Not too long ago, there was a segment one of the morning news shows (sorry don't remember which channel but it was either NBC or ABC or CBS) in which they talked about the inability of adults to form long-lasting friendships as we get older. I don't recall all of the details but the "experts" suggested that our best friendships are formed in the sandbox and all the way through high-school and maybe a couple of years after that but that's it. Everything after that is either part of a phase of our lives or limited in terms of the bonding that the relationship affords. One of the experts even went so far as to say that we just don't even make friends as such once we're past our late teens/early 20s because we're too set in our lives, routines, and identities to make time for new people to whom we have to get used to all over again and vice versa.
Personally, I think that's just plain wrong. Four examples in order of the year in which they occurred starting with the earliest. Why 3? We're told to use 3 examples when trying to make a point and I just wanted to be different. Also 4 because I think you could write off one example as a fluke but 4 seem significant. There's many more where these came from but I'm going with 4.
Example 1 - 1997: Asad and yours truly. I interned for 5 weeks at an ad agency where Asad worked. Asad was gone for 4 of them. He came back during the last week I was there and we hit it off instantly. And that week-long interactions metamorphosed into a lifelong bond. Funny thing is we've never spent as much time together in-person as friends that I'm very close to and have grown up with. But yet he's one of the first phone calls I want to make or e-mails I want to send when I want to share something, vent, or just be plain silly.
Example 2 - 1998/9: My friend, Z, is technically my friend A's wife. Ever since they got married 7 years ago she's become one of my closest friends. Again, don't know her from Adam (relevant aside: how that phrase makes sense is something I have yet to wrap my brains around but I use it all the time) but I love her to death and she's very dear to me. Both she and A are like family. We joke about how I've become her friend as opposed to her friend-in-law over the years.
Example 3 -2006: One of my most favorite gal-pals is M, who I've gotten to know because she attended the same college as one of my best friends in Karachi. We'd probably met maybe 3 or 4 times. But thanks to the wonder that is Orkut we've stayed in regular touch over the past year and seem to have bonded while jesting away about our present singlehoood.
Example 4 - 2007: Last month, a friend of mine, MR, put me in touch with a friend of his, Im, to discuss a book project that Asad and I are hoping to start. I've never met Im and last week was the first time we spoke. It wasn't even a face-to-face conversation but a phone chat that followed on the heels of e-mail exchanges. And it was one of the easiest, most familiar-feeling conversations that I've ever had in my life that didn't just talk about the project. As Im said, we were probably trying to "map" each other. Unlike initial conversations with people you're meeting for the first time where things feel slightly laborious - like a tennis match where you know it's over if you miss the ball - I felt right at home. And I already feel like Im is someone I'd consider a friend. I know I only hung up because I had to make dinner! It was like talking to a friend who has been part of my life for ages.
So what I'm getting at is this. Based on my experience, which might well be anomalous, I think the "experts" are completely wrong. I'm a relatively private person. I'm fairly outgoing but I draw the boundaries before interactions happen. Of course these boundaries are flexible and change as the dynamics change between myself and another person. But even with my closer friends, I do hold on to a line. Others might disagree because they mistake my friendliness - which I generally am - for 'friendship'; IMHO the two are different. In these three instances, the boundaries I tend to hold on to seemed to have given way instantly. So it's not that I'm more gregarious which alters my experiences and, hence, my opinion about this news segment. I've encountered the four people I spoke of above at an age when we're clearly not playing in the sandbox and there isn't any teenage angst to bond over. Yet we seem to have conquered the odds of the rigidity of lifestyle and personality that supposedly and inevitably accompanies aging according to these experts. I'm not sure why some people hit it off and why people bond. I think they just do. I do think that there's a certain resonance and comfort level that draws people together...an overlap of experiences, ideas, thoughts, feelings, circumstances, what have you. But I don't have a more profound explanation to offer. Still, the idea that we can't form meaningful friendships after a certain age strikes me as absurd to say the very least. What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting topic. As surprised I might be by the pop-socio-pychologist on one of the Big Three channels, I think was severely absent from their research (or at least you make no reference to it) are the cultural implications that define us as individuals. This is one reason I am quite skeptical when it comes to statistical analyses, especially those that talk of a social context.
