(no subject)

[wordplay]

A friend and I were having a conversation about the expectations of friends and how we're supposed to manage them. We were talking about things that friends had done recently that had really kind of disappointed us, things that we thought were beneath them. I said, well, I probably shouldn't have said a single word about that, because it's not really my JOB to tell people what I think about everything. And then she said, yeah, no, it's really not, and told me a story about how she had been really disappointed in a friend and somebody said, well, no - you can't be disappointed, because you're not responsible for her behavior.

And I'm really not sure. I get proud for friends, people who I watch struggle and who I KNOW have had to work so hard, and by the logic of no-responsibility I'm not supposed to feel that, either. And I really believe in the regulatory power of the social network, the little groups that we build around us to help shape our visions of ourselves and our expectations for our lives. I think it's nice to have people have expectations of us. So few of us are part of church families or the kind of extended social networks that model tribal relationships; few of us are near our extended families. That kind of freedom is so, well, freeing but I do wonder if we're happier (as the social creatures humans are, even those of us who are strongly introverted) if we have more people pulling at us, giving us expectations and parameters. It doesn't FEEL true (I spend a portion of my life feeling like people are chipping away at my autonomy and trying not to resent the people I love - it's not pretty, I know, but there you are) but I wonder if it is, anyway. Do we have some kind of ownership in our friends' lives, a kind of investment in the people they are?

What do you think?

Comments

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

Do we have some kind of ownership in our friends' lives, a kind of investment in the people they are?

Of course we do. There is a non-trivial extent to which the people our friends are reflects on us, right; we are known in part by the society we keep. See, e.g.: Wright, Jeremiah A.

So with that in mind, it's totally not wrong to be disappointed when our friends, well, disappoint us. But I don't think that's the kind of disappointment-in-people you're actually talking about. You're not speaking of Transgressions that are serious enough to have you saying Look, I cannot be associated with this person, any more than you're speaking of Achievements or whatever that are impressive enough that they reflect on you merely by being friends with that person. You're just talking about Hmm, I'd have played that differently -- and of course it's not wrong to feel that way (as if you could change your knee-jerk reactions anyway), just like it's never wrong to be pleased for them when they succeed. (Unless you're Gore Vidal: "Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little."*)

I lost my train of thought in there for a second. Hope it makes sense. To sum up, I suggest that there are two paradigms: in one, the actions of our associates reflect on us, and therefore we have standing to be negatively critical if our associates' behavior warrants it. The standard for inclusion in this category is pretty high, I'd say, behavior-wise, though it's lower the closer the person is to us, so we have more standing with our close friends and our parents and our siblings and our spouses and children (in approximately that order). In the other, we have opinions with regard to the actions of our associates, but because those actions don't really impact us directly or indirectly it's not really for us to get involved. So in that group, it's not our place to criticize. (This theory assumes that praise is always welcome and appropriate; it's not, but that's not really the question here.)

So is what's happening that you're crossing wires? When you feel proud for friends who have struggled and worked hard etc., you're happy for them, but not because it makes you look good to be friends with such a person, right? It's not the same as the kind of naches you feel when your kids do well in school or sing great in the pageant or whatever. Similarly, when you feel disappointed in your friends for Whatever, is it because you think people whose opinions you value will think less of you for being friends with those people? And if not, why stir shit up by calling them on it?

Okay, I've stopped making sense now. I'm just trying to work out if I'm the one having the conversation in your intro; could be, but I don't remember what story I'd have told at the end of the first graf.


*There's a chance this was actually Oscar Wilde, and what Gore Vidal said was "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." Anh. The idea's the same.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

why stir shit up by calling them on it?

Well, I mean, that's it, isn't it? It's not about reflecting on me, it's much more about wanting them to be better people because I care about them, because I believe that being a better, healthier person is its own reward and will ultimately bring more happiness. So, you know, you stir some shit up today but you eventually help things to be better, more deeply and fundamentally better.

I'm just not completely sure it works that way. I think it SHOULD, and I think it CAN, I'm just not sure it does.

And heh, no, I'm making specific reference to a chat I had today, although I know why you consider yourself a likely candidate. :D

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

wanting them to be better people because I care about them

Well; I guess the other thing is, the line there is drawn somewhere between being a decent member of society (on the one hand) and conforming to one individual's preferences (on the other). You know? I mean, you say eventually you help things to be more deeply and fundamentally better -- that's skating perilously close to who the fuck are you, isn't it? Anecdote: in high school, I had a friend who insisted on praying for me (and other non-believing friends) because she cared about us and wanted us to live better, healthier, happier lives etc. She didn't try to get us to pray or come to her church, right, but she did believe that there was some way she could help us to make our lives more deeply and fundamentally better.

Right?

