70 Who Are Our Friends?
Fraley Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011), feminist intersectional theory
(Crenshaw, 1989; Galupo & Gonzalez, 2013), and dialectical theory (Baxter &
Braithwaite, 2007; Hall & Baym, 2011; Rawlins, 1992).
Social constructionism (Gergen, 1991) is my personal and professional theory
of choice because it most clearly relates to my growing conviction that the cate-
gories of same- sex and other- sex friendships should be replaced with a more fluid
conceptualization that recognizes individual and dyadic agency and freedom in
constructing the meaning of individual relationships (Rawlins, 2009). This theory
proposes that through an ongoing process of communication, individuals intersub-
jectively create the meaning of their particular friendships, a meaning that will often
transcend and not neatly fit into the category of same- sex and other- sex friendships.
There is little doubt that the relationship I had with Susan is best explained through
the lens of social constructionism.
The 500- pound gorilla in this group of theories is attachment theory. Fraley
and colleagues recently noted that, “During the last 30 years, attachment theory
has become one of the leading theoretical frameworks for the social psychological
study of close relationships and personality dynamics” (2013, p. 817). The basic
idea behind attachment theory is that the relationship formed between an infant/
toddler and his or her primary caregiver significantly impacts the relationships,
including friendships (Admed & Brumbaugh, 2014; Chow & Tan, 2013), that the
infant/ toddler has for the rest of his or her life (Bowlby, 1969; Shulman, Elicker,
& Stroufe, 1994). Even though the primary caregiver is the first attachment fig-
ure in a person’s life, individuals also form attachment relationships with friends
(Ahmed & Brumbaugh, 2014; Fraley et al., 2011; Monsour, 2002). Whether or
not attachment styles differ in same- sex friendships and other- sex friendships is
open to empirical investigation. For example, are individuals with a particular type
of attachment style more likely to gravitate toward a particular type of friendship,
and if so, why?
As observed by Carbin and Edenheim, “In the last 10 years the use of the con-
cept intersectionality has practically exploded in European and North American
gender research” (2013, p.233). Feminist intersectional theory examines the inter-
sections between gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, age, and
race as a way of explaining all kinds of relationship issues, particularly as they relate
to power dynamics (Crenshaw, 1989). The theory has specifically been applied to
friendships (Galupo & Gonzalez, 2013). With more attention being given to the
friendships of gender- variant individuals such as transgendered persons (Monsour
& Rawlins, 2014) and the friendships of nonheterosexual persons (Muraco, 2012),
intersectional theory promises to be one of the more productive frameworks for
unraveling some of the complexities of same- sex and other- sex friendships. In my
friendship with Susan, her genetic biological sex, which was male (defined as an XY
sex chromosome pairing), intersected with her gender identity, which was female,
and her sexual orientation, which went from being heterosexual when she was a