The Power Dynamics in Friendships and Friend Zones

Within stable friendships, power dynamics are considered equitable as both

parties are governed by the same social expectation of giving and receiving to the
other. However, the power dynamics shift if one person has been friend zoned.
The friend zone is a term in popular culture referring to a friendship between
two people in which one person has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in
the other (OED 2013). Whilst unreciprocated gifts or the rejection of gifts within
relations oftentimes sour relationships, they cause more specific problems within the
specific context of the modern friend zone phenomenon.
Within my essay, I will be examining the power dynamics between the two
friends in such a situation. Power here will be defined as the individuals ability to
make choices within a relationship, and their ability to request the other individual to
carry out tasks for them. I will first examine the nature of standard social exchanges
and friendships. Here, I will be using the Maussian framework rather than the
standard social exchange perspective, taking into account social relations and
expectations that surround the giver and the recipient. I will then use this as a lens in
order to value the contestations of power within the relationship once unreciprocated
love has been introduced, and show how the friend who does not reciprocate the
relationship can be seen as both a person with more or less power in an unequal
relationship by examining the specific social expectations that surround the friend
zone.
The Maussian view on exchange theory is based on the notion that human
relationships are based on reciprocal trade (Dowding 2011). Reciprocal trade differs
from commodity trade the standard exchange perspective in which power takes
almost no role (Dowding 2011) in the latter. This is due to the fact that the exchange

value of the two items within commodity trade is always of an objective equal value,
and the two participating in the exchange receive mutual benefit. Moreover, those
participating in commodity trade are assumed to be rational and self-seeking
individuals, trading with other individuals to whom they have no other social ties or
obligations (Carrier 1991). The items being traded are alienable private property
defined primarily in terms of use value and exchange value (Carrier 1991) and do not
have additional symbolism or meaning attached.
However, in a dyadic social relationship, transactions between the two parties
are reciprocal exchanges. In reciprocal exchanges, what is gifted to the recipient
usually has symbolic value as well as its objective economic value, as these gifts are
often a proxy for the donors emotions and intentions for the recipient. The gifts
degree of association to the donor makes it inalienable from the donor, distinguishing
the gift from any other object. Moreover, due to the social expectations that surround
the gift the recipient does not have full rights of ownership over the gift as These
rights are subject to the obligations owned by recipient to donor (Yang, 1989:38).
Hence, the acceptance of the gift binds the recipient to the giver with social
obligations to repay the latter at a later unspecified date, or to reciprocate the value of
the gift.
Gifts are not limited to tangible objects to be traded, but include labour and
services as well (Carrier 1991). An example of such services would be when a group
of friends go out together, and one friend drives a car; the person who drives
transports the other as a gift, as what is expected among people who are friends
(Carrier 1991:122) I also include emotions in this definition of gifts, as, like the
other examples, are often given with the expectation of being reciprocated within
social relations. This is especially so with positive emotions like love and concern.

For instance, though different mothers may show their love to their children
differently, either through actions or words, it is universally expected that the child
reciprocates, and loves his or her mother back.
These gifts work to deepen the intimacy between the donor and the recipient.
Social exchanges create and maintain (Carrier 1991) identities and relationships. A
communal existence is formed between the two parties as they give and receive from
each other, and their relations are constantly defined and strengthened from their
interactions and exchanges with on another. (Sprecher 2001)
Friendships are an example of an intimate social relationship that is governed
by such reciprocal exchange. Within a stable relationship, gift transactions are
obligatory. Friends are socially expected to help each other willingly, and to accept
willingly what is done for them. (Carrier 1991) In such a situation, the power
dynamics between the two parties is never static, and constantly changes as the parties
interact and exchange gifts. Whilst the two parties may not be constantly equal, they
are at least equitable; equity being the perceived balance in the partners
contributions and outcomes (Sprecher 2001:599) where both parties are benefitting
and receiving equally within a relationship. In such a situation, the power relations
between the two friends are equal.
However, when one person in the friendship has unreciprocated romantic
feelings for the other person, power dynamics within the friendship shift and become
asymmetrical. But who is more powerful now within this friendship?
Under the lens of traditional social exchange theory, the person who does not
reciprocate these feelings is placed in a position of power due to the asymmetry with
regard to distribution of affection (Dowding 2011:224). He or she is no longer
benefitting as much as the other party in the relationship as their goals for the

friendship are no longer the same. While the party who does not reciprocate the
romantic feelings is satisfied with friendship, the party with the unrequited feelings
now aims to change the friendship into a romantic relationship and the benefits they
previously received in the friendship are no longer adequate to satisfy this new goal.
As such, this party is underbenefitting in the relationship. In fact, due to their
affection, the party is more likely to contribute to the relationship more by gifting the
other person more. As such, the person does not reciprocate these affections will
receive even more from the relationship, and may in fact overbenefit in the
relationship (Sprecher 2001).
Yet, it can also be argued that the person who is receiving these feelings is in a
weaker position of power than the one giving these feelings. Social expectations
demand that the person receiving these feelings should reciprocate them. According
to social exchange theory, the recipient is morally obligated to return the affection if
he or she accepts it. Rejecting the emotions is also difficult due to societal reactions to
the rejection of gifts within interpersonal relationships. This is especially so in the
specific context of the friend zone.
Social expectations surrounding the exchange process usually mean that
rejection of the gift is not encouraged. If we examine gift giving in a structural
functionalist perspective, gifting is meant to better social relations deepen the bond
between the individuals (Carrier 1991). The rejection of the gift only creates conflict.
In every social relationship, the rejection of a gift rejects as well the giver and the
givers relationship to the recipient (Carrier 1991:126). Gifts given in such social
relations are a token of the givers concern and affection, rather than just a bundle of
impersonal utilities that commodities are (Carrier 1991:126). For instance, parentchild relationships, parents who feel that a rejection of the parents gift is a rejection

of [them] or [their] values (Carrier 1991:126), hence making it very difficult to

reject gifts in such intimate interpersonal relationships without creating friction in the
relationship.
In addition, the social expectations that surround the friend zone behaviour
differ from standard social exchanges as the burdens of responsibility are largely
skewed. Though friend zone denotes unrequited love, there are many more nuanced
meanings attached to it. It tends to center on the scenario that the male usually
depicted as a nice man in the friendship is the one with the unrequited feelings. On
the other hand, the female is either ignorant of her male friends feelings, or is aware
of them but has already rejected his advances and claims that she simply wants to be
friends with him. She may be dating another man, who is usually portrayed to have an
unpleasant personality, especially in contrast to the first man.
There is a large difference in the focus of responsibility between friend zone
and unrequited love. The latter focuses on the person with the unreciprocated
feelings as the main actor he or she is the one suffering from unrequited love. As
such, the responsibility rests on them to deal with the situation and escape their
unhappiness; whether to pursue their object of affection, or to move on in life.
However, the term friend zone specifically focuses on the girl who does not
reciprocate the boys feelings and her actions. She is the one who actively friend
zones, and the boy the friend zoned party is merely a passive victim in the process.
This then transfers the responsibility of the boys unhappiness to the girl; his agency
for his own happiness is ignored. Moreover, friend zone is a gender specific term as
the person being friend zoned is a man, and not a woman.
As the boy is victimized, all responsibility for his emotional well-being is
transferred to the girl. If the woman proceeds to reject the other persons advances,

she is likely to be labeled a bitch by the man and the larger community. All
sympathy goes to the male. With such negative connotations attached to the woman
who friend zones, there is added pressure on her to accept her friends advances.
When this persons agency and eventual decision has become constrained by societal
expectations, she loses power as an individual to choose.
Moreover, because of the specific nature of the friend zone, where the person
with unreciprocated feelings is always made to be the victim, the blame naturally falls
on the girl. As such, it can be argued that in the context of the modern notion of the
friend zone, the person with the unrequited feelings is the one with more power in
this asymmetrical relationship due to unequal societal expectations that constrain the
other persons actions.
In conclusion, the Maussian perspective on social exchange theory explains
that gifts are exchanged in order to strengthen social relationships. The gifts
exchanged are often deeply personal, and tie the recipient to moral obligations to
repay the donor at some point in the future with an unspecified favour, creating a
culture of dependency between the two as more exchanges take place. In such a
reciprocal relationship, power dynamics between the two is equitable. However, when
one party has unreciprocated feelings of affection towards the other party, the power
relations between the two shift. While it may at first seem that the person who does
not return these affections is the one in power as he benefits more from the
relationship than the other party, the dynamics when viewed under social exchange
theory is different. Social exchange theory places an obligation on the party to return
these affections. In addition, with the modern phenomenon of the friend zone, the
party is placed under even greater social pressure to return these expectations, placing
the person with the unreciprocated emotions in a position of greater power.

References
Print Resources
Carrier, James. 1991. Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Massuian View
of Exchange. Sociological Forum, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 119-136
Dowding, Keith. 2011. Exchange Theory. pp. 224-225 in Encyclopedia of Power,
edited by Keith Dowding. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sprecher, Susan. 2001. Equity and Social Exchange in Dating Couples: Associations
with Satisfaction, Commitment, and Stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol.
63, No. 3, pp. 599-613
Yang, Mayfair Mei-Hui. 1989. The Gift Economy and State Power in China.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 25-54.
Websites
Oxford English Dictionary Friend zone. Retrieved November 3, 2013.
(http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/74646?redirectedFrom=friend+zone#eid28324517)