom urkind

ffriendshipcf.

isenstadt956;

Cohen

96I).

They are differentecause hey

ack the ttributefprivacy.

In ourculture, rivacy s widelyrecognised s the prerogativearticularlyf

personal

relationships. ates definesprivacy as '. .

. a person's feeling that others

shouldbe excluded rom

omething hich s of

concern o him, nd also a recog-

nition

hat

thers ave a right o do this'

I964: 429). Following immel gain

(I950: 369), one

maysay t s in a private

elationshiphat verybodys excluded

who

is

not

explicitlyncluded contra he

inclusion f

everybodywho

is

not

explicitlyxcluded).Privacy, n

this ense, s a deviceused n

group relations

s

well.

However, t

is

quite clear hatwhereused n

personal

elationstenhances

and

protects heattributesf a

personal elationship: ithout his

protection

personal

elationship ay not,after ll, be able

to

escape the

sanction

f third

parties rthegroup.

Privacy n

a

personal

elationship,hen,means that the

relationship ay

be

establishednd

maintainedndependent

f

referenceo thevarious

group-derived

statuses

f the ndividuals.t

also meansthatparticularndividuals

may

choose

whether r not

theywillcommunicateo others

he ontent nd norms f

conduct

ofthe

relations

etween hem. n

short,

he

hallmark

fa

personal/private

elation-

ship

s

the

greatmeasure f

autononmyffordedo

a

person, oth n

the

way

he

handles

he

relationshipnd n his

original

ecision o make he

relationship

nd n

any decision

o

break t.

Now it is precisely hiskindofrelationshiphat s a sociologicalluxury'that

cannot e

afforded

n

many ther

ulturesp. 508).

This

s

the ase

withmany

ond

relationships,

abelledethnographicallys 'bond

friendship'. elationsbetween

Baba of

Karo and herbond

friends ereto a

large xtent outinisedndopen

to

social

surveyance

Smith 964). Wherever oyalties o

kin are afforded

rimacy

over

those of all

other

relationships,rivacybetweennon-kin

s

likely

o be


11/21

5I4

ROBERT PAINE

disallowed

r, t east, isapprovedf This

s shown nBurridge'sI957)

description

offriendship

mong heTangu ofNew

Guinea. n allofthese ituations

and there

aremany) ublic erformance,s well aspersonal ights,ppears o be a characteristic

of

friendship'.

hereas rivacy nhances

ersonal ights,hesemay

exist nly n

attenuatedormwhere he

relationships conducted

n public.Consider ere he

restrictionsut upon Baba in her choice

of, and conductwith,

bond friends

(Smith964;

cf.the ociological hesis

n Eisenstadt

956).

The contrast etween ersonal nd

private ontraersonal nd public

ituations

hasvarious ther mplications

hichwemay ook at

brieflyn order o summarise

and

clarify

urtherhenatureffriendship

n ourculture.riendship

s characterised

in the iteratures voluntary

r outside he world of

ascription; ut this s most

true-or only rue-where

t

s

a personal

nd private elationship.

ne invariably

talks ffriendships being n institution.nasmuch sfriendshipsrecogniseds a

social elationship,t s an

nstitutionnthe imited nd

ratheroose ense

f bestowal

of

recognition;

nd

this

s

commonly

he extent fits nstitutionalisation

n our

culture,

here

t

amounts

o

a

kindof nstitutionalised

on-institution.

The

possibility

hat s

present

n a

personal/private

riendship

orcommunica-

tional losure

rom he

group,deserves

urthermphasis.

t

is

in this ense

hat

suggestwe

may regard riendshipn our

society s a terminalelationship.y

this

I

mean

hat

where

t

s

thewill ofthe

riends,

he ontent

r

conduct

f

friendship

may

not be

carried nto social nteraction

ith

other

ersons;

t

stays

nside he

relationship

hich

generated

t.

This

s

what

s

meant

y

an

intimacy

hat

njoins

confidentiality.ne maycontrastere hebroker oleand tsuse of ntimacy;ts

modus

perandi

s

the circulation

nd

processing' f

information

rom ne social

interaction,

r

one status et, o another. he kindof

terminalityoundn friend-

ship

rises ut of the

ubjective

valuationf a relationship

ith nother erson s

unique,

s

well

as

exclusive;

nd

the maintenancef

this valuationndependent

of

any group.

Here

friendship

s

similar o the relationshipetween

overs,

nd

both

re

contrasted ith

hat

etween pouses. n the atter,he xclusiveness

f

the

relationship

s

urally

onfirmed

n

the

bestowal f n

rem ightsnd obligationsas

well

as

others f the

n

personam

ind: cf

Radcliffe-Brown

952);

and as these

re

the same

n all

instances,

he

ndividual

elationship

s not unique. n theformer,

however, he uniqueness' hat s addedto the exclusivenessf therelationships

means,

n

effect,

hat

hey

re

beyond

ural reach.

