Expansion of Contemporary Homosocial Boundaries
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Expansion of Contemporary Homosocial Boundaries
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Bromance: Undergraduate Male Friendships and the Expansion of Contemporary Homosocial Boundaries
Stefan Robinson1 & Eric Anderson1 & Adam White1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract The present study provides the first known qualita- tive examination of heterosexual undergraduate men’s con- ceptualization and experiences of the bromance, outside re- search on cinematic representations. Drawing on semi- structured interviews with 30 undergraduate men enrolled in one of four undergraduate sport-degree programs at one uni- versity in the United Kingdom, we find these heterosexual men to be less reliant on traditional homosocial boundaries, which have previously limited male same-sex friendships. Contrary to the repressive homosociality of the 1980s and 1990s, these men embrace a significantly more inclusive, tac- tile, and emotionally diverse approach to their homosocial relationships. All participants provided comparable defini- tions of what a bromance is and how it operates, all had at least one bromantic friend, and all suggested that bromances had more to offer than a standard friendship. Participants de- scribed a bromance as being more emotionally intimate, phys- ically demonstrative, and based upon unrivalled trust and co- hesion compared to their other friendships. Participants used their experiences with romances and familial relations as a
reference point for considering the conditions of a bromance. Results support the view that declining homophobia and its internalization has had significantly positive implications for male expression and intimacy. Conclusions are made about the bromance’s potential to improve men’s mental health and social well-being because participants indicate these rela- tionships provide a space for emotional disclosure and the discussion of potentially traumatic and sensitive issues.
Keywords Bromance . Homosocial . Homohysteria .
Masculinity . Men . Stoicism . Suicide
The concept of friendship between both heterosexual (Ibson 2002) and gay men (Nardi 1999) is well-examined in the social sciences (Hruschka 2010). Although friendship is pri- marily experienced by individuals as a complex psychological phenomenon (Poplawski 1989), its dimensions, behavioral requisites, and prohibitions are nonetheless socially defined and regulated (Van Duijn et al. 2003). The present research contributes to the sociological research on male friendships by examining the contemporary notion of Bbromance.^
Whereas most of the twentieth century investigations of male friendship explicitly focused on missing emotional and physical intimacy, compared to what exists in women’s friend- ships (Lewis 1978), the concept of the bromance has been recently used to describe a new form of friendship between men: one based in intimacy. The term has been used, variably, by scholars (DeAngelis 2014; Thompson 2015), normally as a cultural discourse on friendship. DeAngelis (2014, p. 1) de- scribes a bromance as Ba term denoting an emotionally intense bond between straight men,^ and Davies (2014) goes as far to say that a bromance often surpasses the romantic closeness that men share with their wives and girlfriends.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Adam White Adam.White@winchester.ac.uk
Stefan Robinson StefR121@hotmail.co.uk
Eric Anderson Eric.Anderson@winchester.ac.uk
1 Department of Sport and Exercise, Faculty of Business, Law and Sport, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK
Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6865-8197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5&domain=pdf
Although recent research has discussed the emergence of bromances and how they connect to homosociality (Anderson 2014; Chen 2011; Hammarén and Johansson 2014), there are no known systematic examinations of its conceptualization, behavioral requisites, or limitations. Instead, its meanings have been culturally mapped through recent comedy movies and television programs popular with the 16–25 year-old male demographic (Boyle and Berridge 2012; DeAngelis 2014; Hansen-Miller and Gill 2011).
For its comedic connotations and depiction, social scien- tists have failed to consider the bromance as a serious and legitimate relationship type and have ignored its importance in the lives of everyday young men (Emsliea et al. 2007; Way 2013). However, increasingly, new studies suggest that young men’s same-sex relationships are becoming more emotionally nuanced and intimate, owing to a shift in masculine socializa- tion processes (Anderson 2014; Emsliea et al. 2007; McCormack 2012; Way 2013). In order to address: (a) the lack of definitional literature on bromances and (b) the implications of having such relationships, we carried out in-depth interviews with 30 male university students in the United Kingdom who identified as heterosexual or mostly heterosexual.
Male Friendship: Non-Intimate Connections
The level of physical and emotional intimacy expressed be- tween men in a given context is highly contingent on their awareness and inclusion or rejection of homosexuality. When examining heterosexual men’s preference for same- sex socializing and friendship—known as homosociality—in the past 50 years, significant regulation of masculinity related to men’s socially perceived sexuality is evident (Lipman- Blumen 1976; Sedgwick 1985). This is despite men’s same- sex friendships being described as highly intimate (Deitcher 2001), even romantic (Rotundo 1989), before the modern era. A century ago, men not only posed for staged photography in physically intimate ways (Ibson 2002), but also wrote endearing letters to one another and slept in the same beds. Exemplifying this history, Tripp (2005) highlights that, for 4 years, President Abraham Lincoln shared a bed with his male partner, Joshua Speed, and President George Washington wrote endearing letters to other men.
