Friendship and love. Friendship, love and psychological intimacy

Tell me where does love start?

Mind, did her heart give her life?

And what should she eat?

W. Shakespeare

The specificity of male and female friendship, which is closely related to the problem of the possibility of mixed, heterosexual friendship and the relationship between the concepts of friendship and love, has long been controversial.

The traditional theory of friendship, which has its roots in antiquity, considered it, as already mentioned, to be a predominantly male virtue. M. Montaigne wrote that " regular level women is by no means such that they are able to maintain that spiritual intimacy and unity that feeds this exalted union; and their soul, apparently, does not have sufficient stamina to not be burdened by the shyness of such a strong and lasting relationship. "The possibility of friendship between women began to be gradually recognized only in the 18th century, but even today many are convinced that women's friendship is significantly inferior to men's in depth, strength and stability. Many girls, explaining their desire to be friends with boys, say that they are not only more interesting and smarter, but also more sincere and faithful in friendship.

How to check this opinion? First of all, we need reliable facts about the differences between male and female friendships, concerning the number and composition of friends, the stability of friendships, their structure, value orientations, functions, degree of intimacy, etc. In addition, the question arises whether these facts should be considered a manifestation of innate, universal sexual differences, or the result of different socialization of boys and girls, or a consequence of an illusion that prompts us to perceive and categorize facts in the light of the usual abstract opposition of male (masculine) and female (feminine) otherwise) began.

The opposition of "male" and "female" is one of the universal paired oppositions of the human psyche: day and night, light and darkness, good and evil, existing at all times and among all peoples. Their categorization as "distribution" and other paired oppositional phenomena according to logical categories is subject to certain patterns. Any paired categories at first seem mutually exclusive: "male" or "female". Then their quantitative gradations are revealed, “gray” appears between “black” and “white”, the categories no longer appear separately, but become poles of some connected process, forcing us to talk about the degree of masculinity or femininity. Finally, it turns out that these oppositional phenomena are qualitatively multidimensional, so that the same individual can, within certain limits, have both feminine and masculine properties. As a result, the logical categories of "male" and "female" are transformed from stereotypes, under which all individual differences are mechanically subsumed, into prototypes, conditional, extreme cases.

Ordinary consciousness tends to derive all the observed differences in the behavior and psyche of men and women from the biological laws of the division of the sexes. But in order to prove the biological nature of any behavioral features, for example, the level of sociability or the degree of stability of male and female friendship, it is necessary to check the relevant facts according to several criteria: how closely this social behavior is related to the biological characteristics of sex; does it show up given type behavior in infants and young children prior to their forced sexual socialization or in connection with the processes of puberty; whether similar behavior is observed in different human societies, cultures; whether it was noted in other biological species that are genetically close to humans.

Since friendship is an extremely complex phenomenon, only its individual prerequisites and components can be empirically compared: communication style, the nature of group relations between boys and girls, their levels of sociability, empathy (empathy), self-disclosure, etc. However, private comparisons make sense only within a certain whole.

With regard to the level of sociability, the ability to make contact with other persons, until recently, psychologists gave preference to men. From a very early age, boys are more active than girls in making contact with other children, starting joint games, etc. The feeling of belonging to a peer group and communication with them is much more important for men of all ages than for women.

However, the differences between the sexes in the level of sociability are not so much quantitative as qualitative. Although fuss and power games bring great emotional satisfaction to boys, there is usually a competitive spirit in them, often the game turns into a fight. Content joint activities and their own success in it mean more to the boys than the presence of individual sympathy for other participants in the game. The boy chooses, first of all, an interesting game in which he can prove himself; for this he makes contact, even if he does not particularly like the partners. Male communication, like the whole lifestyle, is more objective and instrumental than expressive.

Girls' communication looks more passive, but more friendly and selective. Judging by research data, boys first come into contact with each other and only then, in the course of a game or business interaction, do they develop a positive attitude, a spiritual attraction to each other appears. Girls, on the contrary, come into contact mainly with those they like, the content of joint activities is relatively secondary for them.

From an early age, boys tend to be wider, and girls to more narrow circle communication. Boys more often. they play in large groups, and the girls play in twos or threes. According to the observations of psychologists, the most sociable two-and-a-half-year-old boys, being in the company of peers, preferred extensive relationships, usually played with a whole group of boys, the most sociable girls, on the contrary, played with one or two girlfriends. These differences persisted five years later, when the children were seven and a half years old.

A sociometric longitudinal study of friendships in several school classes (children aged nine to twelve years) showed that friendly couples of girls are more exclusive, closed to outsiders, than boyish companies. But boyish companies have a stricter and more stable order, leadership system, etc. These conclusions are supported by relevant ethological and ethnographic data. It is known, for example, that in primitive society an important role in the socialization of adolescents and youths is played by the so-called "men's houses" and age classes, which often cover the pre-adolescent age (eight - twelve years). A sense of belonging and emotional attachment to one's gender and age group precedes the formation of closer and more individualized friendships and is often maintained throughout one's life. Boy groups everywhere are relatively autonomous from adults, have their own discipline and hierarchy, and often behave antisocially. On the contrary, eight-twelve-year-old girls are much more closely connected with the parental family and less often form stable large groups, limiting themselves to more intimate ones. The structure of girls' groups, leadership in them are less rigid, and their social functions are less defined than those of boys.

Different ways of socialization of boys and girls, on the one hand, reflect, and on the other hand, create and reproduce gender differences. Moreover, as we see, we are talking not just about differences in the degree of sociability of boys and girls, but about the qualitative features of the structure and content of their communication and life.

We have already talked about gender differences in empathy and self-disclosure, about the greater emotional sensitivity and susceptibility of women compared to men. This manifests itself from a very early age. Newborn girls, hearing the cry of another baby, show a sharper reaction than boys. Four-year-old girls are superior to boys in empathy. As for the need and ability for self-disclosure, transferring to others more intimate and personally significant information about themselves and their inner world, women at all ages are superior to men in this.

As far back as the 1930s, the Swiss philosopher and psychologist J. Piaget drew attention to the fact that boys and girls treat the rules of a group game differently. Boys, with their objective and instrumental thinking, attach more importance to the observance of rules, the violation of which always causes conflict in the boyish environment. Girls are more tolerant in this matter, personal relationships are more important for them than formal rules. This feature is also reflected in the structure of moral consciousness: men's reasoning and assessments usually look more impersonal and harsh than women's. For example, according to the psychologist V. N. Knyazev, when assessing human qualities for women, the most significant features are those that manifest themselves in relation to other people, and for men - business qualities associated with work.

The style of thinking is probably related to the peculiarities of upbringing. Girls everywhere are taught earlier and more consistently to take care of others, in particular of younger children. This makes them emotionally responsive and at the same time more vulnerable. People in need of emotional support are much more likely to seek it from women than from men, and women are sensitive to such requests. To the misfortune that befell the closest people of spouses and children, men and women react equally sharply. But women notice the troubles of surrounding friends and acquaintances more often and experience more than men. Perhaps this explains the fact that women are more likely to experience frustration. This phenomenon was usually explained by the increased emotionality of women and their inability to overcome stressful situations, but it is known that in many such situations women are much more resilient and stronger than men.

Be that as it may, women are much more likely than men to complain of loneliness and misunderstanding, they are twice as likely to experience a state of depression. If men in a state of depression usually complain about a lack of self-disclosure or objective difficulties - inability to cry, loss of interest in people, a sense of social failure and painful somatic experiences, then in women's descriptions of depression, the motif of self-dissatisfaction, indecision, lack of support, etc. prevails.

The style and nature of interpersonal relationships depend not only on the gender of the individual, but also on the specific situation of communication, the characteristics of the partner, the content of communications, etc. Men are easier and more willing than women to open up to unfamiliar, strangers, but in communicating with friends, the degree of self-disclosure depends not so much on gender, but on the content, the subject of conversation. As long as we are talking about more or less "neutral" topics, the discussion of which is considered equally acceptable for both sexes, men and women are equally frank. But the style of communication is closely related to the need to maintain the normative image of masculinity or femininity accepted by the culture. Male communication style, aimed primarily at maintaining social status, "saving face", obliges a person to hide his weaknesses and emphasize achievements and claims. Women's style, on the contrary, is traditionally aimed at reducing social distance and establishing psychological closeness with others. This normative attitude forces men to hide their features and problems that look "feminine" (for example, shyness), which sharply reduces the degree of their possible self-disclosure.

All this leads to the inconsistency of both everyday and scientific ideas about the degree of intimacy and stability of male and female friendship. In general, women of all ages describe friendship in more psychological terms, emphasizing the values ​​of trust, emotional support, and intimacy, while men emphasize solidarity (partnership) and mutual assistance. These differences appear quite early and are closely related to the development of self-awareness.