That

friendship,

evertheless,

may

be

nurtured

oluntarily

ithinhe

formal onstraintsf

a

spouse elationship

is a matter

onsidered

n

thenext

part

of this rticle.

In

summary,

he

making

nd

breakingf friendships

n

our society

s

largely

matter f

personal

hoice hat

s

beyond

ocial

control. urther,

he

content

f

a

friendshipannot e

at allaccuratelyeterminedrom

position utsidet,while

friendshemselves

re

unlikely

o be able

to predict he

ourse hat heir riendship

will

take,

r

its

ease of

ife. t is

also

a

relationship

f

emphatic

onfidence.

ere

we havethree haracteristicsftrue riendshipnourculture:utonomyas opposed

to

ascription), npredictability

as opposed

to

routinisation)

nd

terminalityas

opposed

o

open-endedness).ingly,

hey ppear

n

relationships

therhan

riend-

ships;

but

s is

only

here nd

in

the

few

other

ersonal/private

elationships

hat

they ppear

n

combination.

his s

especially emarkable hen one

recalls

hat

friendship

xists

longside

ther

udimentaryelationshipshat

re all carefully


12/21


5

I

5

regulated;

nd

that riends

re chosen rom mong ersons ho are also kin,

neighbours,

r

businessssociatesf neselfrofyet ther

eople.

Relationships

n

middle-class

ulture

hatre ess han riendship

By using henotionsf

rules frelevancynd tandardsf quivalency,have

suggested

he

unique ualities

f friendshipn our ownmiddle-classultural

frameworks

a

personalndprivateelationship.he distinctions

hat avebeen

claimed or t

maynow

be validatedrom similarxaminationf othernter-

personalelationshipsn this ulture.esidesmakinghe ormal

istinctionsith

friendship,attempt

ere o suggesthe ircumstancesnwhich ome f these

other

elationships

bsorb

nd nclude

friendshipole.

Acquaintanceship.cquaintanceships, ordinarily,ota relationshipf con-

fidencerintimacy,

nd

therefore

ot a terminal

ne. ndeed,

great eal of

information

s

trafficked,oosely

nd

widely ndfrom erson

o person,etween

thosewho recognise

achother

s

acquaintances'.he code of conduct f ac-

quaintanceshipay

e

little

laborated

nd

mpart

'surface' haractero this

relationship.owever,

uch f

what

ppears

o be

superficial

bout

he elation-

shipmay

rise ut

f tructuralonstraints.

cquaintanceship

ay

e n

mplication

of

persons eing eighbours;

ndthis-kind

f

association

arries frontf con-

geniality

hich

may

ither

e

mandatory

ra

sensible

recaution

aken

ymany.

Goffman

akes he ame

oint; cquaintanceship

s one

of the institutionshat

pertainpecificallyothe rivilegendduty fparticipatingn face ngagements

.

. .

the

ights

f

ocial

ecognition

ormhe

rincipal

ubstance

f he

elationship'

(I966:

II2,

II3).

Acquaintanceship

as

structure

hat ot

nly tops

hort f

friendshipSimmel

I950:

320)

but

s

also,opposed

to

it

in

several

espects;

nd

acquaintancesannot,

therefore,

lso be

friends

as

can, e.g. spouses). ndeed,

n

importantspect

of

acquaintanceship ay

be

phrased

s

the

problem

of

controlling

nd

curbing

approaches

o

intimacy.

n

acquaintance-commonly

or easons f

occupational

competition

nd of

exclusive

oyalties

o other

ersons-may

mpartittlenforma-

tionabouthimself. ut there re alwaysotherpeoplewho have a relationship

closer han

cquaintanceship

ith

one's

acquaintances.

ne

may,oneself, ave

a

closer

relationship

ith

some

of theseother

persons

nd

so

learn

from hem

great

deal

about one's

acquaintances.

hus

a

feature f

acquaintanceship

s

its

mediation

y

other

elationships

hat re outside

t. t is here n

particular

hat t s

structured

n the

diametricallyppositeway

to

friendshiphich,

s I

have said

(p. sii),

is

unusual

n

)

its

closure' in

regard

o the

worldoutside,

nd

2) its

'openness'

between

he

friendshemselves.

cquaintanceship

s

also unlike riend-

ship

n

that

t is unaffected

hen

extended o

include everal r

manypersons;

indeed,

t

is

one of the

relationships

n which

networks re

commonly

ased.7

Otherwise,ne notes hatwhile he riendsfmiddle-classeople remostlyfthe

same

class

themselves,

ower than

middle-class

ersons

whom

the

middle-class

people

know

are more

ikely

o

be

acknowledgedmerely

s

acquaintances.

