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.

Friendships in the "Western world" part 4- Relational aggression

What is relational aggression?

One of the biggest challenges that a friendship can face is relational aggression, which typically involves one or more of the following techniques, which serve to damage the recipient's friendships and reputation.  Some of the most common techniques include:

• Encouraging members of a social group to ignore and/or exclude a recipient, e.g. threatening them that they will be isolated from the group unless they withdraw from friendships with the recipient.
• Spreading negative rumours about the recipient, to damage the recipient's reputation within the group.  For example, spotting a man hugging a female friend, and then spreading rumours accusing him of having ulterior sexual motives for doing so, or making out that he groped her.
• Giving recipients the "silent treatment", i.e. treating them as if they don't exist, giving them a sense of being in trouble but keeping them guessing as to why, and how much.
• Isolating recipients from participation in social groups, e.g. arranging events where everybody else is invited but the recipient is excluded.

The negative impacts of this type of aggression are "invisible" and thus are harder to spot than with physical and verbal forms of abuse, and are easily overlooked.  Another problem is that people sometimes apply these techniques inadvertently, with neutral or positive intentions, and don't realise how damaging they are.  For example, some use the "silent treatment" on the basis, "I'd rather not hurt X's feelings by giving X bad news, so I'll say nothing", or see giving "old" friends the "silent treatment" as part of "moving on" from the "old" to the "new".  Social groups may isolate recipients without realising that they are doing so.  Someone may express legitimate concerns about the possibility of a non-sexual friendship turning sexual, and inadvertently trigger a series of damaging rumours that circulate around associated social groups.

This behaviour tends to escalate into a form of bullying, even when it starts off well-intentioned, and it is often very damaging regardless of the intentions behind it, and sometimes even a one-off incident can cause a lot of damage, and so recipients need help.

The perception that friendships are disposable contributes to relational aggression not being taken seriously enough

When people suffer from relational aggression, and it threatens their relationships with "family" (people who are related to within a few generations) it is often taken very seriously, but in my experience, it is often dismissed if the recipients are "only" in danger of being isolated from friends.  Here are some responses that I am used to coming across:

"If you're suffering from relational aggression, just walk away."

The problem with this type of aggression is that it is often hard for recipients to walk away from the perpetrators without also withdrawing from the social groups that they are in danger of being isolated from, thus effectively surrendering to the problem.

"So what's the big deal?  Friendships come and go anyway, and you can always make new friends.  If you're having to fight to keep friendships, they aren't worth persevering with- just leave them in the past, move on, focus on making new friends."

"Once you have been isolated from a group and had your reputation ruined, you have to just accept, that's it, they don't want to associate with you any more.  People 'move on' from 'old' friends, and if you try too hard to repair the damage to your social status and reputation, you could get done for harassment, for repeated unwanted attempts to re-connect with past friends who have decided to permanently leave you in the past."

Ouch.  So, not only do the recipients not get help with the relational aggression, they are told that if they try too hard to take a stand against it, they will get into trouble.  And, pairs of friends are encouraged to blame each other for the pain that the perpetrators of relational aggression are inflicting upon them, which plays perfectly into the hands of the perpetrators.

"Just accept, some friendships don't work out, and that's life."

Some friendships do fail for reasons that can't be helped, but others fail for reasons that can be.  A friendship failing because it was targeted by relational aggression, and the recipients were unable to get help because too many people just stood there saying "That's life", is an extremely painful experience.

"A true friend would stand by you no matter what, regardless of outside pressure.  Therefore if you lose a friend as a result of outside pressure, he/she wasn't a true friend anyway."

This unrealistic definition of a "true friend" (a classic example of the No true Scotsman fallacy) serves to blind people to the amount of damage that relational aggression can cause.  The argument goes, relational aggression can't really cause much damage, for either the recipient is not under threat of social isolation or reputation damage, or the people that the recipient is in danger of being isolated from are not "true" friends.

In reality, "true" friendships can be associated with the most damaging break-ups, especially if the friends make a strong effort to stand by each other, but the friendship then cracks, leaving them with a strong sense of having let each other down in a big way despite their best efforts.  In the worst cases, people can go abruptly from being close friends to being enemies, which can be far worse than bereavement (for rather than merely losing a relationship, a good relationship is replaced with a bad one).  Recipients in these situations generally find that others refuse to acknowledge their predicament, arguing, "No, this cannot possibly happen to anybody- if you are isolated from friends, it means that they weren't true friends."

Relational aggression can and should be addressed

As I know from experience, experiences of suffering from relational aggression can damage our confidence in making and keeping friendships- after having had experiences of "old" friends being lost, where relational aggression was a significant factor, and was allowed to go ahead without opposition, there is a tendency to fear that any "new" friendships that we make will be vulnerable to being lost in the same way.  This can trigger a vicious cycle of social and emotional isolation.

I am not necessarily suggesting that perpetrators should be dealt with harshly, because while sometimes relational aggression occurs as part of ongoing bullying, sometimes the perpetrators have neutral or positive intentions and genuinely don't realise how much harm they are causing.  But regardless of the intent, recipients need to be able to get help, rather than having their predicament dismissed, as the impacts can be significantly worse than those of physical and verbal abuse.  And, since we do often deal effectively with relational aggression when it is directed against "family" relationships (between people who are related to within a few generations) there is no reason why we can't with "non-family" friendships.