Girls develop complex forms of self-awareness earlier than boys. Describing peers, girls use a wider range of concepts, their descriptions are differentiated and more complex than that of boys of the same age (this difference begins to level off only by the 9th-10th grade). The greater reflexivity of girls gives rise to an earlier need to share their experiences, which is one of the main functions of friendship. And the girlish friendship itself is more emotional than the friendship of boys. According to a number of experimental studies, women generally attach more importance to interpersonal relationships and tell their girlfriends more intimate information about themselves than men do to their friends.

The studies of Crimean and Leningrad high school students we have already mentioned have shown that girlish criteria for friendship are more subtle and psychological than youthful ones, and that girls are more likely to experience a lack of intimacy. High school girls are much more likely than boys to consider "true friendship" rare (the difference evens out only by the 10th grade). In the definition of the concept of "friend" in girls of all ages, the motive of understanding is more pronounced than in boys. In boys, the emphasis on mutual assistance outweighs the motive of understanding up to the student years, while in girls this motive prevails already from the 8th grade.

Yes, and in the very word "understanding" young men and women do not put exactly the same meaning. Typologized by A. V. Mudrik, the answers of Moscow schoolchildren to the question of what it means to understand a person are distributed under five headings: 1) to know a person well; 2) empathize, feel the same as him; 3) have common interests with him, think like him; 4) help him, be his friend; 5) respect and love him. In their answers, the boys mainly emphasize the moment of objective knowledge (“to understand a person means to know him well”) or intellectual similarity (“to think like him, to have common interests”). For girls, the theme of sympathy, empathy sounds most definitely. In conversations with friends, girls are dominated by "personal" topics. They are more likely than young men to complain of loneliness and misunderstanding of friends.

Apparently, girls not only have an earlier need for intimate individualized friendships, but in general, girlish friendships are more oriented toward emotionally expressive values ​​than more group and active youthful friendships.

How does the increased emotionality of girlish friendship affect its stability? Psychologists do not have statistically reliable mass comparisons of the stability of female and male friendship - with its equalized criteria. It is possible that the increased emotionality of female friendship actually makes it unstable. Intimacy inherent in female friendship on a very wide range of issues, discussion of the slightest nuances of their own relationships complicate them. The inevitable differences and misunderstandings in human relationships, multiplied by a high general emotionality, undermine the stability of friendship. Restrained and harsh male friendship, in which emotional outpourings are not accepted and, with mutual understanding, the main details are usually not specified, consent is tacitly assumed, perhaps, and indeed more durable.

But this assumption is by no means proven. A. V. Kirichuk and T. A. Repina, using different methods and independently of each other, established the inverse relationship: among preschoolers and younger schoolchildren, the microgroups of girls are more stable than those of boys.

Comparison of the stability of the set of preferences of schoolchildren from grades 1 to 10, conducted by A. V. Mudrik as part of our study, also showed that at all ages and for all objects, except for favorite sports, girls' preferences are more stable than boys'. They also have a higher indicator of stability in choosing friends. This is also consistent with the opinion existing among psychologists that stability in the choice of friends depends on the overall stability of preferences, and it is inherent in women to a greater extent than men.

The question of differences in the degree of individual self-disclosure, psychological intimacy, and the depth of male and female friendship is especially difficult. The need for self-disclosure seems to be equally strong in men and women. But their capabilities in this respect are different. The traditional definition of the male role, which obliges a man to be stern, strong, energetic, unsentimental and restrained, imposes a number of restrictions on him. Tenderness and sensitivity, encouraged in women, are condemned when it comes to men. This encourages men to be more emotionally restrained, inhibiting their ability to develop empathy, which makes their relationships with people more superficial and "objective". A man who adheres to the traditional canon of masculinity cannot fully reveal himself to a woman, considering himself obliged to appear before her as a true representative of the "stronger sex", although this does not always correspond to his individuality. An even more rigid taboo exists on manifestations of tenderness in relations between men. The result is often an acute intimacy deficit, which, according to some psychologists, partly explains even the increased mortality of men at an earlier age.

Of the people interviewed by psychologists E. A. Khoroshilova and N. A. Loginova, adult women consider their communication with loved ones to be closer and more stable than men, and in 57% of women, psychological closeness increased with age and only in 7% decreased; in men, an increase in proximity was noted by 25%, and a decrease by 51% of the respondents. Most foreign researchers are also of the opinion that, despite a wider circle of friends among men, their friendships are less intimate than among women. When, in a survey of 306 middle-aged English couples, they were asked to name a close friend, 60% of husbands gave the name of a friendly couple, and 63% of wives - the name of a specific individual, with wives emphasizing trust in their relationship, and husbands emphasizing joint activities and entertainment. Elderly and old women are significantly more likely than their male peers to have intimate friends, although men have a wider circle of personal connections and extra-family contacts.

Taking into account all these data, it is necessary, however, to distinguish the real behavioral and motivational properties of male and female friendship from those traits that are simply attributed to them in accordance with historically established sex-role stereotypes. Comparison of ideas about friendship of 319 American students showed that the most important criteria for evaluating friendships in men and women are more or less the same, although women value trust more and distinguish between friendship and camaraderie more strictly, avoiding calling less intimate relationships friendship. Friendly relations between women, as a rule, seem both to themselves and to those around them psychologically more intimate than exactly the same relations between men.

But if sex-role stereotypes and real differences between the sexes are so great, is heterosexual, mixed friendship possible at all? People's opinions on this matter are contradictory.

To the question: "Is it possible, in your opinion, true friendship (without falling in love) between a boy and a girl?" - over three-quarters of the 7th-10th grade students surveyed by us answered in the affirmative. But with age, doubts intensify: more than half of the young students answer the same question in the negative.

When talking about friends, people usually tacitly mean people of the same gender. Interviewed by L. A. Gordon and E. V. Klopov, adults, listing their friends, called: men - exclusively men, and women - women. This does not mean, of course, that mixed friendship does not exist at all. However, she is usually given a special status. As the French educator of the 17th century wrote, J. de La Bruyère, "although friendship can exist between people of different sexes, in which there is not even a shadow of impure thoughts, nevertheless, a woman will always see a man in her friend, just like he will see a woman in her. Such a relationship can not be called either love or friendship: it is something very special." IN English language this also has its own terminological expression: a friend of the same sex is simply friend, and a friend of the opposite sex is boy-friend (for a girl) or girl-friend (for a boy).

What Makes Mixed Friendships Difficult? First of all, it contradicts the spirit of hemophilia - an orientation towards communication with their own kind, which is reinforced by the sexual differentiation of communication. In addition, there are differences in the pace of maturation and the orientation of the interests of boys and girls, the operation of a certain system of cultural norms and prohibitions.

Even in conditions of joint collective education, boys and girls choose different games and prefer partners of their own sex. The creator of sociometry, the social psychologist and psychiatrist D. Moreno, came to the conclusion that in four-five-year-old children, the choice of boys over girls and vice versa is still quite large (up to 27%), and starting from the age of 7, the level of informal communication between them gradually decreases, boys and girls are isolated from each other. This mutual isolation culminates between the ages of 10 and 12 (mutual choice is only 3%). From about the age of 13, communication is activated again; there is a significant increase in the choice (mutual and unilateral) of girls by boys and vice versa. In general, the frequency of choosing heterosexual friends in childhood and adolescence(from 5 to 17 years), according to Moreno, is minimal in the middle ages and maximal in the younger and older.

Despite the fact that the specific data of different researchers differ, the differentiation of communication by gender and the preference for peers of the same sex as friends are undeniable.

Although in our country boys and girls are brought up in preschool institutions together and in exactly the same way, in all age groups there is a clear difference in the circle and nature of their communication. Three quarters of contacts made younger preschooler, fall on peers of his own sex. With age, this exclusivity becomes even more pronounced: boys and girls play almost separately from each other.

Sexual differentiation in communication continues in school years. At the same time, according to the observation of the psychologist Ya. L. Kolominsky, the choice of a friend of the opposite sex by an elementary school student is mostly compensatory in nature: boys are chosen by those girls, and girls by those boys who do not enjoy sympathy among children of their own sex. The initiators and defenders of this "segregation" are more often boys: preferences in the choice of games, partners, and orientation of interests develop earlier and are much more pronounced than in girls. Already in three-four-year-old boys, two-thirds of all choices correspond to stereotypical ideas about what a boy should be and what he should do. Girls are much more "tolerant" in this regard, they are more willing to take boys into their company, play boyish games, etc.