Acquaintancesespecially

when

both are

middle-class)

may

become

friends,

and in

many

nstances

acquaintanceship'

sually

efers o but a

temporary

nd

literal

getting cquainted'

role

that

s

a

prelude

o

friendship. owever,

am


13/21

5I6

ROBERT

PAINE

concerned,

y

contrast,with

acquaintanceships an established

elationship

between

ersons ho

arealready amiliaro

eachother.t s ikely

o be enduring;

indeed, his s often life-longelationship.t has tsown set of constraintsnd,

as

someofthese re

nimicableo

friendship,he onversion

f an

acquaintanceship

tofriendship

ecomes

he ess ikely he

onger he

cquaintanceship

ontinues.

Conversely,here

s

the uggestion

n

GoffmanI966: II

4)

that

eople

who

once

were 'close'

may,

even

involuntarily,

ustain

he minimal

kind of

exchanges

associated

ith cquaintanceship,

.e. they reboundto continue

o recognise

ach

otherwhen

confronted

y each

other.

Partnerships.hese

maybe

ascribedtypicallyetween

uch losekin

s

brothers)

or

voluntary; hey

maybe short-termr

ong-term.hey may

also be

viewed

s

'alliances'.Where t svoluntarynd valued, partnership aygain omeof that

sensitivity

haracterisingriendshipe.g.

Galsworthy968;

Mann 924).

Yet

partnerships a

relationship ith number f

significant

ifferences

rom

friendship.sit s

task-oriented,ts

rules frelevancy

nd standards

f

equivalency

are

usually

xplicit.

ts

ontent

nd

conductwill

have

definiteectors

nd

degrees f

ascription

nd

routinisationas opposedto

autonomy

ndunpredictability).he

terminal

uality

f

friendship ay

be evident

n a

partnership

n

respect

o

certain

aspects f ts

task;yet

even n these, he

relationshipf confidence

may well

be

qualified,

nless he

persons

re

also

confidenthat heirss a

partnership

n the

long-term.

or

an

ex-partneran-or

will-become

a

rival.

Thus the

danger

f

over-investing

n a

partnerships

a

very ealone.Other

spects

f the ask hared

bypartners illcallfor

nteraction

ith ther

nterprisesnd with lients,

nd not

expresserminalityt

all. Beyond

therealm f the ask

hared ythem, he

ocial

behaviour

etween artners ay

be similaro that

etween

cquaintances.

There re

here everal actors

avouring

reatertabilitynd ess

risk npartner-

ships han n

friendships,nd

think hey elp o explain

he ar

widerdistribution

(also

cross-culturally)

f

partnerships.asically, hey

elate o the

higher egree f

understanding

f

partnerships,

nd

hence f

their

cceptance, ythe

remainderf

society, han s thecase

withfriendships.or

partnershipsot

onlybelong

to the

personal/publicector, ut thereasons ortheir stablishmentsuallyrefer o

ecological

nd

economic

ircumstances

hose

mportance

s

popularly ecognised.

The

same cannot

e said of

friendships.n important

mplicationhat

omesto

light ere s

the educed

ocial osts actorn

partnerships,

ompared o what t

s

n

friendships.

oreover,nasmuch s

a manmaybe seen

o have ust causeto break

off

partnership,

he

ctmaynot be

unjustlyeld

gainst im nthe

ommunity;

but

as

friendships

re

not

open

to

view in

this

way,

broken riendships

re

com-

monly

he

ubject

f

speculative

ommenthatmaywell

beunjustly

amaging.

In

conclusion, hen, gainst he

apparent

reaterwarmth' of

friendshipver

partnershiphere re

a

number f

iabilitiesttached o

friendship.hese

may be

locally ecognisednddeter ersons rom mbracinghis pecial elationship.ne

of

theusual

iabilities

s

the

ubstitutionf

balanced'

or

specifiedor general'

or

unspecified

eciprocity

cf.Sahlins

965).

Professional

elationships.he

kind

f

relationshipshat have n

mindhere nclude

those

of

lawyer/client

r

doctor/patient,

nd otherswhose

typicalnormative)


14/21

IN SEARCH OF FRIENDSHIP 5 I 7

habitat

n

our culture s, perhaps,middle-classnd urban.But also included re

such characteristicural and village relationshipss pastor/parishioner,hop-

keeper/client,choolmaster/parentnd, not least, visiting nthropologist/local

inhabitant. hese are akin to partnershipsnd unlike riendshipsn

that hey rc

task-orientednd usually ound by explicit ulesof relevancy nd standards f

equivalency. ut the professionalelationshipsan also be contrasted

ith both

partnershipsnd friendshipsn several espectshat re mportantnd, trust, ot

unduly bvious.

