Fictional Spectualtion About Friendship
I’ve heard that affairs are common at work and surrounding ongoing traumatic events because relationships are formed around the events/tasks themselves and not on caring about who the person actually is. In such a pragmatic society, it seems we are prone to do the same on the platonic level of friendship — minus the whole extramarital sexual-tension thing of course.
Whether at work, at church, at school, or in your neighborhood, it seems so easy to think we are experiencing genuine friendship in such relationships but are we really experiencing shallow relationships built on common tasks, objectives and/or locations? When that common task, objective, and/or location is removed, what is to be said for the relationship then? When what once caused you to know the going ons of a person’s life is removed, do you care enough about the person themselves to remain involved in their life, know what’s going, and care about them as an individual?
Regarding myself, I must answer this question with, “no, usually not.” What does this say for my knowledge/experience of friendship? It is easy just to explain it away and say that it is impossible to remain involved in others’ lives as the winds of change blow through ours. I think it’s true that friendship will evolve and fluctuate in its degrees, but we must be sure it is a friendship built on care and not just a convenient acquaintance hiding behind tasks and common goals.
This is a work of fictional speculation. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Just an overall observation from my life. All my relationships have been built on proximity. My parents, friends from the neighborhood, friends from class, they all were in a close proximity.
As adults, tasks require a certain level of proximity. In that sense, the task is a vital component to create the environment for relationship, but it cannot be the sole means to maintain it.
The true friendships in my life have outlasted the task and the proximity factor. But because of proximity, I don’t have the same opportunities to keep up with everyone. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Ditto that Kev.
When I was in college, I ran with a dozen or so close friends. Not just acquaintances — friends. Now, almost 15 years later, I still keep up with many of them. It’s not as frequent as I’d like, but it happens. The thing is, it generally takes an occasion to make it happen. One of them even lives here in Atlanta, but without a reason to get together, we just don’t keep up with each other.
Having said that, whenever I do get a chance to catch up with old friends, it’s usually one of those “wow, it’s been a year, but we can pick up right where we left off” kind of things. Sometimes it isn’t, and that’s a bummer… but we’re finite, fallen creatures and that’s to be expected.
One last thought about “convenient acquaintance[s] hiding behind tasks and common goals:” there are a lot of lonely people in the world who would love to have even one “convenient acquaintance.” Grace comes in odd forms sometimes.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
I think all three of you have made good points. I would add…
Some of the deepest and most lasting relationships are born out of common goals and convenience. College room mates don’t usually choose each other. The boys of Easy Company (chronicled in Band of Brothers) came together purely to accomplish a task. However, it was a big one, and they put their lives on the line for one another.
Perhaps we have shallow relationships because we have shallow common tasks (or at least view them that way).
March 18th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Here’s an interesting video that deal with the topic and goes on to how the current church model for small groups is inherently flawed.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Helping/CCNT1103.htm
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Thankfully, my life wheel doesn’t have all those spokes!