Conflict Is the True Test of Friendship
The good times can hide a lot beneath the surface
It’s my fault for thinking Bella and I were friends or on the road to friendship. We were never friends, as I define it, because the moment we had a principle-based disagreement, I was dismissed, unapologetically cast out, after months, with the whim of an administrative button. You cannot consider yourself friends with a person until the good times hit a roadblock and you make it through.
_____ removed you from the group
Yes, that is how informal it all was. It was shocking that Bella had done this without saying a word to me. The petty clues, colluding silence, and levels of fucked-upedness took me months to unravel.
I knew the exact inflexion point that jump-started her distance from me. I traced it back to what I thought was a casual discussion about an entertainer’s art and whether an individual boycott in Europe of said art effectively protested the actions of an aggressive government in the Middle East. What did the artist’s film being shown in cinemas around the world, including that country, have to do with that government’s persecution of that long oppressed group? We aligned in our condemnation of the government’s actions and attitude. We disagreed on the impact of her protest. Still, I told Bella I understood the explanation of her boycott against the artist’s film, even as I struggled with the efficacy and sense-making of her decision. I would not be boycotting the artists’ film. The sense was not there for me.
People can disagree with me, but that doesn’t make me wrong. I didn’t say that part, but it is how I felt and still feel. But I saw in the wince on her face as I spoke that she disliked what I had to say. You do you, and I will do me was the tacit end of our conversation.
The night went on, and good vibes flowed at the party. Little did I know the basis of our disagreement would later be cited as the reason for my dismissal from the group. But I had to be the one to seek the ‘why’ of her dismissal when the ‘removed’ notification popped up on my phone. I had shown up for her endeavours, shared laughs and days out, I was invited her to her birthday celebration, and I handmade her a gift. I say all that because the Human Resources language with which Bella greeted me when I pointedly texted her about the removal didn’t comport with her past actions.
Some of you will read this and not see what I have described as a big deal or think you’d do the same thing based on the limited details I’ve posted here. That’s fine. People can choose their friends and decide that a relationship is no longer enjoyable for them and seek to change the dynamic. I’m not here to argue that people shouldn’t do what they want. But Newton’s Third Law of Motion teaches us that nothing happens in a consequence-free vacuum.
That Law is also relevant to energy and emotional bonds between two subjects or a group of subjects, otherwise known as people. In short, when we make inhumane decisions for our perceived benefit, there will be consequences and repercussions we must be prepared to accept. They are not always harmful, but when they are, we cannot claim to be victims when our actions ignite the results.
Conflict is Not Abuse
There are a few books I think *everyone* should read, but Schulman’s is one of them. From intimate interpersonal conflict to Canada’s criminalisation of non-disclosure of HIV status to Israel’s dehumanising persecution of Palestinians, Shuhrer navigates real examples of how forms of denial, projection, lack of direct communication and over-stating harm unnecessarily escalate conflict. To be confrontational is to seek direct communication or resolution to conflict. To be avoidant is to avoid communication and hope the conflict will resolve itself. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. Even cultures that are more collective-oriented rather than individualistic have forms of non-avoidant conflict resolution.
Conflict takes on many forms, not just yelling or fighting. It can be wanting two different views on a thing or wanting two different outcomes. It does not always involve abuse. To disagree is not necessarily abusive. Again, I bring us back to that infamous James Baldwin quote:
The Internet makes vast amounts of information available at our fingertips, but social media algorithms have increasingly boxed us into silos, reflecting our own biases back to us. We block and mute people whose opinions we don’t want to see. (This clearly excludes “perspectives” that “disagree” with fundamental notions of equality for oppressed people). Then there’s the exploitative misuse of therapeutic terms to indulge in selfishness and avoid accountability. These factors are partly to blame for why we interpret conflict as abuse that needs to be cut out like cancer from the body rather than something to be treated with communication.
Ghosting and Cutting Off People
In some instances, ‘ghosting’ a person or situation is the best or safest option. However, many people use ‘ghosting’ and ‘cutting off’ people to absolve themselves of their cowardliness, self-centredness and conflict avoidance. ‘Ghosting’ is meant for situations in which a person does not feel safe or there is a threat of abuse or retaliation. It is not meant for people with whom you have an active, communicative relationship. Call me a Boomer, but when you are in relationship with someone, you do owe them something--contrary to memes on Instagram that urge us to burrow further into our emotional comfort blankets. Avoiding what’s hard is not ‘protecting’ our peace. It’s choosing our convenience. Just because something feels good in the moment doesn’t mean it won’t have shitty aftereffects.
When I was a young(er) warthog…
Lest you think I’m sitting on some moral high horse, let me give you an example of me being dead-ass wrong with how I treated a person.
