Interesting food for thought! I've been thinking along similar lines regarding friendship: like with other virtues people know they ought to value, revealed preferences say otherwise.
Many aspects of friendship have been unbundled and commoditised: a favourite podcast dishes the dirt on our imagined nemeses; a therapist offers a sympathetic ear; a Feeld date adds a splash of excitement. And with the genius economics of the Internet, we don't even have to pay for it (except for the therapist, who can probably soon be replaced by an equally effective, but free, AI version).
Especially if one has cultivated a rarefied personal perspective, the incremental benefit may not seem worth the the effort of making common cause with those around you.
Yeah I mean people seem so lonely, but given the choice between seeing people or canceling, they usually cancel. Kinda like getting married, they want love but not at all costs. Maybe we are all just systematically choosing poorly, or maybe there is some deeper truth that causes us to choose our misery. Hard to say
I would sometimes joke with my students when I walked into class (where they’d sit with the lights off, hunched over their phones) about how “those accounts you’re interacting with can’t be more interesting than the flesh-and-blood person sitting next to you! Flirt with each other or something!” But one day it hit me in the middle of my spiel that, of course, just in terms of probability and how attention-economy works, whatever parasocial thing they were mixed up in at a given moment was almost certainly more interesting than the other 19 year-old they were randomly sitting next to. I stopped doing this.
It was funny and disturbing in equal measure. I do think you’re onto something, though, with the hyper-self-individuating process. It reminds me of some points of Richard Sennett in The Fall of Public Man.
"If people are close to each other to the extent that they know about each other, then interpersonal knowledge becomes a matter of reciprocal revelation. When two people are out of revelations, and the market exchange has come to an end, all too often the relationship comes to an end. It is exhausted because “there is nothing more to say,” each person comes to take the other “for granted.” Boredom is the logical consequence of intimacy as an exchange relationship. This exhaustion perfectly complements the narcissistic conviction that whatever gratifications one is receiving at the moment are not all that one could receive, or, inverted, that one is not really feeling enough for the relationship to be “real.” (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)
Like obviously he’s taking the critical, Laschian gloss on this as “narcissism,” and what you seem to be describing (and Proust) isn’t so much the interaction or relationship as used up or exhausted than not-quite-a-fit. But in other places he speaks of this hyper-particularity as being a democratized Romantic quest for self. But it could just as soon be seen kind of neutrally (which is what I meant by the phones thing): that people really are just individuated beyond wanting as strongly what we’re told that we do.
"Personally, I think of friendship and community as animal needs. Mankind simply can't be alone. We are social animals. That's why I tend to seek out in-person friends and in-person community over online community. There's something about seeing and hearing and smelling another human being that's inherently more satisfying than exchanging text messages with them."
Excellent point. This is what I train prospective volunteers on during the peer support training I co-facilitate regularly for my agency (Shanti Project in SF). It is a valuable idea for trainees when trying to understand the isolation many of our clients face. It's also a valuable idea for the trainees themselves, personally, because many of them come to volunteer because they themselves are feeling a lack of community, a lack of human connection. Not surprising, as many of them work in tech.
I thought this was a really interesting essay, and what really strikes me is that you say friendship is conformist, and of course you're right, but all these examples are of friendships which you didn't continue because they didn't agree with *you*.
Like you, I'm dubious that polyamory is going to save anyone's marriage, and I think you're right that humouring someone isn't enough, but I think participation in that context just means genuinely being a friend - listening, trying to understand where they're coming from, and giving them support. You don't need to agree that someone is making the best possible choice to be a friend.
And stopping writing your own letter because of someone else's choice of which elected official they chose to write to - elected officials whose literal job involves fielding those kind of letters! It's not just that you disagreed with their choice or talked to them about it, you didn't want to participate in the group at all because they made a choice that you didn't agree with, but which didn't affect you in any way.
You even said that not everyone else in the letter writing campaign agreed with their choice, only "most" of them. But it was only you who stopped writing your letter in protest at their choice (presumably, you don't actually say. Maybe several of you all objected so much as to which elected official to write to that you stopped writing letters!)
I do think there are choices that I would stop being friends with people over or leave an activity that are totally legitimate, like being transphobic for example. But for writing a letter to a different elected official than I would choose, or for approaching their marriage differently than I would? It seems less like you don't fit in because other people demand conformity and more because you want conformity, and you don't want to be friends with people who make certain minor decisions that you don't agree with.
