The special role of friends and neighbors

The Special Role of Friends and Neighbors

G. CLARE WENGER* University

College of North Wales

ABSTRACT: The role of friends and neighbors in old age have received less emphasis than those of family relationships. This article draws attention to their special importance in the lives of elderly people 75 and older living in a community in rural Wales. The author draws attention to the differences and similarities between the two categories: friendship based on choice and shared interest being primarily an expressive relationship; while neighboring is based on proximity and is primarily an instrumental relationship. Both friends and neighbors are shown to provide important, overlapping types of support and assistance which contribute to continuing well-being and independence in old age.

Although “family, friends and neighbors” are frequently cited as important sources of informal support for the elderly, friends and neighbors have received little attention in the United Kingdom; even less has been written about the broader nature of relationships with friends and neighbors; and, this lack of data has been identified as an area requiring more research (Scott and Roberts 1984). In this article, the literature on old people and their friends and neighbors is discussed; quantitative data on the availability of friends and neighbors are analyzed from a survey of over 100 people over 75 in 1979 who survived in the community until 1983 and were interviewed in both years; and, qualitative data based on a sub-sample of 30 studied intensively are presented. The research was conducted in rural Wales in 1979-1986. Relationships with friends and neighbors differ from those with kin because they are the result of structured choices which have to be made on the basis of options *Direct all correspondence IO: G. Glare Wenger, University

College of North

Wales,

Centre for Social Policy Research Ban,gor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG.

JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES, Volume 4, Number 2, pages 149-169 Copyright 0 1990 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 08904065.

& Development,

150

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

provided by society within a person’s own social milieu (Fischer 1977). Friendships are fluid, involve freely chosen age peers and are based on reciprocity. While neighbors are accessible, they are less freely chosen and no clear obligations exist (Kendig 1986). Extra-familial ties provide proof for the individual of social acceptability and a reference group which may protect one against the stresses of change including the aging process (Clark 1967). Non-kin ties, therefore, play an important, complementary but different role from kin ties in the well-being of the individual (Biau 1973; Ariing 1980). Findings from the Bonn Longitudinal Studies in Aging show that if family activity declines, outside activity increases and so does morale. On the other hand, increasing family activity correlates with withdrawal from community involvement. It was found that those with extra-family adaptations, on average, had higher intelligence, higher general activity, felt more needed, had fewer conflicts with their children and more cooperation with their children (Fooken 1981). Comparable findings from a Californian study of old parents also point to the importance of extrafamilial activities and have shown that, especially for mothers, those with life-styles focussed beyond the family are more satisfied with life in old age (Maas and Kuypers 1974). Several studies have shown that friends and neighbors are more important than children in alleviating loneliness and for morale (Biau 1973; Hadley et al. 1975; Spakes 1979; Kivett and Learner 1980; Kivett 1985). It has also been suggested that the lack of friends and neighbors is not compensated for by involvement with children. Both types of relationships are important for well-being (Ariing 1980). Despite the important role which women play within the family in terms of kinkeeping, Canadian data show that old women develop more extra-familial network ties than old men (Corin 1982). Much discussion has focussed on the difficulty of the definition of these two categories (Bulmer 1986). Not only is the phrase used as an aggregate term for nonkin, but researchers have experienced difficulties in the interpretation of such terms by respondents. It has been suggested that definitions of friends and perceptions of friendship networks vary by sex, social class and geographic location (Lowenthai and Robinson 1976). There is no guarantee that respondents in any one study will interpret the terms uniformly and, in addition to the fact that some neighbors may be friends, others may not fit neatly into either category or may fit into both.Even the kin/non-kin distinction is inadequate since kin may also be friends and/or neighbors! For example, “Working class friendships tend to be restricted to kin, supplemented to some extent by neighbours. . . .” (Alien 1979 p.4). It is not surprising to find that in many studies of the elderly, whose opportunities for making new friends beyond the immediate neighborhood are constrained, friends-and-neighbors becomes a single category. It is likely that the emphasis of UK research on availability of help has also affected this decision. Since only local friends are available to provide instrumental support, the distinction between friends and neighbors is not a critical one for researchers interested in social policy. However, from the data of the intensive study under discussion here it clear that, especially for middle-class respondents, distant friends may also play an important role in the lives of the elderly.

The Special Role of Friends and Neighbors

FRIENDS

151

AND FRIENDSHIP

A friend has been defined as, “A person, not kin, with whom you feel close, talk personally, and on whom you can count” (Block 1980). In a study comparing the views of elderly people in the United States and West Germany (Shenk and Vora 1985) it was found that the qualities sought in a friend showed close similarity between the two countries. The most important aspects were caring (67%); similarity in interests (54%) and trustworthiness (53%). Friendship is a reciprocal relationship. Friends have been identified as providing: self-confirmation, selfworth, self-perception, sharing, trust, giving and receiving, intimacy, willingness to forgive, acceptance and to act as a buffer or protection against the world (Bell 1968). All of these aspects seem to be reflected in the topics which elderly respondents in both the U.S. and West Germany reported as most commonly discussed with friends: personal life; family roles; health; and, politics and world affairs (Shenk and Vora 1985). In other words, friends act as a sounding board for selfvalidation. The element of choice has been stressed by some researchers (Jackson et al. 1977). One of the most important constraints on friendship for old people is the limitations they experience in terms of mobility, related to both health and transport. They are thus, more dependent on the immediate locality. Friendship interaction has, therefore, been shown to be higher where there are concentrations of elderly people (Rosow 1967) whether in urban or rural environments. Widows (Spakes 1979), retirement migrants (Law and Warnes 1973) and those living in rooming houses or bedsitters (Smithers 1985) have been shown to be particularly dependent on proximity. But while proximity is important in terms of making new friends or maintaining contact with friends (Jackson et al. 1977), long-standing friends may have a special importance (Francis 1984) even when living at a distance. Long-standing friends, because of geographical mobility, may be seen less often but people often claim to feel closer to friends not seen often and longer lasting friendships have been shown to be more intimate (Jackson et al. 1977). However, with increasing age, friends are less likely to be childhood friends and more likely to be based on association and neighborhood (Steuve and Gerson 1979). Friendship is affected by social class, gender and marital status. Middle-class people tend to form friendships with a wider variety of people based primarily on shared association and interests, while working-class friendships are more restricted to kin, with some neighbors and workmates (Allan 1977). It has also been suggested that working-class people find it less easy to establish new friendships because their networks are less open to newcomers (Blum 1964). Friendships play a more important part in middle-class social networks (Allan 1977); middle-class old people report more friends (Mugford and Kendig 1986) and tend to relate to friends more generally, while working-class friendships are more activity related or restricted to a particular context. For the working-class kin, friends and neighbors tend to coalesce (Allan 1977). Research finds that the importance of friendship increases with age (Shenk and Vora 1985) and that the elderly report an increasing number of close friends living

