Page 1 Page 2

Dr. Earl R. Smith II

(Read More From My Blog)

I was recently watching one of those Sunday Morning programs. You know, the kind that always has a soft-squishy piece as part of its presentation. This time that piece was focused on people and their pets. The 'reporter' interviewed a series of people whose lives seemed to be focused on non-human companions. One after another they talked about their pets as if they were people.

The part of the program that caught my attention was in interview with a psychologist. His task was to interpret the lives of the people who were being interviewed. He made an interesting observation which resonated with a number of coaching engagements that I have had recently. "People turn to pets because they are experiencing less substantial friendships."

That comment caught my attention. I wrote it down and have been thinking about it ever since. It certainly resonates with some observations that I have made about the evolution of American social society. For some time I have believed that social media is equivalent, in fundamental ways, to having pets.

  • You don't have to be genuinely engaged. Most people take a rather casual approach to defining their relationship to pets. It is almost always anthropomorphic and self-ratifying.
  • You don't have to establish a finely textured relationship. Most owner/pet relationships are shallow and untextured.
  • The purpose that might drive the life of the pet is incidental. In a prior life, I trained and used border collies to herd sheep. I experienced the true joy that dogs can feel by having a purpose. Most humans render their pets purposeless except for serving as an emotional sop - a form of indentured servitude.
  • Pet relationships can become an alternative to the deeper, messier relationships with humans. People retreat from society into an imaginary society populated with charactitures and anthropomorphic avatars.

The thought that came out of the Sunday morning program and the comment by the psychologist was that friendships - particularly those contextualized within what is called social media - are, in the lives of those who collect them, more like pets than substantive friendships. The extremes are the collectors of 'friends or 'connections'. I once met a person who bragged about having over twelve thousand of them. He was part of a group that promoted an event by reaching out to their contacts. You guessed it. His network produced no results. The proverbial 'mile wide and inch deep', he had no real relationships with any of them. Just a list to brag about.

The question that comes to mind is 'what the underlying driver for this trend'. Are we less able to build and maintain deep friendships or is the evolution of modern society somehow making that increasingly difficult. Of course, it's not an either or kind of thing. In some ways it all may be a self-fulfilling prophesy that began with the flight of the baby boomers from traditional society.

The seminal issue that comes out of some of my life coaching engagements is highlighted by what one of my clients recently told me. "I have looked back over my life. It is not cumulative. I seem to be running in place. When I look for close friends in times of stress, I find none. Neither am I called upon to help. Is it because I am not worth being a friend to? Or is it because I don't know how to be a friend?"

When we made an assessment of this person's range of connections, this is what we found:

  • Almost all of them were shallow relationships with infrequent contact and undefined dynamics
  • Most of them were instrumental - based on the pursuit of individual benefits through association
  • None of them involved detailed understanding of the other person
  • Interactions were, when they did occur, stylized
  • None of these people ever reached out to him for help during times of crisis and he didn't feel able to do the same
  • Most of them were through social networks
  • In other words, he had no real friends who cared about him and whom he cared about

What struck me was that these were relationships that robots could have with each other. It seemed to me the very opposite of the premise underlying the 2004 movie 'I Robot'. There, the struggle was for robots to become more human-like. Here, it seems the very opposite was the trend. Humans striving to become more robot-like.

I remember the struggle that many of an earlier generation experienced. Those who watched the TV series Star Trek felt the dilemma. Torn between the messy emotionalism of Captain Kirk and the safe, pristine logic of Mister Spock, the debate raged. Some believing that the world would be better if it were Spock-ified. Others seeing Spock as the threat to human society.

Underlying the technological trends that have dominated the last part of the twentieth century and the early pars of the twenty first is that anti-humanist tendency that lead my client and the subjects of the Sunday morning piece to seek solace in warm shallow waters. The internet, emails, websites, instant messaging, networking events, elevator speeches and social networks provide the same kind of solace. A salve for the loneliness of having few, if any, deep relationships with fellow humans.

All of this certainly makes if harder to build and maintain what was referred to in prior generations as friendships. The fabric of human society - what held it together - was the strong tendency of humans to form bonds of friendship. The tendency to relate intensely and have those relationships define lives, was a seminal part of being human. What happens when that part begins to fade?

A recent panel discussion highlighted a possible answer to that question. One of the presenters put it this way:

"In the past, human lives were guided by a set of sustainable values. By that I mean they acted on values that were shared within their community. Values that sustained them during their lives and their community. Somewhere in the 60s that changed. The new paradigm is focused on self-gratification and self-promotion. You take what you can. Forget posterity. Forget future generations. Rape and pillage for tomorrow you may die."

Once the focus turns strongly to the self, there are fewer reasons why other people are legitimacy on the planet. When the 'collaboration' model is replaced by the 'predictor/prey dynamic', other people become things to be manipulated. And things, in all but the extreme human conditions, are not candidates for friendships. If the panel member is right, the answer to my client's question is most disturbing. 'You are not the kind of being that can have friendships. The idea of friendships belongs to generations past. Go back to your 140 character world. Now, that is all there is.'

Of course, the implications of the predator/prey model are unsettling. Eventually there evolves a cabal of super predators who gain control and systematically channel everything of value into their control. The result is a hollowed out population which, increasingly, has less and less. I would have liked to be able to ask the psychologist on the Sunday morning program about that.

"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member" Groucho Marx

So maybe that's it. Maybe the self-loathing that results from the realization that you are a bit player with no line in a scene that will almost certainly end up on the cutting room floor makes if difficult to see oneself as a candidate for friendship:

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S. Eliot

In all of this I favor Einstein. "I would rather be an optimist and wrong than a pessimist and right." But that doesn't make the challenge of understanding less daunting. And the question still remains. Are humans less capable of establishing and maintaining deep friendships or are there less opportunities for doing so?

What do you think?

© Earl R. Smith II, PhD

I look back on the first three months of my work with Dr. Smith with wonder. My journal reflects a journey of self-discovery so vast that I hardly recognize the person who wrote the first entries. It's been a year now and I am happier now than I have ever been.

PJ, Mentoring Client

"It's the most amazing experience I have ever had. I needed to find a new path. A friend recommended Dr. Smith. What was most amazing was the wisdom and perception that he brought. New vistas have opened up and, as a result, a new chapter in my life. There's no way that I could put a value on what he has contributed to my life."

Mentoring Client, CEO and Serial Entrepreneur

"Chief - that's how Dr.Smith was introduced to me and, based on our work together, I have come to understand why - helped me focus on the possibilities that I had been missing in my life. He guided through developing a new vision for my life. My life is richer because of working with him."

Mentoring Client

"Earl is a wise mentor with lots of experience. He has a great way of explaining things and getting you to look at them from another perspective. Dr. Smith is a tough mentor, but, if you can learn just some of what he knows, your life will change forever."

Mentoring Client, Deloitte

“Dr. Smith is a very different kind of mentor. If you’re looking for a warm and fuzzy adviser, this is the wrong guy for you. But if you are dedicated to change and want to be challenged by a very experienced mentor Earl may be just what you are looking for.”

CEO of Croix Connect and Host of ABC Radio’s ‘Taking Care of Business’

“Dr. Smith's mentorship has been of great value and inspiration to my personal and professional development. I felt the need to take a new direction. He helped me sort out the possibilities and showed me ones that I never considered. Working with him has been a truly life-changing experience.”

Partner, IT & Telecom, Defense Solutions