I think friendship and community requires not conformity but a certain amount of tolerance and respect for people even when they make different choices than you would. I have to say your post resonated with me, which is why I've been thinking about it and I'm writing this response - I also find it difficult sometimes when people have different opinions on some admittedly quite minor things. But it's a good reminder that friendship means meeting people where they're at.
I think also if you're approaching activities because you want to fit in and conform rather than approaching them because you enjoy them, you end up feeling very isolated. Like your burners - if you don't enjoy raves and flashing lights and feeling like you're pushing the boundaries, why do you want to join that community? It's not about conformity so much as that's literally what that group is about. It's like joining a classical music group and complaining because you don't like classical music!
I hope this doesn't come across as critical, it's just what struck me from your essay and like I said I see quite a lot of myself in it as well. Thank you for making me think about this.
I'm still friends with all these people and part of all these groups.
I think you can't pick and choose what communities you're part of. I can't go back in time and make different college friends. I've been part of two coworking spaces and I remained at the one I liked more. My kid can't just keep going to new preschools in case I'll like a different group better. Ultimately the people around you are what you get. The very desire to pick and choose different people, to pack up and leave a community if it doesn't agree with you in every particular, is what leads to loneliness. On the other hand I can't help that I'm just not into what other people are. If every person on my street loved classical music, I would still go to block parties and listen to them talk about it, but I would obviously be much closer to them if I loved classical music too
Proust seemed very ambivalent about friendship. He was fully aware of how much he treasured it, but on further examination it always fell apart in favor of his solitude. I think of the moment when Saint-Loup's mistress wanted him to stay out longer with them and she handed him a rose. It was so beautiful for him in the moment. Or the moment when Saint-Loup insisted on getting him a coat and leaped over a bench to bring it to him and that gesture burned into Proust's memory. I think you're on to something when you compare friendship to food and drink. Not always amazing. But needed.
Yes I remember that incident! Robert Saint Loup--that was a good relationship, even if not totally to Marcel's taste. Marcel definitely had people who loved him--Proust did too! I get the impression he had a deep inner loneliness, but he actually had much more community than most of us do
Interesting food for thought! I've been thinking along similar lines regarding friendship: like with other virtues people know they ought to value, revealed preferences say otherwise.
Many aspects of friendship have been unbundled and commoditised: a favourite podcast dishes the dirt on our imagined nemeses; a therapist offers a sympathetic ear; a Feeld date adds a splash of excitement. And with the genius economics of the Internet, we don't even have to pay for it (except for the therapist, who can probably soon be replaced by an equally effective, but free, AI version).
Especially if one has cultivated a rarefied personal perspective, the incremental benefit may not seem worth the the effort of making common cause with those around you.
Yeah I mean people seem so lonely, but given the choice between seeing people or canceling, they usually cancel. Kinda like getting married, they want love but not at all costs. Maybe we are all just systematically choosing poorly, or maybe there is some deeper truth that causes us to choose our misery. Hard to say
I would sometimes joke with my students when I walked into class (where they’d sit with the lights off, hunched over their phones) about how “those accounts you’re interacting with can’t be more interesting than the flesh-and-blood person sitting next to you! Flirt with each other or something!” But one day it hit me in the middle of my spiel that, of course, just in terms of probability and how attention-economy works, whatever parasocial thing they were mixed up in at a given moment was almost certainly more interesting than the other 19 year-old they were randomly sitting next to. I stopped doing this.
LOL, that's pretty funny.
It was funny and disturbing in equal measure. I do think you’re onto something, though, with the hyper-self-individuating process. It reminds me of some points of Richard Sennett in The Fall of Public Man.
"If people are close to each other to the extent that they know about each other, then interpersonal knowledge becomes a matter of reciprocal revelation. When two people are out of revelations, and the market exchange has come to an end, all too often the relationship comes to an end. It is exhausted because “there is nothing more to say,” each person comes to take the other “for granted.” Boredom is the logical consequence of intimacy as an exchange relationship. This exhaustion perfectly complements the narcissistic conviction that whatever gratifications one is receiving at the moment are not all that one could receive, or, inverted, that one is not really feeling enough for the relationship to be “real.” (Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man)
Like obviously he’s taking the critical, Laschian gloss on this as “narcissism,” and what you seem to be describing (and Proust) isn’t so much the interaction or relationship as used up or exhausted than not-quite-a-fit. But in other places he speaks of this hyper-particularity as being a democratized Romantic quest for self. But it could just as soon be seen kind of neutrally (which is what I meant by the phones thing): that people really are just individuated beyond wanting as strongly what we’re told that we do.
