INT’L. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 9(2), 1978-79
AGING AND PRIMARY RELATIONS*
NICHOLAS BABCHUK Department of Sociology University of Nebraska-L incoln
ABSTRACT
After listing all consanguinal and affmal kin, our sample of 800 respondents fortyfive and older identified those with whom they felt very close and who among these were confidants. A parallel procedure was used to identify very close friends and confidant friends. These four types (primary relatives, confidant relatives, primary fkiends, confidant friends) were seen as constituting the primary-group resource of our respondents. Thirty of the 800 individuals lacked primary ties with kin, compared to 118 of 800 without primary ties with friends. While very few of the respondents were without very close ties of any kind, those with extensive primary-group resources were more likely to be women rather than men, younger rather than older, married rather than single, and in high rather than low-status occupations.
Little research exists on the extent and nature of close interpersonal ties found in society even though such ties have been recognized as crucial to the physical and mental well being of the individual. This fact is puzzling given numerous studies in sociology which show a modest but important relationship be’tween social isolation and maladjustment. There is also a substantial body of literature on interpersonal relation in psychology, such as essays with a Freudian orientation and studies which predicate psychic well being on the capacity of individuals to relate to others, the early work of both Spitz [ l ] and of Davis [2] which underscores the importance of close contact with others that the infant requires for survival and for the development of normal behavior, and the family literature.’ *This study was supported by PHS Grant 3 R01 CH00329 from the National Center for Health Services Research. Part of this literature is cited by Lowenthal and Haven in an article in which they consider “intimacy” as a critical variable [ 31 .
’
137
0 1978, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/N9HX-2X6R-H4WJ-9024 http://baywood.com
138 / NICHOLAS BABCHUK
Information will be presented here on the primary and intimate ties of a middle-aged and aged population (persons 45 and older) taking into account background and situational factors. Several studies have explored this issue with a similar population but in a limited way.’ Notable among these are the work by Blau dealing with the structural constraints on aging [5] , Rosow’s work on the social integration of the aged [ 6 ] ,reports by Shanas [7], Strieb [8], Lowenthal [9] and Lowenthal and Haven’s [3] , analysis of intimacy as critical variable in the adaptation of a population sixty and older. Our own previous work on primary relations guided us in seeking a mmplete enumeration of all primary ties of an aged p ~ p u l a t i o n .In ~ that work, primary relations are seen as having both a social-psychological dimension (e.g., affectivity, psychic closeness) and a sociological one (e.g., frequency of interaction, duration of relationship over time, formal obligation incurred by one person t o the other, etc.). This mode of conceptualizing primary ties bears upon the way questions were framed to elicit information. Two networks incorporate all primary resources, the network of very close kinsmen and very close friends. These two networks are quite distinct from each other; this is especially evident sociologically. Those who are related and who reside in the same domicile are likely to interact more often and t o be more bound to each other, irrespective of whether they enjoy such contact, than persons coming together in friendship networks. The latter collectivity is volitional. This kind of difference, among many others that might be made, clearly underscores how erroneous and misleading it is to “lump together” such units as families, gangs, neighborhood play groups, and work units as primary groups and to suggest that there is substantial equivalence between them. There is no compelling reason why all members of a nuclear or extended family should like each other, let alone feel close. There are even fewer reasons for people to feel any special affinity for each other because they reside in the same neighborhood, or are work associates, and so forth. In most families, husband and wife will be in more frequent contact and engage in a wider range of activities with each other, be more likely to consult with and take each other into account on important matters, will more often share intimacies as well as stressful and traumatic events as a pair than they will act apart from each other. Other sub-units such as mother-child, unclenephew, and cousins, can constitute primary units or networks within the larger family system without the family as a whole (nuclear or extended) constituting a primary group. Indeed, in some nuclear and extended families, members show little love, intimacy, or do much associating or cooperating
’
For a review of a number of these studies see Chapters 23 and 24 of Aging and Society by Riley and Foner [4]. In particular see Bates and Babchuk [ l o ] , Babchuk [ l l ], and Babchuk and Ballweg [ 121. For a recent comprehensive review of the primary-group literature see Acock et af. [131.
AGING AND PRIMARY RELATIONS /
139
with each other. In some families, perhaps the majority, one or more members become alienated. The broken family, or the one in which hostility is a dominant mode of expression, is not that uncommon. In sum, an individual may differentiate sharply between those relatives with whom there is great affection and intimacy (and frequent interaction), and those with whom there is indifference or hostility. This state of affairs applies in greater variation of expression in extended family units. Apart from identifying the relatives who were regarded as very close, we sought information on those who were confidants, kin who were singled out as being especially close. We obtained information from our respondents on all relatives and asked them to name those who were very close; these are designated as primary relatives. Among these, an individual often chooses to cultivate still closer and more primary relations with relatives who serve as confidants. These were designated as confidant relatives. A parallel view was taken with respect to friends. Most individuals have many acquaintances but fewer friends. Among those who are friends, a smaller number will be thought of as being very close; these are designated as primary fiends. Such persons could be neighbors (or former neighbors), work associates, co-members of voluntary groups, individuals met in childhood, in school or later in life through a spouse or mutual friend. The critical dimension was that such
AGING AND PRIMARY RELATIONS*
NICHOLAS BABCHUK Department of Sociology University of Nebraska-L incoln
ABSTRACT
After listing all consanguinal and affmal kin, our sample of 800 respondents fortyfive and older identified those with whom they felt very close and who among these were confidants. A parallel procedure was used to identify very close friends and confidant friends. These four types (primary relatives, confidant relatives, primary fkiends, confidant friends) were seen as constituting the primary-group resource of our respondents. Thirty of the 800 individuals lacked primary ties with kin, compared to 118 of 800 without primary ties with friends. While very few of the respondents were without very close ties of any kind, those with extensive primary-group resources were more likely to be women rather than men, younger rather than older, married rather than single, and in high rather than low-status occupations.
