Teacher says we can't be friends....

[Philter]

 

My first reaction was my problem with the sourcing of the article. As you say, this is not from the Education Beat. This is freelancery from the Fashion pages. The only quote from someone with a public policy inclination was fronted with the very fishy graph that begins: "Schools insist.." what? Like we know better? really. Dr. Thompson's book is 10 years old. The rest of the quotes are personal anecdotes. I think that there is less there than meets the eye and that this is another oversold headline from the NYT.

 

NYTimes is more and more full of {censored} by the month. Half the {censored} I read there is basically made up now, shock pieces like this one to raise your hackles and get you to email it angry to all your friends. Once you look carefuly most of these kind of articles dissolve into a lot of nothingness.

 

As we have heard in this thread there was no kind of wonderful golden age of youth relationships in the past. Kids are still learning and they rely on adults to guide them to make good decisions. Libertarianism can never extend to childhood. This is something I'm painfully aware of now as the father of a two year old who seems intent on getting himself killed at every second of every day.

 

My experiment with juvenile libertarianism today was to leave him to his own devices as he was playing quietly upstairs. Too quietly. So I go upstairs, he has pulled his diaper off, there is {censored} on his legs, {censored} on his hands, {censored} on his elbow wtf, {censored} on the hallway carpet, and as I discover 2 hours later, {censored} on mommy and daddy's bed sheet.

 

Kids need guidance. The worst thing you can accuse the guy in the article of is trying to help kids to grow up in a healthy environment. All the talk about big brother is missing the point. Educators are constantly looking for the best ways to help kids develop, even now in the US when a lot of parents are clueless. There will be good ideas and bad ideas but the nonsense about thought control is just that- nonsense.

[Lee Flier]

With regards to some of the comments here, did you guys read the whole article?

 

 

Yes, and I found it extremely disturbing.

 

 

I did, and a couple things emerge: this article appears to reflect a muted, reflective ongoing debate where the 'poles' do not seem particularly distant. It also seems pretty clear that this is not about breaking up friendships but rather encouraging kids who may be too dependent on one special friend to grow other relationships, too.

 

 

Wow, that is not what I got from it at all. Yes, some people quoted had that attitude. Others did not.

 

 

[Lee Flier]

Now... all that said, I want to go back to the aspect of this that may be a little forgotten here: the whole institution of the best friend is, to some extent a romantic ideal which we've been conned into buying into by generations of various sort of romantics. It's as convenient to storytelling as romantic love is.

 

 

Huh?

 

That's pretty ridiculous. I always had a best friend or two in school. Still do. It was always the most natural thing in the world for that to happen. Yes, it would suck for a kid who wanted a best friend and didn't have one, but it also sucks if you want to date someone in high school and no one finds you attractive, or any number of screwed-up social circumstances that can happen to kids (and adults). That doesn't mean the whole concept of the relationship is "idealized," it just means it doesn't happen that way for everyone. No one who does enjoy a close relationship should have to water it down for the sake of the kids who don't have one or the adults who think it's "idealized," much less something we've been "conned" into believing. We don't seek close relationships because somebody tells a good story about them; best friends and romantic relationships make for good stories because of our innate tendency to seek close relationships.

[nat whilk II]

Yes, and I found it extremely disturbing. Wow, that is not what I got from it at all. Yes, some people quoted had that attitude. Others did not. And... OK, that is seriously, seriously {censored}ed up. And if anybody had ever tried to do that kind of crap to me as a kid, I don't even know what I'd have done, but it wouldn't have been good. Holy crap, it's like every social or behavioral response that is at all inconvenient for anyone is labeled as a pathology now. Unbelievable.

 

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of two contexts in which I've seen "exclusive" friendships discouraged (other than the educational context):

 

I've read the biographies of a few famous monks - Thomas Merton for example - and there were mentions here and there of a discouraging of exclusive friendships in monastaries. For the purpose of fostering an "agape" love - ie, disinterested, universal, spiritual love - for all the members of the community (and the world for that matter). Very high ideal, taken on by adults freely as part of their chosen committment to the monastic life.

 

The other example is in some accounts of episodes in Communist contexts such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution - where the State is jealous of any strong attachment and committment other than to Itself. Interesting that the criticism of exclusive friendships in this context also mirrors an attitude that the Best Friends notion is a bougeois myth foisted upon society in the furtherance of a hidden evil agenda etc etc.

 

Can't help but wonder if homophobia is lurking somewhere under the surface of all this, also.