One approaches hese professionals'or service hatneither partner or

a

friend an ordinarilyrovide, r, n fewer nstances,houldnot be burdened ith.

The service equiredmaybe one that allsfor kills hat reesotericprovision

f

spiritualbsolution) r plainly echnicalextracting tooth); the

relationship

n

both ases sthus asedon a gross ivision fa) roles ndb) labour, nd, herefore,

isclearlyeparatedrom oth artnershipndfriendship.lternatively,he roblem

facing personmay be one thatdoes not necessarilyequire soteric

r technical

skills or ts

solution;

t is

simply personal roblem.

This also ordinarily

ies

outside he

pecific

ask-orientationf

partnerships;

or-more

significantly-does

one

always pproach friend.

There re certain hings hat

ne does not tell

friend ecause

e

is a friend. he

reason s not that ne cannot rust im. t is because hematter o be

divulged s a

'dark

secret' r one that

s

incompatible

ith ..

image

of self'

Goffman

959:

14I). The

strain hat his

lacesupon

a

friendship

ests

ltimately

n thefact

hat

catharsiss achieved t theprice f theembarrassmentr harassmentf a friend.

For

one friend

s

eft arrying

dark ecret

n

his

valuation

fthe ther

nd,

s

was

stressed

arlier,

riends

re

closely

oncerned

ith

he

valuation achplaces n

the

other.

Another

spect f

this

ame

matter

s,

of

course, ole conflict

nd people's

awareness f it; there re

circumstancesn

which

t

is believed ocally

that he

combination

f the

roles

of

friend/adviser

r

/attorney

r

/censor ould

break

friendshipcf.

Stouffer

Toby

ixsi).

Patron-clientelations.

he

gross

ivision

f

roles

nd

abourbetween atron

nd

client

esembles hat

of

professionalelations,

nd the

one

is

frequentlyncap-

sulated n the

other.Both

relationships

re

'asymmetrical'Wolf

I966).

Some

authors

elate he

asymmetry

o

relative

apacity

o

grantgoods

and

services.

While this

may

be

an

appropriate

haracterisationf

professional

elations,

believe

he

patron

nd client re more

properly egarded

s

possessing

omple-

mentary apacities

o

grant oods

and

services o

each

other,

nd

in

this

imited

way

their

elationship

s

congruent

ith

friendship. ather,

t is

in

its rules

of

relevancy

nd standardsf

equivalency

hat he

asymmetry'

etween atron

nd

client

istinguishesmphatically

heir

elationship

rom oth

rofessional

elations

and

friendship.

n

a

patron-clientelationship,

ut not

necessarily

or

evenordin-

arily nprofessionalelations,nd certainlyotbetween riends,heimposition

of the

values of the

one

party thepatron)

has

to

be

accepted y

the

other the

client).

hus:

... the

lient

emonstrates,

o

his

patron

nd

others,

is

cceptance

f the

value,

which

he

patron

as chosen

or irculation

etween

hem;

herein

ies

he

loyalty'

nd

dependence'

forwhich

he lient

s

rewarded. he reward fthe

patron

s

n

this

cceptancey

the lient


15/21

5

I

8

ROBERT

PAINE

of the chosen

alue.... Thus, he mportantervices f the

client o his patron

may be

considereds derivates

fthe erviceseceived y himfrom

hepatron; .g. the oyalty

nd

esteem f he lientrederivatesf he rotectionrovided y thepatronPaine npress).

Groupellowship.

n some ases, riendshipay xist

within nd ndependent

ofthe verall,olidarytructuref

uch nstitutionssmasonicodges, oluntary

associationsndreligiousenominations

and ge-sets,

egimentsnd ineagesn

other ultural

ontexts).

r,therexists nly omething

less han' riendshipor

the eason

hat

hemembersf he

roup r nstitutionave relationship

o each

other

nly

n

termsf heir edicationo t; .e. hey ave

hosenhe roupndnot

each ther,ormust hey egin o

choose etweenach ther ithinhe

roup.

Thismight

e termedinalienableroup riendship'cf

Cohen

96I)

weretnot

that,or he rgumentresented,hisontainsts wn ontradiction;t s omething

other

han

riendship

s

havedefinedt.

