American Society on Aging

The Unsung Bonds of Friendship—and Caring—Among Older Adults

Author(s): Brian de Vries
Source: Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging , Vol. 42, No. 3, Family
Matters: When Older Adults Are (Fall 2018), pp. 77-81
Published by: American Society on Aging

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26591707

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Society on Aging is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging

This content downloaded from

68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Family Matters: When Older Adults Are Caregivers

The Unsung Bonds of Friendship—

and Caring—Among Older Adults
By Brian de Vries
Though the kinship ties of family receive top
billing in the theater of life, friendship plays a key
(and often caregiving) role—especially in the
lives of older adults.

F riendship most frequently is cast as a support­

ing player in the theater of our lives; whereas
kinship receives top billing on life’s marquee.
legal (Montgomery, 1999) status. One way in
which this favored status presents itself is in the
language of relationships, which is largely the
Friendship is seen as more than an extra, but one language of kinship. Think of all of the terms
strict, often unspoken, rule applies: kinship is the that exist to describe some of the various rela­
star. Kinship takes center stage in much of our tionships we have in family contexts, such as
thinking, practice, and policy as applied to aging, husband/wife/partner; mother/father/parent;
but friendship can (and does) play many of the daughter/son/child; brother/sister/sibling—and
same roles—and often many more; friendship just those are just the immediate family (i.e., not in­­
receives less recognition and direction in the pro­ cluding step-families, aunts and uncles, nieces
cess, and operates under less favorable conditions. and nephews, in-laws, first and second [and
beyond] cousins).
North American Perspectives on Friendship Juxtapose this complexity with the script
Perspectives on social relationships, particularly we have for friends: acquaintance, pal, com­
kinship (in this article, the term “kinship” is panion, buddy, confidant, among others, and
used interchangeably with family) and friend­ this script also includes a variety of modifi­
ship, are historically, and in the broadest sense, ers such as “best” friend, “close” friend,” “just”
culturally bound. In the United States, for ex­­ friends. I believe the paucity and clumsiness
ample, notwithstanding its myriad subcultures, of our language around friendship represent the
kinship occupies a position of prominence with superficial consideration our culture affords this
favored social, cultural (Johnson, 1983), and re­­­­lationship—friendship is hidden in the shad­

abstract Relative to North American familial kinship, friendship is held in a subordinate status.
Friends, however, have deep and wide-ranging bonds—ties that can have positive consequences for
older adults’ health and well-being. This article examines some of the ways in which friendship is limited
by North American culture (i.e., the language used, expectations) and illustrates some of the supports
that friends provide for one another (i.e., intrapersonal and interpersonal support, including caregiving).
These examples and analyses suggest the strong, unrecognized potential of friendship in the lives of
older adults. | key words: friendship, friendship meaning, intrapersonal functions, interpersonal functions

Copyright © 2018 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or
distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St.,
Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: info@asaging.org. For information about ASA’s publications
visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.
Volume 42 . Number 3 | 77
This content downloaded from
68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
GE NER ATIONS – Journal of the American Society on Aging

