By Edwin Cooney
It’s true, I’m neither a psychologist nor a sociologist -- although I very briefly considered majoring in sociology in college. Still, as I see it, anyone who spends sixty plus years on this planet of ours and pays careful attention to the lives of people around them ought to be eligible, at the very least, to receive a certificate in sociology. Even more than family, the most precious earthly institution is “friendship.”
Some people will tell you that they have lots of friends. Others will say that they don’t have a lot of friends, but the ones they do have are very close indeed. Of course, some of us are by nature very self-analytical while others don’t really feel comfortable with
self-reflection. Thus, the non self-reflective would probably insist that their lives are more decorated by friendship than the self-reflective types would assert.
Since everyone considers U.S. presidents fair game for critical analysis, let’s examine two self-reflective vs. non self-reflective presidential personalities.
On the night of Monday, November 1, 1976 -- election eve -- CBS political commentator Eric Sevareid made the following observation about the two major party presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Carter, said Severeid, seemed always to be re-examining his psyche as a progressive white southerner, a nuclear engineer/businessman and born-again Christian, while President Ford didn’t seem to realize that he even possessed a psyche! He further suggested that Jerry Ford followed a combination of his experiences and instincts and thus left his mind alone. Jimmy Carter was far from friendless and comfortable in his own skin, but one could reasonably assume that Jerry Ford probably had more “friends” than the self-probing Jimmy Carter.
Like people, friendships are born and die everyday. However, it is my experience that the deaths of most real friendships are seldom peaceful. Sometimes all it takes is one genuinely principled decision or act to destroy the intellectual and emotional bond that has been in existence between two people for decades. Invariably, that occurs when the root of a misunderstanding is poorly handled by one of the parties in the conflicted friendship. Usually, the sense of having been betrayed is what triggers the conflict.
Friendships are invariably of different types and levels. Like the foundation or scaffolding of a physical structure, friendship invariably bears the weight or pressure of human relationships brought about by both internal and external forces.
It has become fashionable in recent years here in America to proclaim that the “family is the foundation of our society.” (This is one of the many “politically correct” assertions that Conservatives, who insist that only Liberals suffer from “political correctness,” themselves insist on.) Yet this proclamation has many holes in it.
If the family unit has been handed down to us from our “Founding Fathers” as the absolute moral core of our national worthiness, it’s indeed remarkable that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had very little regard for their mothers. Mary Ball Washington complained too much about her son’s financial parsimony. (According to author Kenneth C. Davis of the “Don’t Know Much About…” series, as an adult, Washington never introduced his mother to his wife or invited her to his home.) Susanna Boylston Adams was too fiery tempered for her son’s comfort and she is little mentioned in the voluminous Adams’ family papers. Jane Randolph Jefferson was said to have a “zero existence” in Jefferson’s life. Also, there are numerous multifaceted social, religious, and even financial conflicts within many families. Invariably, children quarrel over inheritances, brothers struggle for the most powerful position at the top of the family corporation, and widows often bear the jealousies of stepchildren. Absent genuine friendship within families, the family loses its ability to be a nurturing force in people’s lives.
Those who find themselves orphaned or rejected from the family unit definitely must rely on friendship if they are to realize the tenderness and nurturing gifts of the human heart. For such people, the possibility of abandonment is ever present. If the ever present possibility of rejection is their prevailing lot, so too is the ever present opportunity to dare to build friendships.
By definition, rich lasting friendships are sanctuaries in which one’s personal assets and liabilities may find loving acknowledgment and gentle adjustment, where tolerance prevails over temper, and where encouragement enhances even the sternest advice.
Individually -- as the product of our mutual social, emotional and spiritual dependence -- friendship is the haven of caring we offer one another in which we may safely, however haltingly, strive and ultimately fulfill all of the things about which we’ve ever dreamed.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment