LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP
LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP
In A Painful
Case (one of the short stories narrated by James Joyce in Dubliners),
the hero opines: “Love between man and man is impossible because there must not
be sexual intercourse and friendship between man and woman is impossible
because there must be sexual intercourse.” It is not clear from the text
whether this statement is made by Joyce’s hero as a consequence of a personal
disappointment or is meant to be the author’s statement of a universal truth.
This essay sets out to establish that, in general, the statement is a fallacy.
The difficulty in
construing and applying Joyce’s statement stems from the fact that the two
seminal words – ‘love’ and ‘friendship’ – are inadequately defined and hence are
often misleading when used in everyday language. The confusion that may arise
from imprecision in language is masterfully discussed by Wittgenstein (Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus, 1921). More often than not a misunderstanding or
conflict results from semantics.
The word ‘love’ is
a prime example. The
The confusion
respecting the word “love” is not confined to English. In Hebrew, for instance,
‘love’ may describe a person’s feeling for a deity (Schema: Deut. 6:4), for a
friend (like the love of David and Jonathan[*])
or for a spouse. Thus, in the modern translation to English, Isaiah (41:8)
refers to the people of
In another Biblical Book [Jeremiah (31:2)] the Lord tells the people of
The same ambiguity respecting the word ‘love’ exists in
German.[†]
In particular, the ‘love’ of the fatherland has a completely different meaning
from a man’s love declaration to a woman. Notably, even Mozart’s proper name,
viz. ‘Amadeus’ [beloved by God] is devoid of any physical connotation.
It is feasible
that this ambiguity respecting the word ‘love’ relates to the difficulty in
using a word to express an emotion. Ideally, different words ought to be used
to describe separate emotions. For instance, it would be useful to employ one
word to express ‘love’ for a deity or a dogma and another word to describe
feelings between persons. However, the
analysis of the meaning of an emotion may be of a later date than the
introduction of a generic word used to express emotions of a similar nature but
of separate types.
In the words quoted
from Joyce’s work, the speaker uses the word ‘love’ as a synonym of ‘lust’ (or
physical love). The questionability of the statement emerges if we think about
filial love, such as Isaac’s feelings for Esau, described above. Is such ‘love’
proscribed because father and son (or daughter) ought not to have
intercourse? Further, is a person
proscribed from loving a friend, be he of the same or of the opposite sex,
because the issue of intercourse should not (and need not) arise in the mind of
either?
It is important to
add that languages – including English – metamorphose. Here the word ‘house’ is
of interest. Emily Brontë (in Wuthering Heights) uses ‘house’ for what
would be called in modern English ‘the sitting room’. A similar ambiguity
exists in Singlish. ‘House’ describes a person’s dwelling (or home), regardless
of whether it is an apartment or a unit such as a bungalow or a semi-detached
building.
The metamorphosis
of language is a well known phenomenon. By way of illustration take parts of a
motorcar, such as ‘clutch’, ‘brakes’, ‘gears’ and ‘tank’. Each phrase is an
adaptation of an early and well established word to the mechanics of the
motorcar, which is a relatively modern invention.
On occasions the modern – or innovative – sense of a word
replaces the older meaning. Thus, in the days of wind propelled ships the words
‘top gallant’ described the uppermost sail. In the 21st century, it
is a satirical expression referring to an overdressed, extravagant and often
condescending man (a dandy).
This analysis is
relevant as regards ‘love’. Originally, it may have been used as a word
describing a well recognized, all embracing, emotion confined to feelings
within an extended family or tribe. Later on, it was applied to other emotions,
such as loyalty to a nation or a deity. In a sense, the ramifications of ‘love’
metamorphosed as mankind’s structure and basis underwent changes.
Friendship – the other
seminal word in the quote from Joyce’s story – is also ambiguous. According to
the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (supra, p. 622) ‘friendship’
means a relationship between friends. The word ‘friend’, though, has different
connotations. To start with it may refer to a person you know well and like
(id.). In some other cases it refers to a supporter of an organization or
cause, such as a charity. In still other cases – and this in all probability is
the traditional meaning – a ‘friend’ is somebody you are close to and are
prepared to make sacrifices for him (or her) when in need.[‡]
Undoubtedly, this is the sense in which the word is used to describe Hushai as
David’s ‘friend’ (Sam.II, 16:17). Similarly, the element of loyalty and the
notion of brotherhood is emphasised in respect of the bond of David and
Jonathan (Sam. I, 18:1-5).
It must, at the
same time, be noted that in recent times the distinction between a friend and a
mere acquaintance is eroded. Thus, according to The Collins Paperback
English Dictionary (1986, p. 339) the word ‘friend’ encompasses both ‘a
person known well and regarded with liking, affection, and loyalty’ and ‘an
acquaintance or associate’.
Indeed, the news
media and sites of the net tend to use the word ‘friend’ as a synonym of an
acquaintance. Thus one site enables entrepreneurs to place their résumé on it
with a view to meeting professional ‘friends’ with a similar focus. Other nets
enable a person to search for individuals with a similar interest, e.g. art
collecting. Undoubtedly, such an acquaintance may, in due course, develop into a
friend in the classic connotation of the word. Their getting in contact trough
the net is, however, best regarded as a first step.[§]
A discussion of
‘friendship’ is bound to remain incomplete if it fails to refer to Platonic
Love, discussed by Plato in Symposium. It has been succinctly defined as
“an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter,
especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise. A simple example
of platonic relationships is a deep, non-sexual friendship between two
heterosexual people of the opposite sexes” (Science Daily, www.sciencedaily.com).
