Friendships in the "Western world"- Part 3- Truths and myths about friendships

The belief that "you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family" is too simplistic

There is some truth in it regarding the immediate nuclear family, e.g. we can't choose who our parents and siblings are, and as children we often have a very limited ability to choose whether or not to stay in significant relationships with them.

But other than that, the distinction is largely arbitrary.  The idea is, if I am related to someone to within a few generations, I cannot choose to opt out of having a relationship with the person, even if it is toxic or abusive, whereas if I am not, then I am free to dispose of that relationship whenever I like, and if the other person doesn't like it, tough.  OK, it isn't generally quite as black-and-white as that, but strong elements of this often creep into how many of us view "family" and "friends".

No type of relationship is indestructible- and that includes "true" friendships

While some relationships fail because one or both parties screwed each other over, sometimes relationships can be lost or damaged without either party doing much wrong.  Relationships can drift apart over time, or incompatibilities can develop as a result of changed circumstances, or sometimes, people make mistakes and inadvertently hurt each other.  In tragic cases, relationships can be lost as a result of relational aggression.  When we realise that the other party may not have done a lot wrong, it helps to prevent the development of hard feelings, and improves our chances of saving those relationships, or at least avoiding messy splits.

But in friendships (read: between people who are not related to within a few generations), there is a popular myth that "a true friend would stand by you no matter what".  It enables us to believe that "true" friendships are indestructible, and so when we lose friends, we soothe our pain by arguing, "No 'true' friendship could possibly be lost, so therefore, he or she wasn't worth having as a friend anyway", a stark example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.  This belief is destructive as it means that when friendships are lost or damaged, we tend to assume that we have been screwed over, and end up permanently holding grudges against past friends for things that they haven't done, resulting in friendships being permanently lost where, in some cases, they could have been saved, or dropped for a while and resurrected later on.

Repairing damaged friendships- truths and myths

When relationships start malfunctioning, it can be for reasons that we can address, in which case it is often best to address them, so that we can continue the relationships.  Sometimes, though, the reasons can be more fundamental, in which case it is often best to let the relationships go.  Also, typically, the more meaningful the relationship is, the more it is worth erring on the side of persevering with it.  But in the case of friendships, there is a popular mentality of, "If you're having to fight to keep a friendship, don't bother, just drop it and move on, you can always make new friends", which relates to the idea that friendships are disposable.

Resurrecting past friendships- truths and myths

Sometimes past relationships are worth resurrecting, and sometimes they are not.  It all depends on how meaningful they were in the first place, why they were previously lost, and whether or not circumstances have changed sufficiently to make it unlikely that they will fail for the same reasons as they did previously.  Objectively, moving on is always about adapting to present-day circumstances.

But in friendships there is a popular myth that "moving on" means "cutting 'old' friends out of your life"- the argument goes, "I'm not associating with X ever again, because we were previously friends and then ceased being friends, and X is now part of a past chapter of my life."  Many of us feel justified in giving our "old" friends the "silent treatment" and leaving it up to them to "get the hint", rather than telling them that we no longer want to be their friends.  All of this relates to the perception that friendships are disposable.  Objectively, it is not moving on, it is a way of holding grudges, as we never move forward from the point at which we stopped being friends with them.  There can be good reasons for not resurrecting a past friendship, but "Friendships are disposable" is not one of them.

It is a particularly big issue in cases of relational aggression because, when perpetrators succeed in isolating an individual from a social group, the group may then perceive keeping the individual permanently shut out of the group as "moving on".

Making "new" friends to replace "old" ones is often much easier said than done

Making meaningful friendships that feature genuine feelings of mutual affection often takes a lot of time- sometimes years rather than months.  So, when I build up a network of close friends at Institution A, and then move over to Institution B, I cannot just abandon the friends that I made at A, and expect to be able to walk into similarly close friendships at Institution B.  At best, there is likely to be an interim period where I suffer the loss of friends from A, and am still in the process of building up similarly good friendships at B.  At worst, I may not be able to make similarly good friends at B.  After all, close friends who are dependable can be hard to find and not all social groups necessarily contain them.

The "You can always make new friends" idea is essentially a myth- it works if we're talking moving from one set of acquaintances to another, but then they aren't really "friends", they are acquaintances.