Does friendship bring further obligation?

Question

I was talking to someone about 'gifts' in exchange culture (universal capitalist relations), which I said could be "free", not necessarily in the sense of not involving any reciprocity, and so obligation, but by freeing the recipient from other exchange relations. My contention was that some gifts, e.g. friendship, are excessive in some sense, empower others.

Anyway, they conceded the point, but I am unsure whether I think that friendship does not oblige us into anything (though I don't think I am obliged to be anyone's "friend", not in a true non civil sense). Does it? Does friendship being freely received (and given) mean that it does not disempower us?

Answer 1

I'd say that one obligation is matching the friendship's reality with its pretense. In other words, usually the pretense of friendship includes something like, "I actually care about your wellbeing for your own sake"; but in reality, many friendships end up being more along the cold hard lines of, "I'll use you to benefit myself, and I'll act like I care only to the extent it benefits me somehow." Ethically, I would say that we are obligated to be genuine.

For instance, in the Old Testament, God gets upset with many of the Israelites because they act friendly to their neighbor to the face, but in heart, they are like a coiled snake waiting for the best time to strike (Jeremiah 9:8):

Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.

Answer 2

Since friendship frequently goes beyond formal, transactional commitments and provides emotional support and connection without a rigid quid pro quo arrangement, it might be considered a "free" type of exchange. Imagine, for example, that a friend helps you through a personal crisis or other trying period and extends their support to you. You are released from further transactional or contractual relationships as a result of this act of generosity and support, which is provided without a formal expectation of an immediate return. This does not negate the fact that friendships have obligations of their own. Naturally, you might want to return the favor and keep up the relationship—which requires some level of reciprocal commitment even though it is less formal than other kinds of interactions. Therefore, friendship discreetly include a sense of reciprocal expectation and duty, even as it can empower by offering real connection and support.

Take sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's studies on social capital to see how friendship can be "free" yet still entail some sort of reciprocal expectation and duty. Although friendships don't seem to include organized transactions, Bourdieu contends that they do involve reciprocal duties and support networks. For example, Bourdieu emphasizes in "The Forms of Capital" (1986) how friendships and other social interactions are kinds of capital that offer resources and support to individuals but also carry implicit reciprocity expectations.

Taking all this information into account I assume that it would be fair to say that yes, it is sensible to aknowledge that a friendship is a give and take relationship sometimes.