Starting from a simple model of personal relationships based on degrees of commitment and degrees of choice, the authors explore the relative importance of repertoires (the range of friendship types in which people engage), friendship modes (the way in which people make, retain or lose friends throughout the life course) and patterns of suffusion (the extent to which friends and family play overlapping or specialized roles), and these concepts form the basis of a typology of personal communities. Analysis of ‘suffusion’ between ‘friends’ and ‘family’ showed considerable blurring of boundaries. The authors challenge assumptions about familial and non-familial ties. Empirical findings demonstrate the diversity and significance of contemporary personal communities and rebut the postmodernist thesis that people are isolated, individualized and lacking in strong and enduring personal relationships.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABBOTT, P. and WALLACE, C. (1992) The Family and the New Right. London: Pluto Press .
2.
ALLAN, G. (1998) ‘Friendship Sociology and Social Structure’ , Journal of Social and Personal Relationships15(5): 685–702 .
3.
ANTONUCCI, T. C. and AKIYAMA, H. (1995) ‘Convoys of Social Relationships: Family and Friendship within a Life Span Context’, in R. Blieszner and V. Hilkvitan-Bedford (eds) Handbook of Aging and the Family. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press .
4.
BAUMAN, Z. (2003) Liquid Love. Cambridge: Polity Press .
5.
BECK, U. and BECK-GERNSHEIM, E. (2001) Individualization. London: Sage .
6.
BELL, C. and NEWBY, H. (1971) Community Studies. London: Allen and Unwin .
7.
BELLAH, R. et al. (1985) Habits of the Heart: Middle America Observed. Berkeley: University of California Press .
8.
BOISSEVAIN, J. (1979) ‘Network Analysis: A Reappraisal’ , Current Anthropology20: 392–394 .
9.
CALHOUN, C. (1991) ‘Indirect Relationships and Imagined Communities: Large-Scale Social Integration and the Transformation of Everyday Life’, in P. Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds) Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder, CO and Oxford: Westview Press .
10.
CALHOUN, C. (1998) ‘Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications Technology and the Transformation of the Urban Public Space’ , Sociological Inquiry68(3): 373–397 .
11.
CASTELLS, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
12.
DAVIES, J., ed. (1993) The Family: Is it Just Another Lifestyle Choice? London: Institute of Economic Affairs .
13.
DAVIS, K. E. and TODD, M. J. (1985) ‘Assessing Friendship: Prototypes, Paradigm Cases and Relationship Description’, in S. Duck and D. Perlman (eds) Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach, pp.17–38. London: Sage .
14.
DELANTY, G. (2003) Community. London: Routledge .
15.
ETZIONI, A. (1993) The Parenting Deficit. London: Demos .
16.
FINCH, J. and MASON, J. (1993) Negotiating Family Responsibilities. Cambridge: Polity Press .
17.
GIDDENS, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press .
18.
GRANOVETTER, M. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’ , American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–1380 .
19.
HAMPTON, K. N. and WELLMAN, B. (2002) ‘The Not So Global Village of Netville’, in B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwate (eds) The Internet in Everyday Life, pp.345–371. Oxford: Blackwell .
20.
HIRSCH, B. J. (1981) ‘Social Networks and the Coping Process: Creating Personal Communities’, in B. Gottlieb (ed.) Social Networks and Social Support. London: Sage .
21.
JAMIESON, L. (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press .
22.
JAMIESON, L. (1999) ‘Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the “Pure Relationship”’ , Sociology33: 477–494 .
23.
KOMTER, A. and VOLLEBERGH, W. (1997) ‘Gift Giving and the Emotional Significance of Family and Friends’ , Journal of Marriage and the Family59: 747–757 .
24.
LANCASTER, L. (1958) ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society’, 2 parts , British Journal of Sociology19(3 and 4).
25.
MACFARLANE, A. (1970) The Family Life of Ralph Josselyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
26.
OZMENT, S. (2001) Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
27.
PAHL, R. E. (1970) Patterns of Urban Life. London: Longman .
28.
PAHL, R. E. (2000) On Friendship. Cambridge: Polity Press .
29.
PAHL, R. E. (2002) ‘Towards a More Significant Sociology of Friendship’ , European Journal of Sociology43(3): 410–423 .
30.
PAHL, R. E. and SPENCER, L. (2003) ‘Capturing Personal Communities’, in C. Phillipson et al. (eds) Social Networks and Social Exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate .
31.
PARK, A. and ROBERTS, C. (2002) ‘The Ties that Bind’, British Social Attitudes: The 19th Report, pp. 185–207. Aldershot: Ashgate .
32.
RITCHIE, J. and SPENCER, L. (1994) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis’, in A. Bryman and R. G. Burgess (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data, pp. 173–194. London: Routledge .
33.
RITCHIE, J., SPENCER, L. and O’CONNELL, W. (2003) ‘Carrying out Qualitative Analysis’, in J. Ritchie and J. Lewis (eds) Qualitative Research Practice, pp. 219–262. London: Sage .
34.
SNELL, K. D. M. (1985) Annals of the Labouring Poor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
35.
STERN-GILLET, S. (1995) Aristotle’s Philosophy of Friendship. Albany: State University of New York Press .
36.
TADMORE, N. (2001) Family and Friends in Eighteenth Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
37.
WEEKS, J., HEAPHY, B. and DONOVAN, C. (2001) Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London: Routledge .
38.
WELLMAN, B. (2001) ‘Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Networked Individualism’ , International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25(2): 227–252 .
39.
WELLMAN, B., CARRINGTON, P. J. and HALL, A. (1988) ‘Networks as Personal Communities’, in B. Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (eds) Social Structures: A Network Approach, pp. 130–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
40.
WILLMOTT, P. (1987) Friendship Network and Social Support. London: Policy Studies Institute .
41.
6, P. (1997) Escaping Poverty: From Safety Networks to Networks of Opportunity. London: Demos .