Little research exists on the extent and nature of close interpersonal ties found in society even though such ties have been recognized as crucial to the physical and mental well being of the individual. This fact is puzzling given numerous studies in sociology which show a modest but important relationship be’tween social isolation and maladjustment. There is also a substantial body of literature on interpersonal relation in psychology, such as essays with a Freudian orientation and studies which predicate psychic well being on the capacity of individuals to relate to others, the early work of both Spitz [ l ] and of Davis [2] which underscores the importance of close contact with others that the infant requires for survival and for the development of normal behavior, and the family literature.’ *This study was supported by PHS Grant 3 R01 CH00329 from the National Center for Health Services Research. Part of this literature is cited by Lowenthal and Haven in an article in which they consider “intimacy” as a critical variable [ 31 .
’
137
0 1978, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/N9HX-2X6R-H4WJ-9024 http://baywood.com
138 / NICHOLAS BABCHUK
Information will be presented here on the primary and intimate ties of a middle-aged and aged population (persons 45 and older) taking into account background and situational factors. Several studies have explored this issue with a similar population but in a limited way.’ Notable among these are the work by Blau dealing with the structural constraints on aging [5] , Rosow’s work on the social integration of the aged [ 6 ] ,reports by Shanas [7], Strieb [8], Lowenthal [9] and Lowenthal and Haven’s [3] , analysis of intimacy as critical variable in the adaptation of a population sixty and older. Our own previous work on primary relations guided us in seeking a mmplete enumeration of all primary ties of an aged p ~ p u l a t i o n .In ~ that work, primary relations are seen as having both a social-psychological dimension (e.g., affectivity, psychic closeness) and a sociological one (e.g., frequency of interaction, duration of relationship over time, formal obligation incurred by one person t o the other, etc.). This mode of conceptualizing primary ties bears upon the way questions were framed to elicit information. Two networks incorporate all primary resources, the network of very close kinsmen and very close friends. These two networks are quite distinct from each other; this is especially evident sociologically. Those who are related and who reside in the same domicile are likely to interact more often and t o be more bound to each other, irrespective of whether they enjoy such contact, than persons coming together in friendship networks. The latter collectivity is volitional. This kind of difference, among many others that might be made, clearly underscores how erroneous and misleading it is to “lump together” such units as families, gangs, neighborhood play groups, and work units as primary groups and to suggest that there is substantial equivalence between them. There is no compelling reason why all members of a nuclear or extended family should like each other, let alone feel close. There are even fewer reasons for people to feel any special affinity for each other because they reside in the same neighborhood, or are work associates, and so forth. In most families, husband and wife will be in more frequent contact and engage in a wider range of activities with each other, be more likely to consult with and take each other into account on important matters, will more often share intimacies as well as stressful and traumatic events as a pair than they will act apart from each other. Other sub-units such as mother-child, unclenephew, and cousins, can constitute primary units or networks within the larger family system without the family as a whole (nuclear or extended) constituting a primary group. Indeed, in some nuclear and extended families, members show little love, intimacy, or do much associating or cooperating
’
For a review of a number of these studies see Chapters 23 and 24 of Aging and Society by Riley and Foner [4]. In particular see Bates and Babchuk [ l o ] , Babchuk [ l l ], and Babchuk and Ballweg [ 121. For a recent comprehensive review of the primary-group literature see Acock et af. [131.
AGING AND PRIMARY RELATIONS /
139
with each other. In some families, perhaps the majority, one or more members become alienated. The broken family, or the one in which hostility is a dominant mode of expression, is not that uncommon. In sum, an individual may differentiate sharply between those relatives with whom there is great affection and intimacy (and frequent interaction), and those with whom there is indifference or hostility. This state of affairs applies in greater variation of expression in extended family units. Apart from identifying the relatives who were regarded as very close, we sought information on those who were confidants, kin who were singled out as being especially close. We obtained information from our respondents on all relatives and asked them to name those who were very close; these are designated as primary relatives. Among these, an individual often chooses to cultivate still closer and more primary relations with relatives who serve as confidants. These were designated as confidant relatives. A parallel view was taken with respect to friends. Most individuals have many acquaintances but fewer friends. Among those who are friends, a smaller number will be thought of as being very close; these are designated as primary fiends. Such persons could be neighbors (or former neighbors), work associates, co-members of voluntary groups, individuals met in childhood, in school or later in life through a spouse or mutual friend. The critical dimension was that such
