Bonding for "dummies"

First, let's look at Webster's definition of the word. 1. : the formation of a close relationship (as between a mother and child or between a person and an animal) especially through frequent or constant association
Looked at as a verb, to bond is "to establish a relationship with someone based on shared feelings, interests, or experiences."


Lois has pointed out that the Simpkins conversational style, which includes shouting from room to room, interrupting, highjacking the conversation, talking about ourselves, which is obnoxious and in poor taste, is actually recognized as a bonding conversational style. If it's understood within the group where it's used, it's not considered to be rude or out of line. On the contrary, jumping in with both feet is how it's done and identifies us as a member of the group we're bonding with (though some family members, I suspect, might prefer a more Shafer way of polite interaction to the rough-and-tumble Simpkins way).


I got to thinking about this business of bonding and why it's more important to some people than to others. To me, it seems like a primal urge, akin to the need for food and shelter and love, to bond with others. But I have a friend we'll call "Joe" for whom this bonding business is pretty alien, which is what started this quest to understand who bonds, how they do it, whether it's necessary for all of us, and how people go about it.


It may come as no surprise to know that the website "AskMen" claims that the top 10 way that men bond, in order of importance, are: 1) Going out for a beer after work; 2) grilling; 3) fishing; 4) watching the game; 5) shooting some hoops; 6) going to a strip club; 7) working out; 8) playing video games; 9) going to the barbershop; and 10) fixing something. Notice how action-oriented these things are, as opposed to the ways in which women I know bond. For men, it seems that playing, either together or side-by-side, is the key (though there is number 6, which is, well, very male of them, and number 9, which is, I guess, such a guy-thing that I'd have to hang out at barbershops to understand ).

From Wiki, we learn about pair bonding, maternal bonding, paternal bonding, human bonding, human-animal bonding, and something called a "limerent bond," which is someone's theory that I couldn't make any sense of.

What I'm curious about is why some people seem to bond naturally, while for others it seems to be an option -- or even something that they don't inherently need. Why is that, I wonder? Does it say something about the way we were raised, our psychological type, our personality, our birth order -- what?

Authoritative or not, I went to Wikipedia, looking for answers. Here's what it says: Human bonding is the process of development of a close, interpersonal relationship. It most commonly takes place between family members or friends,^[1] but can also develop among groups such as sporting teams and whenever people spend time together. Bonding is a mutual, interactive process, and is different from simple liking.

Bonding typically refers to the process of attachment that develops between romantic partners, close friends, or parents and children. This bond is characterized by emotions such as affection and trust. Any two people who spend time together may form a bond.

Then it goes on to discuss the neurobiology of bonding with some pretty heavy stuff that you can look up yourself, if you're interested

Whoa! Now, this is an interesting theory (further down in Wiki) that speaks to the ubiquity of social networking: Weak social bonds are believed to be responsible for the majority of the embeddedness and structure of social networks in society, as well as the transmission of information through these networks. Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals through weak than through strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. Acquaintances, by contrast, know people that we do not, and thus receive more novel information.^[20]

Does this mean that the more social networking that goes on, the weaker our social bonds? Does facebooking replace real, bonding relationships with more but weaker social bonds? It surely seems that way to me, but I think a lot of people would disagree. For some, I'm sure facebooking is a kind of bonding.

And I have more questions: Is someone who is a self-described "loner" somebody who can't form close bonds or just somebody who doesn't want them? And is bonding a learned behavior or a biological drive? If bonding is about attachments, does the psychological theory of "detachment disorder" and its twin, the diagnosis of it as a bona fide disorder in the DSM-IV, mean that the lack of bonding leads to psychological and/or psychiatric problems?

There are men who bond in war-time, in team sports, at the bar, or by going to male drumming rituals; and I'm pretty sure that men bonded before the hunt in tribal cultures. And I know some men who have lifelong friends and buddies. But it seems to me that bonding is more important for women. I read the neurobiology part about oxytocin (not oxycontin) and vasopressin on Wiki, but I'm wondering if that's just hogwash. Is it in our DNA or because we're hard-wired by way of a maternal instinct that is the penultimate kind of bonding (albeit missing in many women)? 


I have a lot of questions but not many answers. My persistence in writing this blog is clearly borne out of a need to bond. I'm not sure why that's so, but while we're thinking about it, maybe we could all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya." Whaddya' think?