152

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

nearby (Spakes 1979). Among the middle class, friendship contacts are more frequent in old age. Gender is an important variable in patterns of friendship. Women tend to have more friends in their networks (Mugford and Kendig 1986) and to be more capable of intimacy in same-sex friendships than men (Lowenthal and Robinson 1976). However, older men are more likely to make and maintain long-lasting friendships than younger men (Steuve and Gerson 1979). Men tend to choose friends of the same occupational level and this is most marked at the beginning and end of their working lives (Jackson et al. 1977). Findings from the survey conducted in 1979 indicated that those who have never married are more likely to report having nearby friends and that those who are married are least likely to do so (Wenger 1984). This suggests that the importance of friendship is related to marital status as a reflection of the importance of friends. Other work has shown that friendship between widows is an important support which reintegrates women into society after bereavement (Kivett 1985).

Follow-up Data on Friends In 1979 and 1983, respondents were asked whether they had real friends in the area; 87% in 1979 and 79% in 1983 said that they had; 78% reported local real friends in both 1979 and 1983; and, 8% reported no friends nearby in either year, However, 12% who had friends in 1979 felt that they had no real friends nearby by 1983 and 2% appeared to have gained friends by 1983. Overall, due primarily to losses through death, loss was more frequent than gain. This meant that by 1983 21% felt they had no real friends living nearby. Not having local friends was correlated with social class in both 1979 1983 Ct,= .Ol). Members of the unskilled working-class were least likely to be able to name local friends in 1979 (33%) and 1983 (43%) and the proportion of skilled working-class respondents with no local friends more than trebled (from 6% to 22%); while the proportion of middle-class respondents unable to do so declined slightly (from 13% to 10%). While some of this class difference is likely to reflect problems of definition, change over time suggests that working-class friendships in old age are less stable. An important factor here is likely to be life expectancy because, since friendships tend to be homogeneous in terms of age and class, lower working-class life expectancy means that death claims friends at an earlier age. Looking at those who were named as local friends in 1979 (respondents could name up to five seen most often) in 1983, 38% mentioned the same group of people; for 28% there was some change; 13% had lost friends and mentioned fewer; 6% had gained friends and mentioned more. (in 15% of cases it was not clear from the data what had happened). Changes were related primarily to age and health. With advancing age both change and loss were more frequent @ = .Ol). Friendships were most stable amongst those in good health, whilst those in poor health were more likely to report a net loss in friendships. At lower levels of significance women and members of the working-class lost friends more often than men and the middle-class, reflecting the greater age of women and the higher mortality rates of the working class.

The Special

Role of Friends and Neighbors

153

Respondents were also asked if they wished they had more friends. The proportions wishing for more friends were lower than those without local friends-lo% in 1979 and 14% in 1983. Six percent felt a need for more friends in both 1979 and 1983; for 3% the need appeared to have been met by 1983 but for 7% the need arose in the intervening period. The majority, (84%) felt no need for additional friends in either year. However. the fact that by 1983, 21% felt friendless in their immediate environment and 14% wished for more friends should not be overlooked. Wanting more friends was not clearly related to any other variable in 1979 but in 1983 those wishing for more friends (two-thirds of those with no local friends) were more likely to be women (JJ = < .02), and to be migrants to the area (p = .0002). In both 1979 and 1983, approximately one-fifth felt that there was someone who depended on their friendship. Dependencies were more changeable than friendships as a whole. In contrast with availability of friends and the desire for more friends, there was no statistically significant relationship between 1979 and 1983 in having a friend dependent on one. More than half of those who named a friend who was dependent on them in 1979 named no one in 1983, whereas more than half of those naming someone in 1983 had named no-one in 1979. Only 8% named a dependent friend in both years, and for 5% the person depending on friendship had changed; 10% no longer had someone dependent on them and 8% had gained a friend depending on their friendship. In 1979, feeling that another was dependent on their friendship was highly correlated with having a large support network (p = <.OOl) but this relationship had evaporated by 1983, by which time the most significant intervening variables were age and proximity to children, i.e. being under 85 (p= .02) and living more than 15 miles from one’s nearest child (p = .Ol). Being younger was also related in 1979 but was not statistically significant. Although not statistically significant, more of those claiming to be in good health, the middle-class and retirement migrants claimed someone depended on them in 1979 and 1983. while in 1983 there were additional indications that being married and living with one’s spouse only and migration earlier in the life cycle were also important, Obviously, these variables are not independent from one another and taken together reflect opportunities to nurture coupled with the need to nurture. Change was related to age (p = .003) with loss associated with advancing age and change or gain associated with being under 85. Both loss and gain were most clearly associated with living alone (JJ = .057). There are indications that having a friend dependent on one may fill a need for the nurturing friend.

Relationships with Friends Reciprocity Qualitative data from the intensive study showed that friendship is based very much on reciprocal emotional support, although this is more noticeable between women than between men, whose contacts appear to depend more on shared activities or interests. The problem of the definition of “friend” is inescapable. It is

154

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 2/1990

very difficult to establish what the semantic content of the word is for the individual. Those capable of greater intimacy may limit the term to those to whom they are very close while others may use it more loosely. One participant, Harold Martin (81), for instance, commented that “There are several people I think of as friends but they are not intimates. People I stop to have a chat with but don’t invite home.” These were in addition to other life-long friends who came to spend holidays with him. Caroline Jackson (86) was at pains to point out that several of those who lived nearby were de~nitely friends nof neighbors. The importance of friends was stressed by several. “It’s nice to look back and know that you’ve had good friends and been friendly with people. It means a lot, doesn’t it?” said Margaret Pritchard (SS). The expectation of reciprocal support is rarely made explicit but is evident in the way friendship is spoken of. Respondents spoke of feeling ceil-supporred by friends; of friends helping one another; of being “people I could rely on.” When friends turned out to be unreliable in the context of other people’s friends this was commented upon, especially when others did not visit their friends in hospital or old people’s home or in not attending funerals or sending flowers. Some informants expressed disappointment in friends who had let them down by not visiting them after a move or a bereavement. While expectations of instrumental help seem to have a low satiency, emotional support and dependability appear to be the sine qua non of friendship. The problems of advanced old age, however, make the honoring of such implicit commitments difficult as subsequent discussion will show. Some respondents were consciously aware of the reciprocal nature of their commitment, explaining their relationships as based on earlier kindness received or the provision of mutual support. Duration

of Friendship

Long-term friendships are important, although it is not always clear whether the two people have been friends all the time they have known one another or not. Many commented on specific friends who had been known “all my life” or “since we were young” or that “we were at school together.” For women, who in rurai areas often move to the husband’s community on marriage, friendships with other women known since “before I got married” or “when I first got married” are also mentioned. There is a sense in which life-long friendships of this type stand apart. Schools friends apparently do not have to be classmates. They had grown up on adjacent farms and walked the same route to school, or they had been friends with respondents’ sisters, brothers or cousins. Contacts made in early adulthood were also important. Friendships were maintained with friends with whom they or their spouses had worked all their lives; had taught their children in school, or had been lodgers in their homes. Friendships growing out of work relationships were not necessarily between equals. Several maintained close ties with people for whom they had worked or who had worked for them. The importance of old friends has been commented upon elsewhere (Jerrome 1981) as contributing something unique to the acceptance of aging and adjustment to change. The importance of long-term friendships, however, does not mean that new friends are not made over the years, although some people obviously found it easier

The Special Role of Friends and Neighbors

155

to make new friends than others and with advancing age and decreasing mobility the opportunities for making friends are more restricted. Those who stay in the same place have less need to make new friends and respondents exhibited different degrees of gregariousness. Some were extremely sociable, out and about every day attending community activities. One respondent, even though chairbound, had a stream of friends dropping in. She showed an interest in everyone and despite her limitations told me more than once that she had made a new friend. The necessity of making new friends as an adaptation to longevity, was frequently recognized as contemporaries died. Others, particularly men, felt that new friendships were difficult if not impossible to establish “at our age.” Although it is not possible to generalize confidently from the qualitative data, there is some indication that middle-class women are more adept at developing new friendships but that personality plays an important part. There were those who claimed as friends persons with whom their interactions appeared to be brief, infrequent and fairly casual but who had been known to them since childhood and on whom they felt they could rely if necessary. In these instances, there appeared to be a feeling that they were part of each other’s lives. As Glenys Owen (83) commented of one of those she referred to as a friend, “She’s not one of my nearest and dearest but she has been in town with me” (all her life). Those who had moved more than short distances during their lives, mainly middleclass people, tended to keep in touch with a number of special friends, whose friendship dated from childhood, schooldays, shared early work experience or early marriage. Relationships with local and distant friends differed in some obvious ways. Location of Friends Although the survey had asked only about friends “in the area,” the intensive study demonstrated that distant friends continued to be important to many old people, especially, but not exclusively, those who were middle-class. Relationships with local friends (i.e. those who lived in the same or adjacent community) and distant friends were, of course different. Local friends (For the purpose of discussion, local friends are defined as those living in the same or a nearby community). Relationships with local friends differed in terms of gender, and social class. Not unrelated to geographic mobility, friends appeared to have a more central piace in the lives of women and middle-class informants than for working-class people. Not all local friends were also neighbors (i.e. living in the immediate vicinity) but many were and for some respondents most of their friends were neighbors, In some cases, friendship had grown up as a result of proximity. In other cases friendship predated proximity, and in still other cases, where people had known one another casually for years, friendship developed out of subsequent proximity. The women in the intensive study talked more about their friendships than the men did. Old women’s relationships with local friends are characterized by mutual support and regular contact. Interaction, both witnessed and reported, evidenced a good deal of concern for one another, reassurance and appreciation for company

156

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

and help, usually in the nature of moral support. Sharing and talking over problems appeared to be common, apparent in the detail and concern with which friends’ problems were discussed. Other evidence of mutual support was demonstrated in terms of: bringing a newspaper; regularly picking up small items from the shops or occasionally doing more basic shopping in the case of illness; visiting when ill at home or in hospital; offering to put friends up overnight during a move or in an emergency; telephoning or dropping in for a chat; or providing lifts to meetings of voluntary organizations or the library. Participation in voluntary groups was still important for some women and most went with a friend. It was common for respondents to rely on friends for lifts or to meet at one another’s homes to walk together to clubs, church or chapel, or other gatherings. Women friends often ate together, although this was more often for tea at one another’s nearby homes than for more substantial meals and eating out was unusual, commonly restricted to sharing a cup of tea or coffee. Only middle-class friends went out to lunch to restaurants! Friends were frequently invited to special celebrations such as birthdays and Golden Weddings. For those who were single, and more markedly the widowed, friends were often holiday companions or partners on trips and outings. Old men talked less about their friendships, con~rming earlier work which suggests that friendship is more important for women. One gained the impression that relationships defined as friendship by male respondents were less close than relationships between women. Most interaction between male friends took place outside the home. Old men talked of meeting friends in pubs over a beer, in cafes over a cup of coffee or tea, at cattle markets or at clubs. Meetings, therefore, tended to have a focus other than the conversation which seemed to form the focus of most women’s friendship relationships. Mutual support between men was less evident although there were examples of cross-sex support, where widowed men offered practical help or moral support to widowed women and women engaged in supportive behavior towards widowed men living alone, for instance doing bits of shopping or baking. But here again interactions seemed to take place mainly outside the man’s home. In the case of married couples, it was the wife’s friends who seemed to come to the house, while the husband, if able, met friends outside the home. When elderly husbands became frail or sick and were unable to leave the house contacts with friends appear to evaporate for working-class men and to diminish for middle-class men, although they continue to benefit from visits from their wives’ friends. A similar situation develops for those who live in a child’s household. Old people in this situation told me that I must ask their child about subsequent visiting, indicating that they experience constraints on inviting their own visitors, which may of course be quite contrary to their children’s perception of the situation. Most of those with this living arrangement mentioned friends of their children as being the only ones they saw in explaining that they no longer had friends of their own.

Distant Friends maintaining friends over distance requires more effort than retaining local friends who are accessible and met casually while out shopping or passing the

The Special

Role of Friends and Neighbors

157

house. Active relationships with distant friends were limited primarily to the middle-class elderly, with the resources necessary to telephone, make trips and accommodate visitors. Middle-class respondents welcomed regular summer visitors to their homes at the seaside or country or made similar trips to visit. These were friends made during their young adulthood who had remained close during all the intervening years. Less active relationships are also maintained. Cecil Hill (83), received few visits but occasionally friends or friends of his children would drop in briefly if they happened to be in the area. His main contacts with old friends were infrequent and by telephone. For many others each Christmas there were those who had always sent a card who had not sent one and the old person wondered if they had died. The importance of distant friends is usually related to the long standing nature of such relationships (Fischer 1982). For the old, such friends may provide the only link with early phases of their lives which now exist only in shared memories and can only be experienced again by the pooling of recollection. Distant friends, therefore, are likely to be more important to those who have moved, not only because they are less likely to have local friends, but because local friends have no shared knowledge of their earlier lives. Distant friends thus, play an important part in self-validation as well as often providing a link with and news of parts of the country once familiar. For some migrants, those friends at a distance remain the only real friends and those nearby continue to be perceived as mere acquaintances. Changes in Friendship as a Result of Aging Because friends tend to be of similar age, the advancing years bring serial losses as friends die. Friends tend to be of the same gender and because women live longer, old men are more likely to lose all their friends at an earlier age. Speaking of his loss of friends, Edward Hopkins (92) said, “Mr. Johnson has died. I used to sit with him and his wife on trips. I lost four of them all at once. I lost Mr. Johnson in December and then Mr. Price died. He was a friend of mine. Then there was Percival. He’s dead now . . . He’s been gone a long while. We used to play draughts together. He lost his mind, you know. Mr. Rowlands is still alive. Norman’s dead and gone . . .” Caroline Jackson (86) similarly noted that “Most of my old friends have died. I am one of the few left of my generation.” In rural areas, moving to a residential home may be as final as death, since distances can be as far as 30 miles away. Visits to friends in residential care were, therefore, often difficult and upsetting. Not just the strain of the journey but the change in friends and the impact of the dependence and lack of freedom in institutional life were reminders of their own advanced age. There is some evidence to indicate that for those living alone, the loss of a close friend in advanced age can exacerbate the problems of aging. Sometimes it seems to be the last straw. Cicely Bryant (95), Margaret Pritchard (88) and Myfanwy Jones (90) all lost close women friends. When interviewed in 1983, Miss Bryant said, “I have no intimate friends now. No one to talk to. The only friend I had died twelve months ago. She’s in the churchyard. She was the only friend I ever had. We were at school together.” She was very lonely and isolated. Her morale was low and she admitted that sometimes she stayed in bed all day. She was dependent on the community nursing service. her home help and meals on wheels. She had

158

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. 41No. 211990

withdrawn into her home and would only respond to calls from the services. Her withdrawal from the community appeared to date from her friends being admitted to an old people’s home. Likewise, the health of both Margaret Pritchard and Myfanwy Jones deteriorated quickly after the death of close friends and both subsequently entered residential care. Those who had wider circles of friends or close relationships with nearby relatives were better able to adapt to loss. Some made new friends, often considerably younger than themselves, but many felt that it was their contemporaries, the living and the dead, with whom relationships had been built up over the years, who constituted their real friends. Loss of physical mobility amongst this otd age group has an obvious impact on friendship because of the constraints it places on opportunities to get together. This is more acute for those whose friends or family do not have access to transport. Failing hearing and sight also make visiting difficult. Less obvious are the effects of mental illness, not only the more evident effects of dementia, but failing memory and depression. The impact of physical and mental illness on friendship has been discussed elsewhere (Wenger 1988). Friendships are disrupted by the unpredictability of health. Holidays are canceled because of ill-health or not even planned because of the uncertainties of a friend’s health. Or old people are advised to slow down, not walk so far or to give up driving, all of which cut down on opportunities to get together. Thus, age erodes the mutual support of friendship.

NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORING In the most definitive treatment of the subject to date, Bulmer (1986) notes that the common distinction between friends and neighbors is that the neighbor relationship is a relatively limited one: “. . . being a neighbor is something much more specific, more narrowly framed, than being a relation or friend.” He suggests that being a neighbor is a role relationship to which certain norms apply. While variations in neighbor interaction exist between neighborhoods and individuals (Warren 1980, 1981; Leat 1982), norms can be identified. Friendliness, helpfutness and respect for privacy are commonly cited as the bases for good neighborliness (Klein 1965; Keller 1968). Although helpfuiness has been identified as a core characteristic of neighborliness, the literature indicates that help in old age comes primarily from the family (Shanas et al. 1968; Wenger 1984). Helpers are likely to be spouse before children followed by neighbors (Cibulski 1981; Qureshi 1986; Kendig 1986). Neighbors are particularly important: where speed of reaction is necessary (e.g. borrowing odd items; lifts; emergencies); where problems are based on shared territory (e.g. heavy snow,; electricity cuts); and, where groups knowledge and information sharing are desirable (e.g. neighborhood watch; keeping an eye on vulnerable people) (Litwak and Szelenyi 1969). Neighbors are those most capable of immediate, idiosyncratic and unpredicted action (Allen 1979). Neighbors are accessible sources of help but have no obligations to one another other than the norms of helpfulness and reciprocity (Kendig 1986). Reciprocity

The Special

Role of Friends and neighbors

159

between neighbors, in contrast with that between friends which may be long-term, has been identified as being short-term and balanced (James et al. 1984). The role of the good neighbor has been seen as a strategy among middle-class women to offset the loss of role occasioned by retirement or widowhood (Jerrome 1981), although the 1979 survey indicated that overall elderly married men were those most likely to be involved in providing neighborly help (Wenger 1984). In contrast to friendship, the neighbor relationship is based first and foremost on proximity. Intimacy may develop but it is not a necessary component and tends to change the relationship into that of friendship. Neighboring takes place within the confines of a limited geographic space. Those defined as neighbors live mostly within walking distance and are those with whom frequent face-to-face contact is possible (Bulmer 1986). While it has been suggested that working-class peopIe have a reluctance to become too closely involved with neighbors for fear of exploitation and thus, tend to keep to themselves (Klein 196.5), for elderly people, neighbors take on a significant role as potential friends or sources of help because of restricted mobility and this is especially true for the working-class elderly (Rosow 1967; Arling 1986). In terms of help, family are most important but neighbors are more important that friends who are not nearby. In rural areas, neighbors are important particularly for those with no local children (Kivett 1985). However, there is some indication that earlier neighboring expectations may have changed. Writing of Wales in 1950, Rees commented that “By friendliness towards his neighbors the country man overcomes the isolation imposed on him by his environment” (Rees 1950, p.91) and suggested that neighbors not only provided assistance but companionship. Later data from Ireland, however, suggest that such neighboring behavior may have become less general. Neighbor bonds had become attenuated although neighbor help in emergencies would still be forthcoming (Hannan 1972), and another researcher, also writing of Ireland, described neighbor help as only for the weak (Brody 1974). Help-seeking by the old and support of the elderly or other vulnerable groups in the community may represent a special case, whereby neighbors perceive support of the old as a category for whom expectations of support still legitimately form part of the definition of a good neighbor, even if other sub-groups are perceived as being more self-su~cient. Follow-up Data on Neighbors Findings from the 1979 and 1983 surveys demonstrate that most elderly people are well-disposed towards their neighbors, as do the results of Hunt’s study based on more urban respondents (Hunt 1978). Ninety percent or more reported that they got on well with all or most of their neighbors. The data suggest that most old people have increasingly positive attitudes towards neighbors as they age. However, very advanced old age may lead to loss of contact with neighbors amongst those living with relatives. Almost one-third of those over 90 had no contact with neighbors in 1983, representing a deterioration. Widows and those living alone are more likely to say that they get on well with all their neighbors than other groups. That small minority of those who do not get on

160

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 2/1990

well with u/l their neighbors is comprised mainly of younger (i.e. under 80), married people living with their spouse only. Despite the rural environment, for more than seven out of ten of the old people, their nearest neighbor lived next-door. More than half had a common wall with their next-door-neighbor. There was hardly any change in proximity of neighbors between 1979 and 1983. Proximity of neighbors was related primarily to household composition (p = .OOOO in 1979 and 1983) those who lived alone being most likely to have close neighbors. By 1983, 90% of those living alone and 89% of those living with a spouse only had a neighbor living next door or across the road, i.e. near enough to notice anything unusual and within calling distance. Of those living with relatives, however, 46% lived more than 50 yards from their nearest neighbor, some of whom were on farms in three generation households. This was also reflected in a high correlation between the proximity of neighbors and proximity of nearest child (p = .002 in 1979 and p = .OOOO in 1983). Those without children were most likely to have nearby neighbors while the most isolated were more likely to have nearby children, often in the same household. Those living in more isolated situations were also likely to be middle-class (76%); none was unskilled working-class. Those without near neighbors, therefore, were those who might be expected to have better access to resources (children, cars, telephones etc.).

Relationships with Neighbors The comments made by the participants in the intensive study confirm earlier findings about neighboring in general. Elderly people place too much emphasis on help, friendliness and the maintenance of social distance. “We are friendly but not really friends,” was a common statement. For many old people importance is attached to knowing that help is available from neighbors if needed, even though they may never ask. Good neighbors are appreciated and commented upon. Many said that they were “lucky” or “blessed” to have good neighbors. Their importance was evident in an observation by farmer Tom Price (85), as he considered his long life, “It’s been a good life. 1 wouldn’t change it. Looking back there’s nothing I would’ve done differently. I could’ve done with better neighbors sometimes, and we’re very glad to have good ones, isn’t it?” Complaints about neighbors were rare, usually focussed on lack of consideration for others, mainly to do with noise or lack of shown concern in the face of difficulties. Not all complaints were about younger neighbors, deterioration of hearing can make elderly people bad neighbors as they unwittingly turn up the volume on radios and television sets. Being independent of neighbors is related to maintaining privacy. “We are all very willing to do what we can for each other. We are good neighbors, but not in each other’s houses,” said Susannah Morgan (SO). But within the context of maintaining a social distance there was a wide range of variation. Some neighbors are seen rarely but knowing that they are there, is a source of security. Levels of contact vary from rarely seen, to daily involvement in support and monitoring. Levels of contact with neighbors are affected by the type of neighborhood and the

The Special

Role of Friends and Neighbors

161

age distribution of its population. Those living in towns and villages tend to define as neighbors only those within a very short radius, while those living in areas of more dispersed settlement may count as neighbors residents of homes as far away as a mile if they have known them for years. Respondents commented on the homogeneity or heterogeneity of neighborhoods, commonly noting, for instance, that “we’re all retired round here” or “of course, most of my neighbors are young people.” (Experience showed that young people could be anyone under 70!). Several commented on the fact that having elderly neighbors was an advantage because they are there during the day. In stable communities, neighbors have known each other for years and grown old together, even if they have never been friends. Knowledge about neighbors, however, appears to flow freely even without long acquaintance. Many old people learned a lot through their gossip networks even where there was no contact. Accounts of neighbors’ problems and situations were obviously the common currency of social exchange. Younger retired neighbors, often develop a role of involved good neighbor to several older neighbors, doing bits of shopping, gardening or small repairs. This adaptation is common amongst younger retirement migrants. On the other hand, older neighbors are more likely to need help themselves which can cause other old people anxiety or stress. While they are more available to help, they may be less physically able to help with the kinds of problems experienced, are less mobile and less likely to have cars, telephones or informal contacts with and knowledge of sources of help and information. Where many of the neighbors are dependent this can put a heavy burden on able-bodied elderly people who may be as old or older than their needy neighbors. Younger neighbors may have less understanding of the needs and concerns of the elderly; they are more likely to be away all day and thus, busy in the evenings and at weekends, reducing opportunities for casual contact and being less likely to be around when help is needed. They are likely to have different life-styles from their elderly neighbors and more likely to have children and pets who can be sources of interest or annoyance! On the positive side, sympathetic younger neighbors are often in better positions to provide instrumental help requiring strength and energy; they are more likely to have cars and telephones; and, through their often wider and more heterogeneous social networks can provide more links to formal help and services if required. Those who moved or whose neighbors moved always showed a keen interest in who the stew neighbors were going to be. New neighbors can make an important impact on the life of an old person if a very good or very bad relationship develops! When good neighbors died or moved away they were missed and when properties were left empty this was regretted. Looking forward to new young neighbors moving in next door, Elizabeth Evans (86) noted, “We mustn’t quarrel with them!” While levels of contact may vary considerably, neighbors are an important source of social contact and interaction especially for those who live alone. Even where relationships are casual, their potential as a source of company or moral support can be important, a fact which appears to be recognized by givers as well as receivers. Widows frequently develop mutually supportive relationships dropping