This is undoubtedly due to the pressure of specific age-group norms. In the experiments of the same Kolominsky, boys chose girls and vice versa most often in situations where classmates might not know about the choice made; on the contrary, when choosing, say, a desk mate, the children are more careful, fearing the ridicule of their comrades ("if I sit down with her, the guys say that I am falling in love").

When evaluating the boyish "groupism" with its harsh, sometimes even cruel, mores and sense of exclusivity, one cannot help but recall the primitive "male unions" and later youth groups and corporations. Modern society does not have such a social institution, except for the army. But spontaneous teenage groups, which cause so much anxiety to adults, apparently perform the same socio-psychological function of educating a male character. For a boy (boy) belonging to a "company" is much more important than for a girl (girl). A girl rejected by her peers can compensate for this with recognition and success with boys. The latter receive confirmation of their masculinity only in their own company of peers; neither success with girls, nor pair friendships relieve one of them from a sense of inferiority who is rejected by their peers (and the attention of girls often depends on the prestige of the guys).

The exclusivity of youthful companies is a serious obstacle to heterosexual friendship. Although mutual interest and contact between boys and girls increases dramatically in high school, these relationships rarely develop into intimate friendships, and those that are so labeled mostly involve falling in love.

The limited depth of such contacts also has its own psychological reasons. Due to their earlier physical and mental maturation, girls are significantly separated from their boys of the same age. They read lyric poetry at an age when most boys are still at the detective reading stage. The girl's psychological peer during this period is not the same age, but a boy one and a half to two years older than her. In addition, the process of puberty lends, although not always consciously, sexual coloring to the adolescent's experiences. It is impossible to discuss them with a person of the opposite sex.

Mature love is an organic fusion of sensual attraction and the need for human warmth, intimacy with another. In early adolescence, these drives, as a rule, are still separated: the objects of erotic interest are persons of the opposite sex, and the need for psychological intimacy at this stage is more fully and more easily satisfied with a peer of one's own sex.

The relationship between 15-17-year-old boys and girls is psychologically very tense. The French researcher B. Zazzo asked her subjects the question: "Who do you feel most confident in communicating with?" It turned out that boys and girls feel most confident with their parents (half of all answers), peers of the same sex go next (30% of answers), then other adults (10% of answers) and in last place peers of the opposite sex (8% of answers). Despite the fact that the interest in girls and the number of contacts with them among boys over 17 years of age is increasing, their shyness is not decreasing. Girls feel more confident with boys. Although only 9% of them called society a young man, an environment where they experience maximum self-confidence, there are even fewer young men who answered this way (only 6%). Of the girls who do not think that it is easiest for them to communicate with their parents, 21% feel best in the company of boys. Among young men, the corresponding figure is only 11%.

According to our data, both boys and girls feel most confident in communicating with friends. However, a comparison of self-assessments of ninth graders with assessments they expected from different significant persons (parents, closest friends, classmates and classmates) showed that, although both boys and girls expect more favorable assessments from peers of their own sex, boys have a difference in the expected assessments of classmates and classmates, as well as the uncertainty in these assessments, is higher than girls.

Almost all boys and a considerable part of girls prefer to have a boy as their closest friend. At the same time, the percentage of girls who prefer a friend of the opposite sex is higher at all ages than the percentage of boys. In the process of growing up, this differentiation intensifies. In the 7th-8th grades, a third of the children still find it difficult to choose. In grades 9-10, only 14% of boys choose a girl as their "ideal friend", while the percentage of girls who prefer to be friends with boys rises to 56% in 9th grade and 65% in 10th grade. In fact, for both boys and girls, the number of friends of the opposite sex is two to four times less than the number of friends of the same sex. However, the share of friends of the opposite sex among Leningrad ninth-graders is still almost twice as high as among their male classmates.

Mixed friendships are significantly different from same-sex ones. Among friends of the same sex, the percentage of schoolchildren among girls is higher than among boys, who have a wider social circle. In mixed friendship, the ratio is reversed. Three-quarters of ninth grade boys' girlfriends are schoolgirls; among girls, among their male friends, schoolchildren make up less than half, the rest are military personnel, students, etc. This is due to the greater orientation of girls to older friends. Mixed friendship differs from same-sex friendship in other ways: meetings are more often outside the home, other topics of conversation, etc.

The different attitude of boys and girls to mixed friendship is not accidental. First of all, there are differences in the rates of physical and personal maturation of boys and girls. Friendship is a kind of school of psychological intimacy, which at first is easier to achieve with a person of one's own than of the opposite sex. For girls, this phase ends earlier than for boys. What seems like a need for friendship to 15-year-old girls is actually a need for love. Hence the preference for the "ideal friend" of the opposite sex, and the thirst for psychological intimacy, while their male peers are still absorbed in boyish group life and are not ready for psychological intimacy with girls.

The breaking of traditional gender roles and joint learning, expanding the circle of communication and joint activities of boys and girls, facilitates personal contacts between them. Psychological research in recent years shows that many of the traditional barriers between boys and girls are decreasing. Nevertheless, mixed friendship today is associated with certain psychological difficulties and is not so common. Almost 57% of Leningrad ninth graders and 43% of girls of this age did not name a single person of the opposite sex among their friends. Even less often they are called among the closest friends.

The first love interests, especially among young men, are often superficial, shallow and psychologically connected mainly with the need for self-assertion in one's male role. Falling in love is not always combined with human, spiritual intimacy. The company of peers of the same sex remains psychologically more significant for many young men.

The privileged position and the special emotionality of youthful friendship are to a certain extent due to the underdevelopment of other channels of interpersonal communication. With the advent of love, the meaning and emotional intensity of friendship are somewhat reduced. A friend becomes first of all a good comrade.

Comparison of the level of self-disclosure of a group of American undergraduate students in their interactions with their father, mother, family members and closest friends of the same and opposite sex showed that in young men, unlike adolescents, friendship with a girl implies more psychological intimacy than same-sex friendship. The need for such friendship increases with age, and the transfer of psychological intimacy from a boy friend to a girl friend occurs in recent years in more young age. This corresponds to the general earlier reorientation of adolescents to a mixed type of communication. But such a shift does not change the fundamental sequence of stages of development.

The study of the characteristics of heterosexual friendship brings us to a more general theoretical problem of the relationship between friendship and love. In the discussions on this topic, which have been ongoing since antiquity, at least five main positions have been identified:

1) absolute distinction: friendship and love are completely different feelings and relationships;

2) complete identification: friendship and love are different names for the same thing;

3) partial differentiation based on the subordination of love to friendship: love is the affective side of friendship;

4) partial differentiation based on the subordination of friendship to love: friendship is the communicative side of love;

5) the idea of ​​the mutual transition of love and friendship as stages of interpersonal relations: friendship is the preparation of love (or vice versa).

At the same time, for the most part, it is not specified what exactly is meant: whether there is a difference in the cultural canons of love and friendship accepted in a given society, social group, or variations in individual experiences and emotional states. But this is completely different systems reference.

Comparison of the normative canons of love and friendship presupposes the existence of some generally accepted criteria. However, the ideal of "true love" is as historical as the concept of "true friendship". No wonder La Rochefoucauld wrote: True love like a ghost: everyone talks about her, but few have seen her."

Different cultures affirm fundamentally different canons of love, highlighting its different sides. In some societies, all-consuming love is poetized, affirmed as a moral and aesthetic ideal, while in others it is not only not considered a necessary prerequisite for marriage, but is even considered as something abnormal. The idea of ​​the ratio of sensual and spiritual components of love varies even more. Thus, the ancient Greeks distinguish between passionate love, the thirst for possession of a beloved being ("eros") and tender love, the need for self-giving, the desire of the lover to dissolve in the beloved ("agape").

Many religions of the East saw in sensuality a way to merge man with God and developed entire codes of erotic pleasures. On the contrary, Christianity considers everything bodily, sensual, dirty, base and sinful. "Pure love", according to the teachings of medieval theologians, should be exclusively spiritual, and even then not too strong, so as not to distract the believer from the love of God and the fulfillment of religious duties.

However, on the other side of the official life there was a folk "carnival" culture, in which the satisfaction of sensual needs occupied a very prominent place. But love experiences in her look deliberately reduced, simplified, deindividualized.

Originated in the 12th century. in Provence and the poetry of the troubadours, which quickly spread in Europe, with its cult of the Beautiful Lady, for the sake of which the knight is ready to make the greatest sacrifices and deeds, was a challenge to both church asceticism and the frivolity of "carnival" culture. The canon of "courtly love" emphasized the importance of emotional relations between a man and a woman, introducing into them motives of tenderness and caring.

