See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270571512

The Sociology of Friendship

Chapter · August 2017

DOI: 10.1017/9781316418369.024

CITATIONS READS
0 2,542

1 author:

James A. Vela-McConnell
Augsburg University
11 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Curricular Inclusion Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James A. Vela-McConnell on 07 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Sociology of Friendship

James Vela-McConnell, Augsburg College

Despite how central friendship is to our social lives, it has only recently emerged as a focused

area of study within sociology. Unlike the family, the study of friendship is not yet widespread

enough to warrant the creation of its own section or division within the American Sociological

Association. Moreover, in a world where “friend” has become a verb and many people can be

“friended” on-line who might not actually be friends off-line—and are instead acquaintances,

colleagues, professional contacts and even strangers—there is a greater sense of ambiguity over

what counts as a friend in the first place. To blur the lines even further, there are some friends

who might be considered a part of one’s family. Regardless of these ambiguities, there are

important reasons for studying friendship from a sociological perspective, not the least of which

is that friendships are socially patterned, making them inherently sociological in nature (Spencer

and Pahl 2006). With this focus in mind, we will examine the sociological perspective on

friendship with a particular eye toward understanding why it is such an important sociological

topic.

Friendship and the Fabric of Society

Within contemporary society, an increasing number of relationships are characterized by

contractual arrangements between the parties involved. Work and business relations, familial and

even neighborhood relations are governed by contracts, specifying both the rights and

obligations of the individuals concerned. If these contracts are broken, there are legal procedures

and policies designed to protect the aggrieved party, highlighting how the state has a vested

interest in the stability of these relationships. The fact that the state oversees such relations
reflects an unstated measure of the importance placed on them. They are seen as fundamental to

the fabric of society and so are guaranteed special protections.

In contrast, friendships are completely voluntary in nature and are characterized by a

distinct absence of contractual arrangements. Even in cases where one friend borrows money

from another, any agreement is likely to be entirely verbal and based on one’s “word.” A friend

may even be offended at the prospect of a contract in such a situation. Unlike most on-going

relationships, friendships are freely entered into, maintained and terminated. These relationships

are strictly private in the sense that they enjoy no state recognition; nor is there a perceived need

to protect them with legal procedures and policies. Unlike marriage or signing a mortgage or

lease agreement, there are no public social rituals associated with friendship, though there are

likely to be many private ones between the friends themselves, such as the exchange of gifts and

other symbols of the relationship (Rubin 1985). Essentially, it seems that friendships are not

deemed important to the fabric of society.

Such a viewpoint, however, is without merit, for friendships are essential to the social

fabric. Indeed, friendships are integral to establishing large networks of social ties. These ever-

widening networks are exactly what comprise the fabric of society. Sociologist Georg Simmel

(Wolff 1950) argued that dyadic relationships—those between two people—represent the

building blocks of society, for it is within these dyads that social relations begin. Every larger

group is comprised of numerous dyadic relationships organized into interlocking social webs.

For Putnam (2000), friendship represents an informal social connection, one that is of central

importance given its function in connecting individuals into much larger social networks. In this

way, patterns of friendships bring people together into ever-larger networks, weaving together

the fabric of society.

2
 Anthropologists have long recognized the importance of friendship networks in creating

social cohesion (Eve 2002). They note that friendships are based on a sense of reciprocity

between the two individuals, best symbolized by the exchange of gifts or favors. Such a social

bond is formed with an eye toward ensuring the relationship will continue, for if one gives a gift

an obligation to reciprocate is created. Ideally, the reciprocity between individuals becomes

generalized beyond the dyadic relationship extending outward to include others through the

creation of what might be termed “bridging ties.” Such generalized reciprocity fosters a sense of

trust that “lubricates social life,” especially when it extends out and includes a diverse group of

people (Putnam 2000). In this way, friendships—like other relationships—serve to foster the

social cohesion that holds society together. Insofar as our interactions and relationships begin to

follow predictable patterns, we create social order. Hence, the popular sentiment that friendships

are less fundamental to society than are formally recognized and state-protected relationships is

misguided.

The Nature of Friendships

But what is it that characterizes friendships? As already noted, they are completely voluntary and

without contractual obligations, which means that the sense of connection is one that emerges

from and is sustained by the relationship itself. These relationships are chosen rather than given,

as familial relations are (Spencer and Pahl 2006). Perhaps of more importance, friendships are

egalitarian in nature. Friends recognize one another as equals (Pahl 2000; Bell 1981). Neither

party is dependent upon the other. While support is often provided, each recognizes that the other

may be called upon to provide that support and there is an expectation that such support will be

shared. In addition, this egalitarian quality results from a sense of mutual respect and acceptance

3
that implies each person equally values the other (Allan and Adams 1998). When there is a

power disparity within a relationship, the sense of reciprocity is out of balance and one member

feels a greater sense of obligation toward the member with greater power, making the

relationship less voluntary. In the context of friendships, such an imbalance leads to resentment

and contempt, undermining the friendship or even its possibility (Rude 2009). In this way, the

egalitarian and voluntary natures of friendship are intimately tied to one another.

