I was very recently chatting (electronically, mind you) with a friend on Facebook, when I insinuated that she took a "transactional" approach to our friendship. She expressed dismay (to the extent that dismay can be expressed in Instant Messaging) and demanded that I explain. My explanation was pretty clear--our online conversation began as the result of an inquiry from her about the defense industry. She had already sent an email request with the same general inquiry, and now she had popped into my IM queue. My thoughts as I received these requests were--"Hmmmm......I seem to have contact with this person under two circumstances; when I seek her company, and when she wants information from me."
Now mind you, this person is an absolute delight. Fiercely intelligent, politically savvy, and wickedly funny, an hour's lunch conversation with her is not to be missed. But for some reason, I was struck in that moment with a sense that her reaching out to me in the time of our brief friendship had generally been linked with an attempt to gain some kind of information with me--while my reaching out to her had been abidingly social and conversational. Furthermore, I contented myself smugly with the notion that somehow, my approach to the friendship was more "authentic" because I sought nothing from it.
And then I began to examine my own presumptions.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I am right about this woman's approach to our friendship, and that my "use" to her as a friend is largely determined by my ability to provide her with relevant information. What "use" is she to me? Put another way, is there any such thing as "self-less" friendship, or do we choose and keep friends largely as a result of the extent to which they make us feel good, or laugh, or think more deeply, or what have you? Why is my desire for her conversation and company any less transactional than her desire for information? She sees me as a source of information and perhaps reasonable company and conversation. I see her as a source of lively entertainment and conversation, which makes me happy. I get something from her friendship, she gets something from mine. Both parties to a transaction, perhaps with different aims in mind. But nonetheless, the friendship is transactional from both ends.
Can friendship--even close, enduring, longstanding "Best Friend Forever" friendship--escape its elementally transactional nature? Is there any such thing as "selfless" friendship?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Pretty sad that you must "examine" friendship. After reading this, one can see that you don't have "friends" but rather close acquaintances.
So presumably, Anon, your friendships are self-less. You are, apparently, immune to such things as joy, and laughter, and bonhomie. You get nothing from your friendships, and you'd maintain them irrespective of how awry they would go. Presumably then, you'd stay friends with someone who vexed you, or crossed you, or seriously let you down. Forever. Irrespective of the offense. You are a better person than I.
And another thing, Anon. What's wrong with examining friendship? Aristotle's "Ethics" devotes two books to it (XIII and IX), and a Google search of "Philosophy of Friendship" leads to over 9 million results.
I would contend that anyone participating in Facebook who does not think about the nature of friendship is devoid of any intellectual curiosity.
Hmmm, well, I consider CW a friend indeed, although now that you dive deeper into the ugly underbelly ....
On the slippery surface it's all straight up human affection, companionship, shared experiences, and good-natured political sparring, but to be honest, I must admit that deep down I'm just after all your wealth and power. And a credit on the next edition of "A Truly Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower in a Socialist World."
This may be far off base, but there may be another twist you aren't considering. Old, creeky, established relationships are one thing -- I wouldn't have any compunction about chatting about nothing in particular with you. She may very well value your friendship tremendously, but -- esp. if she is a relatively recent acquaintance --your shared social situation may require her to frame any interaction in a tangible, transactional way out of respect for your primary relationship, not as an info. seeking gambit. She may not want you (or anyone else) to get the wrong impression about the nature of your friendship. Just saying ...
Yes yes, the unexamined life is not worth living but Good Grief you can be a boring.
Boring? True dat Hammer!
Nothing puts me into a coma like when you boys start discussing college basketball. Yaaawwwwnnnnn.
Habit may eventually produce selfless friendship. Garrison Keillor has said, "hang onto your old friends because there may come a day when there's no good reason for people to like you except out of habit."
CW -
You are aware, aren't you, that your big screen tv can be tuned to something other than Lifetime, right?
And be careful, there are studies that conclude watching too much Oprah and her ilk will make 'em shrink up like raisins.
Go get 'em Mudge. CW is a little TOO intouch with his feminine side.
No CW, I think you are the one immune to joy, laughter and a good disposition. I get quite a bit from my friendships, some might say I also give quite a bit, but that's for them to say. You presume wrong about staying with those that cross me and don't know how you presume that. I have always enjoyed a close circle of friends and there is always room to join. If I am crossed, I offer forgiveness to my friends. Some will take it and build on that bond and others will take it to clear their mind.
Go knock yourself out and examine your friendships, if that's what you like. I'm not analytical like you. I would rather enjoy my friendships rather than examine them. Doesn't make me a better person but if you say so, I'll accept it.
Be peaceful, enjoy what you have, enjoy your life.
Yikes. The woman's kiss of death.
On reading this I am left uncertain as to which is better. To be in touch with one's feminine side, masculine side or back side?
Hammer--you're right. This is a boring blog. Very boring. The question is though, compared to what? You visit every day, several times a day. You are clearly choosing boredom. Is this rational?
Rational?
Perhaps it is...transACTIONal.
Oh no-o-o-o-o-o! I'm being pulled back into the vortex of circularity!!!!
Just kidding CW. Mudge got me laughing with that Lifetime line. I know you got a little reflective and that's fine.
Personally I'm not that deep, but I will say this. Having a woman of similar age as a close friend without some sort of romantic interest is damn near impossible. And very few women can handle a group of guys being themselves. Usually only women who were raised with lots of older brothers and are used to the vulgarity etc. So that leaves women as glorified acquaintances, at best. Unless of course, she has a nice rack.
I didn't mean anything negative by saying "Wow...I didn't realize men think so deeply about relationships". I don't feel at all that it is a weakness for a man to think like that in fact I feel it is a strength. I think it is a positive thing to "examine" your relationships. I am forever "analyzing" not just my relationships in life but pretty much everything else. I always remember my Mom saying that the term "friends" is used so loosely and that "true friends" don't come along everyday. I am blessed to have 2 sisters and some girls that I grew up with that are forever friends.
Yes, absolutely, without a doubt, selfless friendships are possible, though they are rare. They have no expectations, make no demands, and will allow years to go by without losing love for the other.
Yes, absolutely, without a doubt, selfless friends are possible, though they are rare. They have no expectations, make no demands, and will allow years to go by without losing love for the other.
(Sorry, didn't mean to post twice. Please delete this and duplicate message.)
(Sorry, didn't mean to post twice. Please delete this and duplicate message.)
(Sorry, didn't mean to post thrice. Please delete this and duplicate messages.)
It appears the I's have it.
My favorite saying in command--"There is no "I" in "TEAM"--but there is an "EAT ME"
People get so touchy when someone describes their relationship in terms of the benefits they derive from it, and the benefits that they offer to another person. I like your response to Anonymous, CW. He is an idiot and doesn't understand what you are saying.
Post a Comment