Abstract
This essay presents a critical thought on the much ‘celebrated’ social association called ‘friendship’, especially from the contexts of Hinduized (village) societies in India. The usage of the term ‘friendship’ has a wide range; everyone describes ‘friendship’ as per their own convenience. ‘Friendship’ has been considered to be fundamentally different in terms of its non-biological basis; a relationship based on mutual acknowledgement; voluntary in nature that can go beyond any social barriers, without any legal sanction. Various scholars consider ‘friendship’ as enduring ‘way of life’ or as ‘model’ for how we as a society might expand our conceptions of intimacy and care. But, can we really think of ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’? What are the difficulties in considering ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ in the context of the social lifeworld dominated by hegemonic Brahmanism? This essay, on the one hand, recognizes the importance of ‘friendship’ that can provide a space of solidarity at a ‘personal level’ in neoliberal modern societies (consisted with autological rational individuals), but on the other hand, it focuses on the role of ’commonness’ in the processes of ‘becoming friend’ to highlight some difficulties in considering ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ or as a radical category to be endured and to redefine ‘intimacy and care’.
This essay presents a critical thought on the much ‘celebrated’ concept called ‘friendship’ especially from the contexts of Hindu (village) societies in India. The usage of the term ‘friendship’ has a wide range and varieties of words are in use (as synonyms) to describe the relationship of ‘friendship’, such as Mitron, Yaar, Bondhu-Bandhobi, Mate, Sakhi, Dost and Jigri-Dost. Some ‘make friends’, some ‘become friends’, some just ‘be as friends’. The range of usage can be so huge that the Prime Minister (PM) of India can address each and every individual in India as ‘Mitron’, but, at the same time, there are some who say, ‘I do not have many friends’. We often hear—tum mujhe apna dost ki tarah samjho (you can treat me as your friend)—where parents consider ‘friendship’ as an effective way of socializing with their children (to share ‘personal’ matters). Friendship is not just a common form of social association, but it also became a well-constructed social category. From the classical Indian thought, ‘friendship occupies an unusually high place in the hierarchy of human relations. It is a sacred human relationship’ (Parekh, 2008, p. 165). Parekh identified ‘friendship’ as non-oppressive and lightest form of relationship always existed in India. Not only in Indian thought and social life, even Foucault had spoken of ‘friendship’ as a ‘way of life’.
I am a research scholar, currently pursuing PhD degree. This essay is based on my reading of Foucault’s interview on ‘friendship’ (titled ‘Friendship as a way of life’) for learning about ‘ethics’ during our course work. Not only Foucault, but various scholars also think of ‘friendship’ as fundamentally different from the usual oppressive heterosexual marriage based relationalities. ‘Friendship’ considered to be fundamentally different in terms of its non-biological basis; a relationship based on mutual acknowledgement; voluntary in nature that can go beyond any social barriers, without any legal sanction. ‘Many of those who place a friendship at the centre of their life find that their most significant relationship is incomprehensible to others. But these friendships can be models for how we as a society might expand our conceptions of intimacy and care’ (Cohen, 2020). Here I have spoken of Cohen and Foucault’s view only because of the fact that they give the most comprehensive picture of the thought of considering ‘friendship’ as a ‘way of life’. Other than this, the term ‘friendship’ is becoming very popular among LGBTQ+ communities. People describe ‘friendship’ as per their own convenience and each of us imagines the relationship of ‘friendship’ in different way. A White man’s imagination of ‘friendship’ will be different from a Dalit’s way of imagining ‘friendship’. The objective of this essay is to highlight the aspects of differences existing in the meanings of ‘friendship’ across social groups. It is to highlight the difficulties in considering ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ in the social lifeworld dominated by hegemonic Brahmanism.
To highlight such differences in the practices of ‘friendship’, or to do politics of difference, being reflexive can be useful technique. Reflexivity as a mode of qualitative inquiry has long been well acknowledged and multiple studies are there to address how to practice reflexivity (Berger, 2015; Mauthner & Doucet, 2003). I have chosen to be reflexive as it helps me to pay attention to the intertwining relationships between the methodological, epistemological and contextual aspects of a particular problem in an investigation (see Subramani, 2019). Subramani’s account on reflexivity shows how her own social location and her personal experience in healthcare settings along with her exposure to critical theoretical–ethical literatures have shaped her modes of doing qualitative inquiries. In a similar manner, in order to set an inquiry to establish difference in the practices of ‘friendship’, a reflexive note allows me to indulge into my own personal experience as Dalit and as a scholar in an English speaking academic university spaces.
