Yesterday I read a very long winded article about friendship. The article, Faux Friendship, by William Deresiewicz goes to some length to educate his reader why in the advance of technology, friendship has gone down hill. Deresiewicz laments that we ‘no longer have families’ so we have to have friends, and as anthropologist Robert Brain says, “we’re friends with everyone now". The biggest threat to modern friendship in Deresiewicz’ opinion appears to be Facebook and other dread and superfluous social networking/media tools.

Well I can’t speak for Deresiewicz or Brain, or anyone else using social media – but what I can tell you for certain is, despite making vigorous use of social networking tools, I do have a family and I am not friends with ‘everyone’ ... nor do I wish to be. Deresiewicz sees friendship being broken into wall posts and sound bytes – all flash, no content and he wonders if we even really know the meaning of friendship these days. Deresiewicz’ article takes us from the friendship of Achilles and Patroclus, to friendship under Christianity, on to the Renaissance, romantic friendship, the industrial revolution and poof! all the way into modernity to prove a point – we have lost touch of what it means to have and to be a friend.

One of the immediate faults I have with this macro analysis of friendship is it presumes far too much. It presumes for instance, that across the ages there was only ever one way to be friends at any given time and that everyone was doing it the same way ie. the way Achilles and Patroclus were. It presumes that the basis of friendship remains stable across gender, culture, age and class – and it presumes we all want the same thing, from all of our friendships, all of the time. When Deresiewicz speaks of social networking – there appears to be a presumption that we all use social networking tools in the same way, for the same purposes, never interact off line, and don’t have a continuum of relationship that extends from acquaintance, to work colleague, to casual friend, to good friends, to besties. There is also an implication that we are not competent enough to choose to use social networking in a way that can transcend Farmville and a status update.

I loved that Deresiewicz took the time to paint friendship across the ages, albeit with a superficial brush. I think less of his lack of imagination around the possible uses of social networking to maintain relationships that are on the other side of the world, build new relationships and networks with people who yes, may be acquaintances today – but who tomorrow may evolve into steadfast supporters and friends. I feel badly that he has drawn a line in the sand about what friendship is and is not, and may therefore be cutting himself off (and suggesting his readers follow suit) from a rich, complex tapestry of other sorts of relationship and friendship.

I don’t know about other people, but for me social networking is efficient, it is expansive and it allows me to interact in a manner that I would never otherwise be able to do. I have developed relationships with people I would have been unlikely to ever have met without the assistance of the internet and maintained relationships that would have likely faltered with distance. I have been socially connected at points of ill health or sadness or grief, that I would otherwise have been alone. I’ve met new work connections, other advocates of causes I believe in, and slowly but surely, built a multi-faceted, supportive, creative network.

I value each and every person on my ‘friends’ list – whether they are an acquaintance or my best friend – and while people may come and go, I make an effort to enjoy them all.

Maybe I am just better at friendship than Mr Deresiewicz can imagine.