Negotiating Close Friendship: The Dialectic of Conjunctive Freedoms

Abstract

An empirical study was conducted to investigate the practical management of interactions sustaining close friendships. Ten pairs of close friends were interviewed individually on two occasions and together on a third occasion. An interpretive analysis of subjects' remarks identified a dialectical principle governing the communicative organization of friendship. The dialectic of the freedom to be independent/freedom to be dependent conceptualizes the patterns of availability and copresence in a close friendship. Basically, while each person is free to pursue individual interests apart from the other and without the friend's interference or help, each retains the liberty to rely on the other should it be necessary. In granting each other a combination of these two freedoms, the individuals co‐create a basis for patterns of interaction in their relationship that may curtail their individual liberties. The paper closes with an overview of the choices and possible corruptions experienced by self and other due to the mutually contingent nature of these contradictory freedoms.

A dialectical perspective on burnout and engagement

“…That is, dialectic relationships are dynamic and each construct is continually acting on the other to change the relationship. For example, the autonomy-connection dialectic in interpersonal relationships is characterized by an individual constantly maintaining an individual identity (autonomy) while simultaneously remaining connected to another person where one state may be more salient at different times based on internal and external stimuli (Baxter, 1990;Rawlins, 1983). In the case of burnout and engagement, levels of engagement and burnout work against each other to create constantly changing states within an individual that are dominated by one or the other (Sonnentag, Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010).…”

The multiple pathways of high performing groups: the interaction of social networks and group processes

“…), we build upon prior group and interpersonal relationship research by focusing on friendship networks within groups (Jehn & Shah, 1997;Krackhardt & Stern, 1988;Salas, et al, 1999;Shah & Jehn, 1993;Thompson, Peterson & Brodt, 1996). We define friendship as close interpersonal ties, and positive, amicable relationships (Jehn & Shah, 1997;Rawlins, 1983). Attributes of friendship include self-disclosure (revealing personal information), prosocial helping behavior (providing assistance without being asked), positive regard (providing ego enhancing information), empathetic understanding (listening and accurately interpreting each others feelings), trust, support, faithfulness and mutual respect and acceptance of individuality (Davis & Todd, 1982;Newcomb & Brady, 1982).…”

Academic Advising as Friendship

“…In contrast to the possessiveness of romantic loving, which Sadler (1970, p. 186) once called "the freedom to be one," friendship promotes "the freedom to be two" and provides an encouraging space for developing individual identities. Friendship involves granting each other two freedoms (Rawlins, 1983). Although it may be unspoken, friends in effect say to each other, "You are free to live your own life and become the person you are meant to become" (the freedom to be independent), "but if you ever need me, feel free to call on me, and I will be there for you" (the freedom to be dependent).…”

“…Although it may be unspoken, friends in effect say to each other, "You are free to live your own life and become the person you are meant to become" (the freedom to be independent), "but if you ever need me, feel free to call on me, and I will be there for you" (the freedom to be dependent). Granting each other these conjunctive freedoms serves distinctively to connect persons in a spirit of friendship (Rawlins, 1983(Rawlins, , 1992, even within an advising relationship where persons may interact initially only because they have been assigned to each other. Of course, tensions may arise when individuals exercise their privilege of independence to the neglect of the other's opportunities to depend upon or to help them.…”