What is ‘Friendship’ in ‘Friendship as a Way of Life?’
For Foucault ‘Friendship’ is not a ‘kind’ of relationship (which is already defined) among the multiple, but as something that is desirable, for example, relationship based on practicing homosexuality where homosexuality is not a ‘kind’ of desire but something that is desirable. ‘In friendship, they have to invent, from A to Z, a relationship that is still formless, which is friendship: that is to say, the sum of everything through which they can give each other pleasure’ (Foucault, 1997, p. 136) and suggests for employing the asceticism. For him, ‘Ascesis is something else: it’s the work that one performs on oneself in order to transform oneself or make the self appear which, happily, one never attains…homosexual ascesis that would make us work on ourselves and invent’ (Foucault, 1997, p. 137). Foucault interpreted ‘friendship’ as practicing homosexual asceticism where ‘a way of life can be shared among the individuals of different social status, age and activity’ (Foucault, 1997, p. 138). In short, practicing homosexual asceticism as ‘way of life’ is essential element in Foucault’s idea of ‘friendship’. This practice of homosexual asceticism is something desirable (but formless), that enables us for self-transformation, sharable across social groups.
Before finding and engaging with the contradictions in the text (e.g., contradictions like—how something desirable can be ‘formless’, how formlessness of ‘friendship’ is not a kind of form, how ‘homosexual asceticism’ is not a kind of defined category, etc.), we need to understand the conceptual framework of the ‘social’ within which Foucault had said all these things. It is visible that Foucault’s notion of ‘friendship’ presupposes a ‘social’ that is constituted with autological modern individuals who can assert agencies to endure a ‘way of life’ across social groups. The way Foucault or other writers like Cohen speaks of ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ or as ‘model’ for the society to expand our conception of ‘intimacy and care’ sounds good but narrowly examined. They have focused on what ‘friendship’ is and how this relationship can generate radical possibilities without considering the social processes of becoming ‘friend’ and such shift in focus can help us further to arrive at a critical thought. What is ‘friendship’ in Hindu dominated village societies in India where individuality/agency of Dalits were denied for thousands of years? To reflect upon this, a discussion on how I see ‘friendship’ will be helpful.
‘Friendship’ Embedded in Various Social Contexts
‘Friendship’ has been thought to be a result of individual’s actions or in some case due to ‘free-floating’ interaction between two individuals, but these kinds of empirical observations fail to recognize how one’s actions or even inactions are always and already rooted into her/his own environmental context. Adams and Allans present four broad contexts within which the relationship of ‘friendship’ take its form: personal environmental level, network level, the community level and the societal level (Adams & Allans, 1998). However within these environmental contexts ‘modes of “doing” friendship—and sociability more generally—emerge that are consonant with the other sets of relationships in which the individuals in question are embedded’ (Allan, 1998, p. 687). In other words, the relationship of ‘friendship’ is embedded in social contexts.
‘Commonness’ in the Process of Becoming ‘Friend’
Each social context has certain system of values that it tries to reproduce. A social setting that prioritizes patriarchal value teaches their people to undermine women. Similarly, a Brahmanical social system teaches people to see some section of society as untouchables, make them a matter of joke and teach to hate other religions. The persons who praise the value system offered by Hindu scriptures might like to consider Gandhi as their ‘friend’ and use his vocabularies like ‘seva’, ‘trusteeship’, ‘care’ or ‘co-operations’ for social problems. On the other hand, the persons who criticize the Hindu scriptures for their violent role towards certain sections of society might consider Ambedkar as their ‘friend’ and use the vocabularies such as ‘self-respect’, ‘rights’ and ‘social justice–injustice’, for social problems (for more details, see Guru, 2012, pp. 88–89). In similar manner recently Suraj Yengde considered Cornell West as ‘Friends of the Oppressed’ (Yengde, 2021). The point that I am trying to make here is to consider the role of ‘commonality’ of values for building a relationship called ‘friendship’.
