DISCUSSION 2 WEEK 5
In line with our observations from the last module about the growing consumeristic culture in which we live, many observe that our value as people stems from what we can produce, not from who we are as human beings. Essentially, we are a culture of workers valued for our utility, rather than a community of close friends. This lack of community coherence impacts our friendships. Our environments influence how we feel about ourselves and our roles in our society and how we are able to connect to others and forge lasting friendships, or not.
In this module, we explore two specific periods in history where friendship seemed to enjoy a more elevated status, as reflected in the writings of the philosophers of those eras. Specifically, we review the ancient and medieval periods, surveying some of the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers, including Aristotle and Epicurus, Cicero and Seneca. In the Middle Ages, we observe the works of Aelred de Rievaulx and Thomas Aquinas.
In Ancient Greece, there were key differences in how friendships were viewed and valued. Being an active participant in the city is part of what it meant to be a citizen. It is a way one built social standing in the community, and forging friendships aided this endeavor. It is important to note that these citizens were men, and a small minority of them, so friendships among them were even more essential. Vernon writes: “one of the reasons why an image of friendship resonated so strongly with the Athenian taste for freedom was that the experience of being a citizen was closely interwoven with the experience of being a friend” (Vernon, p. 158).
In this environment, public displays of loyalty were common and necessary. “Gold can be put to the proof by fire, but goodwill among friends is tested by circumstance” was one of the common aphorisms at the time (p. 159). It is in this era that Aristotle proposed his three types of friendship, discussed in Module 1. He parallels these three types of friendship to three types of government. He writes about how the kind of community one builds is reflected in the kinds of friendships one builds. Aristotle believes it is important that we feel collective pride when our citizens make notable achievements, or feel collective shame when they engage in unethical behavior. The Olympics provide a great example of this reflection in a culture’s unity and ethos.
The Symposium best represents the interplay of citizenry and friendship during this time. The Symposium, meaning “drinking together,” is our version of a dinner party (p. 161). Guests were invited into a private home to drink and bond, engage in deep and quality conversations. The room was intimately arranged with facing couches, and a shared drinking cup, known as the “cup of friendship” (p. 161). Songs of friendship were even sung, with lyrics such as: “He who does not betray a man who is his friend has great honour among mortals and gods” (p. 161). In sum, it was an opportunity for forging both alliances and friendships. Vernon notes that it provided a “bridge” between public and private arenas (p. 161).
This kind of “civic affection” advocated by philosophers like Aristotle is not as present in our world today. Vernon writes, “Our relationships as citizens are mediated between by impersonal institutions, like the law, possibly with detrimental effects on our affections for one another as a result” (p. 162). This raises the obvious ethical dilemma around the nature of our institutions and whether they are morally in line with our deepest desires for strong human connection and interaction. Vernon cautions us, though, that friendship in previous times is not necessarily friendlier. He writes:
In fact, if more friendship-friendly times did exist in ages gone by, we would expect them to be characterized by outbreaks of animosity too, such are the ambiguities of friendship: to claim someone as a friend is not much different from declaring someone else as an enemy (2010, p. 155).
Indeed, other philosophers at the time of Aristotle raised criticisms and concerns about the strength of politics and friendship. Plato expressed similar concerns, revealing ambivalence towards friendship in politics. In some of his writings, he supports it; in others he cautions against it. The philosopher Epicurus, living at a time when Alexander the Great had come to power and the polis was weakening, was skeptical of the nature of such friendships, believing politics to be more corrosive to true friendship. Vernon observes:
Individuals like Epicurus tended to regard themselves as citizens of the world, though with perhaps no place they could call home, and few compatriots they might call friends. The situation was more like our own (p. 163).
A few hundred years later, in Rome, friendship once again enjoyed an elevated status, though, the ambiguities were often recognized and pondered by contemporary philosophers. Rome was a Republic and required high participation from its citizens. So, like Athens, having good support helped one to gain public standing. Vernon writes:
In fact, public abuses of friendship could have serious repercussions for someone’s political standing to an extent that is, again, hard to imagine given the private nature of friendship today: to be accused of being a poor friend, and bad at friendship, was to lose public standing (p. 165).
Cicero, a famous politician and philosopher at this time, wrote quite a bit about friendship. He, himself, is accused of betraying a good friendship with Mark Anthony, the lover of Cleopatra, and wrote a posthumous work to counter the claims. The fact that he sought to avenge his reputation, even after his death, reflects the great lengths people went to in order to maintain their honor around their virtues in friendship (p. 166). Cicero also wrote an imaginary dialogue where he espoused some of his philosophy of friendship:
Friendship is… complete sympathy in all matters of importance, plus goodwill and affection, and I am inclined to think that with the exception of wisdom, the gods have given nothing finer to men than this (p. 167).
And:
Whoever is in possession of a true friend sees the exact counterpart of his own soul… They can scarcely, indeed, be considered in any respect as separate individuals, and wherever the one appears the other is virtually present (p. 167).
