Humanities question
Module 6: Module Notes: Friendship and Sexuality
Some feminists argue that a lot of our modern problems surrounding relationships and connection are traceable to individualism (Links to an external site.) and capitalism (Links to an external site.) . We live in a highly competitive and individually driven world where we aim to maximize our individual comforts and profits, often at the expense of others. Our entire existence revolves around optimizing our own personal pleasure and undermining our role in community. As mentioned in previous modules, modern Western society encourages such behavior. Indeed, it supports utility-based friendships and marginalizes anything other than that. Basically, one typically lives in such a way that “Any consideration of others is judged by the disadvantage, inconvenience, or pain such an action would cause to him. He operates as a social atom” (Vernon, pg. 196). The idea of social atomism essentially places all emphasis on the individual, whereby all social structures revolve around the individual’s interests and actions with little regard for the impact on the whole group or community.
Module 6: Module Notes: Communitarianism
Communitarianism (Links to an external site.) is the opposite model, whereby by individuals make decisions based on their social identities and attachments to their families and friends. Some feminists challenge this model, as well, believing that such attachments can sometimes be oppressive, such as the relationship between a husband and wife or a white majority and the racial minority. Without being aware of it, such attachments can sometimes serve to promote and encourage these unequal relationships. Out of loyalty to the community, people may not always fight against such oppressive experiences:“[I]t risks sidelining those values in the effort to shake off social atomism; valorizing social networks like family, school, church or nation can validate the relationships out of which injustice can grow by taking them as ‘the given’ of life” (p. 198).
In looking for alternatives to these two models of individualism and communitarianism, feminists often herald the model of friendship. Particularly in our urban communities in the West, friendship, unlike the other two models, is based on voluntarism or choice. While still acknowledging that friendship itself is not ideal and comes with many challenges, it does offer the following:
1. It promotes networks of support. People can gravitate toward different communities of friends who support their personal interests or help them to “reinvent themselves without having to deal with the intolerance of crabby families or insular neighbors” (p. 198).
2. These networks encourage some to engage in political activities, uniting in solidarity against various forms of oppression, whether racial, religious, or otherwise.
Feminist philosopher Mary E. Hunt proposes that particularly for women, friendship provides the opportunity to experience “mutuality, equality and reciprocity,” in ways that can become political and liberating (p. 199). Indeed, such friendships make women “relationship experts” and they then pass on this knowledge to the world, impacting every facet of social and political spheres. For Hunt, such “right relationships” will entail the following:
1. Love; feeling connected, not separate
2. Power; empowering one to fight for choice
3. Embodiment; learning to love ourselves, another and our bodies
4. Spirituality; focusing on the quality of life (p. 199).
When friendships become the “ethical norm,” they serve to undermine the paradigm of the social atom, or the highly individualized, utility-based interactions (p. 199). They serve as a more engaging and inspiring model that can help to inspire such relationships in many forums, including the work environment.
Module 6: Module Notes: Male Friendships
The friendships between men are often more problematic. Men are acculturated to be less affectionate towards one another, especially in public, as, historically, such behavior has been viewed as less masculine. Even so, we can see the positive impact of male friendships, especially in terms of support during recovery, as the video clip Circle of Friends (Links to an external site.) [Video, 2:48 mins] explores.
In contemporary society, with gay rights on the rise, public displays of affection and connection between men as friends has become more commonplace. Indeed, popular vernacular, such as “bromance,” to describe the affection that men feel for one another as friendsserves to illustrate this point. As well, we witness the emergence of the “meterosexual” male, “who ‘consumes in all the best gyms, clubs, shops and hairdressers’ because whether gay, straight or bisexual, his image of his own masculinity allows him to do so” (p. 203). Significantly, “his sense of self revolves around circles of friends” (p. 203).
Watch this funny episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry struggles to break it off with his so-called friend. Although humorous, this Seinfeld episode underscores the centrality of friendship to life and the importance of honesty in friendship. Click here (Links to an external site.) [Video, 6:24 mins] to view the video.
Indeed, it is the meterosexual male who is interested in the marriage of friendship, not so much the older model of marriage based on specific gender roles. “The meterosexual male is less interested in blood lines, traditions, family, class, gender, than in choosing who they want to be and who they want to be with” (p. 204). Still, many contemporary men continue to struggle with notions of affection, as they are often more pressured by the patriarchal, capitalist model that promotes a high level of individual drive and competition.
Some believe that gay men help to set the standards for friendship for all of us by being good at it. After all, they often learn to value friendship when the opportunity arises because of the oppression they face in the world from being gay. When they develop friendships, they become “allies against the world” (p. 205). Some philosophers, such as Michel Foucault, believe that gay men and women’s liberation means liberation for everyone. Gay liberation does not just mean more gay rights, or more relationship expressions for heterosexuals, it means a liberation from needing to define one’s sexuality at all. Foucault states: “Society and the institutions which frame it have limited the possibility of relationships (to marriage) because a rich, relational world would be very complex to manage” (p. 207).
It is a mistake to think of this in purely sexual terms. One challenge is how to experience deep, same-sex friendships without always needing to label them as heterosexual or homosexual. It is an opportunity to expand our notion of friendship and create new categories of relating. Vernon shares:
Therein lies the creative iconoclasm of friendship—its contemporary subversiveness. It presents a challenge that is more than just the introduction of another category of partners; the coupledom of the nuclear family could readily embrace more couples. Rather it opens up the far larger matter of how men and women relate to one another (p. 209).
Essentially, philosophers like Foucault argue that there is a “new ethic” that can develop by expanding our limited notions of what friendship entails. Indeed, it is not just homosexual relationships that offer this opportunity to encourage us to rethink friendship. As we considered in the previous module, relationships with those who are of a different race, creed, class, or even age can challenge some of the status quo ideas about friendship and are therefore significant.
With studies showing that the majority of people are now single (Miller, 2014), and with many people choosing to cohabitate over marry, and alternative unions on the rise, a new understanding of contemporary friendship may be emerging. Although our institutions still support an individualized, competitive society, our needs for connection may undermine some of the traditional messages we receive from our society about forging deep and abiding connections.
References:
Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 6: Politics of Friendship.
In the following discussion, M6D1: Homosexuality and Friendships, we explore the role of sexuality and gender in friendships.
Module 7: Module Notes: Friendship and Spirituality
Spirituality is not an easy word to define these days, as it has become a buzz word to signify the individual approach to one’s quality of life or one’s personal metaphysical beliefs or ethical practices, as opposed to some religious adherence (Vernon, 2010, p. 222). When referring to individual relationships, there is a whole culture around the notion of “soulmate” and what this entails, but a lot of this falls outside of the deeper contemplations of negotiating the ambiguities of friendship. Indeed, “spirituality” is a word that has been hijacked by marketers of our consumerist culture. As Vernon states:
Type soulfriends, or even worse ‘soulmate’ into an internet search engine and some of the most syrupy aphorisms on friendship will be returned for your edification… the trouble with this sentimental haze and commodification is that it cheapens an idea of enormous human value: the spirituality of friendship is not something that can simply be ceded to the market (p. 222).
From a deeper, philosophical perspective, Aristotle offers guidance on what a soul friendship entails, defining a soul friend as “another self” (p. 223). What this means is that individuals respect each other as separate people, while also recognizing a commonality and bond in sharing similar beliefs and feelings. Such a soul friendship is not easy to describe; it can only be experienced. “Soul friendship is fundamentally the unrepeatable experience of knowing, and being known, by that one, particular person” (p. 225).
This type of “spiritual” friendship contrasts significantly with the commercial interpretation of it, as portrayed in our popular films, for example. Often, this type of soul friendship is characterized as displaying the same passion of a romance, where two people are connected by a codependent need, rather than a respectful and healthy companionship. Jealousy and fear drive the relationship, as does pain when the two are apart. In contrast, a soul friendship is one where individuals do not mind being physically apart for periods of time, and there is implicit trust (p. 223). Vernon shares, “the source of delight of soul friends is that the recognize not only themselves but another human being… they never seek to consume each other or fall into a perpetual embrace” (p. 223). In short, this understanding of soul friendship might represent a more ethical approach to friendships. It is not a friendship of codependent need, as discussed in previous modules, but a friendship of genuine respect and healthy boundaries.
Philosophers generally consider these soul friendships to be rare, and Aristotle believed them to be possible only between very unique individuals who are at peace with themselves, secure in themselves, virtuous, and able to befriend themselves first (p. 224). Most of our time-consuming relationships with family and romantic involvements do not necessarily entail friendship. They often entail obligation and role fulfillment, but not necessarily deep friendship, let alone soul friendship.
The French writer Michel de Montaigne proposed that soul friendship is so rare, it may only appear once every three centuries (p. 225). He feels he was fortunate enough to have experienced such a friendship himself, though he argues that historic timing and circumstance play a significant role in setting up the right conditions for such a friendship to flourish. The implication is that most friends will not “know friendship’s greatest potential, or know its deepest loves” (p. 228). Read Montaigne’s description of his friendship with Étienne de La Boétie on page 445 of his essay, “On Friendship (Links to an external site.) .” [PDF, File Size 158 KB]
Module 7: Module Notes: Saint Augustine
The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo had the experience of a powerful and unique friendship; however, his view of friendship was completely transformed by his conversion to Christianity. Indeed, his own perspective on friendship greatly influenced the Christian West’s general distrust of friendship for many centuries. Augustine came to disavow his former friendships:
Ours was not the friendship which should be between true friends… for though they cling together, no friends are true friends unless you, my God, bind them fast to one another through that love which is sown in our hearts by the Holy Ghost (Vernon, p. 125).
Indeed, Augustine believed that one’s love for God was primary, and friendship often hinders this experience of divine love. Further, only when people love God can they renounce love for themselves (p. 126). This is in direct contradiction to Aristotle, who embraced the notion that self-love and love for another are inextricably linked, for if one cannot befriend oneself first, one can never be a true friend to another (p. 127).
Further, unlike his Greek predecessors, who believed that the fragility of friendship is something to value and honor, Augustine believed that God’s love underscored our need not to place our faith in people. We should love one another through God alone, and any form of self-love should be completely renounced, as any love of this world is bound to fail (p. 128). Indeed, once subsumed in Christian love, friendship itself is not that important (p. 129).
Again, for Aristotle, this kind of self-renunciation would have been too extreme, as he was a proponent of a middle path between self-denial and self-conceit. As well, Aristotle, like his contemporaries, lived in a pagan world with gods and not one God. They did not connect friendship to the divine. They believed the gods to be superior to humans, and, as such, one could not have a friendship with a god because it would constitute an unequal relationship, which was inherently inimical to friendship (p. 129).
While Augustine did have a great impact on the Christian view of friendship, the actual roots of Christianity were more supportive of friendship, where Jesus is claimed to have said that “there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend” (Vernon, p. 129).
Module 7: Module Notes: Thomas Aquinas
As well, centuries later, Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas managed to marry the philosophy of Aristotle and Christian ethics in a way that was supportive of friendship. Aquinas believed, like Aristotle, that it is only natural for one to love oneself, and that love can help us to learn to love others, as well as God. Similarly, God is not abstract, but is also accessible enough to us so that we can experience close friendship with the divine directly. Further, rather than viewing the ambiguities of friendship as threatening to our relationships with God and with one another, he saw them as useful. Vernon summarizes:
In short, friendship is always a question of give and take, and even when the taking is more in evident than the giving, it can be regarded positively to a degree, for it is never just on the take—or at least, if it is, it is already ceasing to be friendship (p. 140).
Aquinas felt that it is friendship that often encourages our ability to transcend our egoistic desires for more altruistic results. Indeed, it is through our ability to love those around us intimately that we learn the nature of true love. Vernon shares:
Thomas is able to say that selfless acts can emerge from self-love, and that altruism and egoism are not opposing opposites, because his idea of individuality is blurred at the edges (p. 147).
Module 7: Module Notes: Soren Kierkegaard
But, in the 19th century, Soren Kierkegaard reinforced Augustine’s train of thought, essentially arguing that friendship tends to bring out all of the worst traits in us, such as jealousy and possessiveness, very similar to erotic love (p. 130). Indeed, people fall into friendship love the same way they fall into romantic love, becoming prey to all kinds of negative emotions. As Vernon summarizes:
And then friendship gets caught up in all kinds of little acts of pride in the way that people congratulate themselves on the friends they have; they admire themselves for being so clever as to have such admirable friends, and so on. Friendship is a Vanity Fair (p. 130).
Kierkegaard proposes that we simply cultivate a neighborly love for all people, not preferring one over another. In fact, we do not even have to like or admire one another; indeed, it lets us off the hook from having to cultivate friendship at all (p. 131). As Vernon summarizes, we must simply cultivate a “selfless passion” to obey God, rather than follow our selfish passions for friendship (p. 131).
Module 7: Module Notes: Immanuel Kant
Vernon argues that this general mistrust of friendship has carried over into secular society, as well (p. 132). Modern philosopher Immanuel Kant essentially reinterprets Augustine through a secular lens. Indeed, Kant is so suspect of friendship that he posits a time when people will have so few needs that friendship will cease altogether (p. 136). This “heaven on earth” will have “transcended” the need for friendship (p. 136).
Kantian ethics is not the only ethical theory unsupportive of friendship. The popular ethical theory of utilitarianism, or the philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is also antithetical to the principles of friendship. Similarly, our democratic egalitarian philosophy, which is about universal fellowship, is not supportive of friendship, which is viewed as being prone to partiality. According to Vernon, friendship, then, essentially exists in an “ethical-no-man’s-land” (p. 135). That is why in modern society, “friendship is routinely treated as if it were questionable” (p. 137). He shares:
The contemporary reliance on the ethics of rights and egalitarianism, and the ugly associations that accrue to nepotism and cronyism, is proof enough: friendship is thought to offend absolute ideals (p. 150).
Module 7: Module Notes: A Synthesis
As discussed in previous modules, friendship has often been seen as a threat to the nuclear family, which is why marriage vows include the promise of “forsaking all others” (p. 138). Infidelity can be defined as a close friendship which interferes with this vow. (p. 138).
However, a new consciousness around “connectedness” seems to be arising, particularly in the collective discussions around environmental concerns and social alienation (p. 147). Vernon contends that that we must continue to deepen our dialogue around the ethics of friendship, as the institution of marriage is quickly reforming, and people do seem to be revisiting the value of friendship (p. 139).
In our modern world, if we are more religiously inclined, we might align ourselves with Aquinas’ notion of God as friendship, or, according to Vernon, the non-religious can draw upon the Aristotelian framework of virtue ethics. Friendship ranks high on the list of these virtues and helps to foster the good life. He shares:
The idea is that instead of thinking of moral philosophy as a series of problems that need to be solved by sets of rules or decisions, one thinks of moral philosophy as nurturing a way of life organized around certain virtues that nurture human potential (p. 149).
In short, for Aristotle and Aquinas, friendship nurtures some of our highest potential. Vernon shares that, just as Aquinas attempted to restore our trust in friendship, we need such a renewal in our trust of friendship today. He clarifies that this does not mean in the sense that friends trust each other, but in the sense that “moral philosophy itself needs to trust friendship as a way of life and guide to action” (p. 150). Vernon explains why this is important to our ethical behavior:
[I]t is worth trusting compromised situations, like those in which friendship is operating, whilst exercising powers of discernment, because clearly good behavior may arise from equivocal and mixed motives (p. 150).
Similarly, to regain this trust means to understand the complexity of our motivations, as Aquinas encouraged us to do, not viewing them as always either solely altruistic or egoistic. It means to recognize that the love of a few individuals deeply does not preclude us from loving all expansively (p. 151). In fact, it can help. We might also try to draw upon some of the rich guidelines provided by previous philosophers.
Module 7: Module Notes: Ralph Waldo Emerson
One such great thinker is writer Ralph Waldo Emerson, who also acknowledged the existence of what he coined “divine friendship,” (p. 235). The joy in such a friendship, he claims, is that you experience another human being who is both like you and unlike you, in that you are completely comfortable being with this person while also excited to learn how he or she might be unlike you (p. 229).
Emerson believed that much of what challenges us in experiencing deeper friendships is that we often go for the more shallow relationships that yield quick and instant gratification. There are many opportunities to enjoy the niceties of friendship without having to open oneself up to the true ambiguities of friendship and all of the discomfort and growth that it invites. We might ask, is there a higher ethical dimension to pursuing such a friendship? Vernon explains Emerson’s view that “it is only natural to want to pick the beautiful flowers thrown up by the majority of friendships, and to hope that the wiry roots buried in the damp, dark soil of another’s character, soul or mind do not come with them” (p. 233).
For Emerson, divine friendship incorporates a “godlike honesty” and “godlike affection” (p. 236). One can be so honest as to “think aloud” in a friend’s presence. Godlike affection refers to pure, unconditional love. Often our ties with one another are multilayered and involve money, lust, or blood relations, to name a few (p. 236). It is seldom that we can experience love in its purest state. Loving someone without any “compromised affection” is the highest state (p. 236). Essentially, Emerson believed it takes courage to recognize the limitations of shallow friendships and invite deeper friendships, which “can cope with the rougher, tougher exchanges of transformative, significant relationships” (p. 234). Emerson suggested:
It is only by entering into the ambiguities of friendship that its higher possibilities may be discerned; it is only then the weaknesses of character and the contingencies of time would inhibit it are overcome (p. 234).
In the poem “Friendship,” Emerson underscores the restorative and uplifting power of friendship and the way that the very best qualities in the friend serve to elevate the soul to loftier heights. Click here (Links to an external site.) [PDF, File Size 126 KB] to read the poem (p. 164-165).
Module 7: Module Notes: Conclusion
These spiritually elevated friendships are not easy to acquire, and most philosophers count them as quite unique. The paradoxical goal is to be able to do without them completely, but still be open to their occurrence, as Emerson suggests: “The condition which high friendship demands is the ability to do without it” (Vernon p. 237). One must not search for it, but simply show up in life as honest as one can be, with friends who do come and go, to attract the opportunity for such a precious friendship.
In conclusion, soul friendship is dynamic as it moves through the complexities and ambiguities of friendship. Those who embrace a “dynamic doctrine” of friendship will better enjoy all types of friendship, noting the experiences of deeper connection that may arise. Accordingly, someone who has a gift for friendship is someone who may not necessarily experience a soul friend, but will know how to “value friends” (p. 241). Further, for those who experience such a soul friendship, the experience extends well beyond the two friends. These experiences stay with the individuals forever and the memory of the friendship itself becomes as important as the moment of connection (p. 241).
Module 8: Module Notes: The Fate of Friendship
In this course, we had the opportunity to explore the nature of friendship through an ethical lens. We began by defining friendship and uncovering the moral challenges of dissimulation that arise in our connections with others. We asked difficult questions, such as: Does being a true friend always mean telling the truth? How does feigning help to nurture a closer connection at times? We learned that “even virtuous individuals find blunt honesty too harsh all of the time… dissimulation can give way to honesty, given the right circumstances, time and care. Candid friendships can transform a life with truthfulness” (Vernon, 2010, p. 253).
At the same time, we learned from some of the great, ancient philosophers, like Cicero, that we should indeed choose friends who are “frank” and who offer and receive advice freely, “for in friendship the authority of friends who give good counsel may be of the greatest value” (On Friendship, p. 13). Indeed, truth can be hurtful, especially if it is not coming from a loving place, but “much more offensive is complacency, when in its indulgence for wrong doing it suffers a friend to go headlong to ruin” (p. 24).
We continued our exploration of the inherent ambiguities in friendship by identifying some of the ethical challenges of our changing and unclear perceptions of friendship in comparison to romantic relationships. We discovered that the highest form of friendship, where a common passion is shared by the two individuals, is the goal to creating a sustainable friendship; indeed, it is not distinguishable among friends or lovers.
We also looked at the ethical dimensions of the impact of the Internet on friendship, reviewing its benefits and challenges and the research surrounding its contemporary expressions. We learned that although many shallow bonds form in this medium, there is an opportunity for genuine connection, as long as we remember that “…screens screen, that friending is not the same as befriending, and that it is quite possible to seek a crowd and feel lonely, not loved” (Vernon, p. 253).
We had the chance to dive deeply into some of the more common barriers and challenges to friendship, which may show up in different abilities, class, race, and sexual preferences. We learned how the role of friendship can actually serve to undermine oppressive and conventional structures. Similarly, we examined the intersection of religion and friendship and the “spiritual” dimensions of friendship, specifically following Montaigne and Emerson. We expanded our understandings of “soul” or “divine” friendship and how we can cultivate it, if at all, and what contributes to its uniqueness.
We also researched an ethical framework for the experience of friendship within the workplace. We examined the inherent obstacles that come with forming genuine friendships in a work environment and how friendships are often confined to being instrumental. We analyzed friendship through the utility lens of our modern culture and the inherent ethical dilemmas around viewing friends as commodities. We explored how many of our friendships in the modern world meet Aristotle’s criteria for friendships of utility. We asked if genuine friendship can exist in the workplace and discovered it is possible, with a true consciousness and ethical awareness around the value we place on others outside of their roles in the work environment.
Module 8: Module Notes: History of Friendship
Interwoven in our many discussions on the various factors that impact friendship, we had the opportunity to review some of the prominent periods in history where friendship enjoyed an elevated status; namely, Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages. We looked at the influence of politics and religion on collective perceptions and the development of friendship within a society. The Roman philosopher Cicero offered us specific guidelines when it comes to friendship, proving as useful to us today as in ancient Rome. He was concerned that we do not give enough attention to our friendships, caring more about “all other matters” (On Friendship, 2014, p. 17). Like the other philosophers we studied, Cicero believed that attaining a deep and abiding friendship is rare, mostly because we often wish our friends to be what we ourselves are not, and we expect of them things we are not willing to offer in return (p. 22).
He encourages us to be selective in our friends and take a lot of caution in forming our friendships. He warns us to cultivate any judgment towards a friend before the love develops, not the other way around. Ultimately, “firm, steadfast, self-consistent men are to be chosen as friends, and of this kind of men there is a great dearth”(On Friendship, p. 17). Therefore, it is wise to monitor our affections and kindness, preferring a gradual build. Indeed, we should be mindful of “excessive fondness,” which can interfere with the proper functioning of a friendship (p. 20). Importantly, we can look to those who are virtuous to learn about examples of friendship. Virtue consists of “consistency of conduct and character” (p. 27).
Indeed, most of the philosophers we explored agreed on a similar prescription for cultivating a meaningful friendship. It begins with knowing oneself, first and foremost. For Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, the goal was to know oneself intimately in order to lead a good life. Indeed, Vernon contends that pursuing philosophy and pursuing friendship are the same pursuit for Socrates, who saw friendship as requiring the “roughest courage” (p. 255). Vernon explains:
Socrates thought that friends should not primarily hope for happiness in one another, though that might come, but should seek together to live fuller, truer lives. This happens, he believed, when individuals become wise to their ignorance; the wisdom gained when one understands the limits of one’s capabilities is of supreme value. It is best gained in discoursing with others, particularly when the exchange is marked by the kind of honesty that can exist between the closest of friends. Then the individuals have the opportunity not only to learn about the limitations of the beliefs that they hold true but also about the flaws in their character and the vulnerabilities of their temperaments. These are, after all, far deeper sources of delusion than mere rational confusion (p. 255).
Clearly, for most of these philosophers, virtue is the key to friendship success, and one should start by being a “good” person. Indeed, being a virtuous person is cultivating the optimal foundation for building a true friendship and makes one a better friend. Likewise, friendship itself helps us to be more virtuous. One will quickly learn which friends are indeed virtuous when some crisis arises to test the bond. Without friends, our own virtue might not reach “the summit of excellence,” but expressed and united in friendship, “it might reach that eminence” (On Friendship, p. 22). Indeed, friendship can lead us to the highest good. Therefore, we should be constantly vigilant and take it seriously.
This applies to those times when the need arises to dissolve friendship ties. Even among close friends, sometimes ending a friendship is unavoidable, and Cicero was of the belief that we should generally foster a more gradual dissolution rather than a harsh break, unless there was some serious offense. It should be “unstitched rather than cut asunder” (On Friendship, p. 21). He adds that great care must be taken so that the friendship does not lapse into “quarrels, slanders, insults” (p. 21). Again, to prevent these occurrences is to ensure that attachments are not formed too soon, as Cicero advises: "I exhort you that you so give the foremost place to virtue without which friendship cannot be, that with the sole exception of virtue, you may think nothing to be preferred to friendship" (On Friendship, p. 27).
Module 8: Module Notes: Modern Society
In this final module, we learn that in our modern society, when people want to explore the nature of friendship, instead of turning to the rich wisdom of philosophy, they often consult self-help literature (Vernon, 2010, p. 242). Some philosophers, like Vernon, believe that the self-help industry does friendship a disservice by placing the individual at “the centre of the universe” (p. 242). Subsequently, it ‘”treats everyone else in the universe as bit players in the story of your life” (p. 243). Rather than encouraging us to love others for their own inherent worth, the self-help industry tends to follow the capitalist, post-industrial model and encourages us to explore what we “get” from our friends, or how they serve our needs. We might come to see some friends as shopping friends or others as hobby friends. In this way, friends become merely “service providers” (p. 243). This speaks to our discussion in Module 4 of friendships of utility, a lesser type of friendship, in which a friend’s usefulness, or what they may bring to us, is the focus and impetus. But this is rife with problems, not the least of which is an important ethical consideration about valuing others vs. using them for our own rewards and purposes. As Cicero reminds us, “for it is not so much benefit obtained through a friend as it is the very love of the friend that gives delight” (p. 21). He further shares:
Thus they lack that most beautiful and most natural friendship, which is to be sought in itself and for its own sake, nor can they know from experience what and how great is the power of such friendship (p. 21).
Indeed, such friendships of utility are often not long-lasting, as Vernon suggests: “And as everyone knows, the minute your friends start to feel used, for all that they may otherwise be happy to be useful, is the minute your friendship starts to fall apart” (p. 243).
Indeed, the self-help industry may be destroying friendships in its focus on a self-centered, rather than other-centered, philosophy. It mirrors our modern Western society of individualism, where our worlds revolve around our personal interests, not community support and connection. Additionally, as Vernon suggests, as one becomes more focused on oneself, there is a cost-benefit analysis, a weighing up of benefits, and this opposes the idea of altruistic friendship (p. 248). The idea is that if you do for me, then I will do for you. In today’s society, when each individual is looking out for his/her own interests and friendships are not reciprocal in terms of giving and receiving, can friendship be sustained? Can true friendship be cultivated and exist in the less self-interested way that philosophers propose?
When we treat friends as a means to an end, can we truly consider them friends in a philosophical sense? Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle and Cicero, would say no. Cicero shares: “and to love is nothing else than to cherish affection for him whom you love, with no felt need of his service, with no quest of benefit to be obtained from him” (On Friendship, 27).
Indeed, Cicero warns us against using friends for pleasure’s sake, and he is especially concerned about needing to follow some “rule of equality” where one calculates who gives what (On Friendship, p. 16). He shares:
To me friendship seems more affluent and generous and not disposed to keep strict watch lest it may give more than it receives and to fear that a part of its due may be spilled over or suffered to leak out or that it may heap up its own measure over full in return (On Friendship, p. 16).
Vernon contends that what we need is “compassion,” not ”calculation” (p. 252). From a biological perspective, Darwin believed that we are inherently altruistic, as we are social beings, and aim to cooperate naturally. Altruism is not something we do to get something back. According to Darwin, our “moral sense is fundamentally identical with the social instincts” (Vernon, p. 249).
Various religious traditions encourage us to be more selfless. Further, Vernon summarizes Aristotle as believing that the pursuit of a good life is the attempt to “live for others in life” (p. 243). Cicero similarly held:
One loves himself, not in order to exact from himself any wages for such love, but because he is in himself dear to himself. Now, unless this same property be transferred to friendship, a true friend will never be found, for such a friend is, as it were, another self (On Friendship, p. 21).
Philosopher John Stuart Mill also felt that true happiness is found outside of oneself. He suffered from a massive breakdown early in his life, only to realize that he was mistaken in focusing on his own happiness. He soon realized he had to focus beyond himself. He wrote: “Those only are happy who have their minds fixed on some other project than their own happiness” (Vernon, p. 245).
Module 8: Module Notes: Standing in Love
Similarly, psychologist Eric Fromm writes quite a bit about the difference of standing in love and falling in love, even in friendships (Vernon, p. 246). Falling in love is often not lasting because it is fueled by the simple excitement of knowing a new person. Once the newness wears off, often anxiety arises about the waning of the initial exhilaration, and then boredom sets in. One can easily experience falling out of love as quickly as one experiences falling in love (Vernon, p. 246). Vernon describes this paradox in detail:
The passion associated with falling in love is not actually a measure of true love, but rather is a measure of the speed with which you collapsed into the arms of a stranger. At best, falling in love is just one element of love. At worst, it has little to do with love at all—as the notion of “falling” might suggest. The danger is that individuals become addicted to the thrill of falling in love, much as they might to the heights induced by drugs. Such an individual has a series of relationships in succession or concurrently, and finds it hard to hold a relationship down. They are living a life of self-centered love affairs, where the determining factor is the pleasure or security of companionship their lover delivers to them (p. 246-247).
In contrast, standing in love is more about loving someone for who they are, not for who they might be or who you hope they might be. It is to love a person because “they are as well known to you as you are to yourself” (p. 247). While falling in love creates an excitement around the unknown, standing in love is the joy of the known—knowing another and being known by them (p. 247).
Vernon explains how it is easy to tell the difference between the couples who have fallen in love and those who are standing in love. The falling in love couples are often “annoying” to be around, so absorbed in one another that the rest of the world does not seem to exist (p. 248). It is unpleasant to be around their obsessive preoccupation with one another, and one will often feel lonely in their presence. Indeed, they are often possessive of one another’s affections, and they demand faithfulness based on insecurity rather than cultivating a faithfulness born from implicit trust (p. 248).
In contrast, the standing in love couple is delightful to be around, and they share their love with the rest of the world. Vernon explains:
The nicest people to know are those who are in love with each other and who make you feel part of their love. Standing in love bids you welcome too. Such lovers have learnt the art of love with each other and it results in generating a care and concern for others (p. 247).
Indeed, friendship is not about being knowledgeable or following a specific prescription for being a true friend. Summarizing Keats, Vernon holds that it is the “ability to live life without certainty, but with an expectant open-heartedness” (p. 254). It is about having a passion for wisdom and honesty, beginning with one’s own self-awareness (p. 256). Vernon shares:
Philosophy is not, therefore, just illuminating of friendship. The very possibility of friendship lies at the heart of philosophy. They come together partly because as Aristotle commented, “we are better able to observe our friends than ourselves and their actions than our own.” But more so because to truly befriend others is to stare life’s uncertainties, limits and ambiguities in the face. To seek friendship is to seek wisdom (p. 256).
References:
Cicero (2014). De Amicitia - On Friendship (Links to an external site.) . Retrieved from http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_cic_friendship.htm
Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
In the following discussion, M8D1: Redefining Relationships, we explore how our views of ourselves can impact our capacity for true and meaningful friendship.