With an eye toward distinguishing friendships from other intimate—typically familial—

relationships and highlighting their purely voluntary and egalitarian natures, friendship is

understood to be “an active and freely chosen platonic relationship between two equals

demonstrating a high degree of commitment toward each other and relating to one another in a

variety of ways” (Vela-McConnell 2011, 23). Even with this definition in mind, there are many

ways in which to organize our sociological understanding of friendship. One may focus on the

patterns of entering and exiting friendships or on friendship careers or trajectories in terms of

how they develop.

For example, it is possible to differentiate among types of friendship. Spencer and Pahl

(2006) distinguish between simple and complex friendships. Friends relate to one another in a

variety of ways based on the type and degree of attachment between the members. Sometimes a

friend is a useful contact, someone who can do a favor for us, or someone with whom we can

just have fun. Such relationships may be considered “simple friendships” in that there is only one

form of interaction that takes place. Friendships typically begin as simple friendships based on

shared interests or exchanging favors and many of these never grow into deeper relationships.

When people are able to connect at a deeper level, developing a sense of commitment, their

friendship may grow. “Complex friendships” are multifaceted in that the friends relate to one

4
another in a variety of ways. For example, they can have fun together, provide help when

needed, become confidants and even soul mates.

Given that our networks of friends change over time, it is also helpful to distinguish

between current and ongoing friendships and those that are more episodic in nature or those that

exist largely in the past. “Active friendships” are those in which there is regular contact between

the friends and a strong sense of presence in each other’s lives. Such friends provide us with a

sense of identity and connection. Over time, however, there are life-course changes and events

that occur—such as moving to another part of town or the country, changes in one’s socio-

economic status, a new job or retirement, or starting a family—that lead us to connect with new

people even as we disengage from some friends. Some active friendships may then become

“latent,” meaning the frequency of contact diminishes while maintaining a sense of presence in

one another’s lives continues. If that sense of presence is strong enough, it is relatively easy for

the friends to “pick up where they left off.” Other friendships no longer exist as such and so may

be considered “historical friendships” because there is no contact between the members. Even

among these friendships, there may be a sense of presence in our lives given that they played a

role in shaping our biography. We may look back at them with a sense of nostalgia and they may

evoke a sense of connection with who we once were (Spencer and Pahl 2006).

Regardless of the type of friendship or its degree of intimacy, these relationships are

embedded within a larger social and cultural context. As such, friendships are subject to societal

norms and trends. Moreover, they tend to reflect existing social structures and hierarchies. For

the sociologist, what this means is that the study of friendship and friendship patterns reveals

much about the structure of society.

5
Friendship as a Social Barometer

In June of 2006, a study published by the American Sociological Review made national headlines

with the news that the size of Americans’ circle of friends was shrinking (American Sociological

Association 2006). Researchers found that the number of people in the United States who have

no one they consider to be a confidant more than doubled from 10% in 1985 to 24.6% in 2004

(McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears 2006). The study included a number of different

relationships among those considered to be confidants; if one isolates friendships, those survey

respondents who consider a friend to be one of their confidants dropped from 73.2% in 1985 to

50.6% in 2004. Clearly, something happened to friendships among Americans over the course of

those 20 years.

There are a number of sociologists who are concerned that the fabric of society is

wearing thin. As such, friendships represent a “social barometer” reflecting deeper social

patterns and trends. This concern with the breakdown in social and civic engagement goes all the

way back to Alexis de Tocqueville (1889). Much more recently, Robert Putnam argued there is

ample evidence indicating that friendships and other social connections are deteriorating,

threatening the social fabric of society. Today, we are far less likely to spend time at home with

friends than we were 30 or 40 years ago. Putnam concludes that, “visits with friends are now on

the social capital endangered species list” (2000, 100). Given the importance of these

relationships in fostering the voluntary social bonds that hold society together, this decline is an

admittedly critical indicator of the erosion of social cohesion.