But, being a denial of church asceticism and carnival frivolity, "courtly love" at the same time absorbed the features of both. The beautiful lady combined a real woman, which the knight wanted to possess, and a Madonna, which can only be worshiped from afar. Hence the exaggerated, sometimes even painful exaltation of these relations. The ritual of serving the Beautiful Lady did not prevent the knights from satisfying their earthly needs with other women, raping peasant women, and despotic treatment of their own wives.

The gap between the ideal image of love and its reality persists in European culture later. In literature and art of the XIII-XV centuries. the cult of spiritual, platonic love became widespread (Dante's love for Beatrice, with whom the poet did not exchange a single word in his life, Petrarch's sonnets, devoid of any sensual-erotic components).

Renaissance humanists oppose both religious asceticism and platonic, desexualized love. What used to be considered "fleshly sin" they affirm as healthy "bodily joy." Erotic experiences emerge from the underground, taking their rightful place in "high" culture. However, the humanistic rehabilitation of the flesh turns in the aristocratic culture of the XVII-XVIII centuries. into refined debauchery. Individual love is replaced by an elaborate ritual of chivalry, the sole purpose of which is physical possession. "There is nothing good in love, except for its physical side," wrote the French naturalist J. L. Buffon. Love becomes a sport exciting game, which sensitivity and seriousness only harm. Descriptions of love in some works of literature of the 18th century. reminiscent of a hunt, in which, however, unlike earlier eras, women participate on an equal basis with men. It was this lifestyle that A. S. Pushkin had in mind when he said:

Debauchery used to be cold-blooded
Science was famous for love,
Blowing about himself everywhere
And enjoying without loving.

Replacing love with gallantry inevitably entails satiety and disappointment. The ritual becomes boring, it becomes a boring routine (remember Pushkin's: "Who is not bored to be hypocritical, to repeat one thing in different ways, it is important to try to assure of what everyone has been sure of for a long time ...").

In contrast to court gallantry with its conventionality and hypocrisy, sentimentalists affirm the poetry of simple and sincere feelings. The hero-lover of aristocratic literature cared only about his sensual pleasures, like the famous Casanova. For Molière's Dop-Juan, even this does not matter: a woman is just a game for him, the mastery of which strengthens his reputation as a happy hunter. Sentimentalism requires from its hero not luck and the ability to conquer, but the ability to subtly feel, suffer, sacrifice oneself in the name of love. Timid, respectful tenderness gives the lover much more than physical possession. A cult of unhappy love appears, love without reciprocity, which is drawn so sublime and beautiful that, even dying from it, the hero arouses admiration and envy (Werther).

Romanticism raises love to the level of rock and religious revelation: it is in love that a person discovers his true essence, it also gives him consolation and protection against the vulgarity and cruelty of the surrounding world.

Even from this cursory historical review of the canons of love, it is clear that the ideal of love is by no means something unambiguous and unchanging.

Any normative definition of love tacitly implies some kind of opposition. The antithesis "love - lust" opposes the spiritual-personal principle to the sensual-bodily one; "love - passion" distinguishes a deep and lasting feeling from a superficial and short-term one; "love sympathy" contrasts violent passion with a calm disposition, etc. However, different faces and even the same person in different circumstances define their feelings and attitudes differently. Hence the different psychological theories of the relationship between friendship and love.

The Austrian psychiatrist 3. Freud approached this problem functionally genetically, arguing that all emotional attachments and passions of a person, whether it be parental or filial love, friendship, love for humanity and attachment to concrete objects and abstract ideas, are manifestations of the same instinctive drives. It is only in relations between the sexes that these impulses make their way to sexual intimacy, while in other cases they are distracted from this goal or cannot reach it. Nevertheless, the original nature of these feelings can always be recognized by the desire for intimacy and self-sacrifice. Freud's thesis about the "sexual" origin of all human affections is associated with a broad understanding of sexuality itself, in which he sees the only source of all psychic energy. However, his psychoanalytic theory oversimplifies the problem. After all, even in animals, different "affective systems" - maternal and paternal love, children's love for mother, peer attachment and, finally, sexual desire - are not reducible to each other, but each performs in the process individual development their specific functions. Moreover, such a simplified interpretation of human feelings is unlawful. As A. S. Makarenko rightly emphasized, human “love cannot be grown simply from the bowels of a simple zoological sexual desire. The forces of “love” love can only be found in the experience of non-sexual human sympathy. A young man will never love his bride and wife if he did not love his parents, comrades, friends. And the wider the area of ​​​​this non-sexual love, the more noble will be sexual love.

In contrast to the "substantialist" approach, which tries to determine the underlying causes that determine the nature of love and friendship, phenomenological psychology analyzes the subjective experiences associated with these relationships. The French psychologist J. Masonneuve, having studied numerous artistic and autobiographical descriptions of love and friendship, outlined the qualitative differences between "love" and "friendly" time and space.

"Love time" seems to people to be fleeting, changeable, devoid of duration, this is "the time when they forget about time", its rhythm is determined by the "beating of the hearts". "Friendly Time" looks more calm and uniform. Not so radically breaking with everyday life, it is more constructive and promising. The same is true with space. Love seeks to completely destroy the distance between lovers, merging them into a single whole. On the contrary, friendship, even the most intimate, by virtue of its spiritual nature, presupposes a certain delicacy and restraint, the preservation of a phenomenological distance between friends. The Friendly We appears to be less united, allowing for certain differences and psychological distance.

The latest socio-psychological research shows that these experienced differences are closely related to the difference in socio-normative definitions of love and friendship. Love-romantic relationships are considered more exclusive and binding than friendships. Therefore, they involve a more accurate and rigorous awareness and definition by the subject of his own feelings for a partner - "I love", "in love" or simply "like" and conscious decision-making on how to develop these relationships. In the case of several love affairs or attachments, a person usually asks himself the question which one is more important, dearer and closer to him. In friendship, for all its individuality, mutually exclusive choice is not necessary, so people turn less attention to the subtle nuances of their relationships, their development seems to them more smooth, not requiring the adoption of any responsible decisions.

A detailed examination of the relationships of 16 friendly and 16 love-romantic student couples showed that love relationships seem to young people to be much more exclusive than friendly ones. If the subject had two love attachments, then the strengthening of one of them inevitably reduced the emotional significance of the other. This does not happen in friendship. The fluctuations noted during the month in assessing the level of friendships and their significance were half as much as in love relationships. However, this is not explained by the fact that there are objectively fewer such fluctuations in friendship, but by the fact that people simply do not notice them, since they do not require the adoption of conscious decisions and a well-thought-out line of behavior: to call or not to call on the phone, to invite or not to invite to the theater, to explain or not to explain?

But this difference is not always felt and traced. For example, teenage and youthful friendship in this sense is often indistinguishable from love. A. I. Herzen wrote:

“I don’t know why they give some kind of monopoly to the memories of first love over the memories of young friendship. First love is so fragrant because it forgets the difference between the sexes, because it is passionate friendship. For its part, friendship between young men has all the feverishness of love and all its character: the same shy fear to touch one’s feelings with a word, the same distrust of oneself, unconditional devotion, the same painful longing for separation and the same jealous desire for exclusivity. I have long loved, and loved passionately, Nick, but I did not dare to call him "friend", and when he lived in Kuntsevo in the summer, I wrote him at the end of the letter: "Your friend or not, I don't know yet."

Classical literature has repeatedly described such experiences. Let us recall Tonio Kroeger from the story of the same name by T. Mann or Jean Christophe by R. Rolland:

“Christoph did not know anyone better than Otto. Everything admired him in a friend with thin hands, beautiful hair, a fresh complexion, restrained speech, polite manners and careful care of his appearance ... He would sacrifice everything in the world for Otto. dangerous meeting to rush forward and cover Otto. He would have gladly accepted death for a friend.” And aren’t the love letters exchanged between Jacques and Daniel in R. M. du Gard’s The Thibault Family that caused such a stir among the Jesuit fathers?

Adult love experiences are also different. In his book On Love, Stendhal compares the love experiences of Don Juan and Werther. Far from belittling Don Juan, Stendhal admits that his passion requires considerable personal virtues: fearlessness, resourcefulness, liveliness, composure, entertainment, etc. But people of this type are most often dry egoists. "Don Juan rejects all obligations that bind him to other people. In the great market of life, this is an unscrupulous buyer who always takes and never pays." Turning love into an intrigue or a sport, making it a means of satisfying his own vanity, he can no longer give himself to it. "Instead of, like Werther, creating reality according to the model of his desires, Don Juan experiences desires that are not completely satisfied by cold reality, as happens with ambition, stinginess and other passions. Instead of getting lost in the magical dreams of crystallization, he, like a general, reflects on the success of his maneuvers and, in short, kills love instead of enjoying it more than others, as the crowd thinks."