I think we connect once identify a common thread. amongst the various threads, that bind us in the fabric of life. If that particular thread is tied to a more deeper stronger core, then we develop what can be long lasting, or even life-long bonds. If it is not, then it is just a momentary event.
The "secret" (for lack of a better word) is in identifying if this particular bond is momentary, life-long, or somewhere in between. Maturity and time might help us inderstand and distinguish.
As for me, I dont want to know. I want the secret to expose itself over time. I do not want to dilute the spontaneity of life by being able to pre-determine eventualities.
*None of my posts are revised, so all mistakes and errors are mine, and unintentional*
Interesting post BW. Touches upon several concepts simultaneously but I concur with your reaction to the 'experts'. Imran's adds another meaningful layer with valid criticisms of statistical value (and accuracy), as well as the rarity (and pleasure) of spontaneity.
While I reserve the right to a complete 180 (u-turn) as life shapes my perceptions, for the moment I believe the quality (and arguably the quantity) of our relationships is solely dependent on a single variable: our attitude towards life. This is how statistical demographics are rendered irrelevant in my book; no matter what your background, your prospects, or your present misery (or fortune), it is only your attitude which dictates the quality of your interaction with the rest of society (including its four-legged constituents).
Touching upon Imran's inclusion of spontaneity into this equation, every single encounter has the potential to be meaningful. Caveat: one has to be open enough to see it as such. Proviso: Meaningful is not directly, inversely or in any way proportional to the duration of the resultant relationship. Meaningful = the step-change in your perceptions, personality, outlook and general sense of well-being as a direct result of the interaction.
Personally, I've even experienced this in split-seconds, sometimes when I'm not even part of the conversation or interaction; i.e. merely as an observer. Most of the above digresses severely from the core point of the post: the question of whether our emotional matrices are capable of lasting relationships (read friendships) beyond certain 'formative' years. The answer is YES but only if we have the right attitude.
Personally, I believe our capability to form meaningful relationships (as defined above) extends well beyond our living duration i.e. meaningful relationships are possible from the grave albeit one-way ones (of course that assumes death is final as the 'experts' would have us believe). How many times have we been seriously influenced by personalities, thoughts and egos long since departed? Happens to me all the time.
Very interesting response Asad. Before I react to what you said, I want to emphasize somethinig I just brushed over in my last post (and which should have been the core of my argument).
Also, the one point I forgot to emphasize on the blog was: Those "statistical generalizations" do not take into account the life experience of South Asians (inlcuding the diaspora). Like any cultural microcosm, we put a different emphasis and approach on long lasting bonds. Therefore, as inciteful your reaction was to that as a topic of discussion, a very interesting topic of discussion, I think the study is not apt to our experiences. Am I making sense?
I thought about what you said about attitdues, and how they can affect our bonds beyond X number of years. I think I do agree with you. Attitudes shape. Attitudes dictate. Attitudes can not only mould our approach to any dimension in life, they are also equally influential in deciding whether or not our relationships, beyond the age of 30 (all of us are in our early thirties I gather) can be long term and satisfactory.
I think the only thing that might hold us back is that very romantic idea of being friends since grade 4 (or Class 5 ;) which suggests that like wine, friendships can only mature into a frugal relationship if they are that old.
I continue to meet people face to face and they make me WANT to know them. Sometimes I havent met them, and I am still interested in what they have to say (look at your favorites lists. I am sure you have blogs and columns belonging to people you have not met).
Correct me if I am wrong, but dont we begin to look even a little more pro-actively to seek connections, once we reach the 'maturity' of our thirties (it could be business networking, friendship... heck even love!)
*unrevised post again*
ok para 2 is completely mucked up with pronouns... you=BW. Para 3 and beyond is a response to asad... sorry for the confusion!
Thanks Imran and Saad for your thoughts. Some more of mine in response.
