friendshipmeanslove

[friendshipmeanslove]

Companion Animals & Human Health: Benefits, Challenges, & The Road Ahead

Marguerite O'Haire

Dating back to over 12,00 years ago humans have had some sort of special bond with animals. In contemporary days the most common animals to be seen as actual companions to humans are dogs and cats. However, there are often several other animals held in domestic settings as well, such as rabbits, birds, fish, etc.

O'Haire credits the initial understanding of Friedmann et al. (1980)'s study regarding the health and mental effects human-animal companionships have implemented. There has been an immense amount of research conducting indicating positive correlational effects between owning an animal and human health. O'Haire sums up the relationship into two hypothesized mechanisms; biophilia hypothesis & social support hypothesis. Without getting into a summary of what both mean, let me tell you, as a personal animal lover and owner, that is has everything to do with the social support theory.

While it is true that most humans have a desired attraction or appeal to attending to animals and other living things, it does not explain the vast majority of households that include pets. In fact, there are several households containing a dog or cat where one or more family members do not particularly have a bond or fondness for the animal, its for their children or spouse. Thus the idea that mental and physical health problems being affected by an animal-human companionship seems to relate more to the social support hypothesis.

The noted benefits of having a human-animal interaction is the social support in and of themselves and also the acting of facilitators between other human beings. In other words, for individuals who live alone, young children, spouses whom work late and a million other scenarios a pet can act as a emotional and physical support in absence of another human being. Seemingly, if a unwanted or hard situation arises between two people, often times a pet may act as a Segway to fixing or moving away from the situation. Sometimes there are events in our life that are either to severe, or you feel they are opposing to minuscule to burden others by telling them. Pets act as a great outlet for affection, an open ear and comfort without ever having to worry about them judging you, or bringing up whatever you expose to them. Animal-human companionships may actually be better then human-human! An animal can never be fake, or rude. They act as the perfect companion in all situations you need a helping hand.

As a pet owner myself, I know the feeling of wanting to go home and cry. Of not wanting to explain my situation in complete depth and talk about the wrong choices I made and blah blah blah. I can sit down and cry and vent to my bunnies for hours. They never once judge me (and even if they do, I will never know). With the research implying that there are substantial positive mental and health affects, I don't think I can disagree. My family is compiled of family lovers, and I think my grandfather would argue that his dog is what keeps him alive.

I like animals more than people, so maybe I'm SLIGHTLY biased. Or maybe its true, even scientifically that animal-human interactions are extremely beneficial.

#animalsandhumans #bestfriends #crazyanimallady #williliveforever #maybeishouldopenazoo

[friendshipmeanslove]

Anthropology of Friendship

Battina Beer

Anthropology is the study of humans, their relationships and interactions. While anthropologists have studied interactions between kin and marriages for ages, friendship is a topic that seems to be undermined and less focused on.

The idea is present that friendships are voluntary and usually result from a mutual interest, shared value or end goal. Beer divides them into categories of emotional and instrumental but explains that in both ways the friendship has instrumental qualities. She begins explaining that friendships built around fieldwork often face problems requiring extra time, talking, patience and a deep understanding of all cultures to properly form a bond. When immersing into another culture to understand the way humans live, watching the way they form bonds or interact with others can be a very slipper slope.

Research indicates that most people regard the beginnings of friendships within the anthropology spectrum, as informants. People begin gathering based on the mutual interest of discovery, or research and form friendships based upon that. Beer describes the experience of forming a friendship on the premise of fieldwork by explaining the importance of cultural understanding. In order to fully understand the boundaries, limits and 'norms' of a particular relationship (friendship, kin or other) you must understand the culture and life style of the humans first. Anthropology being the study of humans can either make this more troubling or much more intense.

Under the guise that being an anthropologist would make this simpler, one may argue that being able to fully understand people as individuals can allow you to more easily grasp the way friendships and interactions between friends differ so greatly across different cultures. However, in contrast it can be much more difficult to understand because even an anthropologist who emerges themselves into several different cultures, can miscalculate, misinterpret or step over boundaries they do not fully understand (even if they believe they do).

Overall, friendships within the study of anthropology is a new idea. Although it would seem that it should have been one of the most prominent subjects studied. Beer makes a point to distinguish that specifically female relationships are the least focused on and in ancient times, male friendships were most focused on. Anthropology and friendship seeks to understand the realm of friendships, relationships, culture and differences. The problem is, we cannot fully understand the realm of all those things within our own society, how could we possibly understand others.

#anthropology #friendshipsacrosscultures #howcanyoueverknow #ifyournotemersed #orpartoftheculture

[friendshipmeanslove]

Voluntary Choice

Feminism and Modern Friendship: Dislocating the Community  Marilyn Friedman

Communitarians and feminists have several similar views in regards to social relationships, communities, moral starting points and friendship. When initially discussing the discrepancies between the two groups and offering a rebuttal to the communitarian point of view, Friedman points out three key 'wrong’ aspects of the communitarians theories. 

1. “First, the communitarians' metaphysical conception of the social self will not support feminist critiques of ruggedly individualist personality or its associated attributes: avoidance of intimacy, non-nurturance, social distancing, aggression, or violence.”

2. “..the practices and traditions of numerous communities are exploitive and oppressive toward many of their own members. This problem is of special relevance to women. Feminist theory is rooted in a recognition of the need for change in all the traditions and political practices which show gender differentiation; many of these are located in just the sorts of commu- nities invoked by communitarians, for example, families and nations.”

3. “..communitarian philosophy has to do with the sorts of communities evidently endorsed by communitarian theorists.”

Friedman argues that communitarians view on social life and self growth rely on a retrograde conception of gender and social roles. While only scarcely mentioning gender as the main issue, she points out the distinction the communitarians make when classifying the importance of the roles of women in their communities. For example, in her three main issues she points out that women are expected to be the nurturers and not act for themselves. The argument poses that “if the communitarian conception of the social self is simply a metaphysical view about the constitution of the self (as it seems to be), it provides no basis for regarding nurturant, relational selves as morally superior to those who are highly individualistic. For this reason, it appears to be of no assistance to feminist theorists seeking a normative account of what might be wrong or excessive about competitive self- seeking behaviors or other seeming manifestations of an individualistic perspective.” 

As her argument grows and she unveils the issues between the communitarian perspectives in relation to feminism we eventually grapple with the concept of friendship in relation to the social self, in social atmospheres, the two separate spheres for friends and how friendships are separated by the living atmosphere. The term voluntary choice, refers to the idea that women, (feminists for the sake of this article) are motivated to come together based off of one's own needs, desires, interests, values, and attractions instead of what may be socially acceptable. Friendship is then defined as a relationship, such as those of family and neighborhood, to be grounded and sustained by shared interests and values, mutual affection, and possibilities for generating reciprocal respect and esteem. However, Friedman points out the perhaps misconception or stereotype that depending on what time of community you live in, urban for example, these relationships are expected to be less frequent and very rare. 

Overall it seems that Friedman is making a point that while it’s important to remember the communitarian roles and ancient significance of female nurturers and male ‘hunters’, as times change and feminists consistently seek complete equality, bonds and friendships are extremely prevalent. To lead a march, feminists must build a ‘sisterhood’, a mutual trust and understanding for the same common goal or interest. While still respecting the ideals of the communitarians and perhaps of urban living, Friedman argues that the overall group values and group demands for rights and respect on the parts of urban subcultural minorities are most significant. 

In regards to everyday life, it seems that this underlying idea of gender roles being either directly or indirectly still administered is flustering for most. Especially women and of course feminists. While Friedman's argument goes beyond just gender roles and touches on groups as a whole, self actualization and even politics, it seems that there is always going to be a general discrepancy between those who feel women are meant to stay home and rear children and those who realize women are capable of doing and producing the same as a man. With respect to both historic practices and communitarian theorists, it does go to say that women are capable of engaging in the same social groups, friendships, jobs, and everything else, equal or better to a man. The gender should not define the role or the classification of self growth, as Friedman agrees. Women all around, feminists, communitarians, as well as everyone else should understand that in contemporary life self actualization comes with being part of a social group and understanding that social roles or expectations cannot be a barrier to anyone’s lifestyle. 

#equality #feministpower #communitariantheorists #justbefriends

[friendshipmeanslove]

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Friends..?

FRENEMIES OF THE COURT: THE MANY FACES OF AMICUS CURIAE Helen A. Anderson

"Amicus curiae occupy a unique place in the courts: non-parties who are nevertheless advocates, who are not bound by rules of standing and justifiability, and who can present the court with new information and arguments. Amicus participation has increased dramatically in recent years, and threatens to alter the adversarial process. Yet scholars and courts treat amicus curiae as a single category, not fully recognizing that this friendly term actually covers several very different types, ranging from court appointed advocates of a particular position, to friends of a party (sometimes paid by the party), to persons or groups who just missed qualifying as interveners."

"If you ask any lawyer what an  “amicus curiae” is, and you will be told that the term means “friend of the court.” The term has positive, even warm, connotations." Amicus briefs provide additional information or perspectives to assist courts in deciding issues of public importance. But how, can a person being paid off by a company or called in by counsel ever be acting as a true friend. The types of organizations and individuals who will participate as amicus also vary, ranging from activist or public advocacy groups, nonprofits corporations, business alliances, and political organizations, to individuals  concerned about the issue or the outcome of the case. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (hence not a true accusation) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.

Anderson argues that the term 'friend of the court' is distorting and discrediting to the original presence of the amicus. Evidently she feels the term friend is too broad to suffice as a person to be called in to provide some sort of information or testimony that can somehow validate or help in the decision making. She explains how the new found increase in friend of a party amicus has taken us far from the origins of amicus as one with special expertise or knowledge relevant to the litigation, to a general person or 'friend' being able to contribute to the case. Anderson's major argument dictates that the Supreme Court’s open-door amicus policy should not be so carelessly left open. She feels that with the 'friend of a party' ability, ambitious law reform and business advocates may exert great influence, particularly on elected courts (that may not actually be beneficial). Her greatest concern seems to be that with the term 'friend' being a part of the court system, the appellate decision making, can be distorted due to the negligence of appropriate experts being called. She feels that the original amicus must be persevered and remain concretely with experts and 'appropriate' people for the case. She states "courts should exercise their gate keeping authority." In other words, keep your friends out of the court, and stick to the people who know what their talking about and will not or cannot jeopardize an entire case.

In terms of high profile cases, which Supreme Court Cases almost always are, I agree with her stance. However, the term 'friend of a court' does not have to branch as far as an acquaintance who runs a non-profit that can possibly advocate for you. In terms of keeping things business related, I believe Professor Anderson has a point. To make sure that the friend of a part does not become anything relevant to lobbying, the courts system must be more strictly defined with whom is allowed to participate in the amicus curiae.

Although, in opposition I believe that sometimes the term 'friend' can be contorted out of context, especially in such a high profile, business environment. While the term amicus curiae is mainly to give our society the rights they deserve (a fair trial, with dutiful witnesses), the Latin translation into 'friend' of the court does not literally mean a FRIEND. Those professionals, experts, non-profit works, etc. called to be a part of an amicus case are not necessarily the same people you send Christmas cards. I believe that while Anderson makes valid points about the importance of keeping the public sphere away from the private in terms of courts and friends, the term friend is always up for interpretation. In all reality, it should be evident that those called to testify or contribute to a court case are not or should not be there to be actual friends. They are really there to help. And while some may argue that those willing to bend over backwards to help you, are indeed friends, perhaps when your dealing with a public, business environment, the term friend just doesn't fit in the most appropriate way.

