Upload
leonardoturchi
View
227
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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=rai8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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,
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
3/21
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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.
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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-
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
12/21
IN SEARCH OF FRIENDSHIP
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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)
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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,
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
16/21
IN SEARCH OF FRIENDSHIP
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.
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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:
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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.
8/11/2019 Robert Paine Friendship
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