Titlebook: Everyday Friendships; Intimacy as Freedom Harry Blatterer Book 2015 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2015 Fr

Vulnerary

rheumatism

Friendship, Intimacy, and the Self,opes to give some clues about how that freedom is constructed by friends and with what consequences. Beginning with describing friendship as delivering a sense of ‘home’ under conditions of modernity, I turn to the question of how friendship contributes to the making of selves. This question starts

Wordlist

Gender and the Love-Friendship Paradox,n the preceding chapters elaborated what others too have suggested: that of all interpersonal relationships friendship provides us with extensive relational freedom of interaction, with all the generative potential that entails. But I have also intimated that this freedom isn’t total, because of fri

faultfinder

The Love-Friendship Paradox and Cross-Sex Friendship, reference to cross-sex friendship. While we might assume that today intimate relationships are free from social convention, that turns out to be true for cross-sex friendship only to a limited extent. The social construction of different types of intimacy for men and women, and the norm of sexual a

主講人

厚臉皮

Introduction,(Nedelmann, 1991, my translation). To say that friendship is underrepresented in sociology is to acknowledge that there . work on the topic. This book, after all, draws liberally on existing research, old and new. It is, however, still relatively marginal in the discipline, especially concerning fri

Conserve

Modernity, Intimacy, and Friendship,nking. Scholars have argued that this commonly reiterated interpretation misses the highly instrumental approach to intimacy taken by the Scots, and especially by Smith. I argue instead that early Romanticism is key to the meaning of intimacy in the modern sense; that the Romantics’ often exaggerate

conscience

receptors

Friendship, Intimacy, and the Self,would not be ourselves’ (Bollas cited in Craib, 1998, p. 10). These areas butt up against the disciplinary boundaries of sociology, and I certainly cannot pretend to have expertise in them. What I can do, however, is emphasize that our humanness cannot be divorced from our sociality. In this chapter

Enervate

Gender and the Love-Friendship Paradox,ut friendship’s embeddedness also means that it is constrained. For one, it is semantically ‘constrained’ to the extent that we partake in the collective construction and reconstruction of its meanings. Thus there is the constraint to interact like friends, and not like lovers or parents and childre