Relationsmong

in ndbetween

pouses.

n

many

ultures

kinsman

aybe

a

friend; evertheless,

robably

n all

culturesfriend'

nd

kinsman'reconcepts

that

re notonly istinguishable

uthighlyontrastable.

s

ourownculture

n

exception?

erhaps

hebasic ssue ere

s

what appens

hould personperson-

alise'hisrelations

ith

few ndividualsf hischoosingrom mong

whole

number

f

people,

ll

of

whom

rerelatedohim ndperhapso each ther.

The relationships

nferhe xistence

f constellation

f

rights

nd

obligations,

inrespectfwhich herere xplicitnd vert ulesfrelevancynd tandardsf

equivalency.

ut one

may require,

rom selected

ew

people,

more than the

services

nd

goods

that

re

one's

rights

y, .g. kinship.y

the ame

oken,

person

may

e either

nwilling

r unable o fulfilis

bligations

o allthose hohave

formal

laim o

them;

r

he

may

wish o

give, gain

o

a

selectedew

ndividuals,

more

han hatwhich

s

obligatory.

e will also

wish

for

degree

f

terminality

n

some

ofhis

relationshat

inship er

e

doesnot fford im.8

In middle-class

ociety,

his

problem

f the

opposition

etween

he values of

kinship

nd

friendship

s

minimal,

ow that

inshipays

o much

ess laim

o

the

loyalties

nd

personal

ivesof the

ndividuals,

nd

property

ights

re

ncreasingly

a

matter

eyond

kinship.

hus

friendshipseplace

kin ties and friends

may

be

intimates,

ll without

much cultural

uss.ndeed,

ur

society

s

peculiar

n two

counts

here: one

is

the

emergence

f

friendship

ith so few

institutionalon-

straints;

he other

s

the

way

in

which

the

njunctions

f

kinship

ave

changed,

where

they

have not

lapsed,

n

a

direction hat

brings

hem

closer

o

thoseof

friendship.

n

former

imes,

kinship

ules

were

noteworthy

s

injunctions

f

minimum

xpected

onduct,

s is

still he case n

many

other

ultures.n

respect

of

gift-giving,

or

xample,

herules old

kinsman

hatwas

expected

fhim

in

some

cultures,

he

exact

giftsmight

ven be

stipulated);hey

did not

place

in-

junctions ponhimto makegenerousifts. his sno longer rue f middle-class

behaviour

where

generosity

s a value at

least

between

pouses,

etween

arents

and their

hildren,

nd

the

parents'

iblings

nd thosechildren.

Generosity,

f

course,

s of the essence f

friendshipverywhere,

nd has

always

been so.

Like-

wise,

our kin ties

exclusive

f

aflmal

ies

here)

were

formerly

otable

fortheir

durability;hey

were

even considered

s

irrevocable

y

their

ery

nature.

hus,


16/21


519

while

ong

absences

ould

meanthat

riendships

aned

and apsed, cousinwho

returnedo his natalcommunityfter ears f absencewould

probably esume

there herightsndobligationsf cousinhood; ndeed,he may havebeen forced

to

do so. But today, n ourmiddle-classulture specially, hile bsent

riends ay

keep theirfriendshiplive

more easily by letter-writing,in tiesare allowed

(selectively)o wane

at

thewillof the ndividual

insman.

It is

when kinsmen re

rivalsbecause

hey

re

kinsmen hatone still

inds n

middle-class

ociety

omeofthe

raditional

njunctions

f

kinship,

nd

the

polarisa-

tionof theroles

f kinsman

nd friend. his

s,

of

course,

common

mplication

ofsiblingship

here

iblings

re co-heirs. n the other

hand,

where

iblingsre

not competitors,heircloseness'

s kin

may generate

wide

range

f

behaviour

between

hem, ncluding

lements

f

friendship.

It is this ast lternativehat s a probable xpectationevencross-culturally)f

the

relationship

etween

pouses.

or

)

they

re

ordinarilyo-producers

nd

co-

consumers nd

oint

custodians f

an

estate,

r

at

least

hey

re not

competitors

(co-heirs)

or

t;

and

2)

while

society xpects

he

spouses

o

extend n

personam

rights

n each other o

persons

utside

he

relationship,

t is

also

recognised

nd

expected

hat

hey

ave

an

exclusive

elationship

ith

ach

other-to the

point

f

terminality-over

wide

range

of matters.9hus the

conjugal

relationship ay

spanthe

difference

etween he

personal/public

nd

personal/private

ectors

f

social life.

At the same

time as

spouses

follow

explicit

ules of

relevancy

nd

standards

f

equivalency

n the one

sector,

heir

elationship ay

have

a

private

aspectwith diosyncraticnd diffuseehaviour,nwhich tapproachesriendship.

Conclusion

In

the

first

art

f this rticle

tried

o

suggest

ome

of

the

questions

hat

hould

be asked

about what

is

recognised,

ometimes ather

ncritically,

s

'friendly

behaviour'. This behaviour

may

be

subjected

o different

ultural

nd

social

constraints,

ach with

its own

implications

or

friendship;moreover,

he

be-

haviour

may

not

be

denoted

erminologically.

n the

next

part

of

the

article

systematic

elineationwas

made of

ideal

properties

f

friendship

n

our own

society;finally,

hese

properties

ere illuminated

nd

verified hrough om-

parisons

with

those

f

other

nterpersonalelationships

hat

re

close to

but less

than'

friendship.

This

Western,

middle-class

ype

of

friendship

as

identified

ith

three deal

characteristics:

utonomy,

npredictability

nd

terminalityp.

5i4).

But an

im-

portant

elation

f co-variance

xists

etween

hem;

t

arises

ut of the

distinction

between

ersonal/private

nd

personal/public

ectors

f ocial

ife. t s as a

personal/

private elationship

hat he

autonomy

f

friendship

s

greatest;

nd

hence

rises

also

ts

unpredictability

nd

terminality.

t

is in

these

ircumstanceshat t is

least

institutionalised

nd

moreof

a

truly oluntaryelationship.

t s

also

true-though

thispointwas notdeveloped-that he dealcharacteristicsould be weakened

with- he extension

f

a

friendshipeyond

two

persons without

t

necessarily

belonging

o the

personal/publicector).

Rather

than

summarising

he

findings

more

fully,

we

may

more

profitably

look now

at

some

of

the

questions

ithwhichwe are

eft, articularlyegarding

thepremisses

f the

rgument.


17/21

520

ROBERT

PAINE

Friendshipoundaries:ross-cultural.hope

it may be accepted hatfriendship

is not

a residual

elationship,

n

the ense f

one left ver' to the ndividual fter

he hasassumed isresponsibilitiesn relationshipsf kinship, eligion nd econ-

omics;

and

hope

t

may

be

accepted

hat

riendship anifeststsown structure,

strategies

nd

principlesf

selection.

hese things

re also true f friendshiput-

side our

own

culture,

s is

well

shown

byBurridge

I957),

Gulliver

I955)

and

SmithI964). Nonetheless,he

rucial ndvexing uestion n the nalysis-indeed,

in the

analysis

f

any non-corporate elationship-is

hat of its boundaries

(cf.

p.

509).

One

may

ask

doubtingly

whether

'...

concepts such as "personal" and

"private",

while useful

ategories

n our

own society, re ... readily ransfer-

able

to ...

primitive

societies'

(Schwimmer,personal communication). Again,

how generals thedistinctionrivate/public?t onelevel, heanswers that he

validity

f

the

present

rticle s

unaffected,ven should ts distinctionsrove to

have

most

imited

pplication ross-culturally;

ndeed,

his

would

verify

ts

thesis

thatour

kind

of

friendship

s most

distinctive,erhaps nique. However, one

would be unable

to

proceed

t all with comparative nalyses

were one

using

measuring

ods

that re

shownto be

'unique'

to

one culture. or this

reason

t

may happen

that

he

frame

f

reference

sed

in

the present nalysis as to be

modified

nd/or xpanded without

ecessarilybandoningt) for

he

purpose

f

cross-culturalomparisons

f the

meaning

f

friendship

nd ts

manifoldtructural

forms.

A related uestion fmethodology resentstself.My ownpreliminaryearch

of

the

iterature

where

have

been

disproportionately

oncerned

ith Western'

cultural reas)

hows

nteresting

lues n thematter fthe

boundaries

f

friendship.

These

are

most

often ssociatedwith

kinship

nd

conjugal

roles:

e.g. 'cunny

kin' (Faris I966), conjugality Bott

I957;

Chiaramonte n

press),

cousin'

(Pitt-Rivers963)

and simbor distant ross-cousins'

Schwimmer .d.).

n

these

examples

nd

others, riendship

oundaries-notable

s

boundaries

f

affective

relations-are

deducible

fromkindsof data that

are

present

n

most anthro-

pological monographs owadays.

While

the moral

of this

houldnot be

lost,

namely,

hatthere s no occasion

here

to

abandon the structural

pproach,

question

hat

resents

tselfs whetherhis

pproach

equires

o be

adapted

o new

kinds

f

data?

Consider,

s an

example,

his

assage

n

theFirth

nd

Djamour tudy

of

kinship

n the

South

Borough

of

London:

As an

hypothesis

t

might

e

argued

ere

hat he

prime

haracteristic

f theSouth

Borough

kinship ystem

ies n this

spect

f

selectivity

n a

basis

of

emotional

ttachmentather

than n a

basis

f

formalized

ies. t

has

freedom

o

treat

omekin

on a

basis fclose

elation-

ship

nd to

relegate

thers o social

imbo,

o

summon

p

or

lay

down

the

value

believed

to nhere

n

kinship

ore r ess

t

will.

To

be

able o treat

inship

s an

nstrumentf

ocial

expression

s

personallymportant

n

the

South

Borough ystemFirth956: 44).

I suppose hat adthefieldworknd ts ubsequentonceptualisationeendone

from lightly

ifferent

erspectives,

he

authors

would have been able

to

say

a

great

eal

about

friendship

oundaries.

he

workofRoberts

I965)

on Zuni s

also

interesting

n

this

regard.

romi

is

enquiry

irected

o

the

scaling of]

a set

of

thirty-four

in and

noln-kin

erms

long

a dimension

f

probable

llocation f

support',

there

s

this

onclusion:


18/21

IN

SEARCH

OF FRIENDSHIP

5

2

I

Friends,hen, onothavemuch laim

n the llocation f support

yZulnis,f the resent

terminologicaltudywill

ustify uch

geileralisation.

f a

Zuni wishes o indicate igher

conmmitmenthan he caleposition f friend'would warrant,e is likely o employ he

device ffictitiousinshipr the evice

f adoption. firstndicationf mprovement

s the

use of kin termss a courtesy. he author,

or xample, rogressed

roin

eing alled

friendo being alled

yotmger

rother

y someZunis

I965:

42).

I

venture o expand

he

conclusion

n thisway. Roberts's

tudy oes not show

friendshipo be absent mong heZuni,

butrather hatt ordinarilyccurs

within

the

mbient fkinship

nd s always onceptualised

n

ts

diom. t s for his

eason

that hetermsorfriend' nd best

friend' eceive ow scores n theRoberts

est,

although uni

clearly o have friends,nd theymay

even value highly

he re-

lationship f friendship'.he observation

ust cited rom heFirth nd Djamour

studywould seem

o be pertinentmongZuni as well,

namely, . . . to be

able to

treat

inship s

an instrumentf socialexpression

s

personally

mportant'.

his

bringsmeback to thepoint hat ehaviour

etween articular

insmenmay

not

necessarilye kin

behaviour'; t couldbe friendshipehaviour

p.

505).

Roberts's

enquiry uggests

he additional ossibilityhat,

n

some cultures,

friendship'

values

may,

nfact, e the aluesof

certain inrelationships,hile

not

of others.

Whichrelationships,

hen?We can

only

findout about thesematters y des-

cribing hepropertiesffriendship,

sopposed o those

f

other ocial

elationships,

in

each culture.

The circumstances

f

ntinmacy:

urown ulture. n some

cross-culturalvidence,

it would seem hatdealpostulates

bouthuman elations

re commonly ut nto

thenotion ffriendship,

ather hannto ther nterpersonal

elationsike cquain-

tanceship r partnership.

hat is rather emarkable

bout our own culture,

however,

s

the

way in whichthismatters handled

perationally.he highest

ideals f friendship

re a) proclaimeds realisablend b)

notprotectednstitution-

ally.

n

otherwords, dealfriendship

s

ocated

by

us

in

thepersonal/privateocial

sector.

There s,first f all, a seeming

aradox to be

unravelled. or it

is

in thecir-

cumstances

ust

describedhat

ompromises,

r

fictions,

remade

n the

precept

f

unsecretiveonduct etween riends,nd friendsresometimesveni xcluded s

confidantesp.

5

I7).

The

explanation

s

that

hese

renon-institutionalisedeasures

which re

taken

o ensure he

relationship

ome

protection.

he idealsof friend-

ship re ikely o be spoiledwithout

uchprotection. f course, hefact

hat he

protection

s necessaryuggests

hat he dealsof friendshipre,

n

somemeasure,

factitiousalues.

The reason hatwe do not

nstitutionalise

ur

friendshipss, urely,

hat o

do

so

would

smother heir

deal

aspect-as

personal

nd

private

elations.

lsewhere,

I

will suggest

hat

his s

whathappens

o

ncipient

riendships

f ourkind n other

parts

f theworld

cf

Foster

967).

The

importantask, here,

ill

be

to

provide

an analysisf thecultural re-conditionsfourkindoffriendship-howoes our

kind of

friendship

lourish

ithout

nstitutionalisation?oremost

mong

these

prerequisitess,

believe, he xistence

n

the ociety

f n efficient

nddispassionate

bureaucracy,

o that

n

individual

may enjoyprivate

nd

uncompetitive

elations

without

rejudice

o those ther

elations hat

belong

to the

collmpetitiveublic

sector.


19/21

522

ROBERT PAINE

NOTES

This

is

a revised nd somewhat shorter

ersionof a paper written

or he Colloquium

on

the

'Comparative sociology

of friendship', t theMemorial University

f Newfoundland,March

I969.

Earlier,preliminary tatements ere given n a sociologyseminar t theJohnsHopkins

University

nd

at

the

meetings f theNortheastern nthropological

Association n the

winter

and

spring, espectively,

f I968. Special acknowledgements re due

to Jan-Petter lom,Jean

Briggs and George Park fortheir areful

riticisms nd valuablesuggestions.

'Exceptions include Bott

(i957),

Burridge

I957),

and Reina

(i959).

In my view,

serious

shortcomings n Cohen's (I96I) ambitious,

typological survey of

friendship elate to these

questions.Cohen summarises is schema n this

way:

It is hypothesized hat inalienable

friendshipwill be found in the maximally

solidary

community; that close friendship s

characteristic f the

solidary-fissileommunity;that

casual friendshipppears n non-nucleated

ociety; and that xpedientfriendships found

n

the

ndividuated ocial

structureI96I: 354).

The

definitions f these ommunity-systemsre

found on pp. 3 4-i8

of the same volume, and

thetypesoffriendshipredescribed n pp.

352-3.

In the course of

I7

pages, the ethnographic

data

for

ixty-five r so societieswith respect o

a specific roblem'

are excerpted nd fed nto

the

typology.

2

Cf.

Nadel's (I957: 53,

72) 'symmetrical elational oles'.

3

For

example, see the essays n a recent

ssue of Human

Organization n 'atomistic-type'

societies, ollectedbyRubel & Kupferer

I968).

4

The

exceptionshere

nclude Eisenstadt's wn article I956), which

will be discussed n the

context

of another

paper, and insights n Burridge

(I957),

Pitt-Rivers I963; I968a) and

Wolf

(I966).

I have

not read

the papers of the

seminar n friendship

eld by Du Bois, at Har-

vard,

n

the

950'S.

5

This

general point is

capable of much

ethnographical nd theoreticalextension.

For

example, it

is

important

n the analysisof patron-client elationships,

speciallywhere these

are

acrossethnic

boundaries cf.Paine in press).

The distinction etween charter'

nd

strategy'

and theconcept of rulesofrelevancy re also indispensable, n a differentroblem of analysis,

where the

'formal structure'of

a society

or

small

group

of

persons

has to

be

kept

under

ground', e.g. guerillagroups.

In

this

connexion,Whyte's I955)

analysis

f the

street

orner

gang

and ts

"set events

is

lluminating:

The

interestinghing

..

is

that

he

"structure"of

the

gang

had to be

underground, he above-ground ethos was mutuality'

George Park,personal

communication).

6

Potter

I967: I53-60)

is

concernedwith an

opposition

similar o this

one

between trans-

action and

incorporation;

he

expresses

he

opposition

n termsof Goffman'snotion of

pre-

senting

elf'

(transaction) ersus Fromm's

concept of 'sharing'

(incorporation);

cf. Goffman

(I959),

Fromm

I955).

7

The

emphasis

we

place

upon friendship

s a

private elationshiprather

han

specifically

s

a

dyadic

one-though

one does

assume this

to be a common

implication

of

privacy)

circum-

vents

here the matter

f

networks nd

friendship. owever,

the various

probable

connexions

between thisanalysis nd thoseofBarnes

i954),

Bott

(I957),

and Mayer

(I966)

areyetto be

explored.

Acquaintanceship

s

probably

an

important ivotal

notion

in this

respect. George

Park

(personalcommunication)

omments: Can we define

cquaintanceship

..

as a

formof

friendship

n which tendencies

oward

exclusiveness/possessiveness

re

held in

check;

the kind

of

non-excluding ossessiveness

hich

makes

cliques

and

gangs possible? E.g. "Any

friend

f

Jane's

s

a friend

f

mine.")'.

8

Cf. Foster

I96I),

also

Arensberg

I937).

But

the matter

may

be

manipulated

n the other

direction,

n

other

cultures; e.g.

Evans-Pritchard

I940)

and Barth

(i959)

where a

man's

prestige

or

his

status,

r

both,

are

measured

by

the

number of

kin

he is able to

obligate.

What

one would like

to know

is the

place

of

friendship

n thesedifferent

ystems

f relations.

9

One

recognises, hough,

thatthe

conjugal

relationship

tself

may

be a

significant

ariable;

and when

attending

o

robert paine friendship

Documents