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
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
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