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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2008-06-06 10:33 pm (UTC)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.