Главная Случайная страница


Категории:

ДомЗдоровьеЗоологияИнформатикаИскусствоИскусствоКомпьютерыКулинарияМаркетингМатематикаМедицинаМенеджментОбразованиеПедагогикаПитомцыПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРазноеРелигияСоциологияСпортСтатистикаТранспортФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияХоббиЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника






Differences in the Stability Phase

Friendships. As relationships develop in intimacy in the stability phase, the friends share more personal and private information in the process of self-disclosure. As a rule, there are three concentric circles representing three areas of information we share with others:

- outer boundary (superficial information about ourselves and our lives);

- middle circle (more personal information – perhaps our life story and background);

- inner core (very personal and private information, some of which we share with no one).

These spheres may correspond with the phases in relational development. Most variations are found in the outer boundary area. For European Americans it may have quite a wide range.

In contrast, for many other cultural and ethnic groups, the outer boundary is much more closed. International students in the United States often remark that U.S. American students seem superficial. That is, U.S. students welcome interaction with strangers and share information of a superficial nature — for example, at a party. When some international students experience this, they assume that they are in the middle area, or moving into the exploratory "friend" phase, only to discover that the U.S. student considers the international student just an acquaintance, not really a friend at all.

A student from Singapore describes her relationships with American students:

I learned in the first couple months that people are warm yet cold. For example, I would find people saying "Hi" to me when I'm walking on campus or asking me how I am doing. It used to make me feel slighted [= disregarded, treated with contempt] that even as I made my greeting back to them, they are already a mile away. Then – when real interaction occurs, for example, in class, somehow I sense that people tend to he very superficial and false. Yet they disclose a lot of information, for example, talking about personal relationships, which I wasn't comfortable with. I used to think that because of such self-disclosure, you would share a special relationship with the other person, but it's not so because the same person who was telling you about her personal relationship yesterday has no idea who you are today. Now I have learned to not be offended or feel slighted by such incidences.

Romantic Relationships. Some intimate relationships develop into romantic relationships.Several studies have compared the development of these types of intimate relationships across cultures. For example, communication researcher Gao Ge (1991) compared romantic heterosexual relationships among Chinese and U.S. American young people. Through interviews with students about their romantic relationships, she found common themes of openness, involvement, shared nonverbal meanings, and relationship assessment. However, there were some variations between the two groups. The U.S. American students emphasized the importance of physical attraction, passion, and love. Gao (1991) interprets this as a reflection of a more individualistic orientation. In contrast, the Chinese students stressed the importance of their partners' connectedness to their family and other relational connections, reflecting a more collectivistic orientation.

Another research study compared North American, Japanese, and Russian beliefs about romantic love — with similar results. North Americans emphasized romantic love, passionate love, and love based on friendship more than Japanese or Russians. Other cultural groups — more collectively centered — emphasized the acceptance of the potential mate by family members over romantic or passionate love (Sprecher et al., 1994).

Research in the United States that investigates the development of romantic relationships has focused on the importance of the individual's autonomy. Togetherness is important as long as it does not interfere too much with one's own freedom. Openness, talking things out, and retaining a strong sense of self are seen as specific strategies for maintaining a healthy intimate relationship. This emphasis on autonomy — trying to balance the needs of two "separate" individuals — in relationships can be difficult. Also, extreme individualism makes it challenging for either partner to justify sacrificing or giving more than one is receiving. All of this leads to fundamental conflicts in trying to reconcile personal freedom with marital obligations These problems are less common in collectivist societies.

 

Gay Relationships

 

Most of the information discussed so far has been derived from research on heterosexual friendships and romantic relationships. Much less information is available about gay relationships. What we know is that gay relationships are a fact of society. Homosexuality has existed in every society and in every era.

What we know about gay relationships is often in contrast to the "model" of heterosexual relationships. Gay relationships may be intracultural or intercultural. Although there are many similarities between gay and straight relationships, they may differ in several areas: in the role of same-sex friendships, the role of cross-sex friendships, and in the relative importance of friendships.

Same-sex friendship relationships may have different roles for gay and straight males in the United States. Typically, U.S. males are socialized toward less self-expression and emotional intimacy. Most heterosexual men turn to women for emotional support; often, a wife or female romantic partner, rather than a same-sex friend, is the major source of emotional support.

This was not always true in the United States, and it is not true today in many countries where male friendship often closely parallels romantic love. In India, for example, "men are as free as women to form intimate friendships with revelations of deep feelings, failures, and worries and to show their affection physically by holding hands" (Gareis, p. 36). Same-sex friendships and romantic relationships both may involve expectations of undying loyalty, devotion, and intense emotional gratification. This seems to be true also for men in gay relationships; they tend to seek emotional support from same-sex friendships (Sherrod & Nardi, 1988).

This differentiation doesn't seem to be true for straight women and lesbians, though. Individuals in these groups seem to seek intimacy more often through same-sex friendships. That is, they seek an intimate level of friendship more often with women than with men.

The role of sexuality also may be different in heterosexual relationships compared to gay friendships. In heterosexual relationships, friendship and sexual involvement sometimes seem mutually exclusive. As the character Harry said to Sally in the film When Harry Met Sally . . . , "Men can never be friends with women. The sex thing always gets in the way." Cross-sex friendships always seem ambiguous because of the "sex thing."

This ambiguity does not seem to hold true in gay relationships. Friendships often start with sexual attraction and involvement but often last after sexual involvement is terminated. There is often a clear distinction between "lover" and "friend" for both gay men and women, almost like an "incest taboo" among the family of friends (Nardi, 1992: 114). Close friendships may play a more important role for gay people than for straight people. Gay people often suffer discrimination and hostility from the straight world (Nakayama, 1998). In addition, they often have strained relationships with their families. For these reasons, the social support from friends in the gay community often plays a special role. Sometimes friends fill in as family, as described by a young man interviewed for a study. He explained:

Friends become part of my extended family. A lot of us are estranged from our families because we 're gay and our parents don't understand or don't want to understand. That's a separation there. I can't talk to them about my relationships. / don't go to them; I've finally learned my lesson: family is out. Now I've got a close circle of good friends that I can sit and talk to about anything. I learned to do without the family. (Nardi, 1992: 110)

Many of the issues in romantic relationships apply to both heterosexual and gay couples. However, some relational issues, including permanent relationships and relational dissolution, are unique to gay partners.

The fact is that in the United States there is little legal recognition of permanent gay relationships. Some countries, however, formally recognize same-sex relationships and, therefore, create different social conditions for gay and lesbian relationships. Vietnam, for example, does not stipulate that marriage must be between members of the opposite sex, whereas Belgium recognizes same-sex partnerships but not marriages.

Same-sex relationships, like heterosexual relationships, are profoundly influenced by the cultural contexts in which they occur. In Denmark and the Netherlands, for example, gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry. Also, same-sex relationships are recognized in Australia for purposes of immigration. That is, a gay or lesbian citizen may sponsor his or her long-term partner for residency in Australia.

Regardless of one's position on the desirability of gay and lesbian marriage, it is important to understand the implications for same-sex relationships, which includes issues of dissolution (= disintegration). The dissolution of heterosexual relationships often is delayed due to family and societal pressures, religious beliefs, custody battles, and so on. However, some gay relationships probably terminate at a much earlier time because they are not subject to these pressures.

 

Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-06-10

lectmania.ru. Все права принадлежат авторам данных материалов. В случае нарушения авторского права напишите нам сюда...