 

nat whilk ii

[Lee Flier]

Off the top of my head, I can think of two contexts in which I've seen "exclusive" friendships discouraged (other than the educational context): I've read the biographies of a few famous monks - Thomas Merton for example - and there were mentions here and there of a discouraging of exclusive friendships in monastaries. For the purpose of fostering an "agape" love - ie, disinterested, universal, spiritual love - for all the members of the community (and the world for that matter). Very high ideal, taken on by adults freely as part of their chosen committment to the monastic life. The other example is in some accounts of episodes in Communist contexts such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution - where the State is jealous of any strong attachment and committment other than to Itself. Interesting that the criticism of exclusive friendships in this context also mirrors an attitude that the Best Friends notion is a bougeois myth foisted upon society in the furtherance of a hidden evil agenda etc etc.

Yeah. The whole idea really is disturbing. I'm not so sure there's a "big brother" agenda here so much, as an agenda of parents thinking it's in their children's best interest to be "socially well adjusted," which these days basically equates to forming large numbers of more superficial relationships. That way, if one friend goes away there are plenty of others to take their place, and the parent or teacher doesn't have to deal with the child's pain. And in adulthood, people are expected to uproot their extended families, friendships and community life if they find a job in another city where they will earn more money. So, weakening specific relationships is "convenient" there too.

Doesn't make it any less {censored}ed up.

Can't help but wonder if homophobia is lurking somewhere under the surface of all this, also.

In some cases, possibly. They don't specify that the best friend is always the same gender - quite a few of my best friends were boys. Still are.

[Dessalines]

Harris and Klebold? Where do they fit in?

[UstadKhanAli]

"If you have two friends in your lifetime, you're lucky. If you have one good friend, you're more than lucky."

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Now... all that said, I want to go back to the aspect of this that may be a little forgotten here: the whole institution of the best friend is, to some extent a romantic ideal which we've been conned into buying into by generations of various sort of romantics. It's as convenient to storytelling as romantic love is.

 

 

I like your post in general, but I don't believe I agree with this. I've seen way too many people who have had best friends for decades to agree with this statement here.

[blue2blue]

Huh? That's pretty ridiculous. I always had a best friend or two in school. Still do. It was always the most natural thing in the world for that to happen. Yes, it would suck for a kid who wanted a best friend and didn't have one, but it also sucks if you want to date someone in high school and no one finds you attractive, or any number of screwed-up social circumstances that can happen to kids (and adults). That doesn't mean the whole concept of the relationship is "idealized," it just means it doesn't happen that way for everyone. No one who does enjoy a close relationship should have to water it down for the sake of the kids who don't have one or the adults who think it's "idealized," much less something we've been "conned" into believing. We don't seek close relationships because somebody tells a good story about them; best friends and romantic relationships make for good stories because of our innate tendency to seek close relationships.

Keep in mind, Lee, that in my comments I've been arguing against heavy handed manipulation of kids. But I don't think parents or teachers should abnegate all of their responsibilities for overseeing the social growth of their charges.

 

You note that you always had one or two 'best friends' -- that sounds a lot more like the sort of socializing that some of these folks are trying to encourage.

 

Close friendships are important for a child's development. I didn't see anyone dismissing or discouraging that. But a child who can only relate to a single best friend or who is overly possessive or controlling of that friend may be hurting themselves and quite likely the best friend, as well.

 

It's interesting that you read this and take it in such stark terms while I seem to see a more moderate range of opinions and approaches.

 

Again, I really do not think intrusive meddling and manipulating in a child's friendships is helpful or healthful. But encouraging a child to build other social ties and learn to interact with others outside his or her comfort zone does reflect a healthful approach to encouraging growth and broadened experience.

 

 

 

Again, as others have noted, this article strikes me as entirely superficial and cooked to generate interest and perhaps a little cranky outrage -- out of something that doesn't really appear to me to be that outrageous.

[blue2blue]

I like your post in general, but I don't believe I agree with this. I've seen way too many people who have had best friends for decades to agree with this statement here.

 

A lot of folks have said that about the concept of romantic love and its place in literature, as well.

 

Perhaps I stated my thoughts on that aspect poorly, however.

 

Let me revise my comments to suggest that the literary institution of the best friend is one which has greatly informed and influenced our social notions and expectations -- and not always in ways that are healthful to the individual or the relationship.

 

Does that seem less of a stretch?

[UstadKhanAli]

Let me revise my comments to suggest that the literary institution of the best friend is one which has greatly informed and influenced our social notions and expectations -- and not always in ways that are healthful to the individual or the relationship.