#amicuscuriae #friendsofthecourt #notreallyfriends #butwhodefinesfriend #whostosayanything

[friendshipmeanslove]

NYC’s Melting Pot for Friends

Visions of Black-White Friendships - Benjamin DeMott

“We must all take our chances. The society evolves. Wherever one looks one sees more well off blacks.”

Living in one of the most diverse countries in the world, let alone New York City where every person you see is from a different background its hard to agree with a proposal that whites and blacks cannot be friends without an ulterior motive. DeMott states “Whites who press themselves to act “correctly” toward the minority are engaged in a significant, personal, moral project”, in other words saying that his impression on interracial friendships is that they are full of crap. By stating this DeMott is implying that the only way in which white people choose to associate or acknowledge a person of color as a legitimate fired, they must be benefiting in their own secret way. This is preposterous and quite offensive to everyone. To say that friendships between two people aren’t real because without an ulterior motive there should be no reason to be friends makes me very angry.

His references to relevant pop culture and movies including black and white friendships, seek to identify his point exclusively. He deliberately specifies on film that depict the black character as a secondary role only receiving appropriate recognition when they are killed, gone, etc. I find that this is extremely limiting especially in our day and age and in the country we live in.

Black and white friendships are more prevelant now then ever and that is seen everywhere not just in the media. Being in NYC we can see everyday the different interracial friendships and especially relationships (not just limited to black and white). While this article was not written last year, there is still a very shallow, narrow and unfair observation being made regarding the friendships that exist or do not exist. While DeMott mainly seeks to eliminate racism and thus create equality between friendships of color his argument remains week.

Racism is an issue that our country suffers from and continue to challenge everyday in all parts of the globe. Unfortunately, statistics show that the most common place racism is found, is within the race itself (light to dark skin, white american to white polak, etc.) Therefore, using racism as a means for invalidating interracial friendships is obscure.

In one valid point DeMott does make he accentuates the fact that society evolves and that is the most important thing that needs to be remembered. While friendships are common and REAL across all races, the underlying issue of racism between the friends or between the racial communities is something that needs to be worked on as a whole. However the idea that evolution will occur, in time, gives hope. And thus, I find his argument redundant, since we evolve everyday and take greater steps and leaps towards fighting the remaining injustices within world. But as for friendships, blacks and whites have found their way to make peace even in times slavery, where whites recognized capturing and toruting people was inhumane. Now, when we live in a mostly equal society (in NYC, respectively speaking), these friendships are not second guessed, nor questioned. As Morgan Freeman mentions when people are not called by their color, white or black, the racism will end, and I don’t believe people refer to each other as “my white friend” or “my black friend”. We just say friend.

#interracialfriendships #blackandwhite #itdoesntmatter #itsstillreal #noulteriormotives

[friendshipmeanslove]

The Female World of Love & Ritual by Smith-Rosenberg

“These letters are significant because they force us to place such female love in a particular historical context.There is every indication that these four women, their husbands and families all eminently respectable and socially conservative considered such love both socially acceptable and fully compatible with heterosexual marriage. Emotionally and cognitively, their heterosocial and their homosocial worlds were complementary.” 

There is a clearly distinguished difference between friendships of the same sex between males and females. Two males cannot be too close, do or say certain things or they may be seen as gay. Conversely, two females can do many things any homosexual or heterosexual couple might, such as call each other nick names, hold hands, cuddle, dance together, sometimes even kiss on the lips & it’s all seen as “normal”. 

Smith-Rosenberg’s research implied that although there is not MUCH to go on from within the nineteenth century, a similar acceptance was present. For example he tells a tale of two different pairs of female friends, Sarah & Jeannine and Molly & Helena, both of which share very intimate bonds. Although, for only one pair is it implied that there is any physical interaction, both friendships shared a bond that could easily have been homosexual. However, across their families, husbands and themselves it wasn’t labeled as so. In other words, it was practically “OK” to write of each other as lovers, missing one another, being the only ‘true’ one for each other and much more. 