162

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 20990

by one another’s houses regularly just for a chat. Similar behavior has been reported in the United States (Lopata 1969). Sometimes those who visited appeared to have little in common but routine visits had become established. On the whole, regular visiting was less common than popping in occasionally. Emma Davies (84), said that one of her neighbors dropped by now and again for a chat over the old times that he and she but few others remembered. Others stopped to talk on the street but did not go into or invite others into their homes. Help from Neighbors Those people who receive regular help are usually those who cannot manage without it and are, therefore, the more dependent elderly people. Most regular help is provided by members of the family and this reflects in part the fact that dependent people without available family help and commitment are less able to remain in the community. In this article, however, attention is drawn to the types of helping which goes on between neighbors, most of whom are not dependent on this help. The types of help and support received from and given to neighbors-because the old people studied gave as well as received-reflect the importance of proximity and the awareness of other people’s lives which results from proximity. News of illness, death, bereavement or other calamity travels fast in most instances. The fact that neighbors tend to know a lot about each other is a continuing dynamic and needs are likely to be known or recognized first by neighbors. The neighbors are an unformalized early warning system. If familiar faces are not seen, milk bottles remain on the step or someone calls out, it is a neighbor who is most likely to respond. Longer term changes, such as gardens getting overgrown, evidence of decline in self-care or withdrawal from social activities, may also be recognized. In most cases, the local gossip network alerts neighbors when one of their number enters or returns from hospital, is bereaved or suffers other catastrophe. Keeping an eye on one another is part of the neighborly ethos. Caroline Jackson (86) told how when she started going out after a serious operation, various neighbors, after enquiring about her health, suggested she not go too far; took her letters from her and posted them; accompanied her part of the way or all the way home. Harry Baker (80) “looked out for” and “old lady” who lived up the lane from him. (It turned out that she was 70-odd to his go-odd!) When people are perceived to be at greater risk, such routine monitoring may be formalized. Neighbors may telephone or receive telephone calls from an elderly neighbor daily as a form of security or reassurance. Other forms of long-interval help rendered between neighbors included: keeping a key to the house (in case of falls, illness or merely being locked out); cutting the grass or hedges; watering or other gardening tasks; cutting wood or splitting logs; making up fires; doing small household or electrical repairs; sharing garden produce, cakes or scones. The most common form of neighbor help is with shopping and other errands such as collecting pensions and changing library books. Shopping help varied from offers to collect bread or bring odd items from the shops to a weekly commitment to providing transport to and from distant super-

The Special

Role of Friends and Neighbors

163

markets. Apart from the help, the popping in to offer often provided an opportunity for a short chat and made people feel that there were others around who were willing to do favors for them. Most of this help came from other retired people, often younger but sometimes simply more mobile than the neighbor they were helping. Forty percent of elderly people over 65 named a neighbor or local friend as their most likely source of a lift in a 1979 survey (Wenger 1984). Lifts to church, local functions or the doctor’s surgery were most frequently mentioned with occasional trips further afield to visit friends. Lifts to visit spouses in distant hospitals were obviously perceived as a special responsibility of neighbors, Neighbors, local friends and relatives, all participated in providing this form of transport. Another context in which neighbors are likely to be involved is during illnesses. This was evident not only in respondent’s accounts of their own illnesses, but their awareness of and involvement in the illnesses of others. Involvement was rarely direct and did not usually include nursing care, although in some instances this did occur. The role of neighbors in sickness appears to be generally defined as one of showing concern, providing support to carers and offering companionship and sympathy to the convalescent. All of which have important contributions to make in terms of emotional support and, together with offers of help with shopping and lifts, are appreciated by the old people and families concerned. In the event of sudden illness or accident, respondents turned to whomever was nearest and this was often a neighbor. For example, Cecily Bryant (95) who was blind, fell in her old people’s bungalow. She never let any of the neighbors into her home and was supported by the district nurse and home help. Herbert Roberts (84) who lived opposite, faintly heard her shouting and although he too had little to do with his neighbors, went next door to seek help, realizing that he himself was too infirm to intervene. Mr. Roberts’ next-door-neighbor found Miss Bryant on the floor, telephoned the ambulance and notified the home help who arrived shortly. A similar sequence of events took place with Fred Beech (87) who also lived alone, had his second stroke. His next-door-neighbor came immediately, telephoned the doctor and his sister who lived 40 miles away and stayed with him until the doctor arrived. Comparable patterns of response occurred in the event of sudden deaths, where neighbors took charge and comforted the bereaved until a relative arrived. Neighbors, therefore, play an important role as first line of defense in crises, a role which is often overlooked because formal or family help usually takes over once the emergency is recognized. Neighbors also play an important monitoring or over-looking role and may provide help with long interval needs such as chopping wood, shopping and transport. They also represent the immediate social environment in which we all live and which for the old in particular links the individual to the society at large. Expectations are such they reinforce and reflect behavior. The way in which the elderly respondents talked about their neighbors, emphasizing friendliness, helpfulness and distance demonstrate this. Neighbors are expected to do occasional chores when it is obvious that an old person needs help; to show concern in times of illness or bereavement; but, above all, to recognize the limits of neighborly involvement or expectations and not to go beyond them. When neighbors do not come up to expectations, their behavior is commented upon. The

164

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

reactions of the press, when old people are found dead or lie injured days after the event demonstrate that expectations of monitoring and emergency intervention are normative in the United Kingdom.

Withdrawal from Involvement Withdrawal of neighborly involvement appeared to occur in instances where demands are potentially heaviest. In several instances, the concentration of potentially dependent old people in one small neighborhood and/or the occurrence of anxiety-inducing events, led to the evolution of a defensive pattern of neighborhood behavior which contrasted with the accepted norms of good neighborliness emphasizing helpfulness and concern in times of difficulty or emergency. In these cases, what started out as normal neighborliness developed, with increasing dependency, into commitments beyond the expected scope of neighborly involvement. Withdrawal, when it came, was painful for both parties. In relationships between kin, it has been noted that where commitment exceeds normative expectations for a specific relationship, respondents are likely to refer to this in terms of the relationship for which such behavior approximates the norm. They will comment, “She’s been like a daughter to me” or “He’s more like a brother” (Wenger 1987). Likewise, it may be said of someone unrelated, “He’s like a member of the family really.” In the same way, neighbors become redefined as friends, except that the boundary between friend and neighbor is not unequivocally laid down by blood relationship so that neighbor are not like friends, they are seen as being friends. Thus, commitment beyond the expected norm for neighbors is not likely to be perceived as being more than might be reasonably expected from a neighbor, but may be seen as the appropriate behavior of a friend. If the two sides of the relationship define it differently disappoints or misunderstandings are likely as for instance when a neighbor perceived as a friend subsequently conforms to the norms of neighborliness rather than friendship. When neighbors move away, even within the same town, the expectation is that contact will cease or occur only by chance. When friends (including those who are also neighbors) move, however, it is expected that contact will continue, and as the section on friends demonstrated, many friendships survive the distance of years as well as geography. It was not uncommon for respondents to be unable to remember, or to remember with difficulty, neighbors named in the previous survey who had subsequently moved.

