Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences ((GSSS))

Abstract

Friendships have been described as the ‘least structured of intimate relationships’ (Jamieson, 1999: 482) and the ‘archetype relationships of choice’ (Pahl and Pevalin, 2005: 435). For many people, they are also the most significant, often precisely because of their mostly voluntary or chosen nature. In this chapter, I draw on the findings of ESRC-funded research (Jones-Wild, 2011) to focus on friendship and explore what might be understood by ‘families of choice’. I consider the concept of a family of choice as potentially encompassing all relationships that are actively and voluntarily maintained. Popularized by Weston (1991), families of choice and fictive kin are often primarily associated with gay men and lesbians. However, my findings suggest that the phenomenon may be more than a ‘gay way of doing things’. I argue that the creation of claimed families and families of choice both enable and are enabled by a redefining and broadening of what ‘family’ means.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adkins, L. (2002) Revisions: Gender and Sexuality in Late Modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, W. (2007) ‘Anthony Giddens as Adversary of Class Analysis’, Sociology 41(3): 533–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Political Consequences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1999) ‘On the Way to a Post-Familial Family: From a Community of Need to Elective Affinities’, Theory, Culture and Society 15(34): 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., Brewer, M. and Shephard, A. (2006) ‘Evaluating the Labour Market Impact of Working Families’ Tax Credit Using Difference-in-Differences’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J. and Nilsen, A. (2005) ‘Individualization, Choice and Structure: A Discussion of Current Sociological Analysis’, The Sociological Review: 413–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, K. (2011) ‘”By Partner We Mean…” Alternative Geographies of “Gay Marriage”’, Sexualities 14(1): 100–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budgeon, S. (2006) ‘Friendship and Formations of Sociality in Late Modernity: The Challenge of “Post Traditional Intimacy”’, Sociological Research Online 11(3), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/budgeon.html (accessed 18 September 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1993) Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London and New York: Tavistock/Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gabb, J. (2004) ‘“I Could Eat My Baby to Bits”: Passion and Desire in Lesbian Mother-Children Love’, Gender, Place Culture, Special issue on Emotional Geographies 11(3): 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, H. (1999) ‘The Informal Sector of Welfare: A Crisis in Caring?’, in G. Allan (ed.), The Sociology of the Family: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaphy, B. (2009) ‘The Storied, Complex Lives of Older GLBT Adults: Choice and Its Limits in Older Lesbian and Gay Narratives of Relational Life’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies 5: 119–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaphy, B., Yip, A. K. T. and Thompson, D. (2004) ‘Ageing in a Non-Heterosexual Context’, Ageing and Society 24: 881–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, S. (2007) TransForming Gender: Transgender Practices of Identity, Intimacy and Care. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2011) ‘Heterosexual Hierarchies: A Commentary on Class and Sexuality’, Sexualities 14(1): 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, L. (1999) ‘Intimacy Transformed: A Critical Look at the Pure Relationship’, Sociology 33: 477–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. and Burr, V. (2005) ‘Friends are the Family we Choose for Ourselves: Young People and Families in the TV Series Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research 13(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Wild, R. (2011) A Gay Nuclear Family? How Do Gay Men and Lesbians Experience and Conceptualise Family? Unpublished PhD thesis Newcastle University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, R. and Pevalin, D. (2005) ‘Between Family and Friends: A Longitudinal Study of Friendship Choice’, The British Journal of Sociology 56(3): 433–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, R. and Stone, L. (2004) ‘General Introduction’, in R. Parkin and L. Stone (eds), Kinship and Family: A Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. (2004) ‘Locating Sexualities: From Here to Normality’, Sexualities 7(4): 391–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S. (2000) ‘Queer Frameworks and Queer Tendencies: Towards an Understanding of Postmodern Transformations of Sexuality’, Sociological Research Online 5(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S. (2004) ‘Why We Should Care About Friends: An Argument for Queering the Care Imaginary in Social Policy’, Social Policy and Society 3(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. M. (1980) American Kinship: A Cultural Account, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeggs, B. (2004) Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, L. and Pahl, R. (2006) Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today. Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Y. (2007) Working Class Lesbian Lives: Classed Outsiders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Y. (2009) Lesbian and Gay Parenting: Securing Social and Educational Capital. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Y. (2011) Fitting into Place? Class and Gender Geographies and Temporalities. Farnham: Ashgate, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/ifs-did.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, G., Skelton, T. and Butler, T. (2003) ‘Coming Out and Outcomes: Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Identities With, and In, the Family’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21: 479–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001) Same-Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weston, K. (1991) Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Rachel Jones-Wild

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones-Wild, R. (2012). Reimagining Families of Choice. In: Hines, S., Taylor, Y. (eds) Sexualities: Past Reflections, Future Directions. Genders and Sexualities in the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002785_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics