Humanities question

Module 1: Module Notes: Aristotle, Plato & Friendship

Most philosophers believe that friendship is essential for a happy and fulfilling life. The Greek philosopher Aristotle contributed significantly to our understanding of friendship, which he defined as a “relationship of goodwill between individuals who reciprocate that goodwill” (in Vernon, p. 4). In Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, he places close friendship at the top of the hierarchy of friendship. He posits three types of friendship:

· Friends of Utility

· Friends of Pleasure

· Friends of the Soul

Friends of utility get something from each other and friends of pleasure enjoy certain activities together. These first two friendships are casual and instrumental. They are also vulnerable, because if we take away the element of utility or pleasure, the friendship will not last.  Friendship with a sexual component fits into the second category, defining those who seek a shared pleasure. Thus, if the friendship is based on sexual attraction, then it is vulnerable and subject to disintegrate. The friendship of the highest form, or friendship of the soul, is free of these external factors. Accordingly, in this profound type of friendship, the friends love each other for who they are in themselves.

Intense friendships, imbued with erotic elements, though not sexual, had a long tradition up through the 17th century. Intense friendships among the opposite sex were not uncommon, either. Today, many sociologists believe that friendship is becoming the relationship of choice. As well, traditional marriage has been reconceived as focusing on friendship first. People are now waiting longer to get married because they want the best of both: a great friendship and a sexual relationship.

Overall, there are many similarities and many differences between romance and friendship. Both are voluntary, sharing trust and understanding, but they can also experience jealousy and enmity. They are also quite different, in that passions can drive a romance to realms of irrational and spontaneous behavior. Of course, romantic love involves the element of physical lust and expression. Often, emotional affections are monitored between friends, sometimes to the detriment of friendship, simply for the sake of not veering into erotic territory. The fear of homosexual tendencies can exacerbate this distancing effect, especially between men. Not crossing the line from friendship into romance can sometimes generate tensions.

The Greek philosopher Plato had hope that a romantic relationship could produce a genuinely worthy friendship, as the couple learns to focus on shared passions, rather than on erotic passions for one another. For Plato, it takes some effort to not let the sexual eclipse the friendship. Indeed, time itself often tempers the erotic elements, and the opportunity for a deep friendship to flourish becomes more possible.

Plato focuses on how one can love “expansively and wisely” by focusing on the nature of eros (Greek for intimate love). For Plato, sexuality is a fundamental component of human experience, but it is only one component of eros. Vernon explains:

Eros “drives us to penetrate more profoundly into things, to reach beyond ourselves, and to attempt to integrate and unify. It is a power of the mind and spirit as well as the body. It is the source of creativity and innovation. It lies behind the scientific quest of discovery and the religious impulse for meaning. So sex is part of eros, perhaps the part of which we are most conscious; but it is only a part” (p. 55).

Indeed, Plato believes that eros could be the driving force of our friendships and also lead to philosophy, or the love of wisdom, as much as sexuality. According to Plato, they both aim for immortality. “For Plato, love roots us in our bodies and transcends the purely material. It’s both/and, not either/or” (p.55). While total immortality is not possible for humans to achieve, glimpses of it are possible, in these forms. The dangers, though, are also readily available, if eros is not tempered. Plato warns that our erotic passions could become obsessive and bypass our passion for wisdom.

Module 1: Module Notes: Nietzsche & Friendship

Similarly, Nietzsche believes that although we do not fully know ourselves or our friends, through our friendships, we can acquire more wisdom, particularly in our opportunity to know them better and thereby understand ourselves better, too. He is particularly keen on friendships that embrace the future. Vernon explains:

We agree to move into the future together, in directions not always foreseen. We agree to take the risks of showing more of ourselves to each other, and thereby to ourselves. That should deepen our humanity, all being well. And it is that deepening—that brave turning to the truths of the human condition—which inspires Nietzsche, and with him those who love friendship as a way of life (p. 79-80).

Nietzsche posits two kinds of friendship: ladder types and circle types. Ladder types make different friends along the way, mirroring their own evolution in life. They often move on from friendships that no longer serve where they are in life. Circle types cultivate friendships with all kinds of people and attempt to maintain them. These friendships tend to be longer lasting, but perhaps more shallow.

A shared past is not enough to sustain a friendship. Time can drain the authenticity out of friendship, and the friendship becomes idle.  These are what some might call “flabby” friends. Nietzsche finds that these friendships can be untrustworthy, for, in order to maintain a connection, they attempt to reminisce about the past. Vernon suggests, “this is a sign that habit has become a substitute for any real affection or closeness.” (p. 79) Whereas the past can constrain us, the future is full of new possibilities. Therefore, it is important to see friendships as future-oriented. Vernon adds:

We must gather the past into the present and be drawn into what lies ahead. Therein lies the vitality of life, for the future is that which we do not possess. That makes it frightening, though invigorating too—invigorating of the friendships that move into the morrow as well (p. 79)

Module 1: Module Notes: Paradox & Friendship

Paradox is also a common theme among philosophers of friendship. Novelist Patrick White wrote: “Friendship is two knives. They will sharpen each other when rubbed together, but often one of them will slip and slice off a thumb” (p. 74).

This paradox often presents itself in dissimulation, a form of deception whereby one hides his or her thoughts or feelings from another.  Philosophers agree dissimulation is an experience common in friendships, as even the best of friendships cannot bear the weight or intensity of consistent honesty. This begs the question: If friendship is grounded in ethics, can we call it friendship if there is an element of dishonesty involved?

William Shakespeare stated that “most friendship is feigning.” (p. 80). Vernon echoes this by stating that: “In fact, when you start to look, it quickly becomes apparent that in a million little ways, as well as some large ones, friendship is often a matter of nothing less than faking it” (p. 80).  This leads to an obvious ethical dilemma: Is it ethical to be somewhat dishonest, at times, especially with those with whom we are close? Many of the philosophers we explore seem to suggest that it is.

This dissimulation that philosophers refer to is not the same thing as generic politeness one might receive from a salesperson or cashier. Dissimulation in friendship might include not sharing one’s full range of honest feelings about one’s friend’s partner, their parenting style, or fashion sensibility. While Cicero and Aristotle argues  that true friendship demands honesty, even if it is hurtful, contemporary understandings of friendship view dissimulation as acceptable, appropriate, and generally not hurtful to friendship. Even with the closest friends, it is believed we must engage in a bit of this. Feigning helps us to determine the right timing of when and how to present honest feelings.

Vernon posits that because we do not know ourselves, we could also be completely off the mark in our assessments of our friends. It is generally thought to be better to avoid offending our friends, by being evasive or not sharing all of our immediate thoughts, than divulging what we are feeling and create an unnecessary upset. Additionally, we often project our perceptions onto others; so, what we feel about another might really be what we feel about ourselves. Since we do not fully know ourselves, and even deceive ourselves about our own behavior at times, it is only natural that we might do the same with our loved ones.

References:

MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues—Concise Edition (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Consider the concepts from the Module 1 readings as you participate in the module’s discussions.   Be sure to cite the textbook or other sources in your work.

In the following discussions, we will explore the idea of dissimulation and also consider friendship’s relation to romance and marriage.

Module 2: Module Notes: Online Friendships

In this module, we explore the role of social media in the development and expression of friendship. We explore some of the strengths and weaknesses of online friendship, evaluating some of the contradictory research surrounding it. We apply philosophical reasoning to analyze theories regarding the connection between the Internet and friendship.

In today’s world, more people are putting their social energies into online forums, rather than face-to-face interaction. Philosophers differ in their opinions regarding how beneficial or not this is to friendship overall. The more negative aspects are easily measured and readily apparent. Online bullying is quite common, and many misperceptions and miscommunications occur through the written word. More people are using online media to break up, end friendships, and dismiss people from contractual agreements. All of this leads to a less personalized interaction.

Some psychologists contend that up to 40% of the information put up on social networking sites might be fabricated (Vernon, 2010, p. 105). Alternatively, because of the anonymity that the online environment affords, some people might be inclined to be too honest and over share, not having the advantage of reading the body language and social clues of their receivers. Many are often subsequently blindsided by sudden rejection or harsh replies. Because it is difficult to be subtle and gentle without body language aids, people can often be more harsh and abrasive online.

Sociologist Sherry Turkle expresses concern that we are becoming socially inept, not learning to conduct skillfully  face-to-face interaction (p. 106). As well, we are not giving ourselves enough time alone, where we learn to integrate and manage our emotions throughout the day. She describes a “tethered self” that is “dependent upon being wired and feels most intimate when relationships are mediated by machines” (p. 106).

There are additional concerns that this environment is altering human psychology altogether. The online environment can often lend itself to more superficial interactions because it does not require any real time commitment of being in the same physical space. Because it is about sharing bits of information, a lot of which can be wrong, it often lends itself to knee-jerk, reactionary responses, rather than fostering deeper, abiding connections.“Hence, online chat is mostly about gossip, bullet point profiles and instant reactions, whereas conversation grips the whole individual, nurtures a natural sense of reserve, and requires a deeper commitment to each other” (p. 106).

Similarly, neuroscientists are concerned that an emphasis on online engagement can alter the structure of the brain, shorten our attention spans, and even lead to a “psychotic disregard” for others (p. 107). Author Michael Bugeja writes: “‘Friending really appeals to the ego, where friendships appeal to the conscience” (p. 107). Vernon adds that friending is a quantitative activity, where having more friends means more. Befriending is a qualitative activity that requires more depth and more of a time commitment. Many scientists are hopeful that people understand the difference between “friending,” forming virtual links, and “befriending,” forming real connections.

Still, addiction to collecting friends online is a major concern among those who study the impact of social media. The Journal of Psychiatry lists eight key questions to determine if one is an addict (p. 108). According to researchers, millions of people are Internet addicts, an addiction similar to shopping addiction. In part, this transpires from a consumeristic culture that promotes the idea that more is better. Indeed, more often means less. People compulsively collect friends to boost their egos and fill the void of not having deeper or more profound friendships.

Module 2: Module Notes: Positive Impact

Of course, there is the positive impact of the Internet on friendship. Following Aristotle’s model of friendship, we can glean some of the benefits of online connections. At the second level of friendship, where friends connect over shared interests, the Internet can provide many opportunities. A lot of people are now able to connect over shared hobbies, passions, and beliefs, when they might not have otherwise found each other in person.

Additionally, Aristotle felt that it was crucial to spend non-instrumental time with friends, or time that was not structured or purpose driven. A lot of our outings with friends, especially in today’s busy world, are geared toward eating, shopping, or various activities. Online interaction is often non-instrumental, extending time spent with friends, rather than pursuing a specific goal. Aristotle felt this kind of non-instrumental time together helps to foster deeper connections.

Another positive benefit is that many people are being exposed to new cultures they might not normally encounter.  One has the opportunity to engage with people of different perspectives from around the globe. In a sense, the human connection becomes more universal.

Research studies indicate support for both sides of the argument. Some studies suggest we are “losing close friends.” (p. 117). Other studies suggest we are gaining more friends. The average American claims they have two close friends, and a quarter suggests they do not have any at all (p.117).

Vernon suggests that both the critics and the supporters of the Internet are right: “…whenever human beings come together it precipitates loneliness and belonging in equal measure, and heightens both. We should only expect that for every positive story of virtual amity, there is a negative story of virtual animosity, too” (119).

References:

Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Consider the concepts from the Module 2 readings as you participate in the module’s discussion. Be sure to cite the textbook or other academic sources from the Excelsior Library in your work.

In the following discussions we will explore the idea of Friending vs. Befriending and also consider online friendship’s ethical dimensions.

Module 3: Module Notes: Friendship & Different Abilities

In this module, we explore the role of disabilities in the development and expression of friendship. We explore some of the barriers to friendship for those who are differently abled, evaluating some of the research surrounding it. We apply philosophical reasoning to analyze some of the challenges that those are differently abled experience, particularly in a classroom environment.

Those who have disabilities often prefer to be referred to as “differently abled,” rather than disabled. Differently abled simply means that one has different abilities. For example, if one is without sight, one may have the ability to sense things more tactilely or auditorily. Indeed, one may have more of an astute awareness of how things feel or even sound than one who has complete vision. The point is that one enjoys a different ability, rather than a lack of ability.

Research is limited in the area of critical friendships and the differently abled community. We do know that differently abled people have the same desire for affection and companionship as anyone. They also have additional needs around cultivating friendships, wanting less dependency on their families and service care providers (Hutchinson, 1990).

Studies indicate that the majority of differently abled individuals have no or few friends among those outside of this community. Differently abled individuals are often challenged to cultivate friendships, in part because of the perception that they need services, rather than friendships. A lot of people in this community feel lonely and isolated, and sometimes become overly dependent on their service care workers and families for companionship (Hutchinson, 1990). Part of the challenge is that the family members and service care workers do not often actively support these friendships with persons outside of the community, believing that there would not be much of an interest. As well, there are few opportunities for people who are differently abled to actually interact with those outside their community. Finally, time and energy is spent more on the basic, physical needs of those from this community, rather than focusing on cultivating friendships with those outside of the community. Some families and providers are fearful that this would be viewed as an interference with the natural process.

The Ward article focuses specifically on the classroom setting, where many of our friendships are fostered and nurtured. Research suggests that those who are differently abled are quite disadvantaged in their ability to make friends and sustain them. Research indicates that there are three primary themes that aid in student friendships: proximity, opportunity, and facilitation. Students often make friends with those who are simply near them in the same class, age group, or environment. Students also need the opportunity to share similar interests and experiences. Finally, especially with younger children, parents often participate in helping to facilitate friendships. In a school environment, instructors often need to take on this facilitation role. Research indicates that this often does not occur, with secondary instructors particularly focused more on teaching the curriculum than addressing student needs (Ward, 2010, p. 23).

Six Common Relationship Frames for Students with Disabilities (plain text file)   

 

References

· Hutchison, P. (1990). “A qualitative study of the friendships of people with disabilities.” Ontario: Ontario Research Council on Leisure. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/41736962-A-qualitative-study-of-the-friendships-of-people-with-disabilities.html

· Ward, A. (2010). “When they don’t have to sit there they don’t. They’ll go and sit somewhere else.” Students with disabilities talk about barriers to friendship. Kairaranga, 11(1), 22-28. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925403

Module 3: Module Notes: Barriers to Friendship

According to researchers, there are four key factors that serve to inhibit friendships for those who are differently abled, particularly in a classroom setting. The first are physical barriers, such as narrow doorways or isolated seating.  Intentional attitude barriers entail isolation, bullying, or cruel treatment. Unintentional attitudinal barriers include a lack of knowledge or awareness and physical limitations of the student, such as visual impairment (Ward, 2010, p. 24).

Additionally, some of the stereotypes are that differently abled people are unable to reciprocate equally in a friendship, having more needs. Reciprocity is understood as key to a healthy, flourishing friendship. Caretakers need to learn to help facilitate these friendships by being less patronizing and more empowering (Hutchison, 1990). Another barrier has traditionally been a reliance on one caregiver as the primary friend. Like the rest of the population, those who are differently abled need a range of friendships outside of the connections they share with their families and caregivers. The movie, Inside I’m Dancing explores this idea and underscores some of the challenges to friendship faced by persons with disabling conditions. In the movie, Michael is befriended by Siobhan, who has been hired as his and Rory’s personal assistant. His inexperience with friendship leads him to view the relationship as more than friendship. It also leads to Rory’s jealousy and conflict.

The research consensus is that there needs to be greater awareness about the value of friendship, in general, and how it contributes to a better quality of life. There also needs to be more awareness that those who are differently abled need and thrive off of friendships as much as the rest of the population. Understanding that special services, aids, and caregivers cannot and should not provide the primary means of socialization for those from this community is essential. Facilitating friendships outside of services, recreation programs, and those offerings that aim to cultivate socialization, but which seldom succeed, is important. Basically, creating more inclusive and less segregated environments, and treating everyone as capable of genuine, reciprocal friendship is essential (Hutchinson, 1990).

Consider the concepts from the Module 3 readings as you participate in the module’s discussion and complete the essay. Be sure to cite the textbook or other sources in your work.

In the following discussion, M3D1: Are Differently Abled Friendships Different?, we examine potential differences in friendships among the differently abled community.

References

· Hutchison, P. (1990). “A qualitative study of the friendships of people with disabilities.” Ontario: Ontario Research Council on Leisure. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/41736962-A-qualitative-study-of-the-friendships-of-people-with-disabilities.html

· Ward, A. (2010). “When they don’t have to sit there they don’t. They’ll go and sit somewhere else.” Students with disabilities talk about barriers to friendship. Kairaranga, 11(1), 22-28. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925403

 

As discussed in Module 1, Aristotle proposes three levels of friendship, including utility, pleasure, and soul connection. For Aristotle, work friendships satisfy the first level of friendship, one of utility. In work friendships, colleagues are often friendly, without really knowing each other at all. It is generally a “lesser” kind of friendship because it is based on a mutual activity, in this case work.  Friendships based on activities, according to Aristotle, are easy to form. They can also be confused with deeper friendships, which they are not, because they do not really require that you share too much of yourself. The focus is on the task at hand. Aristotle explains:

Those who are friendly with each other because they are useful to each other do not like each other for the person each one is in themselves. They like each other only insofar as it does them some good. They are friendly because it is beneficial to be so (Vernon, p. 23).

Of course, a friendship of utility could ultimately turn into a friendship of the soul, Aristotle’s third level of friendship. More often they do not, though, and people find that when the activity is removed or one leaves a place of employment, any friendship with those colleagues will likely dwindle (p. 22).  A colleague is useful in many ways, such as providing an entertaining distraction from work. Take away the utility, though, and the substance of the friendship itself may not persist.

The idea of working toward a goal is inherent in the work environment, so having a friendly environment aids this endeavor. Yet, it presents the dilemma of knowing truly how genuine the friendship is in itself. A work friendship can even feel close for the duration of time two people work together, but if the common activity is removed and someone leaves the job, often the friendship is completely void. This presents an ethical challenge, though. To what extent do we share ourselves, or exercise friendliness, in a workplace environment? As Vernon explains:

It’s good to be able to draw distinctions between the ways in which we might profit from the friendliness of other people, on a scale from out-and-out exploitation, through mutual benefit, to an encounter we might come to count as providential (p. 23).

He adds,

Unmoderated exploitation is never going to provide fertile grounds for friendship. But soft mutual benefit is not only bearable in work relationships but also actually common to all friendships (p. 23).

Indeed, in our closest friendships, we often enjoy a level of mutual benefit. Good friends meet some of our basic needs, like running an errand for us or being an ear when we are in crisis. Vernon shares: “Some would say that the defining mark of a good friend is that they are always there for you and thus have a kind of unconditional utility” (p. 23). 

Module 4: Module Notes: Obstacles to Genuine Friendship

Generally, though, most friendships at work operate on the idea that you are first liked for the services you provide, not for who you are.  Friendliness serves an important function at work, helping to keep harmony in the work environment and keeping productivity high. On a grander scale, the contemporary workplace fosters a “powerful culture of instrumentality” which can challenge and even undermine the cultivation of these deeper connections with others (p. 25). A genuine friendship, though rare, is possible, keeping in mind the following:

[T]he point is that these relationships are always, at least initially, influenced by the utility factor. The trick is to ensure any nascent friendship is not determined by it (p. 24).

Workplace friendships can also be weak because people get different things out of the relationship. This is especially true if one is the superior and the other is an employee. Work friendships are also quite vulnerable, because if one person feels that the other is not delivering the expected goods, then the friendship can quickly turn volatile. Career prospects and advancements are on the line, and for this reason, sociologists often report that people will more likely fake their friendships at work not to upset their career prospects (p. 27).

Many self-help books actually encourage one to avoid workplace friendships and simply work amicably with one’s colleagues (p. 27). Still, this can further the confusion and promote the ambiguity around workplace friendship. Being friendly may seem like an effort at friendship when it is really an attempt to promote a productive work environment.

The ambiguities of this utility-based friendship are most apparent when bumping into someone outside of the work environment. Oftentimes, this experience can feel uncomfortable or unpleasant. There is an awkwardness that is not always so understandable. Vernon explains that stripping the relationship of the environment in which it normally thrives strips it of its “raison d’etre” (p. 20):

So, outside work, people find it hard to know how to relate to one another. Typically, they revert to work: talking about what you do together, though, you are not actually doing it, feels right, feels friendly. People become awkward because the framework in which they conduct the friendship is gone (p. 20).

Vernon adds, of course, one simply may not want to be reminded of work by running into a colleague outside of it. Similarly, political friendships, online friendships, and volunteer work friendships often have the shared component of utility. When the utility is removed, so is the friendship, even if there are fond memories of the experience itself.