ows of kinship. One of the few ways in which as supporters of those in grief (i.e., family—those
friendship achieves some authority or legitim­ who have the right to grieve; Doka, 2002), not as
acy is when it is likened to kin (“We’re more than grievers themselves. Yet, assuming that those
friends, we’re like family,” as one often hears) or who had died in any given year had at least one
when it is described in concepts such as “fictive friend (and there were more than 2.74 million
kin,” or “logical kin,” in contrast to biological kin deaths of all ages in the United States in 2016;
(Maupin, 2017). Kochanek et al., 2017), between 2 and 3 million
This inconsideration of friendship manifests individuals become “friend-grievers” (Deck and
in multiple other ways. For example, few people Folta, 1989) in any given year.
It is rare for any of these friend-grievers to
even receive a condolence card, as generally
Perspectives on social relationships, these are sent only to the family. These “survi­
notably kinship and friendship, are vor friends” (Sklar and Hartley, 1990) are left to
themselves in a world of grief (de Vries, 2001);
historically and, in the broadest they are a hidden population experiencing “the
sense, culturally bound. social and emotional transformation of bereave­
ment, while they are forced to suffer the lack of
(especially outside of South America) know or institutional outlets that act as support” (Sklar
celebrate friendship day—even though in 2011 and Hartley, 1990).
the General Assembly of the United Nations pro­
claimed July 30 as the official International Day The Functions and Deeper Meanings
of Friendship (United Nations, 2011). of Friendship
Such inconsideration sometimes has hurt­ Paradoxically, in the relative isolated ambiguity
ful consequences. For example, when couples or of this grief experience, a deeper meaning and
families are in distress, they often are encour­ value of friendship may be discovered (de Vries
aged to “work things out,” possibly with the sup­ and Johnson, 2002). In de Vries’ and Johnson’s
port of a trained couples and family therapist. analysis of interview data from 144 community-
Few such options exist for friends, as Blieszner dwelling men and women older than age 70,
(2001) has pointed out, noting the absence of many of these older adults, when queried about
friend therapists. Rather, in such conflictual cir­ their grief experience, revealed the great depth
cumstances, friendships often are “sloughed off” of their emotional pain (not dissimilar to the
(Johnson and Troll, 1994), with a feeling that “it’s grief reactions of kin in many respects); they
time to make new friends.” Ironically, this cen­ also noted both the intrapersonal and inter­
tral and valued feature of friendship, choice, may personal functions of their lost friendship(s)
be the same feature that renders friends dispos­ (de Vries and Johnson, 2002).
able: “You can choose your friends, but fami­
lies are forever.” Recent research by Gillath and Intrapersonal and interpersonal functions
Keefer (2016) found that the tendency to dispose Intrapersonally, older adults noted that with
of objects and social ties (including but not lim­ the death of a friend, they lost someone who
ited to friends) are related—a potentially star­ knew them holistically (i.e., beyond a family
tling manifestation of a throwaway culture. role—more than a “mother” or “father”). They
Another example may be seen with the death lost someone through whom they saw them­
of a friend, a particularly understudied aspect of selves (one 93-year-old woman said, “I’ve had a
loss and bereavement and friendship (de Vries good life compared to what others go through”).
and Johnson, 2002). Friends are more often seen They lost someone who understood and perhaps

Copyright © 2018 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or
distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St.,
Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: info@asaging.org. For information about ASA’s publications
visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.
78 | Fall 2018
This content downloaded from
68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Family Matters: When Older Adults Are Caregivers

shared their connections to another place, time, Loneliness has been identified as a risk factor for
and circumstance (de Vries and Johnson, 2002). broad-based morbidity and even mortality (Ong,
One 82-year-old man in the sample said that no Uchino, and Wethington, 2016).
one is alive who knew him in Leningrad—he
referenced a person and a place no longer in Direct support functions
existence. These bereft friends lost a link to their There is a modest literature exploring the more
authentic self, their reflection, their life history— direct, tangible support offered by friends. For
all meaningful intrapersonal features of the example, estimates are that almost 34.2 mil­
friendship bond (de Vries, 1996). lion people in the United States are providing
Older adults also commented on how once- unpaid care to an older adult (National Alliance
valued interpersonal activities were now lost to for Caregiving and AARP Public Policy Institute,
them. These included meaningful discussions 2015). Barker (2002) estimates that as many as
(e.g., “I like intelligent conversation . . . friends 10 percent of community-living older persons
are all dead that I could discuss those things receive informal assistance from non-kin care­
with,” said one 92-year-old man), sharing mem­ givers—mostly friends and neighbors. Such
ories (e.g., “I miss not having anyone to share numbers likely significantly undercount friend
those memories with. I miss not being necessary caregivers; Barker and Mitteness (1990) reported
to anyone,” said a 76-year-old woman), and self- that there was great reticence among these
disclosure (e.g., “I could tell her anything. I used friends to identify as a caregiver. Most respon­
to turn to her when down and discouraged,” dents doubted their eligibility for the study, not­
noted a 75-year-old woman). ing that “they were just a friend, not a caregiver”
(Barker, 2002), remarking on the blurred distinc­
tion between friendship, neighborliness, and
‘These bereft friends lost a link to caregiving, as well as the centrality of family in
their authentic self, their reflection, the cultural thought around this issue.
their life history . . .’ Among LGBT and other groups with often
non-traditional and-or disrupted family ties,
Older adults also talked about the social friends play an even more significant role. A
engagements in which they could no longer par­ MetLife (2010) study of more than 2,400 LGBT
ticipate, and activities that were no longer acces­ and general population baby boomers found that
sible to them: “I lost one gentleman friend from 21 percent of the LGBT sample and 17 percent of
the church. He always drove me to the church the general population sample had provided care
[which she could no longer attend],” said one to an adult in the previous six months. LGBT per­
88-year-old woman). These are consequential sons were almost four times more likely to care for
connections; later-life friendship contact has a friend than were those in the general population.
been associated with happiness (Blieszner, 1995), When scrutinized further, the efforts ex­­
life satisfaction (Siebert, Mutran, and Reitzes, pended and the care provided by these friends
1999), civic engagement (McPherson, Smith- often were indistinguishable from that provided
Lovin, and Brashears, 2006), and even longevity by family—persisting, in some cases, over many
(Giles et al., 2005). years (Barker and Mitteness, 1990). Other stud­
Isolation, by contrast, exacts a significant toll. ies have reported similar findings: Brennan-Ing
Shankar et al. (2011), for example, report that et al. (2014) found, with their sample of older
social isolation in later life is associated with a LGBT adults, that there were no significant dif­
range of health-risk behaviors (including inac­ ferences in the amount of support provided by
tivity, smoking, and also high blood pressure). friends and that provided by family. And, as one

