"Friends are the family that you choose" is a phrase that is central to the lives of many in terms of love and care. Of course, not all friends are “family”, and the transition from one to the other is an extremely powerful way to redefine a relationship. The rhetoric used in defining a non-blood relative as “family” is powerful, and as mentioned emphasizes the importance of the role of the family within society and individual life. This shift recalls Hochschild’s examination of contexts and measures of emotion. The “family” as those you care for and are most intimate with shapes the context of the individual’s perception of what they “should” feel, and what they really feel. Society, (excuse the broad term) dictates that we have a responsibility to care for family above all, therefore if friends fall into this category of care and intimacy, their grouping must be changed to relieve the dissonance.
Perhaps this idea of “friends as family” instead of a more fluid conception of friends found in Roseneil and Budgeon's work, emerges from a framework of the ideal of the nuclear family, or the family within commercial society, rather than families or individuals who find themselves already displaced from common societal definitions of the family. They discuss the occasional awkwardness of living in an intimate relationship that rests outside of conventional definitions; however, these arrangements still seem to allow for changes in definitions. Perhaps these social movements are key to dismantling the commercialization of the family.
1) How are actions and attitudes towards an individual changed when they become “family”? Has this changed over time? With different laws regarding families, divorce, and child rearing?
2) How is the shift towards intimacy with friends described by Roseneil and Budgeon a reversion to community based care? How is it different?
3) Is the commercialization of intimacy inherently “good” or “bad”?
No comments:
Post a Comment