It has to be pointed out that Socrates, who as in many
of Plato’s dialogues assumes the principal speaker’s role, does not rule out
the development of a sexual relationship between platonic lovers, even if they
are of the same gender. Notably, the Greek attitude to physical relationships –
including homosexual intercourse – is more lenient than the approach of
societies based on Judeo/Christian philosophy.
Plato’s emphasis
in his Symposium is on the bond that exists between friends. In the
antique culture of the
An overview of platonic friendship leads to a further,
seminal, conclusion. It will be recalled that love encompasses, inter alia, a
‘sense of affection’. In that sense, ‘love’ is an ingredient of a platonic
friendship: intercourse need not form a component of it. The assumption is that
a physical affair does involve love. But do the parties always have a ‘sense of
affection’ for one another?
To further develop the point just made it is best to
turn to famous illustrations from human history and from literature, which –
all in all – is an expression of human experience. Reference has already been
made to the friendship of David and Jonathan. There is no evidence to suggest
that it involved intercourse. Further, the sagas of the
Turning to more recent experiences, the bond between
Genghis Kahn and his main strategist – Subutai – was anchored in mutual trust
and affection. There is, of course, no suggestion of any physical nexus between
them. All the same, the bond between the two did constitute a genuine
friendship.
The friendship between Clara Schumann and Johannes
Brahms is a 19th century example. The two were loyal to one another
and certainly had mutual affection. There is, at the same time, no sound suggestion
of the existence of an affair.
In the early 20th century, Hermann Hesse
described the deep friendship of Narcissus and Goldmund (1930). Narcis,
who has taken orders and is committed to a monastic life, befriends Goldmund, a
novice, who leaves the monastery before long. The bond though is lasting. When
Goldmund’s life is in danger, Narcis – who had by then been elected Abbott –
saves him from captivity. There is, of course, no intercourse involved.
The discussion leads to the conclusion that ‘love’ is
not restricted to relationships involving intercourse. The same applies in a
‘friendship’. ‘Love’ may not be present at all where the ‘friends’ are not united
by a bond but are acquaintances. In contrast, where the friendship is close, be
it by affection or out of loyalty, the fact that the friends care for one
another entails love regardless of whether or not there is intercourse.
What then has
induced James Joyce to put in the mouth of his hero the words: “Love between
man and man is impossible because there must not be sexual intercourse and
friendship between man and woman is impossible because there must be sexual
intercourse.”
Contextually,
it is possible that the hero jotted these words in his diary in consequence of
an unsuccessful attempt to form a platonic relationship with a married woman.
When she sought to proceed to an affair he withdrew and resumed his reclusive
existence. However, even as a personal outcry, the quoted words are
objectionable. Joyce’s hero seems to
reach a general conclusion on the basis of a personal – unsuccessful and hence
painful – experience.
If the words quoted
were meant to imply a broader concept, i.e. meant to state a universal truth, they
are fallacious. A friendship or bond of loyalty can be real and meaningful even
in the absence of intercourse.
To further clinch
the argument it is useful to turn to Euler’s diagrams [circles]. According to
the theorem (of 1768)[**]
matters are divided into zones. There can be a complete overlap where each
subset is covered by the larger zone. For instance, the zone “mammals”
encompasses each variety of the species. “Elephants” would, accordingly,
constitute a subset of “mammals”. In other cases the zones merely intersect.
For instance, “feet” intersect with “hands” to the extent that both are used in
“movement”. In the third type of case the zones are disjointed or, in other
words, do not intersect at all. “Eye”
and “thunder” provide an illustration.
The words quoted
from Joyce’s story treat “intercourse”, “love” and “friendship” as subsets.
Once the diagram is invoked the absurdity becomes clear. The “intercourse” that
takes place in a brothel may be without any ‘love”. Similarly, “friendship” and
“love” are separate concepts. They may intersect but neither is a subset of the
other.
It is, therefore,
sound to dismiss the quoted words as a fallacy. They are expressed pugnaciously
but without an analysis of their soundness.
[*] Samuel I (18:1)
relates “that the soul of Yehonatan [King Saul’s son] was knit with the soul of
David, and Yehonatan loved him as his own soul”. The traditional construction treats the
passage as referring to brotherly love. Some Bible Critics do, however, raise
their eyebrows when, in his lament, known as the song of the song of the bow,
David says: (Samuel II, 1:26): “I am distressed for thee my brother Yehonatan …
your love for me was wonderful, more than the love of women.”
[†] It is understood that
the same ambiguity arises in other tongues but it appears advisable to confine
this discussion to languages commanded.
[‡] But note that in
some cases the word is used so as to negate a relationship, e.g. “they are just
friends.”
[§] As member of a
Bridge Club, I have become a ‘friend’ of some other players. This means that we
are prepared to have matches against each other or join efforts as a team. But
none of us expect this friendship to stretch to areas other than Bridge.
[**] I wish to
acknowledge my debt to Professor Hugo Bergman of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, which has remained fresh in my mind.
Comments
Post a Comment