Perhaps the better question is....

[adrienmundi]

Am I willing to be considered a friend if the only thing I am expected to do is reinforce one's opinion and definition of self, and am actively discouraged from challenging or disagreeing?

Comments

[casketgirl.livejournal.com]

I don't think friendship is automatically associated with constant agreement. There's a difference between being supportive and being a "Yes-person".

Challenge and disagreement are generally considered part of the sum that comprises friendship, but I think the key to employing them is knowing when they're appropriate. I guess it comes down to judging what is best for the friend and what is best for the friendship. More often than not, those are the same, but it is the not-times that cause strife.

Is it better to tell your friend she's dating an asshole even though you know she'll never believe it and might take it personally?

Do you wrestle your less-than sober friend to the ground and remove his car keys even after he swears he will never forgive you.

I think maybe some challenges can be hurdled another day and some disagreements work better in person than over email.

But maybe i'm reading too many details into this car wreck because I happened to be rubbernecking down the freeway earlier.

[adrienmundi]

I think you're actually applying the wrong context to the question; sure, in a larger sense it applies to most of my dealings with most people, but the original impetus was not the one to which (I think) you are referring. Today's question still stands, however.

[casketgirl.livejournal.com]

You're right. I'm reading too much into it.

I guess (in an attempt to answer your original question) you need to evaluate the friendship and weigh the benefits against the detractors. I don't think you can judge the value of a friendship based soley on how much the person is willing to be challenged at this point in time.

Better answer or am I still avoiding the question?

[adrienmundi]

Closer. I guess, implicit in the question for me, is whether or not I'm willing to be used as a tool of stasis; am I willing to be complicit in reaffirming someone's sense of self that I don't agree with, that is inaccurate, possibly injurious, but at the very least icy in its stasis?

[stacyspacey.livejournal.com]

Definitely not. Write some software for the friend that will validate everything they say...and think no more of it.

;)

[champignon.livejournal.com]

Doesn't sound like you are willing...

I have no idea what your situation is, but what you have written is starting to eerily remind me of why I don't know where a couple of the people I have loved most in my life are anymore. That's come up twice in the past week. Crap. ~~busily shoves still raw feelings under rug again~~

I can't just be an agreeable and supportive "friend" all the time. Too many instances of having a different opinion, being the dissenting voice, or trying to point out a way to solve/break a recurring problem/pattern (not out of spite or a critical spirit--just trying to be helpful or honest) got me too many icy stares, cold silences, awkward moments (and longer), and omitted invitations to leave me feeling very friendly. But I couldn't not be myself or try to help, so I lost/left those "friends."

Of course you're asking a question only you can answer. And you obviously know what directions things can go in... Sigh.

I guess this is just to say that if you aren't willing to remain a "friend"/validation tool to someone, you aren't the only one... but you knew that.

[adrienmundi]

All true. If the definition for 'friend' is unchangeable, then I've got to go; I can't not treat people with the respect I feel they deserve, especially when all they want is a nodding automaton, apparently. Here's to hoping I can challenge the definition without breaking something.