Copyright © 2018 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or
distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St.,
Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: info@asaging.org. For information about ASA’s publications
visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.
Volume 42 . Number 3 | 79
This content downloaded from
68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
GE NER ATIONS – Journal of the American Society on Aging

of the participants shared, friends provide care neither in the roles friends play as grievers, nor
while “looking over their shoulder” because they as caregivers, for example—and, consequently,
feared being perceived as “too familiar.” friends fear to overplay their performance.
Barker (2002) has reported that friend care­ There certainly is a place for supporting play­
givers refused to engage in some tasks (e.g., deal­ ers in both theater and in life—not everyone can
ing with their friend’s finances), mostly out of have a starring role! It is vital and timely that
fear that their behavior would be misinterpreted
as being suspect. Shiu, Muraco, and Fredriksen- Care provided by friends often was
Goldsen (2016) found that friend caregivers
engaged in fewer activities of care, but—impor­ indistinguishable from care provided
tantly—also experienced low levels of social sup­ by family.
port. These friends give of themselves, caring for
another in often ambiguous, less recognized, and we consider and elevate friendship for its fea­
even suspicious cultural contexts. tured, honored, and valued presence in the lives
of adults of all ages, but especially in the lives of
Conclusion older adults.
Friendships provide broad-based, deep connec­­
tions for individuals of all ages. Friendship, while Brian de Vries, Ph.D., is professor emeritus in the Ger-
lacking the more elaborate script of kinship (i.e., ontology Pro­­gram at San Francisco State University
in the terms used, the roles offered), does not have in San Francisco, California. He can be contacted at
the benefit of direction that is offered in kinship— bdevries@sfsu.edu.

References
Barker, J. C. 2002. “Neighbors, Brennan-Ing, M., et al. 2014. Deck, E. S., and Folta, J. R. 1989.
Friends and Other Non-kin Care­ “Social Care Networks and Older “The Friend-griever.” In K. J.
givers of Community-living De­­ LGBT Adults: Challenges for the Doka, ed., Disenfranchised Grief:
pen­­­dent Elders.” The Journals of Future.” Journal of Homosexuality Recognizing Hidden Sorrow. Lex­
Gerontology, Series B: Psychological 61(1): 21–52. ington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sciences and Social Sciences 57(3):
de Vries, B. 1996. “The Under­ Doka, K. J. 2002. “Disenfranchised
158–67.
standing of Friendship: An Adult Grief.” In K. J. Doka, ed., Living
Barker, J. C., and Mitteness, L. S. Life Course Perspective. In C. with Grief: Loss in Later Life. Wash­
1990. “Invisible Caregivers in the Magai and S. McFadden, eds., ington, DC: The Hospice Founda­
Spotlight: Non-kin Caregivers of Handbook of Emotion, Aging, and tion of America.
Frail Older Adults.” In J. F. the Life Course. New York: Aca­
Giles, L. C., et al. 2005. “Effect of
Gubrium and A. Sankar, eds., The demic Press.
Social Networks on 10-Year Sur­
Home Care Experience: Ethnogra-
de Vries, B. 2001. “Grief: Intima­ vival in Very Old Australians: The
phy and Policy. Newbury Park,
cy’s Reflection.” Generations 25(2): Australian Longitudinal Study
CA: Sage.
75–80. of Aging.” Journal of Epidemiol-
Bleiszner, R. 1995. “Friendship ogy and Community Health 59(7):
de Vries, B., and Johnson, C. L.
Processes and Well-being in the 574–9.
2002. “The Death of Friends in
Later Years of Life: Implications
Later Life.” Advances in Life-course Gillath, O., and Keefer, L. A. 2016.
for Interventions.” Journal of Geri-
Research: New Frontiers in Social- “Generalizing Disposability: Resi­
atric Psychiatry 28(2): 165–82.
ization 7: 299–324. dential Mobility and the Willing­
Blieszner, R. 2001. “ ‘She’ll Be ness to Dissolve Social Ties.” Per-
on My Heart’: Intimacy Among sonal Relationships 23(2): 186–98.
Friends.” Generations 25(2): 48–54.