At the turn of the twentieth century, the western popula- tion’s awareness of homosexuality grew (Miller 1995). At the same time, Sigmund Freud published three influential essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905). His works proposed that young men were being converted to homosexuality as a con- sequence of a feminine upbringing and socialization process. He further suggested that absent fathers, as well as a lack of male role models, contributed to the homosexualization of children. Cancian (1986) explains that these concerns were
propagated by certain social, economic, and geographic shifts that occurred during the second industrial revolution. The mass migration of workers from the agrarian to industrial life- style destined men to work extended shifts away from home, contributing to the demise of rural and family life.
At this time, the general public broadly believed that sex- uality was socially constructed as part of a child’s upbringing and was widely understood to be a permanent, Bother^ sexu- ality (Foucault 1984). Simply, Anglo-American societies be- lieved that the embodiment of femininity caused homosexu- ality (Weeks et al. 2003). Although not intending to stigmatize homosexuality, Freud inadvertently promoted the structure of the nuclear family, something for which homosexuality was a direct threat (Anderson 2009).
Consequently, the late Victorian era is described as a ho- mophobic one (Kimmel 1994). The same-sex intimacy that Tripp (2005) describes began to be socially policed as aware- ness of homosexuality grew in the twentieth century. By the 1980s, the romantic friendships that Rotundo (1989) highlighted became entirely limited to gay men and lesbians (Diamond et al. 1999). In other words, straight men feared being socially perceived as gay for displaying physical or emotional intimacy with other men. This constriction had sig- nificant implications for the development of close friendships between men (Morin and Garfinkle 1978; Komarovsky 1974). Lewis (1978, p. 108) wrote that men Bhave not known what it means to love and care for a friend without the shadow of some guilt and fear of peer ridicule.^ Jourard (1971) showed that self-disclosure, a vital component of emotional intimacy, was largely lacking between men in their friend- ships. Instead, young men knew that they had a friendship with another man when they engaged in activities together, like playing sports, drinking, fixing things, or gambling (Seiden and Bart 1975). However, by the 1990s some research showed that men began to share feelings with other men (Walker 1994).
Anderson’s (2009) concept of homohysteria explains the shift in the physical and emotional dispositions of men before the first half of the twentieth century and the decades of the latter half. McCormack and Anderson (2014) define homohysteria as the fear of being socially perceived as gay—something made possible because heterosexuality can- not be definitively proven among straight men in a culture that is both aware and fearful of homosexuality. Subsequently, men were culturally compelled both to perform certain overtly heterosexual behaviors and to avoid engaging in those that would feminize them.
It is important to understand that this cultural landscape has left a generation of heterosexual men with a life of non- intimate connections, as well as with friendships that may never achieve the level of intimacy to which they should have been entitled (Collins and Sroufe 1999; Connolly et al. 2000). We cannot say for certain that men are inherently predisposed
Sex Roles
to be less emotive and expressive than women, but scholars would argue that twentieth century culture has certainly predisposed men’s emotional boundaries to be more rigid and distant (Anderson 2014; Connell 1995; Hruschka 2010; McCormack 2012). As Fehr (1996) explains, men have tradi- tionally chosen to align with orthodox masculine archetypes, even when they may internally desire open, emotional, and tactile contact with other men. Importantly for our study, cul- tural restrictions on male emotionality have drastically affect- ed men’s ability to emote and confide (Bowman 2008), sig- nificantly reducing their coping strategies to deal with internal conflicts such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts (Cleary 2012; Scourfield 2005).
Contrasting with traditional notions of male friendship, women have been said to emphasize their same-sex friend- ships through emotionality and the disclosure of personal secrets. Wright (1982) is commonly cited for his suggestion that male friendships operate side-by-side whereas female friendships are more face-to-face, distinguishing that women prefer to bond through closeness in the dialogue. Indeed, broader socialization processes have also exaggerated a dual- istic and naturalistic perspective on the emotionality of wom- en and stoicism of men (Beasley 2008; Cancian 1986; Hruschka 2010). Hence, women have been socially permitted to display a broader range of gendered behaviors than men have (Kring and Gordon 1998).
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!