Unfortunately as unfair as it may seem to have women intimacy with each other be overlooked, or automatically assumed as just a close friendship, it remains this way to present day. Although contemporary lifestyles are much more accepting of homosexuals being open about their relationships, it is still less assumed there is a homosexual relationship between two women seen engaging in an intimate act, as opposed to men. For example seeing two girls sitting extremely close on a sofa near the JJAY Cafe isn’t given a second look. Whereas if two men were to lie next to each other, practically laying on each other, guaranteed is going to draw attention.

There is a double standard mentioned underneath Smith-Rosenberg’s research that illuminates on the general assumption to categorize any sort of intimate friendship or ‘bromance’ between two males as being gay. This is entirely unfair and illogical but perhaps a stereotype or misconception that isn’t easily removed. Because of the hegemonic masculinity ‘illusion’ males must demonstrate, which consists of NOT being intimate or close with another male, close male bonds similar to anything two females may engage in, will never be socially excepted without the presumption there is a physical or homosexual relationship underneath. 

Personally, I am one of those females who is very intimate with my friends, but I myself am only interested in males. For example I will cuddle with my close female friends, call them nick names, dance with them, hold their hand, etc. and there is NO physical attraction or emotional attachment (further than just being close friends). However, much like the friendships Smith-Rosenberg describes, there is a bit of jealousy that arises when one of my close friends becomes close with another female. It becomes a competition of who will keep that ‘top’ spot of being ‘best friends’, but that is an entirely different story. In terms of the unfairness surrounding whats acceptable for female to female friendships and male to male, it’s something we have to progressively work on as a society.

To bring equality, peace and justice to all, all friendships (male to male, female to female, female to male, trans to trans, ETC), need to not be questioned regarding their intimacy levels. Friends are friends, and even if there is a physical or love attraction underneath its for NO ONE’s judgment. 

#equallove #equalfriendship #kissingfriends #lovingnames #weareallequal

[friendshipmeanslove]

The Politics of Gay Men's Friendship by Peter M. Nardi

Politics - use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

 In contemporary lifestyles being 'gay' is so much more accepted then the early and mid 1900's. However, when diving into the gender dynamics and misconceptions of what being a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual the distinction has not yet full rounded itself.

In other words, although men and women alike are now accepted to be open about their love or sexual partners and interests, there is still no divine separation between the gender roles associated with their sex. Nardi touches upon the dilemma gay men have specifically in association to casual friendships. For women, its much easier to be caring, tender, nurturing and perhaps 'flirty' with a FRIEND. Where as if a man displays any or a combination of those characteristics he is deemed to be gay. The problem here works in two directions.

First, there is a gender discrepancy between the acceptance of a gay female and a gay male. For example, two girl friends who hold hands walking down the street may be nothing but friends and most people wouldn't look twice. However, if two males (who were actually just friends) were to do the same, they would automatically be categorized as a homosexual. Usually we see the double standard in the opposite way, men slut shaming women but being praised for every body they tack onto their list, while this is the opposite. Our society has constructed a 'unsaid' acceptance of loving and perhaps intimate or not relationships between women. Women have the liberty and freedom to be intimate with a friend or not, but the gender roles and binaries do not change. Where the problem lies in this is the idea that heterosexual males cannot attribute the same devotion and connection a female friendship may, solely on the fact society will not 'accept' it, for a friendship NOT involving sex or intimate relations.

The second problem lies, in the transition of the idea surrounding friendship from the previous 1800's. Nardi explains that up until the 1880's, most romantic friendships were thought to be DEVOID of sexual contact. Thus a man OR woman could act affectionately for a loved one (a friend primarily) without causing any speculation or turning any heads. The irony of this realization is that in our gender activist movements today, we have been pushing towards equal rights for homosexuals and feminist movements. Whereas in the 1800's actually admitting you were a homosexual could cause you to be killed, beat up, thrown in jail and other horrendous things. YET, it was okay to have an intimate or close relation with a friend. Where NOW a days, we are working towards equal marriage and love rights, but the friendship aspect has reversed and been distorted.

