Dr. Ashwani Kumar
‘It is the Simplest of concepts that require the Complex of Comprehension.”
The Concept of Friendship is no exception to the afore-stated quote as all of us intuitively know – what friendship is, yet not all of us are successful in forging such relations and maintaining them.
In the common parlance, “Any amicable interaction is qualified and understood as an interaction of friendship”. The Irony is the word “Amicable” is itself equated to the word “Friendly” and it is precisely the cause for the utter prevailing failures of the – “Institution of Friendship”. As one mistakes every and each amicable (Hostile-free) interaction as an interaction of friendship and hastens to confer the status of “Friend” upon the interactor and self – confers upon oneself the same status, the problems arise and go to become the cause of the abysmal failure of the institution of friends.
It is crucial at this juncture to juxtapose the “Institution of friendship” as against the “Institution of Kinship” and institutionalize the Friendship interactions on the same lines of the “Institution of Kinship”.
The Institution of Kinship: – “The First System of Institutionalized interactions”.
In the history of social relations among individuals, every relationship is guided by social institutions. As we know, the foundation of traditional societies was kinship social organizations, and kinship relations in every society are guided by social institutions such as family, religion, and law. In every relationship, people interact with relatives, as status and roles of each status are defined by various social institutions. This enables even larger masses to fulfill the expectations of their relatives as defined by their status.
Kinship has long served as the cornerstone, providing a sense of predictability and certainty through fixed roles and expectations and the success of the same was rooted on the – “Institutionalization of the Interactions”. It simpliciter implies the – “Prescription of – “How to carry out any interactions” and “Who would be the carriers of such interaction” and “What would be the interaction carried out”.
The Prescriptions under ‘How’ refers to the – “Non-verbal aspect of the interaction including and not limited to demeanor, mannerisms and Etiquettes”.
The Prescriptions under ‘Who’ refers to the – ‘Status accorded on the “Interactor’ and ‘the Interacted’ (in short status conferred on the interactors) example – “Status of the Interactor (Mother) and the Status of the Interacted (Son).
The Prescriptions under ‘What’ refers to the – ‘Role and actions to be carried out played by the interactors”. It is both Positive and Negative (i.e., What actions may be done and What should never be done).
Yet, in the mosaic of modern society, the landscape has evolved beyond the confines of familial ties. While professional relationships offer structure within defined roles, the emergence of friendship as a dominant relationship presents a nuanced challenge: the absence of clearly delineated roles within the status of a friend.
Institutionalization of the Interaction of Friendship – “A NEED”
Traditionally, kinship relations provided a framework within which individuals navigated their social world. Each kin status came with predetermined roles and expectations, promoting predictability and stability in interpersonal dynamics. However, as contemporary life unfolds, the centrality of kinship diminishes, and individuals find themselves drawn into the orbit of friendship.
Friendship, when viewed through a sociological lens, embodies a voluntary bond among individuals, transcending barriers of gender and age, rooted in reciprocity. This notion aligns with Aristotle’s philosophical perspective, which categorizes friendships into three types: those of utility, pleasure, and virtue. Friendships of utility form around practical advantages, such as shared resources or skills, while friendships of pleasure emerge from mutual enjoyment of activities or interests. However, friendships of virtue, the highest form according to Aristotle, are grounded in admiration for each other’s character and a shared commitment to moral excellence. These friendships foster mutual care and support, promoting personal growth and fulfillment. Integrating Aristotle’s ideas, we understand that irrespective of societal conventions, friendships thrive on mutual benefit, shared experiences, and a genuine regard for each other’s well-being.
Unlike kinship and other professional relations, the institution of friendship lacks the rigidity of defined roles. Instead, it thrives on fluidity, adaptability, and reciprocity. Like all other social relations, friendship also exhibits a variety. However, unlike other social relationships, friendship is an individualistic decision, signifying that individuals have to make a choice. This is acceptable for individuals who are enlightened and educated. However, nowadays, friendship is becoming decentralized, posing a risk. People might engage in friendship relations without being aware of their roles as friends. These types of individuals always rely on social institutions in the case of other relations, but in the case of friendship, there is no established social institution to guide the behaviour of friends. While this flexibility allows for organic growth and authenticity in relationships, it also introduces an element of uncertainty. In the absence of fixed roles, masses may struggle to discern their place within the dynamics of friendship, leading to ambiguity and confusion.
The contemporary landscape presents a paradox: while the need for personal connections remains as vital as ever, the structures that once provided stability—such as kinship—have eroded, leaving friendship as a dominant force. In navigating this terrain, individuals grapple with the tension between the desire for intimacy and the need for clarity in roles and expectations.
Consider a scenario where traditional kinship ties have weakened, and individuals turn to friendships for companionship, support, and belonging. In this context, the emergence of the status of a friend becomes paramount, yet the roles associated with this status remain nebulous. Friends may blur the lines between confidants, advisors, and companions, leading to ambiguity in expectations and interactions.
This ambiguity can manifest in various ways, from the struggle to define boundaries and responsibilities to the challenge of negotiating conflicts and navigating transitions. Without the guiding framework of fixed roles, individuals may find themselves adrift in a sea of uncertainty, unsure of where they stand or how to navigate the complexities of friendship.
However, within this uncertainty lies opportunity. The fluidity of friendship allows for unprecedented depth and richness in relationships, unbound by the constraints of tradition or expectation. As individuals embrace the complexity of friendship, they may discover new avenues for growth, connection, and self-discovery.
The emergence of friendship as a dominant relationship in contemporary society presents a unique challenge: the absence of clearly defined roles within the status of a friend. Yet, within this challenge lies the potential for profound connection and intimacy. Like all other social relations, friendship also exhibits a variety. However, unlike other social relationships, friendship is an individualistic decision, signifying that individuals have to make a choice. This is acceptable for individuals who are enlightened and educated. However, nowadays, friendship is becoming decentralized, posing a risk. People might engage in friendship relations without being aware of their roles as friends. These types of individuals always rely on social institutions in the case of other relationships, but in the case of friendship, there is no established social institution to guide the behavior of friends, as such the need to institutionalize the interaction of friendship is the need of the hour.
Based on the above discussion, we can infer that friendship might not be feasible for the masses. This is evident in the majority of people attempting to transform this relationship into various forms of relationships guided by established social institutions, such as pleasure partners, academic partners, professional partners, and so on. This suggests that for the masses, friendship serves as a means to establish other socially recognized relationships. Those who are unable to do so may struggle to form genuine friendships.
The views and opinions expressed by the authors in this article are their personal opinions and do not represent the views of PureSociology. You can contact the author/s at ashwinsoc@outlook.com. The details of the author/s are:
Dr. Ashwani Kumar is currently an Assistant professor in Sociology at Gurukashi University.
Yes, it is necessary for there to be a guiding institution for friendship so that people know about their roles. But I believe that people whose common thinking matches tend to get involved in it. If there is also a guiding institution for this, then those who are involved in it would become less involved because they would have perfect roles and responsibilities, but people just come into it without thinking, simply for their enjoyment and chill, and then they convert this relationship into some other relationship.