Werther's love, with his dreaminess and tendency to idealization, is ill-adapted to real life and is fraught with inevitable dramas and disappointments. But "love in the style of Werther opens the soul to all arts, to all sweet and romantic impressions: to moonlight, to the beauty of forests, to the beauty of painting - in a word, to every feeling of beauty and enjoyment of it, in whatever form it manifests itself, even if dressed in a rough CANVAS.

It is quite clear that love experiences and ways of differentiating them from friendly feelings will be different for such people.

The ambiguity of emotional attachments does not exclude the possibility of their analytical dissection. For example, when studying empirical indicators that make it possible to predict the development of love relationships and the mutual adaptation of married couples, the distinction between the concepts of "love" and "disposition" turned out to be very fruitful. In the ordinary sense, the words "I love" and "correct" differ mainly quantitatively, in degree ("I love" = "I like it very much"). But these words also have a semantic difference, denoting different psychological phenomena. The disposition expressed by the word "like" is a positive attitude towards another person, in which the evaluative moment prevails. Only one who possesses, or rather, to whom some positive or desirable properties are attributed, can be liked. If the positive evaluation changes, the attractiveness of the object fades.

Love, on the other hand, may include a positive assessment of the object, idealize it, or may not include it. Some qualities of a loved one may even be actively disliked. Love is ambivalent, it is often combined with hatred (remember the Catullus "I hate and love"). It is not for nothing that her descriptions in fiction.

To measure the ratio of these qualities, the American psychologist 3. Rubin developed a special questionnaire with separate scales of "love" and "disposition" (13 points each). "Love scale" measures the degree of attachment to another, caring for him and psychological intimacy. The "disposition scale" measures how much the subject likes the qualities of a given person and the associated tendency to consider this person similar to himself. Applying his questionnaire to a study of 182 student couples in courtship, the scientist found that "love" and "disposition" do not always coincide and that the "love scale" is much more accurate in predicting whether young people will marry.

But love is psychologically even more diverse than friendship. The most developed, empirically based modern classification distinguishes six styles or "colors" of love:

1) eros - passionate, exclusive love-hobby, striving for complete physical possession;

2) ludus - hedonistic love-game, which does not differ in the depth of feeling and relatively easily admits the possibility of betrayal;

3) storge - calm, warm and reliable love-friendship;

4) pragma - combining ludus and storge, rational, easily amenable to conscious control love by calculation;

5) mania - irrational love-obsession, for which uncertainty and dependence on the object of attraction are typical;

6) agape - selfless love-self-giving, the synthesis of eros and storge.

The love experiences of young men, as shown by psychological studies, contain more "erotic" and especially "human" components, while women have more pronounced "pragmatic", "storgic" and "manic" features. Manic hobbies are more typical for teenagers and young men than for adults.

The above classification, however, not only does not answer many complex questions, but also gives rise to new ones. For example, is the "color of love" a stable personality trait or a relatively variable attitude associated with a particular emotional state? How they fit different styles love in the same person, depending on the nature of the partner and at different stages of love relationships (falling in love and conjugal love)? It is known that there are monogamous people whose feelings and affections practically do not change, and this applies to both the object of love and its emotional tone. But there are changeable people who fall in love easily and cool off just as quickly. And it's not just a matter of morality. "Love passion ... cannot be constructed a priori, because its development is a real development that takes place in the sensory world and harms real individuals," wrote K. Marx.

Much depends not only on the personality traits, but also on the situation in which love arises. We know very little about the psychological mechanisms of this process, but undoubtedly, its emotional aspects are closely related to cognitive ones. According to the theory of American psychologists E. Berscheid and E. Walster, the emergence of love passion has two stages: physiological arousal (not necessarily sexual) and its explanation (cognitive attribution). A state of excitement that sharpens feelings can be caused by both pleasant and unpleasant experiences (fear, danger), any stressful situations increase emotional sensitivity. An interesting experiment was conducted by Canadian psychologists. Young men crossing the canyon were approached for interviews by a beautiful female student and then, as if inadvertently, handed over her phone, ostensibly to further discuss the topic of her thesis, and in one case it was on a rickety, creaking suspension bridge, and in the other on a solid stationary bridge. Of the 33 men interviewed in a dangerous situation, nine called, and only two in a calm situation. The feeling of shared danger made the girl more attractive in the eyes of men, causing a desire to continue the acquaintance. Similar results were obtained in laboratory experiments.

Instant passionate loves of the war years, which have been described more than once in fiction, are probably also associated primarily with the need to relieve and switch emotional stress. It has been proven that the awareness of danger increases the need not only for love, but also for communication, any emotional closeness with those who share this danger. The rest is a matter of cognitive attribution: how a person defines his state. After all, even the difference between "love" and "hobby" is to a certain extent a matter of "label". Saying to himself: "This is love," the individual thereby forms an attitude towards a serious, lasting feeling. On the contrary, the words: "It's just a hobby" - installation on something temporary, short-term. "Defining" one's feelings is not just a statement of fact, but a kind of self-fulfilling prognosis.

An important role in love relationships is played by ideas about how a loved one should be, which serve as a standard of choice and a criterion for its evaluation. In social psychology, there are three hypotheses about this.

According to the first hypothesis, the ideal image of a loved one precedes the choice of a real object, prompting a person to look for someone who would best match this standard. Most people really have some kind of imaginary, ideal image of a loved one with which they compare their chosen ones. A researcher from the GDR, K. Starke, compared the ideas of his young compatriots about what a loved one should be with their assessment of their real chosen one on four points: “take care of sexual harmony”, “share achievements and difficulties”, “have sports interests”, “adhere to the principle of equal distribution of family responsibilities”. The coincidence of the ideal and reality, especially on the first two points, turned out to be very high, although the content of the requirements and the degree of mutual satisfaction for men and women are not the same in everything: men take on a significantly smaller share of household duties than women would like, but they are less satisfied with the sexual side of the relationship.

However, the coincidence of the ideal and reality is not always observed. The ideal image of a loved one, especially among young, inexperienced people, is for the most part very vague and contains many unrealistic, exaggerated or insignificant demands, while some very important qualities are very often not realized, their significance becomes clear only in the practical experience of marriage.

In addition, one should not confuse the ideal with the standard. The standard is just a sample of constancy, a fundamentally unchanged unit of measurement, independent of the properties of the objects with which it is related. The ideal is a living, developing model. According to the figurative expression of the writer M. Ancharov, the ideal "develops in time and grows like a tree, has roots and a trunk, and a crown, and flowers, and fruits, and seeds, which, being planted in suitable soil and climate, again give a tree of the same species, but already slightly changed in time, and therefore the ideal fights for its normal development, and the standard is waiting to be applied. "People who strictly adhere to the standard often turn out to be failures in love, because they are blind to the real qualities of their chosen ones. The formula "if I came up with you, become the way I want!" It sounds much better in a song than in life: who wants to live according to someone else's, even beautiful, "notion" ?! Therefore, far from all people choose their loved ones "according to the model" or compare them with some abstract standard.

The second hypothesis derives "romantic values" from the unconscious idealization of the object of love, to which desirable features are attributed, regardless of what it really is. For example, Freud associated the intensity of love experiences mainly with the "overestimation" of the object of attraction, due to its inaccessibility. According to idealization theory, passionate love is inherently opposed to rational, objective vision. No wonder she was called blind since ancient times.

The idea of ​​the incompatibility of love and knowledge was expressed by many philosophers and classics of literature, whom no one will accuse of vulgarity. "... True love," wrote A. France, "does not need sympathy, respect, or friendship; it lives on desire and feeds on deceit. They truly love only what they do not know." T. Mann echoes him. Psychological research confirms that lovers often idealize each other, especially at the beginning of the novel, and women are more prone to this than men.

However, it is also wrong to reduce romantic love to idealization. If this were the case and only this way, love would always and rather quickly end in disappointment, which is not true. If love is only a temporary blindness, then the strongest passions must be inherent in unbalanced, neurotic natures. In some extreme cases, probably the way it is. But not in bulk. When comparing the personal properties of a group of young people with the degree of their amorousness, age period the appearance of the first loves, etc. the least favorable personal indicators turned out to be those who had the largest (over 12) number of novels, and those who had two love affairs at the same time. Their extensiveness love life, perhaps indicates an inability to deep personal passion. The "romantics" have difficulties of a different nature.

