Those who share their secrets make themselves vulnerable.

Publik:  In recent years, you have spoken to numerous media representatives about the topic of friendship. It seems to interest a lot of people today. Why?

Schobin:  The topic has never been uninteresting. Friendship is something culturally and historically universal. In the Romantic period, in the middle of the 19th century, friendship already played a major role. But it's true, the topic is booming right now. This is certainly related to the advent of social media and the aging of society. However, it's mainly certain days when the media are interested in it, especially Christmas, Easter and Friendship Day. After that, I can set the clock.

Publik: You mentioned social media. What influence do digitization and social media have on our friendships?

Schobin:For young people in particular, there is a new compulsion to be visible. Friendships are more visible than before. People publicly show who they are close to. However, this concept is not completely new; similar things have already existed in history, for example, in the courtly societies of absolutist monarchies. Within the framework of so-called political representative friendships, it was shown at court to the powerful, but also to the people, whom one supported politically. Such friendships also exist in modern politics; Helmut Kohl and François Mitterand come to mind. What is new about it is that social media have democratized this phenomenon. Certain practices of representative friendship have suddenly become relevant to the general population.

Publik: Regardless of digitization, how have friendships changed in recent decades?

Schobin:The practice of friendship is very old and therefore also inert. What keeps changing a lot, however, is the public image of friendships. As part of my research, I compared friendship guidebooks from each of the 1990s and the 2000s. The results are interesting: In the 90s, mutual support at work played a major role. Later, emotional aspects were more important in friendly relationships. Today, at least in public discourse, friendship has much more to do with emotional care than with material support. This reflects long historical trends: the modern welfare state has relieved friendships of their "hard" material duties. Historically, and in many non-Western cultures as well, someone who enters into a friendship assumes a duty of assistance. This person promises to protect her friend against acts of violence. She also provides material support in times of need and vouches for the other person.

Publik: Keyword welfare: In Germany today, social inequality and political polarization are growing. Are these obstacles to forming friendships?

Schobin: First of all, these are obstacles that lead to so-called selection effects. To put it a bit simply, like and like go hand in hand. But that's only one side of the coin. We also adapt to our friends over time. Our behavior is always dependent on the behavior of others. This extends to the smallest details of our everyday lives: what music we listen to, what clothes we wear. In this, people influence each other. We learn social practices not least within our circles of friends. Political opinions are also often formed among friends. This is not always harmless. In certain constellations, images of the enemy in particular can be built up very quickly within circles of friends, which then in turn have a selective effect on with whom friendships can be entered into at all.

Publik: What constitutes a good friendship today?

Schobin:Friendship is a very old social relationship, very diverse. In Western culture, however, a kind of basic pattern can be discerned: The double symbolic life pledge. The literary model for this is the so-called Pythagorean pledge: one leaves oneself as a pledge for a friend. The friend returns and thanks to this loyalty both survive. In social practice, this model is articulated by friends exchanging and sharing symbolic artifacts that stand for their own lives. A classic example of this is the blood bond. Blood was considered the seat of the soul even in ancient times. So people mixed their souls and consumed them together. Today, of course, one no longer mixes and shares blood. Instead, one exchanges and shares privileged information. Those who share their secrets make themselves mutually vulnerable and thus secure a covenant.

Publik: Many people today seem to have no one to confide in. Does modernity make us lonely?

Schobin: We don't know exactly how many people are lonely today. The statistics on this are simply not sustainable. Just one example: In Great Britain, there are various studies whose results differ greatly: One assumes 18 percent lonely people in the population, another five percent. The problem is that loneliness is a complex, dynamic emotion and not an easy state to determine. It must first be communicated in order to be captured at all. This is not always easy. In Western Europe, loneliness is often stigmatized. Many people believe that there is something wrong with someone who is lonely. They themselves are to blame for their situation. In countries that are still strongly influenced by the Christian religion, things are different. In Latin America, for example. Loneliness is often seen as something positive here. It is seen as renunciation, as testing and purification, because it is interpreted much more strongly within the framework of different religious schemes, such as the Imitatio Christi. The expression of feelings of loneliness here tends to valorize a person rather than stigmatize him or her.

Publik: Back to Europe: Since the beginning of the year, there has been a so-called "Minister for Loneliness" in Great Britain. Can the problem of loneliness be dealt with administratively?

Schobin: Difficult. Politics from above is misguided in this case. In societies where loneliness is stigmatized, many see withdrawal from society as self-protection. They don't want others to know they are lonely. Such people are difficult to bring back into society with policies that say they need help because of their loneliness. On the other hand, people who are still willing to return from loneliness, who are only lonely because they have lost their life partner, for example, are more likely to be helped by local actors. It's hard to get there from the top.

"Loneliness as something positive"

Publik:What would those be?

Schobin:That would be local and neighborhood associations, for example. They are able to approach people directly and usually know them well. Churches, which have 2,000 years of experience with the positive interpretation of loneliness, can also achieve a lot. What we need above all is a sensible interpretive offer for lonely people. In Christianity, as I said, loneliness was seen as something positive. In many cultures, loneliness has a function within society and the family. For example, lonely people are often credited with being able to talk to deceased ancestors. It is important that loneliness not be medicalized, that is, made into a medical deficiency and thereby further stigmatized. One must accept loneliness.

This article appeared in publik 4/2018 (Dec. 18, 2018).

By David Wüstehube