Put another way: be "better people" according to whom, by whose standards? Yours, obviously. But there are issues on which it's worth stirring shit up if someone is behaving in a way I don't like (case in point: last winter, "Jews don't do Christmas music at the National Cathedral", remember?) and ones where, from my POV, face it, I'm not your wife and I'm not your mother, so there's a point past which it's not really my business how you choose to behave. (Not you you. The hypothetical "you" here.) It's only fair to tell a person if it's getting to a friendship-breaking place with something they could and would change if they knew you cared, but if it's just petty preferences, do I get to decide how and to what degree everyone should Be A Better Person?

signed,
but I still spell my kind of libertarian with a lower-case L, thanks :-D

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

I mean, this is really the core of this issue, and it's where I get uncomfortable, b/c of all of these issues with personal will and individual difference - I perfectly understand what you are saying. But I also think that, OK, part of this other person's personal will is telling me to fuck off, or saying that no no no, I've got it all wrong, they're not at all interested in being that person I thought they wanted to be. I mean, obviously, I have no trouble telling the Mormon missionaries (or my mother) that I'm really not interested in being Christian, and that's part of MY job, not theirs.

I think that the core of our disagreement here actually lies in the details - I mean, who WOULD rock the boat over petty preferences? I don't give a fuck what other people eat for breakfast. But yeah, I think that if I see a friend running headfirst into an emotional wall in a way that I really think is going to give them a Life concussion, I really need to tell them, even if it's going to hurt them and piss them off and make things hard for a while. Similarly, if someone has disappointed me so badly that I'm not sure I can be close to them anymore, I really do think I do better to tell them, "OK, you didn't do this TO ME, but you did it, and who the fuck ARE YOU, anyway, I don't understand this person you are and this is why I can't talk to you anymore." I've done it the other way, where I just removed myself from the life of somebody because I was so disappointed and hurt, and I'm not proud. I would have done her, me, and everybody around us a service by having the balls to tell her exactly what I thought she'd done before I swept out the door.

At a certain point, with all of our lives so unconnected, I'm not sure what mirrors we're supposed to be gazing in. I think we're fundamentally very good at self-deception and that if we're counting on our parents, our partners and ourselves, we're in trouble.

Oh dear, is my J showing? :D

[freya]

I try to behave because of the people around me. I can think of a few instances when I haven't done something because (says my brain) Simon would be disappointed.

I guess you have as much ownership as you're willing to give people. I don't want people to be disappointed in me, so I try to behave in a way that is at least passable, if not always in a way you can be proud of.

I know what I take pride in having done and what makes me feel bad about myself. I want my friends to be able to stand up and say "Yes, I did well there." and if they don't, I want to be able to say it about them. I don't like condemning the behaviour of a friend and thinking that someone I love isn't worthy of it. It does lessen you if the people you love aren't worthy of your respect, you owe it to your friends not to cheapen them like that.

*has Opinions*

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

So, wait, this last bit

I don't like condemning the behaviour of a friend and thinking that someone I love isn't worthy of it. It does lessen you if the people you love aren't worthy of your respect, you owe it to your friends not to cheapen them like that.

Do you mean there that it lessens me if I am sometimes disappointed in actions that my friends take, or that it lessens me if I am not willing to hold their actions up to that kind of standard of judgment?

[freya]

No. I mean that if you nail your colours to someone who then acts in a way that diminishes them in the eyes of others, it reflects on you. As a friend, I think you have an obligation to consider this in your actions. I think you also have a right to expect your friends to consider it.

[freya]

Gah! Let's try again and I'll try not to sound like a judgemental arsehole.

There are different types of friend. The ones we like and the ones we love. The tendency with the ones we love is to invest a lot of time, emotion and trust in them. We place large amounts of our lives in their hands. We recommend them to other friends as people, we publicly state our support for them and like for them and help them if we can.

With this type of friend, after you have put all that into them, you link yourself to them, both personally and in everyone else's mind. If they act in a way that you cannot condone, you have to publically condemn them and probably remove your friendship or you are tarred with the same brush.

When your own moral compass does not prevent you acting in a certain way, it is possible that the way it will reflect on your friends might, nay, should.

Obviously you should act as your conscience dictates, but you have to be able to justify yourself to at least your own, if not your friends satisfaction, otherwise you have callously and selfishly hurt the people that care about you.

[misscake]

I think it depends on the friendship and how much you care about the person.

I mean, really, when you feel strongly enough to tell someone that they've disappointed you it's not because their actions is reflecting on you but because you honestly know that person is capable of more. Or people you care enough about them to not want to see them make an ass of themselves.

The people that I feel closest to and respect the most are the ones that I totally expect to tell me when I've been an idiot. And they are also the ones I feel that I can be honest with and tell them that they've been an idiot. But then that is me and that is how I value my friends and friendships.

Oh god, I haven't been the idiot, have I? Go on... you can tell me!

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

Don't be silly!

Also, I miss you.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think you can't help feeling disappointed if that's how you feel, but that's not the same as feeling you own the person or are being too judgmental. You can totally respect your friend's freedom and know their lives are up to them and still occasionally tell them if they've done something you thought was beneath them. Of course some people cross that line into where it really isn't their business or where they're not being appropriate. I mean, like, if a friend is telling you you should have taken a job you didn't want or shouldn't divorce your spouse when you think it's a right thing. That's going to cause problems. But being a friend is a give and take and I'd think it's assumed you have some expecations about the other person's character.

If you don't care at all what they do one way or the other, that's not always a sign of friendship. Sometimes it just means you don't care. To take an extreme example, if your friend is addicted to drugs are you a better friend to just not care or to be someone who says, "Hey, I'm not going to tell you what to do but it's upsetting to me to see you doing stuff I think is harmful to yourself."