In addition, attributing virtues to a loved one that others do not find in him is not always wrong. Many philosophers and poets, speaking of "love blindness", at the same time considered love to be the greatest means of knowledge. Just as physical blindness, by depriving a person of visual perception, sharpens other senses, love, by dulling the mind, sometimes endows the lover with a special inner vision, which allows him to discern the hidden, potential qualities of the beloved. The transformative power of love itself cannot be denied. A girl who knows that she is loved really blossoms, becomes more beautiful not only in the eyes of her lover, but also in the eyes of those around her. The same is with moral qualities. As M. Prishvin wrote, "the person you love in me is, of course, better than me: I'm not like that. But you love, and I'll try to be better than myself..."

The third hypothesis, in contrast to the first one, claims that it is not ideal images that determine the choice of a loved one, but, on the contrary, the properties of a real, already chosen object determine the content of the ideal, according to the proverb: "That is the beauty that the heart loves." Apparently, there is some truth in this as well. It is no coincidence that some authors interpret the high coincidence of features of ideal and real lovers in the spirit of the first, and others in the spirit of the third hypothesis.

In all likelihood, all three hypotheses have well-founded grounds! in some cases, the "object" of love is chosen in accordance with the previously established image, in others - idealization takes place, in the third, the ideal is formed or transformed depending on the properties of the real object. But what is the ratio of these moments and how they are combined in different people and in different circumstances - science cannot say.

As the same Prishvin wisely noted, "love is an unknown country, and we all sail there each on our own ship, and each of us is a captain on our ship and leads the ship in our own way."

Individual experiences of love and friendship are not molded into strict scientific formulas. Anyone who is waiting for such formulas should remember the good advice that J. J. Rousseau once gave a Venetian courtesan: "...leave women and do mathematics." But this does not mean that the psychology of higher human feelings and personal relationships is impossible or useless. Showing that these feelings and attitudes are rooted in the sphere subjective reality, in the realm of not so much the actual as the potential being of the individual, it encourages us to take a closer look at those vital nuances that we tend to neglect in the hustle and bustle of everyday life.

Therefore, completing the conversation about feelings and relationships, let's turn to the most difficult and most obscure issue - the relationship between the type of friendship and the type of personality.

Throughout life, we depend on each other, and therefore relationships with others are at the center of our existence. For each of us, everything begins with the mutual attraction of a very specific man and woman, to whom we owe our birth. We human beings, whom Aristotle called "social animals," have an insistent need for belonging- the need to create long-term and close relationships with other people.

Social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary illustrate the strength of the social drives that result from this need with the following examples (Baumrister & Leary, 1995):

“The relationships that existed between our ancestors ensured their survival. Both in hunting and in setting up camps, ten hands did a better job than two.

- The mutual love of a man and a woman can lead to the birth of children whose chances of survival increase if they are taken care of by both parents who support each other. The social bonds that develop between children and those who raise and care for them mean an increased chance of survival. Both the parent and the baby, being separated for an inexplicable reason, panic and do not calm down until they hug each other.

Wherever people live, their real relationship and the relationships they hope to create occupy all their thoughts and leave an imprint on their emotions. When we find a supportive person we can rely on, we feel accepted and appreciated. Love brings us great joy. Courageous to be accepted and loved, we spend billions on cosmetics, clothes and diets.

- A rejected, widowed or stranded person reacts painfully to the loss of social ties, he feels lonely and thrown out of life. Children who grow up in families where they were not cared for, or in orphanages where they were deprived of the opportunity to fulfill their need to belong to someone, turn into withdrawn and nervous adults. For an adult, the loss of a soul mate means jealousy, inconsolable grief, or a sense of irreparable loss. Once in exile, in prison or in solitary confinement, people are hard pressed to be separated from their loved ones and miss their native places. Indeed, we are social animals. We need someone to belong to. And as will become clear from Module A, when this need is satisfied, when we feel the support of loved ones, we get sick less often and feel happier.

Psychologists from the University of New South Wales (Australia) Kipling Williams and his colleagues studied situations that develop when ostracism(rejection or neglect by others) deprives people of the opportunity to fulfill their need for belonging (Williams et al., 2001). In all cultures, ostracism—at school, at work, or at home—plays the role of a means of regulating social behavior. So what does it mean to be ostracized? How does a person who is being avoided, who is not spoken to, when meeting, looks away, feel? People (especially women) react to ostracism with a bad mood, nervousness, attempts to restore relationships or their final break. Not talking to a person is “emotional cruelty” towards him and using “terrible, terrible weapons,” according to those who have had to become victims of ostracism in the family or at work. In laboratory conditions, even those subjects who were "overboard" the most primitive ball game felt they were not needed by anyone and experienced stress.

(Close relationships with family members and friends are a source of health and happiness)

Williams and his colleagues were surprised to find that even seemingly impersonal "cyber ostracism" from people you never meet also has its consequences (Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000). (Perhaps you yourself have experienced something similar when it turned out that you were ignored “in the meeting room to chat” or your e-mail went unanswered.) The researchers conducted an experiment in which 1,486 people from 62 countries took part; having broken into triplets, the participants of the experiment played a game on the Internet - they threw a “flying disc”. Those who were ostracized by other players were in a lower mood, and in a post-game experiment that consisted of a perceptual task, they were more likely to agree with other participants' misjudgments. It has also been established that ostracism was a source of stress even when a group of 5 agreed that the other four would not talk to each of them in turn for one day (Williams, Bernieri, Faulkner, Gada-Jain & Grahe, 2000). Everyone was waiting for a fun role play, however, expectations were not met: imitation of ostracism interfered with work, prevented normal social contacts and "caused temporary excitement, nervousness, paranoia and a general deterioration in the state of the psyche." When we lose the opportunity to satisfy our need for belonging, we lose peace.

What do affection and love depend on? Let's start with the factors that create mutual inclination: reachability, physical attractiveness, similarity, and the feeling of being "liked."

What makes one person predisposed to sympathize with or love another? Only a few issues related to human nature have aroused and are of greater interest. The rise and fall of love is the favorite subject of soap operas, popular music, romance, and many of our everyday conversations. According to Dale Carnegie, I learned about how to win friends and learn to influence others much earlier than about the existence of the science of social psychology.

“I can’t tell how my ankles bend and what is the reason for my slightest desire, what is the reason for the friendship that I radiate and the one that I receive in return. Walt Whitman, Song about myself, 1855 (translated by K. Chukovsky)"

So much has already been written about sympathy and love that none of the possible explanations for the origin of these feelings, as well as the refutation of these explanations, have not been mentioned. What for most people, for example for you, becomes a source of sympathy or love? Who is right: those who claim that separation fanned the fire of love, or those who agree with the proverb “out of sight, out of mind”? What is the importance of good looks? What are your close relationships? Let's start with the factors that contribute to the beginning of friendships, and then turn to those that favor the maintenance and deepening of such relationships that satisfy our need for belonging.

Territorial proximity

One of the most important factors in predicting whether two people will become friends or not is their territorial proximity.Territorial proximity can also be a source of hostility; the victims and/or perpetrators of most acts of violence and murder are people living together or in the neighborhood. However, much more often it becomes the basis for mutual sympathy. This statement may seem too primitive to those who share the belief in the mysterious origin of romantic love, but sociologists know that most people find their "other half" among neighbors, colleagues or classmates (Bossard, 1932; Burr, 1973; Clarke, 1952; Katz & Hill, 1958). Take a look around. Having decided to start a family, you will most likely connect your life with one (or one) of those who lived, worked or studied where it is close to your home.

{Architecture (creation) of friendship. The probability that two people living side by side, like these college students living in the same dorm room, will become good friends, very large)

Interaction

In fact, it is not territorial proximity that is decisive, but “functional distance,” that is, how often the paths of two people intersect. It is not uncommon for us to find friends among those who use the same entrance, the same parking lot, or the same recreation room. Randomly selected female college students living in the same room, who, with all their desire, cannot escape the constant “meetings in the common area”, are more likely to become good friends than enemies (Newcomb, 1961). Such contacts help people identify their common and individual tastes and interests and perceive themselves as a kind of social unit (Arkin & Burger, 1980).

The students and female students of my college once lived at different ends of the campus; it is quite understandable that both of them complained about the lack of friendly contact with people of the opposite sex. Now that they live in the same buildings, but on different floors, they have much more more points contact (corridors, lounges and laundries) and opportunities for friendly contacts. So if you have moved to an unfamiliar city and want to make friends, try to rent an apartment closer to the mailboxes, sit closer to the coffee machine in the office, and park your car closer to the main building. This is the "architecture" of friendship.