In addition, friendship patterns tend to reflect the system of stratification in our society in

that people are more likely to befriend those very much like themselves in terms of race, class,

gender, sexual orientation, etc.—what is known as “status homophily” (McPherson, Smith-

6
Lovin, and Cook 2001). In other words, differentiation based on status places a check on the

establishment of friendships such that these networks are largely restricted to those of similar

status. Given that friendship is characterized in part by its egalitarian nature, the prevalence of

homophily within these relationships underscores the fact there is social pressure to avoid

potential friendships between those of differing status. Narrowing the range of our friendship

possibilities places limits on the possible variety of social bonds making up the fabric of society

and the underlying social cohesion.

Why is homophily common within friendships? Many would point to individual

preferences and choices. Evidence suggests, however, that such an explanation is problematic.

Instead, it is important to keep in mind the social context: the options available to us are

constrained by opportunities we have to meet diverse others, opportunities that are limited by the

arrangement of our physical and social environments (de Souza Briggs 2002). Within that social

context, individuals make what Feld calls “focused choices” (1982).

While we live in a heterogeneous society, our neighborhoods continue to be highly

segregated by class (Dwyer 2010), race (Wright, Ellis, and Holloway 2014) and even sexual

orientation, age and religion. The same holds true for many institutions and organizations.

Schools, for example, tend to reflect the demographics of the area in which they are located, and

public schools in particular are increasingly segregated (Orfield 2008). We are also segregated

within our work environments and even our voluntary organizations, particularly with regard to

gender and level of education (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001; Rotolo and Wilson

2007) . Such segregation limits our opportunities to meet and engage in regular interaction with

people from different backgrounds and statuses.

7
 Given these constrained options, it should come as no surprise that our social networks

are disproportionately homogenous. This constrains our opportunities to form friendships with

diverse others. In fact, the lack of diversity within a social network is the strongest predictor of

friendship homophily. As noted by Feld, “people tend to choose their friends from among those

with whom they have regular contact in one or another of their focused activities; the set of

people who are available through these foci tends to direct their choices to individuals with

particular personal characteristics” (1982, 797). Our choices are constrained by the diversity of

the groups in which we participate and the resulting pattern of homophily is largely “induced”

rather than specifically chosen by individuals.

It is clear that our social context—the neighborhoods we inhabit, our work, school and

other institutional environments and our social networks—plays a significant role in patterns of

friendship homophily by constraining our opportunities to meet and interact with diverse others

as equals. When we do have the opportunity to befriend those who are different, our own choices

tend to reinforce the homophilous pattern (Feld 1982). The choices we make are often based on

the social boundaries created by our own prejudices and stereotypes of those who are different.

Much like strangers, those who are different are considered to be socially distant from ourselves

(Wolff 1950). Those with whom we share similarities are also those with whom we are most

likely to establish social bonds and create group solidarity. The similarities allow a sense of “we-

ness” to develop, opening the door for the creation of what Gordon Allport (1954) describes as

an “in-group.” Once such a sense of connectedness with similar others emerges, there is a

corresponding separation from those who are different: the “out-group.” At a most basic level,

there is a tendency to perceive such differences as possible threats to the in-group and it is this

perception—or misperception—that opens the door for prejudice and social distance. The social

8
distance that shapes our individual choices and the spatial distance that constrains our friendship

options to begin with are mutually reinforcing. For example, social distance may produce

patterns of neighborhood segregation even in the absence of housing discrimination (Fossett

2006a; Fossett 2006b). Moreover, such segregation patterns reinforce and increase the social

distance between groups (White, Kim, and Glick 2005).

The consequences of both social context and individual choice on friendship patterns are

well established. We are most likely to establish and maintain friendships with those who are

demographically similar to ourselves, though such homophily is not equally distributed. For

example, those in positions of privilege tend to have the most homogenous social networks

(McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears 2006). The pattern of friendship homophily is

strongest for race and ethnicity, though it appears to be decreasing over time. Race and ethnicity

are followed by age and gender. In the case of gender homophily, the pattern has remained stable

over time (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears 2006). Class-based friendship, when

measured in terms of education and occupation, is just as strong as gender homophily. When

measured by wealth, class homophily patterns are even stronger (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and

Cook 2001). There has been far less research focusing on friendship patterns and sexual

orientation; but the existing research indicates that the same pattern of friendship homophily is

present (Nardi 1992a; Nardi 1992b; Price 1999).