UNTITLED #8
(1) Collect apologies that were given to you by non-humans.
(2) Collect compliments that were given to you by non-humans.
Hornemann, C. (2024), Score 46 of 99, 3* !
"Personally, I think of friendship and community as animal needs. Mankind simply can't be alone. We are social animals. That's why I tend to seek out in-person friends and in-person community over online community. There's something about seeing and hearing and smelling another human being that's inherently more satisfying than exchanging text messages with them."
Excellent point. This is what I train prospective volunteers on during the peer support training I co-facilitate regularly for my agency (Shanti Project in SF). It is a valuable idea for trainees when trying to understand the isolation many of our clients face. It's also a valuable idea for the trainees themselves, personally, because many of them come to volunteer because they themselves are feeling a lack of community, a lack of human connection. Not surprising, as many of them work in tech.
Another great post, much appreciated!
Sorry for the obligatory Groucho Marx quote: “I would never belong to a club that would have someone like me for a member.”
I thought this was a really interesting essay, and what really strikes me is that you say friendship is conformist, and of course you're right, but all these examples are of friendships which you didn't continue because they didn't agree with *you*.
Like you, I'm dubious that polyamory is going to save anyone's marriage, and I think you're right that humouring someone isn't enough, but I think participation in that context just means genuinely being a friend - listening, trying to understand where they're coming from, and giving them support. You don't need to agree that someone is making the best possible choice to be a friend.
And stopping writing your own letter because of someone else's choice of which elected official they chose to write to - elected officials whose literal job involves fielding those kind of letters! It's not just that you disagreed with their choice or talked to them about it, you didn't want to participate in the group at all because they made a choice that you didn't agree with, but which didn't affect you in any way.
You even said that not everyone else in the letter writing campaign agreed with their choice, only "most" of them. But it was only you who stopped writing your letter in protest at their choice (presumably, you don't actually say. Maybe several of you all objected so much as to which elected official to write to that you stopped writing letters!)
I do think there are choices that I would stop being friends with people over or leave an activity that are totally legitimate, like being transphobic for example. But for writing a letter to a different elected official than I would choose, or for approaching their marriage differently than I would? It seems less like you don't fit in because other people demand conformity and more because you want conformity, and you don't want to be friends with people who make certain minor decisions that you don't agree with.
I think friendship and community requires not conformity but a certain amount of tolerance and respect for people even when they make different choices than you would. I have to say your post resonated with me, which is why I've been thinking about it and I'm writing this response - I also find it difficult sometimes when people have different opinions on some admittedly quite minor things. But it's a good reminder that friendship means meeting people where they're at.
I think also if you're approaching activities because you want to fit in and conform rather than approaching them because you enjoy them, you end up feeling very isolated. Like your burners - if you don't enjoy raves and flashing lights and feeling like you're pushing the boundaries, why do you want to join that community? It's not about conformity so much as that's literally what that group is about. It's like joining a classical music group and complaining because you don't like classical music!
I hope this doesn't come across as critical, it's just what struck me from your essay and like I said I see quite a lot of myself in it as well. Thank you for making me think about this.
I'm still friends with all these people and part of all these groups.
I think you can't pick and choose what communities you're part of. I can't go back in time and make different college friends. I've been part of two coworking spaces and I remained at the one I liked more. My kid can't just keep going to new preschools in case I'll like a different group better. Ultimately the people around you are what you get. The very desire to pick and choose different people, to pack up and leave a community if it doesn't agree with you in every particular, is what leads to loneliness. On the other hand I can't help that I'm just not into what other people are. If every person on my street loved classical music, I would still go to block parties and listen to them talk about it, but I would obviously be much closer to them if I loved classical music too
Proust seemed very ambivalent about friendship. He was fully aware of how much he treasured it, but on further examination it always fell apart in favor of his solitude. I think of the moment when Saint-Loup's mistress wanted him to stay out longer with them and she handed him a rose. It was so beautiful for him in the moment. Or the moment when Saint-Loup insisted on getting him a coat and leaped over a bench to bring it to him and that gesture burned into Proust's memory. I think you're on to something when you compare friendship to food and drink. Not always amazing. But needed.
Yes I remember that incident! Robert Saint Loup--that was a good relationship, even if not totally to Marcel's taste. Marcel definitely had people who loved him--Proust did too! I get the impression he had a deep inner loneliness, but he actually had much more community than most of us do