How is it that our gender roles and idealization of what defines a friendship amongst an intimate relationship has been so construed throughout 100's of years. It seems we are working towards a common good, however the society as a whole is stuck differentiating the difference between gender identity, personal sex preference, intimate friendships and just casual partnerships. In terms of politics, this reading stands more to say that the biggest empowerment and movement gay men have is by the structure and emotional context of their lives. It somehow simultaneously affects all men and women around and there lies "the political power and potential of gay friendships." However, gay, straight, asexual, bisexual WHATEVER you may be, the distinction of who's shoulder your crying on about a breakup and who your having sex with (man or women) should be of no ones concern but your own.

#equallove #itdoesntmatter #friendsyoufuck #whocares #changeforthebetter #ornochangeatall

[friendshipmeanslove]

#sorrynotsorry

[friendshipmeanslove]

Friendship is Vital, More than Necessary

Affection (noun): Often, affections.

a. emotion; feeling; sentiment:

over and above our reason and affections.

b. the emotional realm of love:

a place in his affections.

Eros (noun): Originated from the ancient Greek god of love, identified by the Romans with Cupid.

a. physical love; sexual desire.

(sometimes lowercase)

 Kindred (adjective): 

a. having the same belief, attitude, or feeling:

We are kindred spirits on the issue of gun control.

b. related by birth or descent; having kinship:

kindred blood.

 C. S. Lewis, "Friendship--the Least Necessary Love"

 According to C.S. Lewis and his discoveries, contemporary life styles are incapable of understanding the value of a friendship, in relation to love, if it can be accepted as a love at all. By first accentuating on the biological insignificance of friendship, he evaluates the distrust and dislike a community may endear based upon the idea of a simple friendship. 

 Most interestingly and perhaps the most identifiable argument presented by Lewis, is the idea that two species (humans in particular) are nearly prone to being more than just friends. He states ".. we can have erotic love and friendship for the same person yet in some ways nothing is less like a friendship than a love-affair." So to say that your best friend may soon become your lover just because of the way life works. This could go to show that although friendships are built upon a common ground and trust, the likelihood of it not developing further, is very slim. Arguments are vicariously made that men and women can just be friends, but biologically, and scientifically  proven it is not so. Lewis rectifies the idea that while Eros lasts, it must be between two and not ignored. Here is where love and friendship collide. It could also stand as evidence against non-believers that friendship is in fact necessary, as a gateway to other relationships vital for our survival and well being.

 Lewis also contends, in which I agree, that while friendships come in pairs they thrive as the number expands outward. In order to sufficiently establish a lasting friendship you must arise out of mere appreciation for the same thing. You must trust, love and believe in a common factor, which can be something as simple as the love for the color pink. However, by doing so and agreeing with the person you are building a mutual trust and bond formed amongst this shared 'evil'.  The value and realism of the idea that a friendship can open based upon a unique quality you thought was only your own, is so very true. 

 "What? You too? I thought I was the only one." (page 42)

 Often times, we get too caught up in ourselves or our own insecurities and unconsciously stifle our ability and desire to build relationships. When a discovery is made that there is a human on the planet with the same burdens, desires, dirty secrets or fantasies, etc. it becomes easier to identify and build a real relationship. Lewis builds on these main ideas and gives examples near and far for how they work or why they're misbelieved. However, the main argument lies that although according to biological studies and non-believers, it has no survival value, friendship is one of those things that give value to survival.The idea that resonated most closely with me was the number of friends and the way in which, as Lewis describes, A, B and C ALL bring out different qualities, aspects and pieces of an individuals personality to make them whole. This is entirely true and seen everyday in all types of relationships.

