Aside from my family, what I miss most about India as an adult living in the US, are my friends from childhood and college days. I have often wondered how much of that nostalgia for the youthful friendships pertains to the joyous recall of a time when I myself was young, brave and eagerly looking forward to an unknown future and how much is for the friends themselves. There have been occasions when I have bumped into friends from that era. Some meetings were awkward and self conscious. After a gap of many years it was difficult to find common ground. At other times I would meet a long lost friend and we would enthusiastically pick up from where we'd left off - years ago. What contributes to the difference in the quality of the reunions?
Ethan Leib at Prawfs Blawg is currently in the process of writing an article on "friendship." Off and on, he has posed questions regarding the nature of friendship. For example, is friendship a "side by side" relationship as opposed to the "face to face" nature of a romantic one? I tend to think so. With friends we don't so much as look at each other but rather, at the world - together. Our world views are often what most accurately and predictably define our friendships. Recently, Ethan asked if true friendships survive better in groups or one on one. Or can it be that we fare better in groups when young but drift into more intimate dyads as we age? I would ask an additional question: is it different for men and women? Interesting questions of philosophy, psychology and anthropology. I look forward to Ethan's article and hope to share it with readers when it is published.
Last week I found the following article in the Houston Chronicle. It has some interesting and startling data about the state of friendship in America. Also, can friendship be defined in the old fashioned way? Does friendship on the internet count? Via email, blogs and other web based connections?
"WASHINGTON - Americans, who shocked pollsters in 1985 when they said they had only three close friends, today say they have just two. And the number who say they've no one to discuss important matters with has doubled to 1 in 4, according to a nationwide survey to be released today. It found that men and women of every race, age and education level reported fewer intimate friends than the same survey turned up in 1985.
Their remaining confidants were more likely to be members of their nuclear family than in 1985, according to the study, but intimacy within families was down, too. The findings are reported in the June issue of the American Sociological Review.
Weakening bonds of friendship, which other studies affirm, have far-reaching effects. Among them: fewer people to turn to for help in crises such as Hurricane Katrina, fewer watchdogs to deter neighborhood crime, fewer visitors for hospital patients and fewer participants in community groups. The decline, which was greatest in estimates of the number of friends outside the family, also puts added pressure on spouses, families and counselors.
One explanation for friendship's decline is that adults are working longer hours and socializing less. That includes women who, when they were homemakers, tended to have strong community networks. In addition, commutes are longer, and television viewing and computer use are up. Another factor, study co-author Lynn Smith-Lovin, a sociologist at Duke University in Durham, N.Csaid, may have been confusion among some of those polled on how to count e-mail friendships.
She speculated that social isolation may have made Hurricane Katrina worse. "The people we saw sitting on roofs after Katrina hit were probably people without close ties to someone with a car to get them out," she said.....
Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone, the 2000 best-seller on declining American civic life, said people pay a price when bonds of friendship weaken. "Communities that have tighter social networks have lower crime and lower mortality and less corruption and more effective government and less tax evasion," he said."
The above definitions of friendship appear to be mostly "need" related - support, help, dependability etc. And no doubt we seek and expect emotional and sometimes, material support from our friends. But what about fun, good natured competition and being comfortable with each other as the basis for enduring friendships? How many of us find that worthwhile? The reasons why I seek friends have changed over the years. But I still look for an element of innocent and absurd fun with my friends. While I have many friends who are trustworthy, dependable, kind and generous, the ones whose company I most enjoy are those with whom an informal, unstructured camaraderie is possible. With whom a serious conversation can often dissolve into hysterical laughter without warning. My husband thinks I am childish in that respect - to seek fun in adult friendships.
I don't think that it is childish - perhaps childlike. At some level, I believe that "friendship" is primarily a childhood aptitude. Unless adults can recapture the essence of the youthful, unencumbered, carefree, "side by side" relationship, adult relationships do not turn into close friendships. Throughout my life, in every place I have lived, I have gravitated towards groups of women whom I meet through leisure activities and who have nothing to do with my profession, my husband or my children. We find common ground based on shared interests, world views and a lack of material and emotional expectations from each other. In such company, I find that my friends and I revert to our girlish natures. Although we are interested in each other, we rarely talk about money or about our intimate family details unless there is a crisis. We often call upon each other for help (and get it) but that is not the foundation of the relationship. Although a "friend in need" is the much touted ideal, "a friend in laughter" is equally important. In a distressful situation, I believe that I can call upon a casual acquaintance or even a complete stranger and nine out of ten times, I will receive their help. It is the joyous occasions - the news of personal triumphs, humorous situations or a stroke of good luck that I cannot share with just anybody. For that one needs family and friends of good will. Conversations, which in childhood used to beging with "Want to play?" now begin with "What's up?" and "How about lunch?" with close adult friends. And those are the friends with whom even after years of absence, you can pick up the thread of friendship without much effort.
Note: Friends don't just DO things for you. They can make YOU do amazing things.
Truly good friends are hard to find. But once you find them they are your true friends for a long time - maybe forever. I feel that I don't have too many really "good " friends - people who are fun to be with, who will discuss serious issues intelligently with you, who are genuinely happy for you when something good occurs, and who respects the other's feelings and beliefs. Also, "good" friends can get lost in time when together like having lunch that goes on for 2-3 hours.
I agree with you, Ruchira, that the best friends are those that you can laugh and be silly with. My sisters are like that and when we are in the same room there is always a lot of laughter.
I think that true friends don't lose their feelings for each other over the years, but can pick up from where they left off even though years may have gone by.
Also, I don't think one person will have too many of this type of friend.
Posted by: jackie | June 28, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Jackie:
Remember the lunches you and I used to enjoy! You mention you sisters. My sister and I are exactly like that. Our husbands feel left out when we are together. And yes, we laugh a lot.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | June 28, 2006 at 10:19 PM