I would definitely not have "protested" to this.

[Lee Flier]

Let me revise my comments to suggest that the literary institution of the best friend is one which has greatly informed and influenced our social notions and expectations -- and not always in ways that are healthful to the individual or the relationship. Does that seem less of a stretch?

 

 

I don't know - I'm kind of hard pressed to think of examples, other than obvious ones like the ones you guys mentioned that are meant to turn the best friend into a villain.

 

 

So, you know, moving forward through life, I found myself developing a more nuanced and flexible view of friendship as I matured away from those puerile, cripplingly immature attitudes and emotions [that I note in my own personal examples above].

 

 

Well, OK, but I would suggest that this isn't the fault of "friendship" or the idea of a best friend, or even how it's described in literature or the media. It's just some unhealthy manifestations of it, which certainly do exist. Usually problems with friendships can be traced to problems within the individual(s), though, and only by continuing to cultivate friendships and working on not only one's own behavior but who one chooses as a friend, can anyone learn to get past that. Just saying "I had these unhealthy experiences and therefore having a best friend is bad" isn't going to solve anything... and I realize you're not saying it to that extreme, but just saying.

[Lee Flier]

Read the books of Judith Rich Harris, author of THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION: WHY CHILDREN TURN OUT THE WAY THEY DO. She claims----ready for this?---- that parents have no ability to "shape" or "mould" a child's personality. Zip, zilch, nada .

 

 

Yeah, I haven't read the book but I read an interview with her at the time that it came out. I believe that actually. I think that parents do affect their children's behavior but not their personality or identity - which are two different things. Personality/identity is who you are; behavior is how "who you are" responds to what life dishes out. Which is why even siblings who've had similar upbringings will often respond completely differently to the same situation.

[Lee Flier]

Keep in mind, Lee, that in my comments I've been arguing against heavy handed manipulation of kids. But I don't think parents or teachers should abnegate all of their responsibilities for overseeing the social growth of their charges.

I don't either - if they are obviously having a problem. The trouble is that we've seen some types of behavior and attitudes come to be seen as "problems" when they aren't necessarily. I honestly never thought I'd see the day when it would even be seriously suggested that having a best friend is unnecessary or unhealthy.

You note that you always had one or two 'best friends' -- that sounds a lot more like the sort of socializing that some of these folks are trying to encourage .

It sure didn't read that way to me - not the passages that I quoted, anyway.

Close friendships are important for a child's development. I didn't see anyone dismissing or discouraging that. But a child who can only relate to a single best friend or who is overly possessive or controlling of that friend may be hurting themselves and quite likely the best friend, as well.

Being possessive or controlling is never a good thing in any type of relationship (although there are quite a few perfectly normal relationships where one person does dominate, and both parties might be fine with that). If someone is overly possessive or controlling, that's a problem with that person, not with the fact that they have a best friend.

And if someone has trouble relating to anyone but their best friend... well, that may just be how it is. Kids who don't fit in with the norm in one way or another often never learn to really relate to lots of different kinds of people, and in fact it might be really overwhelming for them to try. This isn't necessarily some horrible thing. But instead of being happy that their possibly misfit kid found at least one person they can really relate to, it's apparently being seen by some as a problem.

I myself was basically a social misfit all through school. I was never going to fit in with the typical social activities or mindset, and there weren't that many people I could relate to. So yes, I valued the few friends I had very much. If my teachers would've insisted that I not hang out with them at lunch so that I could learn to relate to some other kids, there would have been hell to pay. Seriously, that has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Again, I really do not think intrusive meddling and manipulating in a child's friendships is helpful or healthful. But encouraging a child to build other social ties and learn to interact with others outside his or her comfort zone does reflect a healthful approach to encouraging growth and broadened experience.

That's fine except that a lot of kids have pretty limited time to spend with their friends to begin with. So "encouraging a child to build other social ties" is quite often going to mean "separating them from their best friend," like they flat out said they do at that summer camp. That's just bull{censored}, sorry. Unless it is obvious that a particular relationship is disruptive and unhealthy, it's none of anybody's business. But that camp says that if ANY two kids start getting "too close," they do things to separate them. And that one school psychologist said "We say a kid doesn't need a best friend." That's all completely insane bull{censored}.

[blue2blue]

You seem to be arguing to some extent with positions I don't take, Lee, so I really don't have a lot to say about in response.

 

But I don't think the kind of highly idealized, intensely personal best friends forever type of relationship glorified and romanticized in a number of movies, books, and songs is absolutely 'necessary' for a healthy childhood.