Overlap of Categories Obviously boundary markers between categories of relationship are not cut. Overlaps and dual roles are frequent and the complexities of reality often mean that the expectation of different roles are overlaid and interlapping. Gwen Parry (82) saw daily another widow who was a neighbor, friend and cousin and was identified as all of these on different occasions and in different contexts. As in all

The Special

Role of Friends and Neighbors

165

communities, but with greater frequency in the small-scale stable communities in which most respondents lived, formal and informal roles overlapped. Home helps were likely to be neighbors so that the normative expectations of neighbors were superimposed on the statutory obligations of the home help. Similar factors applied to district nurses, ambulance men, people who brought meals-on-wheels, the doctor’s receptionist and others in the community. People often were reported as acting in their neighbor role while in their official capacity. “I remember coming round in the ambulance and John was with me, holding my hand. ‘You’re OK Auntie,’ he said, ‘John’s with you,’ ” Gwen Hughes (80) related. She had known the ambulance man as a neighbor since he was in primary school. Neighbors with special skills or access to communication channels or special knowledge were called upon in circumstances where their expertise was relevant and indeed saw providing specialized help to neighbors as part of their neighborly responsibility. The boundaries of such help were not explored in this study, but there are indications that a delicate balance may exist between what is and is not acceptable in terms of demands. By the same token, offered help can be accepted but it may be inappropriate for neighbors to ask for it. For instance, a home help may bring a Sunday dinner in her role as neighbor, but an old person asking her for it may be seen as inappropriate. We have only begun to explore the complexities of informal neighborhood involvement and the constraints that exist upon it. While it is likely that normative expectations exist, these are mediated through intervening and extenuating variables (such as age, state of health, other responsibilities and roles of neighbors etc.) and are likely to demonstrate variation between social classes and neighborhood. What this article seeks to do is to analyze a limited set of data on old people and their neighbors in North Wales and to provide some indicators of the directions research on relations between neighbors might take.

Reciprocity The reciprocal nature of many of the neighborly interactions was rarely made explicit and not obviously evident, particularly where the old people involved had become dependent. However, careful assessment and analysis of the data and the verbatim comments of the old people about relationships between neighbors indicated that an ethos of reciprocity underlay much of the exchange. Offers of helpfulness in which reciprocity was implicit suggest a generalized atmosphere of group reciprocity where whoever is around helps out as needed, represented by comments such as, “We all help each other out,” or, “All the neighbors are very kind and do their best for one another.” Looked at from the perspective of reciprocity, it appears that strains may develop in relationships when the reciprocal nature of the relationship is impaired, does not exist or where the returns no longer justify the demands. Reciprocity in relationships is more difficult to maintain in situations where asymmetrical needs exist and where long-term support is required. It is in these increasingly imbalanced situations that neighbor support breaks down.

166

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Friends and neighbors, despite the low profile they have been accorded in much of the social gerontological literature, play important, contrasting but complementary roles in the lives of old people. While friendship is based on choice, rapport and shared interests, neighbor relationships are founded on proximity and shared locality. However, as discussion of the qualitative data has shown, some neighbors may be or become friends. The core characteristics of these two important components of most support networks contrast with one another. friendship is characterized by intimacy, closeness and mutual support. Interactions are likely to include emotional support, mutual confiding, reminiscence, problem-sharing and visits, which may include overnight stays. Friendships frequently involve social activities such as outings, trips, holidays or attendance at meetings of voluntary associations. In contrast, neighbor relationships are characterized by availability, friendliness coupled with respect for privacy and an understanding of potential helpfulness. Relationships with neighbors are more instrumental than the expressive nature of friendship, involving a feeling of security as a result of their proximate presence, visiting which takes a more superficial form of popping in, chatting and exchanging local news. The mainstays of neighboring, however, are the offering of help with occasional chores such as shopping; providing emergency help; and, maintaining an overiooking or monitoring presence in the neighborhood. Both friends and neighbors are likely to offer and provide transport. Both friendship and neighborliness involve an assumption and expectation of reciprocity, but while reciprocity between friends is one-to-one, and may be longterm, reciprocity between neighbors is more generalized, may be serial, (i.e. to some other member of the neighborhood) and more likely to be short-term. While friendship is basically a relationship of mutuality, empathy and involvement, neighborliness is a more distant relationship reflecting independence, sympathy and less involved concern. Friendships and neighbor relations may come to an end. Friendships, however, are more enduring and may cover most of a long life-span. The most frequent causes of the end of friendships in old age are death or mental infirmity. Neighbor relations are terminated when one or another moves away from the neighborhood. However, both types of relationship may breakdown when placed under strain by the loss of reciprocity, and the most common reason for this in old age is the development of heavy or escalating needs for instrumental help. In terms of social policy, friends play an important mental health role. Friendship has been shown to be more important for good morale than family. Friends, especially long-term friends, are important for self-identity, self-esteem and companionship and friendship meets the need of the individual to give and receive emotional support. Neighbors, too, play an important, often overlooked, role in the community. They form, in most instances, an informal monitoring system; provide necessary help at lower levels of dependency and are those most likely to intervene in times of crisis. They also provide vital links to the larger community and not infrequently to service providers. While friends and neighbors may not

The Special Role of Friends and neighbors

167

replace or provide help at levels comparable to that forthcoming from the immediate family of spouse, children and local siblings, recent research has demonstrated that often friends and neighbors play a more important supporting role in the lives of old people than members of the extended family of grandchildren, nieces, nephews and cousins (Wenger 1987). Relationships with friends and neighbors make a significant contribution in bolstering and reinforcing continued independent living for many elderly people. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAn

earlier version of this article was presented at the Aging WeIf Association of Gerontology (European Section) in Brighton, England, 14-18th September, 1987. A more detailed presentation of the data is available from the Centre for Social Policy Research Br Development, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL.57 2DG. Conference of the International

REFERENCES Allan, G. 1977. “Class variation in friendship patterns”, British Journal Sot., 389-303. Allan, G. 1979. A Sociology of friendship and kinship. London, George Allen & Unwin. Arling, C. 1980. “The elderly widow and her family, neighbours and friends” in Fuller, M.M. and Martin, CA. (Eds.) The Older Woman: Lavender Rose or Gray Panther, Sp~ng~eld, Ill. Charles C. Thomas Pub. 17&189. Bell, R.R. 1968. Worlds of friendship. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Blau, Z. 1973. Old age in a changing society, New York, Franklin Watts Inc. Block, J.D. 1980. ~r~endsh~~. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. New York. Blum, A. 1964. “Social structure, social class and participation in primary relationships” in Arther Shostak and William Gombert (Eds.). Blue Collar World, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Brody, H. 1974. Inishkillane: change and decline in the west qf Ireland, New York. Schocken Books. Bulmer, M. 1986. Neighbours: the work of Philip Abrams. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Cibulski, 0. 1981. “Instrumental support networks of the elderly” Paper presented to the XIIth International Congress of Gerontology, Hamburg, It-17th July, (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University). Clark, M. 1967. “The Anthropology of Ageing, a New Area for Studies of Culture and Personality”. Gerontolog~sf, 7 (1). Corin, E. 1982. “Elderly people’s social strategies for survival: a dynamic use of social networks analysis.” Canada’s Mental wealth, 303(3), 7-12. Fischer, C.S. 1977. “Perspectives on community and personal relations” in C.S. Fischer, R.M. Jackson, CA. Steuve, K. Gerson and L.M. Jones with M. Baldassane (Eds.) Networks and places: social relations in the urban setting, New York, Free Press, 1-16. Fischer, C.S. 1982. To dwell among friends: personal networks in town and city, London. University of Chicago Press. Fooken, I. 1981. “Women in Old Age: The Need for a Differentiated View”, paper presented XI&h International Congress of Gerontology, Hamburg, 11-17 July. Francis, D. 1984. Will you still need me; will you still feed me when f’m 841 Bloomington. Indiana University Press. Hadley, R., Webb, A. and Farrell, C. 1975. Across the Generations: old people and young vofunteers. London. George Allen & Unwin.

168

JOURNAL

OF AGING STUDIES

Vol. ~/NO. 211990

Hannan, D. 1972. “Kinship, neighbourhood and social change in Irish rural communities” Economic and Social Review, 3 (2) 163-188. Hunt, A. 1978. The Elderly at home: a study of people aged sixty-jive and over living in the community in England in 1976, Social Survey Division, OPCS, HMSO, London. Jackson, R.M., Fischer, C.S. and Jones, L.M. 1977. “The dimensions of social networks” in Fischer, C.S. et al. (Eds.). Networks and places: social relationships in the urban setting. New York. Free Press. James, A. James, W.L. and Smith, H.L. 1984. “Reciprocity as a coping strategy of the elderly: a rural Irish perspective” The Gerontologist, 24. (5) 483-489. Jerrome, D. 1981. “Social bonds in later life”, review article, Ageing and Society. 6, (2) 175-197. Keller, S. 1968. The urban ne~ghbol4rhood: a socioiogical per,~pect~ve, New York. Random House. Kendig, H.L. 1986. “Informal support networks” in Community and fnstitutional Cure for Aged Migrants in Australia: Research Findings, Melbourne, Australia. Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, 1652. Kivett, V.R. 1985. “Aging in rural society: non-kin community relations and participation” in R.T. Coward and G.R. Lee (Eds.) The Elderly in RuralSociety, New York. Springer Publishing Co. 171-192. Kivett, V.R. and Learner, R.M. 1980. “Perspectives on the childless rural elderly: a comparative analysis” The Gerontologist, 20, (6) 171-192. Klein, J.F. (1965). Samples from English culture, London. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Law, C.M. and Warnes, A.M. 1973. “The movement of retired people to seaside resorts: ca Town Planning Review, 44, (4) 372-390. study of Morecombe and Llandudno” Leat, D. (1982). Report of a pilot study of informal neighbourly care o~the etderly. London. Policy Studies Institute. Litwak, E. and Szelenyi, I. 1969. “Primary group structures and their functioning: kin, neighbours and friends” American Sociological Review, Vol. 34, 4655481. Social Problems XVII, 248-262. Lopata, H.Z. 1969. “Loneliness: forms and components” Lowenthal, M. and Robinson, B. 1976. “Social networks and isolation” in R. Binstock and E. Shanas (Eds.) Handbook of Ageing and the Social Sciences. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York. Maas, H.S. and Kuypers, J.A. 1974. From thirty to seventy: aforty-year longitudinal study of adult life styles and personality, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mugford, S . and Kendig, H. 1986. “Social relations: networks and ties” in H. Kendig, (Ed.) Ageing and Fami~~e.s: a social networks per.sl~~~~ti~,e. Sidney, Australia. Allen and Unwin. Qureshi, H. 1986. “Responses to dependency; reciprocity, affect and power in family relationships” in C. Phillipson, M. Bernard and P. Strang {Eds.) Dependency and interdependency in old age: theoretical perspectives and policy alternatives, London. Croom Helm, l67-17Y. Rees, A.D. 1950. Life in a Welsh countryside,.Cardiff. University of Wales Press. Rosow, I. 1967. Social integration of the Aged, New York. Free Press, 301-435. Scott, J.P. and Roberto, K.A. 1984. “Older rural parents and their children” in W.H. Quinn and G.A. Hughston (Eds.). Independent Ageing: Family and Social Systems Perspectives, Tunbridge Wells, Aspen Systems Corp. 182-193. Shanas, E. et al. (Eds.) 1968. Old people in three indtrstriai societies. New York. Atherton Press. Shenk, D. and Vora, E. 1985. ‘~Friendship patterns of the elderly: a cross-cultural comparison of the United States and West Germany” paper presented at the XIIIth International Congress of Gerontology in New York, 14th July.

The Specieil Roie of Fr~~~~sand ~eigh~ors

169

Smithers, J.A. 1985. Determined survivors: community life among ihe urban elderly, New Jersey. Rutgers University Press. Spakes, P.R. 1979. “Family, friendship and community interaction as related to life satisfaction of the elderly.” Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 1, (4) 279-293. Steuve, CA. and Gerson, K. 1979. “Personal relations across the life-cycle” in C.S. Fischer, et al. (Eds.) Networks and places: social relationships in the urban setting. New York. Free Press, 79-98. Warren, D.I. 1984. Support systems in different types of neighbourhoods” in J. Carbarino and H. Stocking, (Eds.) Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect, San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Warren, D.I. 1981. Helping networks: how people cope with problems in the urban community, Indiana. University of Notre Dame. Wenger, G.C. 1984. The Supportive Network: Coping with Old Age, London, George Allen & Unwin. Wenger, G.C. 1987. Relationships in old age-inside support networks: third report of a follow-up study of old elderly people in North Wales. Centre for Social Policy Research and Development, Bangor, Gwynedd. Wenger, G.C. 1988. Old People’s Health and Experiences of the Caring Services: accounts from rural communities in North Wales, Institute of Human Ageing, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.