I lived my initial 20 years of life in a lower caste (Rajbanshi) dominated Hindu village of Uttar Dinajpur district (in West Bengal) till graduation and now it is becoming six years in higher educational institutes in Delhi (like JNU, at AUD). As per my observation, I find ‘commonness’ in value systems as an essential element in the process of becoming ‘friend’. This ‘commonness’ in the value systems can be thought of in both essentialist and non-essentialist sense.
First, ‘friendship’ based on ‘Being-in-common’ (in the sense of Jean-Luc Nancy’s theorization of community, in a non-essentialist sense) as the primary driving force to associate with someone as friend. That means, two people become friend even if there is no essential thing in common. It is the common interest or common ways of living that become the driving force to establish a relationship of ‘friendship’. Here it is individual’s interest that matters; one can become friend with any person across social group.
Second, ‘friendship’ based on ‘commonness in being’ (in an essentialist sense)—for example, common biological lineage, common caste, common village, common language, common region, common classroom, common marriage ceremony, common festival, common taste, common business, common media platform, etc. Here two people become friend for belonging to a common caste status. It is the essential caste identities or religious identities or blood ties (or something essentially common) that become the primary driving force between two individuals, to arrive at ‘commonness’ and to have a mutual acknowledgement of ‘friendship’.
Difficulties in Thinking of ‘Friendship’ as a ‘Way of Life’ or a ‘Model’ to Endure
Everyday life in a village setting always demands a social life. Whom to follow, with whom to be friend, whom to hang out with, etc., are already prescribed since childhood. In villages, I have seen women who are not much freely active outside home and family. Women’s social life remains confined within their immediate kin ties. Their best friends are their mothers or any other cousins with whom they can share their own anxieties. My own gendered identity as man confined me to make ‘friend’ with other lower-caste Hindu men in village. In most cases, men’s best friends are men, women’s best friends are women. In a patriarchal society, the value system with which men practices ‘friendship’ is fundamentally different from women’s way of practicing ‘friendship’. The way I practice ‘friendship’ in the village with my fellow villagers is fundamentally different from the way I practice ‘friendship’ in an English speaking university space. If not gender, then other social barriers like caste-class-religion-language-age-region always do matter to form a relation of ‘friendship’. Here one’s ‘commonness in being’ becomes the primary driving force in doing ‘friendship’.
In such context, one needs to define first about whose imagination of doing ‘friendship’ we are talking about before considering ‘friendship’ (based on ‘commonness in being’) as ‘way of life’. Are we going to adopt a value system (which teaches superiority) offered by upper caste men for practicing ‘friendship’? Or we should adopt the value system (which teaches equity and justice) offered by Dalit (women) for practicing ‘friendship as way of life’?
Like Foucault, many people like to imagine ‘friendship as way of life’ across social group. They might like to imagine ‘friendship’ across social group by ‘being-in-common’. But these imaginations are romanticism; in most cases, they ignore the complex social processes within which a Dalit lives in a Hindu society where every sphere of everyday life is organized hierarchically. Some are dominant and some are subordinates. The relation between dominants and subordinates is a relationship of exploitation, oppression and discrimination. Other than this, the relationship between dominants and subordinates can be understood through the social processes such as ‘Sanskritization’ and ‘Westernization’ where subordinates follow the principles of ‘imitation’ and follow the values system offered by hegemonic forces by ‘coercion’ or ‘consent’. In such social conditioning the subordinates, who just desire to be valued equally, easily falls in the trap of Brahmanism and Western colonial values. Under such social conditioning, if some still consider the possibilities of ‘friendship’ by ‘being-in-common’ across social groups, I want to ask—will upper-caste elites consider a (criminalized) subaltern in ‘common’? Can there be a relationship of ‘friendship’ between White urban woman and a ‘dark broken man’? Can a Brahmin be a ‘friend’ with an untouchable? The answer is no, especially in the Hindu societies where a deep play of Brahmanism exist. If some says yes, then one have to define whose imagined ‘commonness’ will be followed or located at the top of the hierarchy? Can an untouchable practice her own value system of ‘friendship’ with a Brahmin? Can a ‘dark broken man’ practice his way of ‘friendship’ with an English speaking elite upper caste urban woman? Whose mannerism (of joking, abusing and enjoying) will be given privilege to practice ‘friendship’? Is it ethical itself to imagine ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ when the individuals of a Hindu dominated society consistently practices certain jokes, memes or rituals which is abusive for other sections of the same society? How can one imagine ‘friendship’ between person from Asura community and person of Brahmin caste in a society where people celebrate Durga Puja? Even if they become at superficial level, the deep play of inequalities of exchange of cultural values remain inherent in that kind of relationship of ‘friendship’. Such deep play of inequalities can be seen in the portrayals of Hindu mythological fictions. Caste status based inequalities of exchange are evident in the portrayals of ‘friendship’ between Karna (with lower caste identity) and Duryodhan; Krishna and Sudama; Rama and Bivishan; Rama and Sugriva, etc., where the powerful higher caste individuals builds ‘friendship’ with lower caste people for establishing certain Dharma which maintains the superiority of their own kind. In these portrayals the excellent people with lower caste identity mattered only when a higher caste individual offered ‘friendship’ to them like charity. In such social context of Hindu dominated Brahmanical hegemonic setting imagining ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ or as an alternative model to be endured is itself based on exclusionary principles.