Workplace friendships can be one of the more interesting interactions we have with people because we spend more time with our colleagues than our friends or family, yet we often do not really know them. Or, as Vernon posits, we experience a pseudo-intimacy, whereby “colleagues can know so much about each other but can care so little” (Vernon, p. 15):

If friendship is about knowing someone truly and being known by them, it is also about knowing which relationships are likely to foster good friendships; the relationships that contain the seeds of deeper friendship, as opposed to shallow, instrumental friendliness. It all depends on the attitude people have to their tasks and what they expect of others. And perhaps when genuine good feeling rises above the quest for jolly camaraderie, or devious influence, an admiration for character over professional achievement—a virtuous spiral of regard—can blossom into friendship (p. 29).

Professionalism itself can be antithetical to forging true friendships. People often want to maintain a level of privacy at work. As well, work attire itself is not generally reflective of a person, but of one’s disposition toward one’s work, and even his/her position in the work environment. Dressed down days are often a source of anxiety for people because they create stress in terms of how one wants to present oneself to one’s colleagues. “The fear is of revealing too much, and that mitigates against friendship” (p. 28).

Module 4: Module Notes: Society's Impact

On a larger level, our consumeristic and commercially minded culture, with its emphasis on utility and competition, profit and utility has a great impact on the nature and condition of friendships. Adam Smith, one of the founding fathers of the modern workplace, had faith that friendship would be positively impacted by commercial life, which is democratic and egalitarian.

Many companies are aware of the research that indicates that friendships at work increase productivity and overall job satisfaction (p. 17). People with friends at work are even twice as likely to believe they are well-paid (p. 17). Those who share friendships at work are more likely to share ideas, be innovative, and feel like their work has real meaning and purpose (p. 17).

In reality, commercial society encourages friendliness but not strong alliances, which can undermine the authority of industry. In short, strong friendships can prove time consuming and produce less productive workers, as well as contribute to nepotism and cronyism (p. 39). Other thinkers and critics have noted the drive toward individualism and competition that commercialism promotes, which undermines genuine connection.

Consider the concepts from the Module 4 readings as you participate in the module’s discussions and complete the poll. Be sure to cite the textbook or other sources in your work.

References:

Cooley, D. R. (2002). “False Friends.” Journal of Business Ethics. (195-207).  Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 1: Friends at Work

In the following discussion, M4D1: Office Politics, we examine the ethical challenges underlying workplace friendships.

Module 5: Module Notes: Friendship and Politics

In line with our observations from the last module about the growing consumeristic culture in which we live, many observe that our value as people stems from what we can produce, not from who we are as human beings. Essentially, we are a culture of workers valued for our utility, rather than a community of close friends. This lack of community coherence impacts our friendships. Our environments influence how we feel about ourselves and our roles in our society and how we are able to connect to others and forge lasting friendships, or not.

In this module, we explore two specific periods in history where friendship seemed to enjoy a more elevated status, as reflected in the writings of the philosophers of those eras. Specifically, we review the ancient and medieval periods, surveying some of the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers, including Aristotle and Epicurus, Cicero and Seneca. In the Middle Ages, we observe the works of Aelred de Rievaulx and Thomas Aquinas.

Module 5: Module Notes: Ancient Greece

In Ancient Greece, there were key differences in how friendships were viewed and valued. Being an active participant in the city is part of what it meant to be a citizen. It is a way one built social standing in the community, and forging friendships aided this endeavor. It is important to note that these citizens were men, and a small minority of them, so friendships among them were even more essential. Vernon writes: “one of the reasons why an image of friendship resonated so strongly with the Athenian taste for freedom was that the experience of being a citizen was closely interwoven with the experience of being a friend” (Vernon, p. 158).

In this environment, public displays of loyalty were common and necessary. “Gold can be put to the proof by fire, but goodwill among friends is tested by circumstance” was one of the common aphorisms at the time (p. 159). It is in this era that Aristotle proposed his three types of friendship, discussed in Module 1. He parallels these three types of friendship to three types of government. He writes about how the kind of community one builds is reflected in the kinds of friendships one builds. Aristotle believes it is important that we feel collective pride when our citizens make notable achievements, or feel collective shame when they engage in unethical behavior. The Olympics provide a great example of this reflection in a culture’s unity and ethos.

