Male Friendship and Intimacy

Abstract

Our primary focus is the concept of intimacy, especially in the context of adult American male relationships. We begin with an examination of comradeship, a nonintimate fm of friendship, then develop an uccount of the nature and value of intimacy in friendship. We follow this with discussions of obstacles to intimacy and of Aristotle's wiews. In the final section, we discus the process of men attaining intimacy .Life is so very different when you have a good friend. I've seen people without special friends, close friends. Other men, especially. For some reason men don't often make and keep friends. This is a real tragedy, I think, because in a way, without a tight male friend, you never really are able to see yourself. That is because part of shaping ourselves is done by others; and a lot of our shaping comes from that one close friend who is something like us.-Mr. Hal (Walker 1989, 114) The "tradition" in the West has made comradeship between men the paradigm of friendship. Friendships in their purest form have been thought to exist more often among men than among women. Vera Brittain summarizes:From the days of Homer the friendships of men have enjoyed glory and acclamation, but the friendships of women, despite Ruth and Naomi, have usually been not merely unsung, but mocked, belittled. . . (Brittain 1947, 2) 'For the most part the characteristics of loyalty, fellow feeling, and concern for the other's interests have been stressed much more heavily than intimacy in male friendships. Moreover, the presence of these characteristics has been thought to make male friendship superior to female friendship.In contrast, recent studies of Americans indicate that men tend not to have same-sex friendships that are as satisfying to them as same-sex friendships are

Excellent online friendships: an Aristotelian defense of social media

“…As social creatures, many of our social needs may be met through online interaction-but some may not be. In many contemporary Western cultures, particularly between men, physical touch is not typically recognized as an important component of friendship and is often considered taboo (Strikwerda and May 1992;Derlega et al 1989;Monsour 1992;Bank and Hansford 2000), but for many people touch can be an important and valuable part of sociality. Furthermore, just being around other people can itself be important to many of us; think about the attraction, for some people, of heading out to a coffee shop to read rather than staying at home, or working on a project at the library rather than in a solitary office.…”

Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships

“…Research finds that men's same-sex friendships offer opportunities for the pursuit of desirable activities (Aukett et al, 1988; Mazur & Olver, 1987;Strikwerda & May, 1992). In contrast, women's friendships with other women tend to be characterized by high levels of emotional intimacy, personal self-disclosure, and social support (Arliss & Borisoff, 1993; Bruess & Pearson, 1996; O'Connor, 1992).…”

Gender and Temporality in Interpersonal Systems

“…In general, men and women enact same‐sex friendships differently. Whereas women are more likely to enact friendship through communication, men are more likely to enact friendship through activities (Brehm 1992; Mazur 1989; Rawlins 1992; Strikwerda and May 1992). Men generally engage in shared activities to establish common bonds, while women generally develop intimacy and connection through conversation 10 .…”

“…According to this phenomenological account, the male value of the gender code may impinge against communication patterns that facilitate the experience of being in time together—that is, “intersubjectivity” (e.g., see Strikwerda and May 1992). For instance, Anglo‐American men use communication to assert status and independence and do so through a variety of forms of asymmetrical communication.…”

“…10 10 Strikwerda and May (1992) argue that even “comradeship” between men lacks the intimacy found in female relationships: “Comradeship is a deontological regard for a generalized other and, in this sense, is quite different from intimate friendships, which are based on a regard for a particularized other and where consequences and contexts matter quite a bit” (p. 114). Strikwerda and May express some dismay over the absence of intimacy from men's relationships. …”