 "In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity.." (page 41)

 Its safe to say that this is one of the most accurate things Lewis says. People can bring out the best or worst in another, or get the person to reveal or break through a side they may have never shown before. The idea of having a trio or foursome of friends elicits the idea that to be whole and fully identify with yourself you must have such friends. The friendship lies on the grounds of "nearness by resemblance" and the friendship group is not to be envious or jealous of another. The friendship should not rely or have anything to do with the persons social life, or anything outside of the boundaries that the relationship was formed on. A true friendship is just that. Every friend I've ever had did not start because of their looks, or how much money they had. We created a bond based upon a common interest, and sometimes even a common dislike. In many cases the hatred for the same person, place or thing can begin the greatest discussion starter. After talking about the original statement you form a bond and all other personal aspects about the person come later. 

 Lewis gives a compelling argument and sufficient evidence as to why people feel friendship is the least necessary love. However, what he actually argues and his main point is that friendship is in fact VITAL, as love, a want and a necessity of life. 

#cslewis #friendshipisvital #loveisneeded #canwebejustfriends #boyslikegirls #weneedmorethantwo #tobewhole

[friendshipmeanslove]

Acquaintances Come in Groups

Dunbar, "Dunbar's Number"

Misra et al., "The iPhone Effect"

 Just as friendships usually come in pairs, acquaintances seem to come in large bunches of groups. In both "Dunbar's Number" and "The iPhone Effect" it is evident that our new found way of social interaction is being evidently redefined by social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.).

 Dunbar specifically elaborates on the ideal that social media accentuates a persons inner circle number by almost ten times. By first bringing to the surface the social intelligence hypothesis, which basically says there is a superficial correlation between friendship group sizes and the size of a primates neocortex (the outer surface layer of the brain that is responsible for conscious thinking) we are introduced to Dunbar's number. According to relevant research, studies done on different social groups including but not limited to hunters & gatherers, tribal groups and even 'clans' show numbers ranging from 100-150 people per group. In each larger group setting there are usually sub groups which Dunbar explains decrease (and/or increase) in intervals of five. The smaller the group the more intimate of a relationship you a prone to have. As the numbers increase outward and you arrive between the 50-150 people count the intimacy diminishes and arrives at the idea of an acquaintanceship NOT a friendship. Dunbar extensively correlated primates such as Haymadrya baboons in particular to humans due to their elaborate usage of their neocortex. He identified the implications of having such a different grasp on social interaction then other animals by directing attention to their conscious or perhaps unconscious decisions to attempt and undermine their hegemonic male dominant. Eventually it all alluded to the ideal that we all correlate smaller groups to more intimacy and control, and finally Dunbar gives a perfect scenario to sum up the difference between what an actual FRIEND is and what an acquaintance or someone you 'know' is.

"..if you saw them in the transit lounge during a 3 a.m. stopover at Hong Kong airport, you wouldn't feel embarrassed about going up to them and saying: 'Hi! How are you? Haven't seen you in ages?' In fact they would probably be a bit miffed if you didn't. You wouldn't need to introduce yourself because they would know where you stood in their social world, and you would know where they stood in yours. And, if push really came to shove, they would be more likely than not to agree to lend you a fiver if you asked."  (page 28)

 To tag along on the idea of acquaintanceships we can look at Misra's study to show the effects of social interaction through technology and its sever impact on face to face contact. Initially her study seeks to identify the relationship between the presence (and absence) of a smart phone device while being forced to interact with strangers, as opposed to an interaction with all technologic devices removed. Misra hypothesized that interaction between those still in contact with their mobile devices would be less interested in the face to face contact and thus she was right. In fact it was proved that those with their cell phones in hand or on the table showed lower levels of empathy to the other participants. The participants who had their mobile devices removed showed more charisma and acted more pleasant, outgoing and friendly towards the strangers. Statistics showed and implicated that despite racial, gender or age as a factor those in the presence as opposed to an absence of a mobile device showed less connectedness, empathetic concern, a worse mood and a distancing demeanor towards the other participants.