“When there is no one I love next to me, I love the one who is next to me. E. W. Harburg, Finian's Rainbow, 1947"

The random nature of such contacts helps to explain one amazing fact. If you have an identical twin brother who is engaged to some girl, is it likely that you, being much like your brother, will fall in love with his bride? No, not great (Lykken & Tellegen, 1993). The authors note that only half of the men they interviewed actually really liked the brides of twin brothers, and only 5% said that they “could fall in love” with them. According to Laikken and Telegen, romantic love is often very similar to imprinting, a phenomenon found in experiments with ducklings. The mere repeated appearance of a person in our field of vision is enough for us to be carried away by him, regardless of who he is, as long as he - albeit remotely - resembles us and responds to us in return.

Why does territorial proximity lead to sympathy? One reason is accessibility. It is clear that the chances of meeting someone who studies at another school or lives in another city are much less. But this is by no means the main thing. Most people like roommates in the dorm or on the landing more than those who live on the floor above or below. One can hardly say about them that they live too far from us. Moreover, the transformation of nearest neighbors into potential friends or enemies is equally likely. Why, then, is territorial proximity more likely to generate love than hatred?

Anticipation of interaction

We already have one answer: territorial proximity allows people to find in each other what they have in common, and show signs of attention to each other. But something else is much more important: the expectation of a meeting in itself enhances sympathy. John Darley and Ellen Berscheid came to this conclusion when they told their subjects, students at the University of Minnesota, ambiguous information about two women, one of whom they were about to have a confidential conversation (Darley & Berscheid, 1967). When the students were asked which of the two women they liked better, they chose the one they expected to meet. The mere expectation of meeting a person increases sympathy for him (Berscheid et al., 1976). Even voters who voted for a candidate who lost the election admit that after the election their opinion about the winner with whom they are now associated changes for the better (Gilbert et al., 1998).

This phenomenon is adaptive. The expectation of pleasant emotions, that is, that someone will be pleasant and friendly, increases the likelihood that you will actually develop a good relationship (Knight & Vallacher, 1981; Klein & Kunda, 1992; Miller & Marks, 1982). How good it is that we are predisposed to love those whom we often see! Each of us has plenty of contacts with people with whom we, perhaps of our own free will, would not communicate, but are forced to maintain relationships: dormitory neighbors, brothers and sisters, grandparents, teachers, classmates, colleagues. Sympathy for these people Right way to establishing a better relationship with them, and therefore to a happier and more fulfilling life.

The effect of "just hitting the field of view"

Territorial proximity creates favorable conditions for the emergence of mutual sympathy, not only because it facilitates contacts and favors a positive expectation of them, but also for another reason: the results of more than 200 experiments indicate that, contrary to the old proverb, close acquaintance does not lead to familiarity and disrespect (Bornstein, 1989, 1999). Just repeated stimulation with various new stimuli - syllables devoid of meaning, symbols that look like Chinese characters, passages from musical works, images of human faces - enough for the subjects to "become more sympathetic to them", that is, they began to evaluate them higher. Do they supposedly mean Turkish words nansomf,Saric And afworbu something more attractive or less attractive than words ikitaf,biwojni And kadirga? The students at Michigan State University preferred those of these words that they encountered more often (Zajonc, 1968, 1970). The more often they were presented with a meaningless word or “Chinese character,” the more likely they were to perceive it as a symbol of something good (Figure 11.1).

Rice. 11.1. The effect of "simple hitting the field of view." Incentives repeatedly presented to students were rated more positively by them. ( Source: Zajonc, 1968)

I became convinced that an ingenious demonstration experiment could be carried out on the basis of Zajonc's stimulus material. It is enough to periodically present on the screen (in flashing mode) some meaningless words, and by the end of the semester students will evaluate them more positively than those equally meaningless words that they have never seen before.

Or here's an example. What letters of the alphabet do you like the most? People different nationalities, languages, and ages, prefer letters that appear in their own names and are common in their native language (Hoorens et al., 1990, 1993; Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; Nuttin, 1987). Favorite letter of French students - W- the most common letter in French. Japanese students prefer not only the letters in their names, but also the numbers corresponding to their dates of birth.

The effect of "simply falling into the field of view" is contrary to the common sense prediction that often repeated in the end bored and interest in it declines, whether it be a regularly played tune or some food that is systematically present in the diet (Kahneman & Snell, 1992). If a phenomenon is repeated with moderate frequency (“Even the best song gets boring if you listen to it day in and day out,” says a Korean proverb), it tends to be more liked. In 1889, when the Eiffel Tower was completed, its contemporaries ridiculed it as grotesque (Harrison, 1977). Today it is a favorite symbol of Paris. Such changes make you think about the first reactions to everything new. Is it possible to say that all visitors to the Louvre Museum in Paris are really delighted with the Mona Lisa, or are they just pleased to see a familiar face? One does not exclude the other: we know her portrait, which means that we like it.

The results of experiments by Zajonc and his colleagues William Kunst-Wilson and Richard Morland suggest that stimulation (getting into the field of view) causes positive feelings even when people are unaware of the fact of stimulation (Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980; Moreland & Zajonc, 1977; Wilson, 1979). But that's not all: the unconscious perception of the stimulus gives an even more significant effect (Bornstein & D "Agostino, 1992). Participants in one experiment, armed with headphones, listened to a prose passage with one ear. At the same time, they repeated the words aloud and identified errors, comparing them with the written version of the text. words, not music. Later, when the women heard these melodies at the same time as others that they also did not recognize, they did not recognize them. However, they liked them more, than the rest. In another experiment, the subjects were presented with various geometric shapes in the flashing mode (they did not have time to see them and saw only flashes of light). Despite the fact that subsequently they could not recognize the figures that were shown to them in this way (the mechanism of explicit memory was not involved in their demonstration), it was these figures they liked more others (which indicates the existence of subconscious implicit memory).

“It's strange, but it's true, because the truth is always strange. Stranger than fiction. Lord Byron, Don Juan"

Note that in both experiments, conscious judgments about stimuli gave the subjects less information about what they heard or saw than did direct sensations. Perhaps you, too, have experienced something similar: a sudden inexplicable liking or antipathy for something or someone. Zajonc argues that it is not uncommon for emotions to be more "fast-acting" and primitive than thoughts. Fear or preconceived feelings are not always stereotypical expressions; sometimes beliefs "surface" later as justifications for intuitive feelings. According to Zajonc, the effect of "simply hitting the field of view" has "huge adaptive value" (Zajonc, 1998). It is a "hard-wired" defensive phenomenon that determines our inclinations and sympathies. It helped our ancestors classify objects and people and categorize them either as familiar and safe, or as unfamiliar and possibly dangerous. Of course negative side This phenomenon is, as noted in Chapter 9, our wary attitude towards everything unfamiliar, which probably explains why primitive prejudice often automatically makes itself felt when meeting with those who are not like us.

The effect of "simply falling into the field of view" also affects how we evaluate others: we like familiar people (Swap, 1977). We even love ourselves more when we are the way we are used to seeing ourselves. Theodore Mita, Marshall Dermer, and Geoffrey Knight conducted an admirable experiment (Mita, Dermer & Knight, 1977). They took pictures of female students at the University of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and then showed each of them a real photo of her and a photo taken from the image of this photo in the mirror. When they asked the subjects which of the two photographs they preferred, the majority chose the picture taken with the help of a mirror, that is, the image of their face that they are accustomed to seeing in the mirror. They used to seeing.

This phenomenon is exploited by both politicians and advertisers. If people do not have a particular relationship with a candidate or a product, the mere mention of the name of the first or the name of the second can increase the number of votes or sales (McCullough & Ostrom, 1974; Winter, 1973). It is not uncommon for people to develop an unthinking, automatic positive attitude towards the advertised product after repeated repetition of television advertising. Of the two little-known candidates, the one who is most often "flashed" on television or mentioned in print publications usually wins (Patterson, 1980; Schaffer et al., 1981). Political technologists, who understand the role of the “just hitting the eye” effect, have replaced the well-founded argumentation of the candidate’s position with short videos that, like hammers, drive the names of candidates and their catchy slogans into the heads of people sitting at home.

- the eternal dilemma that everyone argues about. How many people, so many opinions. These feelings go hand in hand throughout life. Can there be ordinary, without falling in love and romantic feelings? Love and friendship have a lot in common - to understand where the border is, and it can be difficult to distinguish it. To begin with, it is important to understand these concepts and determine their meanings. What are romantic feelings and what are friendly ties.

Love - you can talk about it endlessly, this is one of the most powerful and beautiful feelings that people experience. It has many meanings and forms. Main types of love:

• Eros - romantic feelings, sympathy for a man or woman;
• Storge - implies feelings for relatives, family;
• Filia - feelings that manifest themselves to;
• Agape is the love of God.