1. I thought these two sentences from Imran's first set of comments, especially when taken together, were brilliant: "I want the secret to expose itself over time. I do not want to dilute the spontaneity of life by being able to pre-determine eventualities." This got me thinking about the extension of statistical analyses and generalizations to social contexts that you mentioned and I couldn't agree more. In fact, I probably go beyond being skeptical into disagreeing vehemently. It's not so much that statistical analyses bother me. If you like figuring out how many % of people are excited about X well then go crazy by all means. It's the way in which these numbers are used to advance predictions and make generalizations that irks me - they might reflect the reality we study or navigate but it misses out all the interesting stuff and presumes that just because a certain percentage or number of people think or act a certain way then that somehow explains how our lives and worlds come to be as they are. It's not numbers that are interesting but the patterns they point us to. So, for example, if the average age at which women now marry in England has risen to 32 over the last couple of years then it beckons asking questions about several things ranging from how the institution of marriage is viewed to how this rise impacts parenting styles as the average age at which a married couple has kids will also rise to how perceptions of the role of women have changed in this society. Now that list of options merely scratches the surface. What I want to say is that patterns and how they're woven into narratives is much more interesting and has a lot more to say about our worlds and lives than a list of (meaningless, decontextualized) numbers. If anything is interesting is our response to statistics about social life - shows how we've constructed what's acceptable and what's not. That's the main reason why I shift away from statistical generalizations in my dissertation to tracing causal mechanisms that produce social patterns. Just because we see particular mechanisms across contexts doesn't mean we'll see the same outcome in every instance - be it different spaces or different times.
2. Saad you're right - the post touches upon several concepts simultaneously and I've only waxed semi-poetic about a couple.
3. When it comes to meaningful, I'm inclined to define it not as some abstract measure whereby more = necessarily good. Meaningful to me is akin to "meaning-full" if you will. That is, how you interpret and make sense of an interaction forms particular ties, relations, whatever you want to call that. Saad, I like the idea of not restricting the ability of capability to form meaningful connections during one's lifetime. I see the extension not only as temporal but also spatial.
4. Imran you're making perfect sense re: the study not speaking to South Asian experiences, including those of us in the diaspora who live outside South Asia but remain fairly South Asian. [Relevant aside: I think diaspora communities are intensely fascinating be they South Asian, African, North American, etc. It's always interesting to watch people occupy an in-between space and negotiate/form their 'selves' in response to not belonging exclusively to the 'here' they are in or the 'there' they were a part of. Same goes I think for groups of people caught between transitions in modes of being including values, identities, etc. The most obvious that comes to mind is "tradition" and "modernity"...both loaded terms of course that stand in need of further explication but you get the basic idea?] I also doubt the study speaks to any experiences per se but I continue to be fascinated by the attention people pay to these things.
5. On the assumption that old friends and fine wine follow the same principle. I've been thinking about this for a while. I treasure my childhood friendships. Some of them are the closest friendships I have today. But even so, and there is no offense intended to anyone here, I feel I have a different kind of affinity for friendships and bonds I've cultivated beyond high school. I think it's partly because those people know the person I've become much better than my childhood friends might - not because we've parted ways but because our lives have taken us in directions that resulted in different experiences. Strangely, I still feel a stronger bond with my closer childhood friends but I think that has more to do with the attitudes of which you two speak. The overlaps in lives, opinions, dreams, aspirations still bind us together. But strangely I feel that my newer friends know me better in some ways. Strange that I wrote strange, yes? Fell right back into the old wine trap there didn't I :-).
6. Based on personal experience, I'd say that we do seek connections perhaps a little more proactively in the "maturity of our 30s" Imran put it. I wonder why. Perhaps my bit about affinity and post-high school friendships might be relevant here.
7. I always reserve the right to a complete 180 :-). Takes us back to attitudes as you both mentioned + Saad's proviso ala 'meaningful'. I wonder if the notion "as you become older you become more set in your ways" has something to do with the general inclination towards the "old wine and friends" comparison. We think those friendships are somehow more meaningful - or rather we feel we have to think that way. There's a tendency to equate longevity with knowing someone inside and out. But what if you can know someone in a matter of seconds without knowing everything about them? Which can happen - I'm presuming we've all experienced it. We're back to the core that binds us. I'd say I'd like to know how that works except I also believe that our words sometimes fail us when we try to rationalize human emotions. They just are what they are.
Onwards :-)....
Post a Comment