 By looking at both readings with a general overview of social interaction being conflicted and altered due to our new technological innovations one can understand the importance of face to face interaction. Social media has taken over the lives of not only young people, but elders too. In this day and age rather than a voice phone call, people are prone to text or email. Newly enough, Facetime and Skype have taken over as a sort of face to face interaction; however it is still not equivalent to an actual interaction. By using the knowledge of Dunbar's number to understand that people simply CANNOT actually be friends with the 1,000 people they have listed on Facebook, you can then understand the idea that acquaintances (people you know, or have met once or twice) are not actually friends. You can then also identify with Misra's studies statistics that indefinitely prove upon the negative impact the mere presence of a cell phone has on social engagement between two or more individuals. Social media platforms serve a great purpose of connecting individuals from far and about, networking purposes, making connections you otherwise couldn't, etc. BUT it also elicits a huge deficit on the importance of social interactions and communication skills.

 In order to prosper and excel in the world you must posses transferable communication skills. You must be able to hold a conversation, make eye contact and refrain from using an electronic device in place of your actual voice. In this day and age, evident through research study and statistics such as presented in both articles, it is more than clear our communication skills are being depleted each and every day. The idea that social media platforms were set to build communities and connect you with friends throughout the world is wonderful, however are they actually friends?

Nope. They're not.

 According to Dunbar it is nearly impossible to be actually friends with more than 20 people and have intimate relations with them. Therefore the million followers you have on Instagram could never, statistically, socially or cognitively be your friends.

#dunbar #misra #friendship #acquaintances #limitedfriends #communicationiskey #whatisafriend

[friendshipmeanslove]

What is Friendship?

Blood is thicker than water; or is it. Friendship is thought of as a chosenbond, a relationship between two people with no other connection then a commoninterest in being friends with each other. However, when friendship is relatedto family, or kinship the division becomes less clear. In Marilyn Friedman’s piece _What are Friends for? _she attempts to explain a quasi-voluntarist approach to the responsibilities and values of a true friendship. By examining the nature of friendship itself in relation to the initial free will to selectively choose your friends, as well as voluntarism and friendship in regards to the responsibilities tied to a ‘voluntary relationship’ and finally the dissociation of voluntarism from liberal contractarian presumptions, one can identify with the complicated relationships within family that are not as voluntary. Friedman expresses the importance of a bond created solely on the desire to form an intimate relationship between two strangers, whereas with family the voluntarism is not present. In contemporary lifestyles people are either extremely close with their family members or entirely dethatched. The idea that friendship is built upon a common ground of understanding, equality and mutuality brings question to the assumption that one should have an unbreakable bond with their family members. However, if the bond is not voluntary and does not lie on common ground, how can one manage to maintain a ‘friendship’ or relationship of any sort?

It is true that sometimes your friends can become your family. Not everyone you identify with, as part of your family necessarily has to be blood related. In fact the expression blood is thicker than water, is not always or 100% true. Family can be made up of extremely close bonds between two initial strangers who became more than just friends. In my life I have only known one sister and one father. Neither of them are blood related to me in any way. However, they are just as much a part of my family then my relatives whom are related by blood. The significance of our relationship is the fact my ‘sister’ and I took the voluntary approach at becoming friends many years ago. As our relationship flourished and we created a common ground as well as ‘guidelines’ to our friendship, we became more than just typical friends. This past week I have been babysitting the youngest blood sibling of my best friend and the bond I have and am still creating with her reminds me so much of the young friendship that once flourished between my ‘sister’ and I. As Friedman would describe, the mutual exchange of trust between us as friends, allows us to grow into more than your average daily friendship. Therefore in touch with Friedman’s ideals that a family bond is involuntary, the definition of family can always be altered. Sometimes the family you’re given by blood does not contain relationships vital for becoming friendships, but on the opposing spectrum there are many friendships that can alter into a family. Friendships are voluntary, must be consensual, understood, equal, and give mutual participation on both ends, however the idea that family relations are entirely involuntary limits family to a box that not every person can fit into.

#myfriendsaremyfamily #love #jjayhonors #friendsorfamily