Objetivo específico: RSO4.2. Favorecer un acceso igualitario a servicios inclusivos y de

Inclusion and discussion of relationships with colleagues was less common, with only eight men explicitly discussing their relationships with work colleagues. Nick provided an explanation of why he excluded the majority of his colleagues from his PC, noting a lack of shared interests, one key meaning of friendship described earlier:

“So if I’m out with the people that I work with, who don’t share my interests, and I don’t, I won’t reference the same things, and if I do reference something I have to then explain what it is that I’m talking about, but that doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable, but it’s why I wouldn’t spend any, or why I don’t socialise with them outside of that.” (Nick, 29)

Nick went on to explain why he had chosen to include a female work colleague as part of his PC, stressing that they had become “friends outside of work”, and highlighting how his relationship with her had become more ‘friend-like’, although he noted that he still felt less close to her than his ‘core group’ of friends.

Similarly, Tom included two work mates on his map because they spend a lot of time together, but was clear that he doesn’t care what they think of him:

“...my work mates. We’re on a crew together, the three of us. So we, you know, see each other almost every day. Very good fun, we have a lot of banter, we all get on almost too well like... But again they’re important to me but I’m not, you know, I don’t really care what they think of me.” (Tom, 26)

Although these men described work colleagues included on the map as ‘friends’, I would argue that implicit within their accounts was the idea that these colleagues were ‘friend-like’, but not-quite friends. This is not to say that colleagues could not become friends, indeed this had happened in the case of Quentin, for whom working relationships had turned into close friendships. Nevertheless, he

conceptualised such people as friends, rather than describing them as colleagues.

Five of the men discussed colleagues with whom they volunteered within LGB organisations, noting that these men were people who offered support and

guidance. Quentin explained that if he felt down or upset, he could share this with colleagues at a local gay men’s organisation, highlighting the friend-like nature of their relationship. Similarly, Taylan discussed the supportive, friend-like

relationship he had with one particular volunteer within another gay men’s organisation:

“I know I keep referring to my [name of gay men’s organisation]

colleagues but there’s one member of staff who I’ve got more of a friendship with and who I talk to more than others...” (Taylan, 25)

Taylan’s reference to having “more of a friendship” helps illustrates the idea of a boundary between conceptualisations of colleagues and ‘real friends’.

Inclusion of groups was uncommon, with only three men choosing to include groups on their maps⁹. All three of these men included groups that in some way related to

‘gay communities’, as they included groups of friends and colleagues from LGBT or gay men’s organisations. The following extract gives some insight into the

supportive nature of this LGBT group for Noel:

“The [group name] gave me more confidence and self-esteem of my own sexuality and understanding and it’s actually gave me a great bunch of friends what are like a family... like it’s like one big jigsaw, the parts might not look like it fit but in some sort of strange way they fit, the parts do end up fitting and we all end up connecting and we all be there for ea-, one another...” (Noel, 23)

Noel notes here that the friends he has made within the LGBT group he attends, have become like a family for him, because they are ‘there for’ one another.

Only three men, Ed, Noel and Damon, included individuals who could be defined as

‘professionals’. These men were distinct in that they all described having specific health (specifically mental health) and social support needs, and had been

assigned support workers from a variety of organisations. The professionals they chose to include on their maps were framed as providing specific forms of practical and informational support. For example, Noel described his reason for choosing to include a housing support worker on his map:

“[Name 5] is actually my support worker from [name of housing

association], from my house. And it’s just to make sure I’m keeping on top of it and to understand letters and just make sure how I’m coping with the house...” (Noel, 23)

Thus, there was a functional reason for inclusion of these ‘professionals’, and they were not framed as being friends.

9 As noted in the methods chapter, I asked participants to think about “people who are important to you now”. Although the letter sent to participants in advance of the interview indicated that they should list individuals, I did not state that groups could not be included.

4.5 ‘Fuzzy Distinctions’ - Family and Friends

For some, family (and specific family members) were framed as wholly separate from friends, such that there was no overlap in the relationships they shared with family members and those they designated as friends. In other men’s accounts discussion of friends and family was somewhat more blurred and ‘fuzzy’. Indeed, participants’ framing of kinship and friendship can be understood as being situated somewhere along a spectrum: at one end a strict distinction was made between friends and family, at the other, friends were framed as a ‘chosen’ family. Across the middle of the spectrum there was considerable blurring with some friends being described as family-like (or ‘kin-like’) and some family members being framed as friend-like. Given that many of the meanings and definitions of

friendship that the men discussed overlap with notions of family and kinship (being there for you and the provision or support, spending time together etc.) it is

perhaps unsurprising that such distinctions are blurred. Although specific patterns were observed in terms of family and friends dominated PCs (as outlined at the beginning of the chapter), it is worth noting that it was not uncommon for men to present a range of perspectives around friendship and kinship during a single interview.

Figure 4-6 Spectrum of Perspectives: Friends and Family

Family and friends as separate and

distinct

Crossover/

blurring between with

family and friends

Friends as family -

‘chosen’ family