 

Still, reading your comments, I don't really think you think so, either. I think you value friendship and the freedom of children to grow in their own way. And so do I.

 

________________

 

 

Again, before anyone (not talking to Lee, or anyone else specifically here) takes that as an attempt to justify jackbooted adult intrusion into the childhood personal growth, please review my earlier comments, which I don't think should lead anyone to that assumption. And if they do, I have failed at my job of trying to clearly communicate my complex feelings about the issue or there is some other sort of dysfunction in the communication process.

[Lee Flier]

You seem to be arguing to some extent with positions I don't take, Lee,

 

 

I didn't really say that you take some of these positions, but I did say that I think some of the people quoted in the article are taking some positions that you don't seem to think they are, and I disagree with those positions.

 

 

But I don't think the kind of highly idealized, intensely personal best friends forever type of relationship glorified and romanticized in a number of movies, books, and songs is absolutely 'necessary' for a healthy childhood.

 

 

I didn't say it was - I said that some kids have those types of relationships and some don't, and that if one does, there's certainly nothing wrong with it and it can be extremely rewarding. And it's certainly not anyone else's place to say it's unnecessary. And furthermore I can't even believe I need to say this.

 

I also really don't think it's a bad thing that kids learn that friendships can be difficult or fall apart, and that this shouldn't stop them from forming another close relationship and learning from past ones. I suspect you don't think this is a bad thing either, but a kid can't learn these things if they are discouraged from forming "exclusive" relationships.

 

 

Still, reading your comments, I don't really think you think so, either. I think you value friendship and the freedom of children to grow in their own way.

 

 

Yes. Some kids do better in larger social groups and some do better with one or two more intimate friends. Nothing wrong with either one as long as it's their choice and suits their natural tendencies. And I agree that it's fine to push kids out of their comfort zone sometimes, key word here being sometimes. Asking kids to talk to a new classmate that they don't know very well, say once a week, isn't so bad. Deliberately putting kids who are "too close" on separate sports teams or making them sit at opposite ends of the table at lunch - not cool. Making a kid who doesn't normally gravitate toward large social groups bring home 12 kids after school when they would prefer one, on more than a very occasional basis like a birthday party - not cool. An educator making a blanket statement like "a kid doesn't need a best friend" - not cool. These are all examples taken directly from the article.

[rasputin1963]

Did you guys happen to read the Reader Comments printed after the article in the NYT?

 

One submission really caught my eye. Chris From Brooklyn writes:

 

"Just the other day I brought my 8 yo daughter and several of her friends on an all day outing. The interactions that I witnessed were quite an eye opener. I personally believe the concept of a "BFF" (best friend forever) is indulgent and can potentially set up children for social experiences that many are not mature enough to deal with.

 

Examples witnessed:

 

Girl A refusing to let any of the other girls near her BFF, and when one or the other of the girls was finally able to speak to the "BFF", Girl A would either burst into tears, sulk, or later choose the girl who was able to have a conversation with the BFF for teasing.

 

Girl B telling Girl C that she used to be BFF number 1, but was now number 2 because Girl C had never invited her over for a sleep over, suggesting to Girl C what she could do to recover her number 1 position.

 

When I was able to convince jealous Girl A to expand her girlfriend horizons, her BFF would come around with another girl in tow hugging said girl and telling her how beautiful she thought she was all the while sneaking side long glances to see if Girl A would redirect her attention back onto her.

 

So, um yeah, I think this is what they were talking about in the article, and many readers are not seeing the bigger picture here. Psychological Darwinism aside, appreciating the subtleties of group behavior are what make for a more successfully social being. BFF'ing can definitely enable emotional co-dependencies, let alone just perpetuating an isolated socio-emotional experience. The ability to be able to seek out, and maintain MULTIPLE friendships are what make for an individual with higher self-esteem. Go ahead and encourage your children's dear close friendships, but if that experience is with just solely one friend your child might find themselves very lonely in the not too distant future if said friend decides to move or finds a new BFF."

 

 

The information in this Reader Comment..... and the particular photo that accompanied the original article.... definitely hint that maybe this phenomenon is thought to be more pernicious amongst little girls...?

 

Just my hunch...

[Lee Flier]

No, those just sound like some really screwed up little girls who need to learn how to get along with people better ("BFF's" or not) and who are obviously extremely insecure.

 

Boys have their own ways of acting out those same things - again if they're screwed up.