Patterns of friendship homophily both reflect and reinforce the system of stratification in

our society. If friendships represent a sort of “social barometer” measuring the health and

cohesiveness of society, then sociologists have cause for concern. The social divisions within

society are strong and run deep. The range of friendship ties is narrow and, as the number of

those who have friends they consider to be confidants diminishes, the consequences for the

9
fabric of society are worrisome. Nevertheless, there appears to be some cause for optimism as

our social networks slowly begin to diversify. For example, the percentage of adults in the U.S.

who had at least one person of another race in their social network increased from 8.9% in 1985

to 15.4% in 2004 (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears 2006). A 2013 survey indicated that

25% of Whites had a least one person of color in their social network (Public Religion Research

Institute 2014). While the percentage is still small, it suggests that cracks are forming in the

segregation patterns described above. As social networks begin to diversify, opportunities for

diverse friendships will also increase.

Strengthening the Fabric of Society

As already discussed, friendships are fundamentally egalitarian in nature. To the extent that

friendships are formed outside of the typical patterns just described, they pose a challenge to the

system of stratification. There is reason to believe that, as with marriage patterns, friendship

segregation may be decreasing (Vela-McConnell 2011), suggesting that diverse friendships may

counteract the trend toward social disintegration lamented by sociologists like Robert Putnam.

As these egalitarian relationships across lines of stratification increase in numbers, a pattern of

interpersonal relations emerges and becomes a tacit public statement calling into question—at its

most fundamental level—the current system of stratification

Putnam (2000) suggests that two conditions must be met in order to realize the potential

of friendships—and diverse friendships in particular—to strengthen the cohesion of society.

First, if our social context limits our opportunities to meet diverse others, we need to adjust that

context in order to maximize the opportunities available. This requires promoting diversity and

integration within the structures of society, particularly in our neighborhoods and social

10
institutions. Because it requires addressing long-established patterns of segregation within

neighborhoods, schools, churches, work environments and our own social circles, this is perhaps

the most challenging hurdle to overcome.

The second condition provides more cause for optimism. As prescribed by contact theory

(Allport 1954), once individuals are presented with the opportunity to meet diverse others, they

are better able to reevaluate and set aside any prejudice, anxiety or fear they have toward diverse

others and bridge the differences between them. Changing the social context to allow increasing

contact between diverse groups of people is in itself insufficient. In keeping with the egalitarian

nature of friendships, such contact must be between those with equal status. More importantly,

diverse groups of people should work together “in the pursuit of common goals” in order to

allow the members of these groups recognize that they have common interests and a common

humanity. Integration of this sort “creates a condition where friendly contacts and accurate social

perceptions can occur” (1954, 272). Pettigrew (1998) described this condition as “friendship

potential.” Moreover, because friendships encourage a much greater depth of connection, the

positive effects of reducing prejudice are heightened (Barlow, Louis, and Hewstone 2009). These

effects even extend beyond the individuals within these friendships (Bousfield and Hutchison

2010), generalizing to the entire out-group, not just the individual friend who is a part of the out-

group. Overall, contact with diverse others not only enhances knowledge and reduces anxiety,

but also augments the ability to take the perspective of and empathize with those who are

different (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006); and it is our ability to role take and empathize with others

that is key to establishing the sense of connectedness that holds society together (Vela-

McConnell 1999).

11
 As noted above, contact theory rests on the fundamental requirement that the parties be of

equal status. The egalitarian nature of friendships makes these relationships especially important

in terms of challenging the systems of stratification that keep those of different races, genders

and sexual orientations apart. The pursuit of equality that characterizes friendship represents an

ethical practice of friendship as well as a political practice and outcome such that the equality of

these relationships has much potential for creating social change: “Standing as equals embodies a

challenge to hierarchical social structures. The tendency of friendships toward equal treatment is

therefore a fundamental political potential…. It flies in the face of the status quo” (Rawlins 2009,

194).

Conclusion

Friendships, as dyadic relationships, are key building blocks of society, fundamental to the social

fabric. Social cohesion begins at the micro level of dyadic relationships. The bonding ties that

characterize friendships are clearly evident within homogenous social groups. The challenge is to

generalize these ties beyond such social groups into “bridging ties” that connect diverse groups

of people together, strengthening social cohesion at the macro level (Putnam 2000). Furthermore,

each friendship occurs within overlapping social circles, allowing diverse friendships to serve as

role models that influence ever-widening and overlapping social circles.

Strong social bonds, forming the basis of the network of social ties upon which all our

institutions rest, characterize enduring friendships. Friendship patterns that conform to the

divisions within society based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and other forms of

marginalization indicate that the foundation of society is fractured. A strong social fabric

requires bringing together the diverse peoples who comprise society. To the extent that we

12
choose to befriend those from different status levels and consider them to be our equals, our

friendships pose a challenge to the existing system of stratification. Friendships that bridge

different groups, establishing ties among them play a key role in creating what Pahl (2000)

described as a “truly friendly society.”