Cicero was careful to address the ambiguities of friendship, as well, warning people not to be too needy in their friendships. He also advocated for strict ethical behavior in friendship, encouraging complete honesty and respect for differences in social standing, if there were class differences between friends, for example. The friend with more status must not exploit these differences, nor should the friend with less power feel bothered by the inequalities. Not long after this golden era of friendship came the rise of Imperial Rome, and once again, friendships were negatively impacted by the new environment of distrust and a lack of public participation.
At this time, the philosopher Seneca wrote about this demoted status of friendship and essentially grieves its loss in his society. Still, he spoke of a new turn in the experience of friendship that may have shocked his Greek predecessors, which includes more friendships between slave and master and between women and men. In one of his writings, he compliments one of his contemporaries for enjoying a friendship with his “slaves” (p. 170). Vernon observes that because friendship has become more private in this time, one might be able to enjoy a more extended range of friendships, where people are less concerned with public appearance. Vernon observes that, just as our friendships shape social conventions, societal expectations impact our friendships: “We see as much to this day, inasmuch as friendships across social classes and ethnic divides are relatively rare” (p. 171).
During the Middle Ages, we observe a renewed elevation in the status of friendship, due in part to some of the religious influences and politics of the time. Kissing, sleeping, and eating together had completely different social boundaries. Indeed, “semi-institutionalized forms of marriage” between friends were not uncommon (p. 172). Friendships were so honored that even shared graves were a regular occurrence, especially among men who fought alongside one another in the battlefield. As well, “sworn brotherhoods” commanded great respect during this time in history and were even sanctioned by the church (p. 179). We have copies today of written prayers from this period that sanction the union of sworn brothers and sisters (p. 179).
Inspired by the writings of Cicero, medieval writer and saint, Aelred of Rievaulx, echoed the friendship sentiments of his time in his work Spiritual Friendship (p. 183). He believed that friends should be willing to die for one another. The Christian influence on friendship draws upon the life and teachings of Jesus: “A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends” (p. 183). Aelred also believed that love between friends should be undying and should share all things in common. This is essentially an appeal to the shared “doctrine” of Christianity and the common bond of love for God and the church. Like Thomas Aquinas, Aelred believed that God is friendship, and a “friend is a guardian of heavenly love and friendship is a taste of paradise” (p. 184).
Additionally, Aelred shared that the death of a friend is “the culmination of love, witnessed to by the love that lives on in the heart of the surviving friend. For all the agony of mourning, the death of a friend is an experience of eternity in the present” (p. 185). As Vernon summarizes: “Friendship’s greatest gift is, thus, that it lifts the veil between this world and the next and provides a foretaste of the everlasting love of heaven here and now” (p. 185). Thus, the shared grave of close friends during this period was a not just a gesture of strong bonds, but was also “a foretaste of the love to be shared in eternity” (p. 186).
Public displays of affection, dining, and sleeping arrangements also signaled a deeper reflection of social bonds during this period when the Catholic church and its rituals were quite prominent in daily life. Mirroring the kiss of peace at the Eucharist, people greeted one another with a kiss as a sign of Christian unity. Vernon explains:
This same kiss in the social setting expressed a reality that says “we are united even as God is united.” It may or may not express a narrower sentiment and add ”I am fond of you.” (p. 173).
The dining table was placed in the middle of the medieval home, representing its value as the center of activity. Here, everyone ate together, including the lords and the serfs, though the designations were clearly demarcated. Vernon writes:
Communal eating constituted those relationships in the same way that the food which was eaten changed into the bodies of those who ate it. To be called up higher was to be called into a deeper connection. And if that included friendship, that relationship was given a corresponding boost in its social standing too (p. 174).
Sleeping together was a similar activity, where people in the household shared a large bed or slept on pallets in the same room. Sleeping together also reflected social standing at this time. There are historical records indicating people’s desire to sleep in the same bed with those of a higher social standing, longing for this kind of friendship.
Today, in places like Africa and Asia, people still participate in these socially connective activities. It is not unusual for several women and children in the household to share a bed, or several men to a share a bed. Eating from one bowl or large plate is also common, with the only real division coming between the genders. Similarly, sharing kisses as a greeting, and men and women holding hands with friends of the same sex is a regular occurrence.
However, in Western societies in the modern world, these activities have become a bit taboo. Many historians have attempted to speculate about some of the reasons for the changes. There were changes in the living quarters, where bodily rituals, such as the bathroom, became more privatized. In the Middle Ages, there were high rates of infant mortality, and men might marry several times, so extended families living together were a practical consideration. Whatever the causes, by the late seventeenth century, “public institutions of friendship were replaced by the private institution of the family” (p. 175). Marital bonds and the institution of the nuclear family took root, and the past activities of sleeping, eating, and kissing became confined to the romantic union between a husband and wife.
As well, as the industrialized societies took hold and individualism took root, friendship became more privatized and, subsequently, more marginalized. Changes in marriage laws occurred, too, shifting from informal unions to more institutionalized arrangements. Vernon summarizes our current state: “society is conceived of as an ominously bureaucratic entity that has few means of understanding, let alone nurturing, friendships” (p. 178).
References:
Vernon, M. (2010). The Meaning of Friendship. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 6: Politics of Friendship.