 

None of these comments reflect any kind of normal behavior with best friends - also it is pretty common for kids to be jealous of each other and insecure, and that is what parents and teachers need to guide them through - how to deal with those feelings, not how to remove themselves from the relationships that led to those feelings.

[nat whilk II]

Just an empirical observation from my corner of the world FWIW - watching my daughter grow up and her ups and downs and social miseries and consolations, etc. - the girls in her neighborhood/classes/dorms have had a tendency to generate a rather astonishing amount of drama just getting through the normal processes and milestones of socialization.

Oh it has looked totally insane to me at numerous junctures of social meltdowns...o the jealousies, the consolations, the vendettas, the schemers, the tears, the commisserations, the fights, the reconciliations, the betrayals, and lo how the sun comes up shining anyway after the world ended any number of times.

In spite of all, my daughter and her crowd are turning out pretty normal, on the high-achieving end of the spectrum, and getting on with life at least as well as we did at that age in our time. She's got friends (including a best friend,) she's got some perspective, she's got some common sense...spoils of the social wars to a large degree.

The only thing I cannot quite grok, however, is how dang MESSY this generation of girls are - anyone else seen a girl's dorm room lately?

nat whilk ii

[blue2blue]

I didn't really say that you take some of these positions, but I did say that I think some of the people quoted in the article are taking some positions that you don't seem to think they are, and I disagree with those positions. I didn't say it was - I said that some kids have those types of relationships and some don't, and that if one does, there's certainly nothing wrong with it and it can be extremely rewarding. And it's certainly not anyone else's place to say it's un necessary. And furthermore I can't even believe I need to say this. I also really don't think it's a bad thing that kids learn that friendships can be difficult or fall apart, and that this shouldn't stop them from forming another close relationship and learning from past ones. I suspect you don't think this is a bad thing either, but a kid can't learn these things if they are discouraged from forming "exclusive" relationships. Yes. Some kids do better in larger social groups and some do better with one or two more intimate friends. Nothing wrong with either one as long as it's their choice and suits their natural tendencies. And I agree that it's fine to push kids out of their comfort zone sometimes, key word here being sometimes . Asking kids to talk to a new classmate that they don't know very well, say once a week, isn't so bad. Deliberately putting kids who are "too close" on separate sports teams or making them sit at opposite ends of the table at lunch - not cool. Making a kid who doesn't normally gravitate toward large social groups bring home 12 kids after school when they would prefer one, on more than a very occasional basis like a birthday party - not cool. An educator making a blanket statement like "a kid doesn't need a best friend" - not cool. These are all examples taken directly from the article.

See, we weren't really far apart at all.

[Frantag]

My first thought upon reading this thread is to say to anyone who would try to choose their kids' friends..."Good luck with that".

We will idealize whoever we will and there seem to be some important exchanges meeting pretty deep emotional needs that can only be satisfied in certain types of friendships. We're hard wired for this and any attempt to screw with the designs of nature will end up really coming back to haunt us somewhere down the road.

[nat whilk II]

My first thought upon reading this thread is to say to anyone who would try to choose their kids' friends..."Good luck with that". We will idealize whoever we will and there seem to be some important exchanges meeting pretty deep emotional needs that can only be satisfied in certain types of friendships. We're hard wired for this and any attempt to screw with the designs of nature will end up really coming back to haunt us somewhere down the road.

 

 

+111 on that. Nature takes it due, regardless.

 

I mean you turn a "best friendship" into forbidden fruit and for some kids that alone will make such things all the sweeter, probably even easier to go co-dependent and damaging.

 

The rule of unintended consequences....

 

nat whilk ii

[Hard Truth]

...the jealousies, the consolations, the vendettas, the schemers, the tears, the commisserations, the fights, the reconciliations, the betrayals,....

 

 

Sounds like good preparation for a career in politics or big business.

[the stranger]

[YOUTUBE]TlV7ELBMxHs[/YOUTUBE]

I would have used Another Brick in the Wall Part II, but that would have been too predictable. And not near as funky.

[Philter]

 

No, those just sound like some really screwed up little girls who need to learn how to get along with people better ("BFF's" or not) and who are obviously extremely insecure. Boys have their own ways of acting out those same things - again if they're screwed up. None of these comments reflect any kind of normal behavior with best friends - also it is pretty common for kids to be jealous of each other and insecure, and that is what parents and teachers need to guide them through - how to deal with those feelings, not how to remove themselves from the relationships that led to those feelings.

 

 

Normal is relative. When you say "normal" you might as well just hit the space bar six times instead; that's how much meaningful information is contained in that word. Do you label your own kids as normal?