Given how fundamental these purely voluntary and egalitarian relationships are, the study

of friendship represents a lens through which sociologists may examine the health of society

itself. Friendships provide us with a strong sense of connection with the world around us,

embedding us within ever-widening social networks. When these social ties decrease in number

and become increasingly homogenous, it is right to worry about the problems of social isolation,

disconnection and the breakdown of society. As these friendships—and the social bonds they

represent—increase and diversify, sociologists can rest assured that the social cohesion that

holds society together is getting stronger. And all of us can enjoy our friends not only for who

they are but what they represent: our connection with the fabric of society.

13
References

Allan, Graham, and Rebecca G. Adams. 1998. Reflections on context. In Placing friendships in

context. Edited by Rebecca G. Adams and Graham Allan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Allport, Gordon. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company.

American Sociological Association. 2006. “Americans’ Circle of Close Friends Shrinking, New

Study Shows.” Science Daily. June 23.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060623093533.htm.

Barlow, Fiona Kate, Winnifred R. Louis, and Miles Hewstone. 2009. Rejected! Cognitions of

rejection and intergroup anxiety as mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on

prejudice. British journal of social psychology. 48:389–405.

Bell, Robert R. 1981. Worlds of friendship. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Bousfield, Catherine, and Paul Hutchison. 2010. Contact, anxiety, and young people’s attitudes

and behavioral intentions towards the elderly. Educational gerontology. 36:451–66.

De Souza Briggs, Xavier. 2002. Social capital and segregation: Race, connections, and

inequality in America. Report. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

University.

De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1889. Democracy in America. London: Longman, Green and Co.

Dwyer, Rachel E. 2010. Poverty, prosperity, and place: The shape of class segregation in the age

of extremes. Social problems. 57:114–37.

Eve, Michael. 2002. Is friendship a sociological topic? European journal of sociology. 43:386–

409.

14
Feld, Scott L. 1982. Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American

sociological review. 47:797–801.

Fossett, Mark. 2006a. Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation:

Theoretical explorations using simulation analysis. Journal of mathematical sociology.

30:185–274.

———. 2006b. Including preference and social distance dynamics in multi-factor theories of

segregation. Journal of mathematical sociology. 30:289–98.

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. Social isolation in

America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American sociological

review. 71:353–75.

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather:

Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology. 27:415–44.

Nardi, Peter M. 1992a. Sex, friendship, and gender roles among gay men. In Men’s friendships.

Edited by Peter M. Nardi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

———. 1992b. That’s what friends are for: Friends as family in the gay and lesbian community.

In Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience. Edited by Ken

Plummer. New York: Routledge.

Orfield, Gary. 2008. Race and schools: The need for action. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto

Derechos Civiles, University of California—Los Angeles, NEA Research Visiting

Scholars Series, Spring 2008, vol. 1b. January 1, 2014.

http://www.nea.org/home/13054.htm.

Pahl, Ray. 2000. On friendship. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology. 49:65.

15
Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact

theory. Journal of personality and social psychology. 90:751–83.

Price, Jammie. 1999. Navigating differences: Friendships between gay and straight men.

Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, Inc.

Public Religion Research Institute. 2014. Analysis: Race and Americans' social networks.

August 28. http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/08/analysis-social-network/

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Rawlins, William K. 2009. The compass of friendship: Narratives, identities, and dialogues.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rotolo, Thomas, and John Wilson. 2007. Sex segregation in volunteer work. The sociological

quarterly. 48:559–585.

Rubin, Lillian B. 1985. Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: Harper &

Row, Publishers.

Rude, Jesse D. 2009. Interracial friendships in context: Their formation, development, and

impact. Thesis.

Spencer, Liz, and Ray Pahl. 2006. Rethinking friendship: Hidden solidarities today. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vela-McConnell, James A. 1999. Who is my neighbor? Social affinity in a modern world. New

York: State University of New York Press.

———. 2011. Unlikely friends: Bridging ties and diverse friendships. Lanham, MD: Lexington

Books.

16
 White, Michael J., Ann H. Kim, and Jennifer E. Glick. 2005. Mapping social distance: Ethnic

residential segregation in a multiethnic metro. Sociological methods and research.

34:173–203.

Wolff, Kurt H. 1950. The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Wright, Richard, Mark Ellis, and Steven Holloway. 2014. Neighbourhood racial diversity and

white residential segregation in the United States. In Social-spatial segregation: Concepts,

processes and outcomes. Edited by Christopher D. Lloyd, Ian G. Shuttleworth, David

Wong. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

17

View publication stats