The Symposium best represents the interplay of citizenry and friendship during this time. The Symposium, meaning “drinking together,” is our version of a dinner party (p. 161). Guests were invited into a private home to drink and bond, engage in deep and quality conversations. The room was intimately arranged with facing couches, and a shared drinking cup, known as the “cup of friendship” (p. 161). Songs of friendship were even sung, with lyrics such as: “He who does not betray a man who is his friend has great honour among mortals and gods” (p. 161). In sum, it was an opportunity for forging both alliances and friendships. Vernon notes that it provided a “bridge” between public and private arenas (p. 161).

This kind of “civic affection” advocated by philosophers like Aristotle is not as present in our world today. Vernon writes, “Our relationships as citizens are mediated between by impersonal institutions, like the law, possibly with detrimental effects on our affections for one another as a result” (p. 162). This raises the obvious ethical dilemma around the nature of our institutions and whether they are morally in line with our deepest desires for strong human connection and interaction. Vernon cautions us, though, that friendship in previous times is not necessarily friendlier. He writes:

In fact, if more friendship-friendly times did exist in ages gone by, we would expect them to be characterized by outbreaks of animosity too, such are the ambiguities of friendship: to claim someone as a friend is not much different from declaring someone else as an enemy (2010, p. 155).

Indeed, other philosophers at the time of Aristotle raised criticisms and concerns about the strength of politics and friendship.  Plato expressed similar concerns, revealing ambivalence towards friendship in politics. In some of his writings, he supports it; in others he cautions against it.  The philosopher Epicurus, living at a time when Alexander the Great had come to power and the polis (Links to an external site.)  was weakening, was skeptical of the nature of such friendships, believing politics to be more corrosive to true friendship. Vernon observes:

Individuals like Epicurus tended to regard themselves as citizens of the world, though with perhaps no place they could call home, and few compatriots they might call friends. The situation was more like our own (p. 163).

Module 5: Module Notes: Cicero & Seneca

A few hundred years later, in Rome, friendship once again enjoyed an elevated status, though, the ambiguities were often recognized and pondered by contemporary philosophers. Rome was a Republic and required high participation from its citizens. So, like Athens, having good support helped one to gain public standing. Vernon writes:

In fact, public abuses of friendship could have serious repercussions for someone’s political standing to an extent that is, again, hard to imagine given the private nature of friendship today: to be accused of being a poor friend, and bad at friendship, was to lose public standing (p. 165).

Cicero, a famous politician and philosopher at this time, wrote quite a bit about friendship. He, himself, is accused of betraying a good friendship with Mark Anthony, the lover of Cleopatra, and wrote a posthumous work to counter the claims. The fact that he sought to avenge his reputation, even after his death, reflects the great lengths people went to in order to maintain their honor around their virtues in friendship (p. 166). Cicero also wrote an imaginary dialogue where he espoused some of his philosophy of friendship:

Friendship is… complete sympathy in all matters of importance, plus goodwill and affection, and I am inclined to think that with the exception of wisdom, the gods have given nothing finer to men than this (p. 167).

And:

Whoever is in possession of a true friend sees the exact counterpart of his own soul… They can scarcely, indeed, be considered in any respect as separate individuals, and wherever the one appears the other is virtually present (p. 167).

Cicero was careful to address the ambiguities of friendship, as well, warning people not to be too needy in their friendships. He also advocated for strict ethical behavior in friendship, encouraging complete honesty and respect for differences in social standing, if there were class differences between friends, for example. The friend with more status must not exploit these differences, nor should the friend with less power feel bothered by the inequalities. Not long after this golden era of friendship came the rise of Imperial Rome, and once again, friendships were negatively impacted by the new environment of distrust and a lack of public participation.

At this time, the philosopher Seneca wrote about this demoted status of friendship and essentially grieves its loss in his society. Still, he spoke of a new turn in the experience of friendship that may have shocked his Greek predecessors, which includes more friendships between slave and master and between women and men. In one of his writings, he compliments one of his contemporaries for enjoying a friendship with his “slaves” (p. 170). Vernon observes that because friendship has become more private in this time, one might be able to enjoy a more extended range of friendships, where people are less concerned with public appearance. Vernon observes that, just as our friendships shape social conventions, societal expectations impact our friendships: “We see as much to this day, inasmuch as friendships across social classes and ethnic divides are relatively rare” (p. 171).