Other than this, there is sense of double burden on the side of Dalit in the relationship of ‘friendship’ with an elite upper caste person. An elite person can become ‘friend’ with Dalits only if they have upgraded or ready to upgrade them by embodying the upper caste/class values by the processes of Sanskritization. As the Brahminical ways of living is a kind of hegemonic force in a Hindu society, Dalits easily become part in the process of Sanskritization, unconsciously. On the one hand, one have to catch up with Delhi’s way of living in the higher educational institutes by being alienated from home and also by tolerating various discriminatory remarks through jokes, language and attitude; and on the other hand, they have to take initiative to maintain certain level of ‘commonness’—the level prescribed by the urbanite-elite-upper caste persons. If not caste, then the dimensions like gender, class or religion become the factors influencing ‘commonness’. A Dalit always carries a burden of catching-up for turning into ‘civilized’ enough to arrive at a ‘civilized place’ to become ‘friend’ with an upper caste person (who is born with social privileges). It is true that transformation of self is an important step towards social reform, but transformation of self towards what? Whose imagined self is being considered as ‘civil’? How the processes of transforming self are relevant when one’s way of being itself is already moulded within particular Brahminical cultural setting? In a society where differences among non-heterosexual communities are also based on caste or class or religion (see Kothazham, 2020), then how practicing homosexual ascesis make sense when it comes to social reform? Can we think of social reform before annihilation of caste (or any barriers which restricts one’s sociality)? How can we think of ‘friendship’ as a radical category (to redefine intimacy and care) in a society where caste based socialities defines ones ‘way of being’ itself?
Concluding Remarks
The sense of ‘friendship’ was always evident in societies of India. However, some might consider ‘friendship’ as radical category in a neo-liberal White modern ideal society, but it is very difficult to imagine ‘friendship’ as alternate model to be endured to extend our conception regarding intimacy and care without defining it. To respect one’s self is to respect her/his cultural values; and I do not see such kind of ‘respect’ across communities in a Hindu dominated social world. Hence I do not see ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ across communities in the social context of hierarchical lifeworld where deep inequalities of exchange are constantly at play. Without considering the complex social processes romanticizing ‘friendship’ as ‘way of life’ across social groups can be misleading for the voice of the dissents.
Otherwise, I think of ‘friendship’ not as an alternative social setting but different form ‘kinship’ since the notion of ‘Kinship’ has been thought of as something that does not essentialize bio-genetic elements and determined by cultural artefacts (especially in post-Schneider’s critique to biological essentialism in kinship studies, and in post-Carsten’s view on kinship as ‘relatedness’). The process of becoming ‘friend’ looks similar to the process of forming a kin tie (based on ‘commonness in being’). This is visible not only in the village, but also in the university spaces where vocabularies such as ‘networking’, ‘collaborating’ and ‘global sisterhood’, becoming popular. Hence, for me, the phrase ‘friendship as a way of being’ sounds similar to ‘kinship as a way of being’; and without a proper record of various meanings of ‘friendship’ and eradicating the differences based on caste-gender-class in a Hindu dominated Brahmanical hegemonic setting one cannot imagine any forms of relationship as ‘way of life’ or as a ‘model’ to be endured.