Every facet of love contains a feeling of deep affection for another person. It encourages you to live for others and give. In the name of love throughout human history many heroic, beautiful, fantastic deeds were performed. It doesn't always have a happy ending. But it always makes the one who manifests it happy. The ability to love others enriches and relieves selfishness.

Friendship is a relationship between people, the basis of which is love, honesty, sincerity. Close friends have mutual sympathy, common goals and interests, complete trust among themselves. Friends help each other get better.

The concepts of love and friendship seem to be closely related. These feelings simply cannot exist in isolation. There are no friends who do not love. Yes, and sympathy will arise if the foundation is a good friendship. More than one example has shown that there are close, trusting relationships before marriage. Husband and wife simply must be.

Common Grounds for Friendly and Romantic Feelings

Both falling in love and good friendship are characterized by attraction. People who communicate closely, like couples in love, can miss each other. They have a desire to often spend time together, call up.

Both friendship and love involve close relationships. The desire to share the innermost, their feelings, dreams, goals. A loved one or friend becomes special, closer than everyone else. A bond based on understanding and trust is possible in both cases.

Friendship or love is simply not possible without mutual respect. You cannot say that you love a person and at the same time treat him carelessly or somehow humiliate his dignity. Both feelings encourage mutual support. Thanks to this, any relationship becomes stronger, develops and is valued more. And, of course, the time spent together brings pleasure. It's nice to laugh together, look forward to the next meeting.

What is the difference

This is not love, but friendship, how to make sure? Although friendships and romantic relationships have many things in common, there are also significant differences. These concepts can be distinguished in many respects. Of course, good friends have a lot in common, they can have the same outlook on life, common aspirations. But just Good friends do not strive for the general implementation of their goals. Only potential families plan a joint future.

You can also determine the true attitude towards a person by the amount of attention paid. Even in the strongest friendship, there is not as much time devoted to it as in a romantic relationship. Lovers give all their free time to each other every minute. And if this is not so, then this is not love, but friendship, or even something less.

When two people love, they do not have the concepts of “I”, “me”, “mine”, they say “we”, “us”, “our”. Comrades have a need for each other, but still each of them has his own life. Friends go through life in parallel, side by side, and when they bind the bonds of love, the two become one. Of course, the relationship of couples in love is much closer and warmer than friendly feelings. By these aspects, distinguish and understand the difference between friendship and serious love relationship won't be difficult.

From friendship to love

Can a good friendship grow into something more? The answer is obvious: yes, it is possible. As mentioned above, strong families are made from good friends. No one is immune from love. And to distinguish this fine line more difficult. Friendship develops into closer relationships gradually and imperceptibly. Therefore, it cannot be determined immediately. Relationships become warmer and stronger, a person becomes simply irreplaceable in life. This is how they have been friends since childhood, they sit at the same desk, share their innermost secrets. But they say that they are just friends, there is no question of love. But suddenly something happens and the two fall in love. It's great if these feelings are mutual, you get a wonderful family.

Of course, this is not always the case. The question cannot be answered in the affirmative. Some will say "no", others - "yes". It all depends on each individual situation.

There are many examples of friendship between opposite sexes. But there are no less examples when she grew into a warmer and more tender relationship. There may be sympathy, close relationships, but they will not be romantic, but rather like kindred. Two people can be united by common memories, the past, they are comfortable together. But there is a different kind of love between them. The relationship between a man and a woman can be like that of a brother and sister. But again, no one is safe, even a very long ordinary communication can turn into romance. It is not always easy to understand and sort out your feelings. The time spent together will help determine this. Love and friendship are the kindest and brightest facets of human relations. It's great when they complement each other. Whether it's friendship or love.

Man is a social being. The need to enter into relationships with similar individuals is not only dictated by the instinct of survival and procreation, but also brings a bright color to a person's life. The higher the level of development of society, the more complex the psychology of interpersonal relations of the human community.

The most important emotionally for each person are relationships with people who are dear to him. The circle of such people can be quite wide, although the degree of emotional influence varies. Most often they include:

• loved ones (sexual partner);
• parents;
• own children;
• friends;
• mentors (in education, in creativity).

Relationships are not always unambiguous, they are able to go in one direction or another, or they can even be interrupted. Sometimes a break in relations can be due to completely objective reasons, but often this break has a deep imprint on a person's personality. Some simple rules, which regulate the psychology of interpersonal relationships in our society, will help to build relationships correctly and avoid deep emotional shock in the event of a break.

Love and friendship

Love and friendship is a special category of interpersonal relationships, the most difficult. Complexity is caused by our choice, conscious or unconscious. These feelings arise between two or more people on the principle of mutual sympathy, common interests or goals. Friendship and love (without a sexual connotation) is the greatest asset of a person.

Making friends is an art. Someone understands it intuitively, and someone needs to learn consciously. Learn to trust friends and appreciate trust, be ready to understand and accept their shortcomings. You may really dislike something in your friend, something in your opinion is completely unacceptable, but you can’t emphasize it in a wide circle, although you can discuss it in private. If you start making fun of a friend in front of strangers, then you can say quite confidently that there is no sincerity in your friendship on both sides. You do not value your friend, and he does not expect friendship from you, but some other benefit associated with the relationship.

"Friendship implies equality and mutual respect, the ability to find a compromise and remain loyal to a friend in any conditions."

Breaking friendships

Mankind keeps many legends about strong friendship and betrayal. But sometimes friendships end without any reason and visible cooling. The reason for their association disappears, different interests appear, and as a result there is no visible possibility of maintaining close friendly relations. Do not be afraid of this, as this is the best ending to friendships. This is exactly the case referred to in the saying that an old friend is better than two new ones. You stopped meeting and calling back, but the warmth of relations and memories of the path traveled together remained. The psychology of relations with a married man is usually based on this, when joint plans for the future are not built.

If the gap occurred for any reason or was unreasonable, but one-sided, then this can leave a vivid emotional imprint on the mental life of a person. Over time, it will fade, but this will have to be experienced. The stronger emotionally you were attached to each other, the longer the period of weaning lasts.

The emotional life of a person is difficult to control the intellect, it goes on a sensual level. But so that emotions do not go into the category of emotional stress, you can try to minimize the consequences of a breakup.

Losing friendships, we gain new life experiences and open doors for new relationships. Therefore, try to immediately abandon the condemnation of your former friend, jealousy and anger, the desire for revenge. These negative emotions can undermine you from the inside up to the destruction of health.

"Connect your mind and try to fill this period with positive emotions. They can give you travel and new acquaintances, a sports club, a new hobby. Discover a new writer or a new game."

Do not blame yourself for the gap, as this is a normal situation, this happens on our Earth every day and every minute. Your situation is not something special and will not become a global tragedy.

Photo: Love and friendship

Both love and friendship are definitely positive concepts. They are based on a sense of community, empathy, mutual assistance, emotional closeness. Perhaps friendship in some sense can even be called a form of love, its branches. Love is so all-encompassing that it includes friendship. However, these concepts are not synonymous. What is the difference between love and friendship, how to separate one from the other? Let's try figure out.

Love- a relationship between two people based on a deep mutual feeling, strong affection, the desire to give the partner the best, even to the detriment of oneself.

Friendship- relationships between two or more people based on selflessness, trust, sincerity common to all hobbies or interests.

Friendship is in a sense mutually beneficial cooperation. Its participants receive their dividends, mostly moral, but sometimes material. In friendship, it goes without saying that a friend is ready to help whenever needed. Love is absolutely selfless. She gives her all, but does not expect or demand anything in return. In love, a person is happy, making another, his beloved, happy. In friendship, we, albeit at a deeply subconscious level, are waiting for a return, which means that we act in a certain way. selfishly. True love is devoid of selfishness.

In friendship, people are less attached to each other than in love. Friendship does not imply intimacy, passion between partners, which means that the intensity of emotions is lower in it. Friendship can be both tender and strong, but at the same time it completely excludes lust. Friendship is most often between members of the same sex. Moreover, male friendship in most cases is based on actions, female friendship is based on emotions, the desire to discuss current events. Another difference between love and friendship is that it is relationship couples. But you can be friends right away with several people.

Communication with friends allows a person to feel better in the current reality. Friendship helps to immerse life more fully, it acts as a stabilizer of the current state of reality. Therefore, it is not surprising that very often, changing ourselves, we change our friends. Often, if people lose their mutual common interest, their friendship breaks up, as if it did not exist: its participants have nothing more to share with each other. But love gives a person a huge creative potential, figuratively speaking, gives him wings. A person moves to a new level of being, he has a desire to change and create something new. He is ready for change and longs for it.