Module 5: Module Notes: The Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, we observe a renewed elevation in the status of friendship, due in part to some of the religious influences and politics of the time. Kissing, sleeping, and eating together had completely different social boundaries. Indeed, “semi-institutionalized forms of marriage” between friends were not uncommon (p. 172). Friendships were so honored that even shared graves were a regular occurrence, especially among men who fought alongside one another in the battlefield.  As well, “sworn brotherhoods” commanded great respect during this time in history and were even sanctioned by the church (p. 179). We have copies today of written prayers from this period that sanction the union of sworn brothers and sisters (p. 179).

Inspired by the writings of Cicero, medieval writer and saint, Aelred of Rievaulx, echoed the friendship sentiments of his time in his work Spiritual Friendship (p. 183). He believed that friends should be willing to die for one another. The Christian influence on friendship draws upon the life and teachings of Jesus: “A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends” (p. 183). Aelred also believed that love between friends should be undying and should share all things in common. This is essentially an appeal to the shared “doctrine” of Christianity and the common bond of love for God and the church. Like Thomas Aquinas, Aelred believed that God is friendship, and a “friend is a guardian of heavenly love and friendship is a taste of paradise” (p. 184).

Additionally, Aelred shared that the death of a friend is “the culmination of love, witnessed to by the love that lives on in the heart of the surviving friend. For all the agony of mourning, the death of a friend is an experience of eternity in the present” (p. 185). As Vernon summarizes: “Friendship’s greatest gift is, thus, that it lifts the veil between this world and the next and provides a foretaste of the everlasting love of heaven here and now” (p. 185). Thus, the shared grave of close friends during this period was a not just a gesture of strong bonds, but was also “a foretaste of the love to be shared in eternity” (p. 186).

Public displays of affection, dining, and sleeping arrangements also signaled a deeper reflection of social bonds during this period when the Catholic church and its rituals were quite prominent in daily life. Mirroring the kiss of peace at the Eucharist, people greeted one another with a kiss as a sign of Christian unity. Vernon explains:

This same kiss in the social setting expressed a reality that says “we are united even as God is united.” It may or may not express a narrower sentiment and add ”I am fond of you.” (p. 173).

The dining table was placed in the middle of the medieval home, representing its value as the center of activity. Here, everyone ate together, including the lords and the serfs, though the designations were clearly demarcated.  Vernon writes:

Communal eating constituted those relationships in the same way that the food which was eaten changed into the bodies of those who ate it. To be called up higher was to be called into a deeper connection. And if that included friendship, that relationship was given a corresponding boost in its social standing too (p. 174).

Sleeping together was a similar activity, where people in the household shared a large bed or slept on pallets in the same room. Sleeping together also reflected social standing at this time. There are historical records indicating people’s desire to sleep in the same bed with those of a higher social standing, longing for this kind of friendship.

Module 5: Module Notes: The Modern World

Today, in places like Africa and Asia, people still participate in these socially connective activities. It is not unusual for several women and children in the household to share a bed, or several men to a share a bed. Eating from one bowl or large plate is also common, with the only real division coming between the genders. Similarly, sharing kisses as a greeting, and men and women holding hands with friends of the same sex is a regular occurrence.

However, in Western societies in the modern world, these activities have become a bit taboo. Many historians have attempted to speculate about some of the reasons for the changes. There were changes in the living quarters, where bodily rituals, such as the bathroom, became more privatized. In the Middle Ages, there were high rates of infant mortality, and men might marry several times, so extended families living together were a practical consideration. Whatever the causes, by the late seventeenth century, “public institutions of friendship were replaced by the private institution of the family” (p. 175). Marital bonds and the institution of the nuclear family took root, and the past activities of sleeping, eating, and kissing became confined to the romantic union between a husband and wife.

As well, as the industrialized societies took hold and individualism took root, friendship became more privatized and, subsequently, more marginalized. Changes in marriage laws occurred, too, shifting from informal unions to more institutionalized arrangements. Vernon summarizes our current state: “society is conceived of as an ominously bureaucratic entity that has few means of understanding, let alone nurturing, friendships” (p. 178).

References:

Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 6: Politics of Friendship.

In the following discussion, M5D1: Expressions of Friendship, we compare past and contemporary expressions of friendships.