Copyright © 2018 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or
distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St.,
Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: info@asaging.org. For information about ASA’s publications
visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.
80 | Fall 2018
This content downloaded from
68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Family Matters: When Older Adults Are Caregivers

Johnson, C. L. 1983. “Fairweather MetLife Mature Market Insti­ Shiu, C., Muraco, A., and Fredriksen-
Friends and Rainy Day Kin: An tute. 2010. Still Out, Still Aging: Goldsen, K. 2016. “Invisible Care:
Anthropological Analysis of Old- The MetLife Study of Lesbian, Gay, Friend and Partner Care Among
Age Friendships in the United Bisexual, and Transgender Baby Older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
States.” Urban Anthropology 12(2): Boomers. Westport, CT: MetLife Transgender (LGBT) Adults.”
103–23. Mature Market Institute. Journal of the Society for Social
Work and Research 7(3): 527–46.
Johnson, C. L., and Troll, L. E. Montgomery, R. J. 1999. “The Fam­
1994. “Constraints and Facilitators ily Role in the Context of Long- Siebert, D., Mutran, E., and
to Friendship in Late Late Life.” term Care.” Journal of Aging and Reitzes, D. 1999. “Friendship and
The Gerontologist 34(1): 79–87. Health 11(3): 383–416. Social Support: The Importance
of Role Identity to Aging Adults.”
Kochanek, K. D., et al. 2017. “Mor­ National Alliance for Caregiving
Social Work 44(6): 522–33.
tality in the United States, 2016.” (NAC) and AARP Public Policy
NCHS Data Brief (No. 293). Hyatts­ Institute. 2015. Caregiving in the Sklar, F., and Hartley, S. F. 1990.
ville, MD: National Center for U.S. 2015 Report. Washington, DC: “Close Friends as Survivors:
Health Statistics. NAC and AARP. Bereavement Patterns in a ‘Hid­
den’ Population.” Omega—Journal
Maupin, A. 2017. Logical Family: A Ong, A., Uchino, B., and Wething­
of Death and Dying 21(2): 103–12.
Memoir. New York: HarperCollins ton, E. 2016. “Loneliness and
Publishers. Health in Older Adults: A Mini- United Nations. 2011. “Interna­
review and Synthesis.” Gerontology tional Day of Friendship.” tinyurl.
McPherson, J., Smith-Lovin, L.,
62(4): 443–9. com/cdaqbw9. Retrieved April
and Brashears, M. 2006. “Social
10, 2018.
Isolation in America: Changes in Shankar, A., et al. 2011. “Loneli­
Core Discussion Networks Over ness, Social Isolation, and Behav­
Two Decades.” American Sociologi- ioral and Biological Indicators in
cal Review 71(3): 353–75. Older Adults.” Health Psychology
30(4): 377–85.

Copyright © 2018 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or
distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St.,
Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: info@asaging.org. For information about ASA’s publications
visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.
Volume 42 . Number 3 | 81
This content downloaded from
68.40.189.143 on Thu, 13 May 2021 19:23:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms