Sympathy exchange and the making of soulmate friendships
A micro‑sociological study of adolescents with hearing loss in mainstream and boarding schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.63.28062Nyckelord:
friendship, soulmate friendship, sympathy exchange, locales, disability, hearing loss, micro-sociology, adolescence, school environmentsAbstract
This article examines how friendship among adolescents with hearing loss is shaped by everyday interactional processes and socio‑spatial environments. Drawing on interviews with 15 adolescents in Denmark, we compare their experiences in mainstream schools with those in a specialised boarding school. We develop a micro‑sociological framework that integrates Clark’s concept of sympathy exchange with Layder’s notion of locales to explain how friendship outcomes emerge. Our analysis shows that in mainstream schools, limited and noisy locales constrained opportunities for reciprocal understanding, leading many adolescents to rely on passing strategies and resulting in fragile or estranged peer relations. In contrast, the boarding school offered a plurality of “slow” and “fast” locales, enabling flexible and voluntary participation, recognition of impairment, and the formation of intimate soulmate friendships alongside wider peer belonging. The study makes three theoretical contributions. Firstly, it extends the social model of disability by demonstrating how hearing loss becomes disabling through micro‑level interaction barriers to sympathy exchange. Secondly and more significantly, it advances the sociology of friendship by conceptualising soulmate ties as accomplishments of interactional sympathy exchange rather than spontaneous affinities. Thirdly, it integrates theories of interaction and space to show how locales enable or disable sympathy exchange of mutual attention, recognition, and intimacy, all facilitating bonds of friendship. These findings have practical implications for school design and policy: creating diverse and accessible locales can support not only students with disabilities but also the wider peer community in developing meaningful friendships.
Referenser
Barnes, C. (2020) “Understanding the social model of disability – past, present, future”, 14–31 in N. Watson and S. Vehmas (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. New York: Routledge
Clark, C. (1997) Misery and Company: Sympathy in Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, R. (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jepsen, K.S.K. & Pedersen, I.K. (2025) “Impaired face-to-face interaction and emotional energy in cochlear implant usage: Strategies for social inclusion in everyday life among young people with hearing loss”, SSM – Qualitative Research in Health, 7, 100512: 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100512
Jepsen, K.S., Bengtsson, S & Pedersen, I.K. (2024) “(Mis-)Recognition of the Socially Accepted Role in Communicative Rituals: A Study of Adolescents with Hearing Loss in School Life”, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, vol. 26(1): 665-680. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.1170
Jepsen, K.S.K. & Liebst, L.S. (2021) “Impaired Face-to-Face Interaction Among Cochlear Implant Users: Towards a Micro-Sociological Framework”, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 84 (1): 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272520961383
Haukedal, C., Ona Bø Wie, O., Schauber, S., Lyxell, B., Fitzpatrick, E. & Torkildsen, J. (2022) “Social communication and quality of life in children using hearing aids”, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 152 (111000): 1-11
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Goffman, E. (1970) Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E. (1983) “The Interaction Order”, American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.
Goffman, E. (1990) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin.
Hartrup, W. (1997) “The Company They Keep: Friendships and Their Developmental Significance”, Child Development, 67(1): 1–13.
King, R.A., Jordan, A.E., Liberman, Z., Kinzler, K.D. & Shutts, K. (2023) “Young children apply the homophily principle to their reasoning about social relationships”, Developmental Psychology, 59(5): 928–939.
Layder, D. (2018) Investigative Research: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
McPherson, J.M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M. (2001) ‘Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Layder, D. (2006) Understanding Social Theory. 2nd ed., SAGE
Layder, D. (1993) New Strategies in Social Research: An Introduction and Guide. Polity Press
Oliver, M. (2019) “Activism and the academy: Losing the ideological and material battles”, Disability & Society, 34(7–8):1028–1039.
Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scheff, T.J. (1998) Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion and Social Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shakespeare, T. (2006) Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.
Stern, D.N. (1995) The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life. New York: W.W. Norton.
Spencer, L. & Pahl, R. (2018) Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, C. (2007) Sociologies of Disability and Illness: Contested Ideas in Disability Studies and Medical Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2014) Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vela-McConnell, J. (2017) “The sociology of friendship”, 229-236 in K. Korgen (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Sociology: Specialty and Interdisciplinary Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nedladdningar
Publicerad
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2026 Kim Sune Jepsen, Poul Poder

Detta verk är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande-Ickekommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0 Internationell-licens.
Allt material i Sociologisk Forskning publiceras med omedelbar öppen tillgång (open access), under Creative Commons-licensen CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Allt innehåll i tidskriften är fritt tillgängligt utan kostnad och får för icke-kommersiella syften fritt läsas, laddas ned, kopieras, delas, skrivas ut och länkas. Innehållet får dock inte ändras. När innehållet används måste författare och källa anges. Upphovsrätten till innehållet tillhör respektive författare. Inga publiceringsavgifter tas ut.