Well, over a decade ago, I used to read fanfiction of my favourite TV lesbian couple. I found an author whose work perfectly suited my imagination and literary proclivities. I read her work voraciously and went so far as to send them a private message to express gratitude for its themes. We used to write (non-romantic) letters to each other over DM, getting to know the people behind the screen names. This continued for a year and was a deep comfort to me during a period of loneliness and uncertainty. But then my life changed; it became busier and more meaningful, and I made less time for things I used to enjoy. That author’s last letter went unanswered. After months, she wrote again out of concern because it was very unlike me not to write back. She was correct, but I never wrote back for various justifications that all fall under lazy and cowardly. Even when I realised I felt burdened by the communication, I still owed her an explanation.
I was wrong to have acted that way, especially since there was no threat or danger, simply inconvenience and awkwardness. The actions that served me back then still negatively impacted another person, and she did not deserve that. I would like to think I am better today, but I need to be tested. Perhaps Bella is my karma.
Count Your F*cking Days, Mark Zuckerberg
The Internet has slowly eroded the significance of the term ‘friend’, and I blame Mark Zuckerberg. Sure, social networks like Black Planet (1999), Friendster (2002), and My Space (2003) predate Facebook, but the idea of using ‘friend’ as a verb to invite contacts into our online panopticons was popularised by Zuckerberg’s app, and the rest that followed.
We went from using these social applications as online outlets for maintaining real connections to mediated spaces in which we are main characters who perform for our ‘followers’, and surveil each other’s performances. In the process of going from individual people to individual brands/marketing reps, the proliferation of screen-based culture has caused us to move further into self-obsessed silos where we expect people to acknowledge and respect our every nuance and boundary but scoff when others ask it of us. The panoptical camera phones have been pointed at us for a long time, but we’re moving so mad we can’t see the results! But the effects are there, unravelling before our very eyes. They have both interpersonal effects (loneliness, isolation, vitriolic trolling) and geo-political consequences (“I’m writing in X on my ballot as my personal protest because neither candidate is good enough”).
These behaviours are fucking up our relationships and our society.
People have criteria for friendships but don’t consider being a good friend. All friendships are relationships of mutuality, the terms of which should function according to that friendship. If it’s normal not to speak for months at a time, so be it. If you talk three times a day, great for you.
Going in Different Directions
Sometimes, friendships or close associations fall apart. The end can be a mutual or a one-sided decision that results in feelings of loss on one or both sides. I had a friend (so I thought) who was a charming human with a positive spirit; she was kind, encouraging and possessed a great sense of humour. The trouble was she used to threaten to get together but would habitually cancel at the last minute, citing a long-term condition. But then I would find out she went out with other people we knew or had them over to her place.
I could not figure out if she liked me or if I was expendable in her orbit. As if our plans were always written in pencil and never ink. I kept speaking to her, but I stopped initiating plans so that when she suggested we get together, I simply asked her for a date that worked for her. When she would never get back to me with anything concrete, I took the hint and relinquished any hopes beyond casual sociality. Disappointed, but I was ultimately OK with the outcome. I can adjust my expectations for our association; just communicate that.
I don’t wanna be friends, I don’t wanna be friends, I DON’T WANNA BE FRIENDS
My closest friendship of thirty years has withstood a lot, and we’ve had conflict in every decade of our existence, the most recent being four years ago. That conflict hurt, and it genuinely threatened to upend our friendship. But after we both pre-mourned the friendship, we decided we wanted to be in each other’s life. Having individually been in therapy, we have learned to own our ‘stuff’ and know each other enough to point out when the other’s ‘stuff’ may be holding them back. So, we set aside time to address matters head-on. We came out strong on the other side.
I know all the bad things about me, but only some of them do I wish to change. I value the bonds I have, and so I want to be considerate of other people’s needs and feelings. I also have blind spots (as we all do), and sometimes they are pointed out to me. But I am also unwilling to lie to people and call it protection. That’s what I felt Bella had done to me.
I processed what happened and gave myself closure (because you won’t always get that from someone else) to heal from that rejection. I realised that I didn’t meet her standards, but after more consideration of the way she behaved at the end, she showed that she didn’t meet my standards for friendship either. You can’t be my friend and not be honest with me. The truth doesn’t have to be mean to be real.
Having processed this most recent rejection of friendship, I am thankful that the people who call me ‘friend’ value our relationship enough to communicate their displeasure or hurt. I am also thankful for the conflict that exposed the inauthentic underbelly of Bella’s energetic outward persona.
Today, Bella and I move in some of the same social circles, so we see each other a few times a year. I hold no bitterness and wish her success and happiness (indeed—because there are people for whose downfall I pray daily, and I’m not even religious). We smile and mean it; we are cordial and friendly acquaintances and mean it. We have a good time in the company of others and mean it. We are not friends, and *I* mean that.
