Bromances And Homosociality

Introduction
The culture of ‘bromances’ is a relatively recent phenomenon, noting a new era of male homosociality. The social bonds between persons of the same sex, in this case men, exist on a spectrum (Sedgwick 165). However, a ‘bromance’ exists at the top end of this spectrum of male homosociality, and specifically refers to a ‘close and intimate nonsexual and homosocial relationship between two (or more) men’ (Hammaren & Johansson 2014). Chen (2012, p. 246) narrows this definition, specifying that ‘bromances’ comprise of three core elements; they are restricted to men, the relationship must be asexual, and they are locations for acceptable intimacy between men. Men might feel inclined to use the term ‘bromance’ to describe their intimate
relationships as the term allows for an appropriate avenue for men to display emotion and intimacy. Not all men can use the term bromance, however those that do can benefit from this limited freedom. The term explicitly connotes a rejection of femininity and homosexuality, and thus acts as a space in which men can reaffirm traditional masculine structures, and, consequently, maintain their power.

Historical influences on modern male homosociality
Bromances and the shift in male intimacy they bring move away from traditional conceptions of masculinity.
Within traditional conceptions, male homosociality has little to no qualities of intimacy. Masculinity’s conception as an opposition to femininity and queer masculinities means men are more likely to engage in stoic friendship, rather than intimate friendship (Casey p.64.). Historically, male homosociality has been fostered by working environments where men interact, but also a sense of competition – i.e., rather than bonding, they are always competing in some regard (Tognoli p. 277). The times in which a higher level of male homosociality have been realised are in environments and eras of comradeship, where men bond in the trenches at war or as sailors on a voyage (rethinking masc, 81-83). But even here, intimacy and camaraderie are not necessarily the same thing, and the spaces in which the two are performed are very different. Approaching the modern era, male homosociality has been based in shared activities, such as games, playing musical instruments, watching movies, sport activities, and drinking (Messner, 2001). This notes a change in the kind of bonding that is happening, but not a change in the level of intimacy being produced between men. So whilst it is clear that men have been interacting and bonding to a degree throughout history, the level of intimacy that is typically associated with female homosociality is scarcely realised in men. Consequently, men have
been dissatisfied with male friendships, because of this lack of intimacy between men (May, Strickwerda &_, rethinking masculinity, 80). The development of male homosociality is an important precursor to understanding how the use of the term bromance has come to be. The limiting nature of male intimacy within traditional conceptions of masculinity explains the need for a ‘bromance’ to be created and utilised by men so that they can be intimate with each other without facing social stigmatisation.

Bromances as access to intimacy
The inclination to use ‘bromance’ to describe an intimate relationship between men perhaps rises from the fact that it gives men an avenue to be intimate in a way that has not been historically encouraged. The term allows for intimate behaviour that is typically reserved for a heterosexual romance to be brought into a homosocial zone. To say that men do not want intimate friendships would be an oversimplification of traditional gender roles; men possess a ‘hunger for intimacy, stability and trust’ that can be satisfied through intimacy (beyond mateship p.53). The issue is that they are unable to articulate this hunger for intimacy, especially in a way that doesn’t make them look feminised (beyond mateship 127). The failure of male homosocialisation is rooted in the lack of intimacy between men, and thus if men possess this desire for intimacy, the label of a bromance allows for intimacy between men to be expressed without their masculinity being threatened. Furthermore, a bromance is not necessarily contingent on masculine environments like war or sea, but allows for intimacy between men to exist, regardless of circumstance, so long as the men meet the criteria outlined in Chen’s definition of a bromance. Thus it can be argued that ‘bromances may provide an example of a more fluid masculinity through their intentional and genuine depictions of male intimacy’ (Sargent, 14). The inclination to use the term may also come from wider social acceptance. Popular bromances such as Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as well as George Clooney and Brad Pitt set a precedent of sorts (hammaren and Johansson). Here, seeing figures represented as successful masculinities engaging in intimate homosocial relations allows other men to feel like they can also participate in similar kinds of intimacy with other men. This precedent persuades men to adopt the same kind of language on a lower, more personal scale, despite historical ideals that male homosociality does not include intimacy. At its core, a bromance is an attempt to masculinise intimacy. But a bromance is not an all-encompassing term for male intimacy – it channels intimate male friendships into narrow and well-defined boundaries which intentionally exclude certain characteristics and groups of people (Chen 2012 p242). This is integral to understanding the operation of a bromance, as whilst it gives men an unprecedented ability to express intimacy between themselves, it is not to the benefit of all men.

Can all men be in a bromance?
Per Chen’s (2012, p.
246) definition of a bromance, not all men are eligible to be in a bromance. Thus, the term bromance belongs to an exclusive class of men; not all men will be able, or even willing, to use ‘bromance’ as a description their intimate relationships with men. Walker (Mens Lives, 390) notes that upper, and even middle class men, are more likely to conform to gendered norms in regards to intimate behaviour, and thus are not likely to be as intimate with each other compared to men of a lower class. Most notably, films depicting bromances perpetuate the idea of bromances being a product of white male culture, which in turn can influence who uses the term in everyday life by limiting the scope of its use (Sargent, 23). Beyond class, homosexual men are excluded from Chen’s criteria for a bromance. Gay men are significantly more likely to be in close homosocial relationships with other gay men rather than heterosexual men (gay mens friendships). Consequently, it would be rare to see the relationship between two gay men or a gay man and a heterosexual man being self-labelled a bromance; not only is the label used almost exclusively by heterosexual men, but gay men won’t experience the need to reject the homosexual inferences of male intimacy, since they are homosexual themselves, and have nothing to lose. This all plays an important role into how bromances are depicted in popular culture. Bromance culture is often depicted on-screen by younger, heterosexual men of a
lower social standing almost as a reference point for the kind of men society deems are acceptable masculinities to be in a bromance (I love you man, 165). The label of a ‘bromance’ is thus a term that is only used by a specific group of people; straight men who belong to a lower class that feel obliged to use the term as to not face the repercussions of traditional masculine values.