As a kid born into the nineties one of the first lessons I was taught at school was on friendship. My teacher told me (and the rest of the class) that a friend was someone who cared about you. Unfortunately I learned this lesson, and I believe it has been the cause of many problems in my (and in my classmates' and others subjected the same teachings) life.
Starting from the assumption that a friend is someone who cares about you:
Making friends
"To make friends with someone I have to make them care about me."
"To make lots of friends, lots of people have to care about me, so I must make myself into some kind of celebrity."
Could this be the starting point for a kid who becomes the "class clown"? This approach to friendship seems to favour the arrogant, and the attention seekers.
Staying friends
"If someone isn't hanging out with me as much, then they don't care about me and aren't a real friend."
"Someone who doesn't take extra interest in some part of my life is not a true friend"
"A friend must share all the same interests as me."
"Someone who does not comfort me, or understand what I'm going through is not my friend, my friend should care that I am upset and try to fix things."
That last quote is a direct reference to the angsty side of 'emo' culture, those kids who feel like they're pushed out and the culture of "no one understands me".
People who live by the "a friend is someone who cares about me" philosphy is prone to falling out with friends who seem to be moving away from them, or have made a new group of friends (feeling like they've been 'sold out'). They're also likely to limit themselves in their choice of friends because they believe that other people aren't interested in what they do (the nerdy type, who in reality have endless potential for maintaining social relationships).
What's the alternative?
If "a friend is someone who cares about me" doesn't work, then how should we define friendship.
One idea that I have experimented with is almost the exact opposite of the common philosophy.
"A friend doesn't care."
Of course, this doesn't wrap up the whole of friendship right away, and it throws up a load of contradictions, but it's obvious that it makes about as much sense as the previous idea at least.
This one was played out right in front of me in college (that's the last two years of high school to you American folks) when people were exploring their own sexualities, or at least being more open about their findings. Many people at college eventually came out as gay or bisexual (one of my friends also started to experiment with cross dressing), and for the most part their friends didn't care. For some people it didn't even come as a shock (though for many it did), and friendships just went on.
The problems here came into play when people cared too much. Either they weren't prepared to be friends with someone who was gay, or they started basing their friendship with that person around the fact that they were gay. The true friends in that situation seemed to be the ones who didn't care that someone was gay, and wouldn't change their attitude towards anyone who was; they didn't become gay rights activists overnight, and neither did they launch into homophobic attacks, they just accepted it and carried on.
... Any more ideas?
Well, we've tried to explaining friendship in terms of each person's feeling of obligation towards the other, and it's obvious that these aren't helpful. So out first axiom of friendship should begin thus:
A friend is not obligated to be, think or do anything other than those things that make him a friend. A friend is not obligated to lend you money, spend all their time with you, or take an interest in all areas of your life.
And of course, one is not automatically friends with a stranger
A friend is someone with which you have shared (or are sharing) a mutual experience. (this can be something as small as a single conversation).
My third axiom requires a little more in terms of explanation.
A good friend does not encourage drama.
The use of drama here is in accordance with the definition (specifically the 3rd) given here.
This deals with the issues left unsolved by "a friend is someone who cares" and "a friend doesn't care". In basic terms, it implies that a friend tailors their involvement in any situation to what is necessary to bring some kind of resolution.
It seems that so many other sources neglect to acknowledge the value of "staying out of it" and instead encourage the reader to become an active agent merely for short-term attention.
Granted, the elimination of socially-accepted drama might deal a death blow to the self-help industry, but nobody has to worry about that anytime soon.
Great article!