Popular in Professional

Business

The Allegory of the Favela: The Multifaceted Effects of Socioeconomic Mobility

University of Pennsylvania Leandro S. Pongeluppe

Architecture

Connecting Cities and Nature

University of Virginia Timothy Beatley

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Finance

Chinese Exchange Rate Policy: Lessons for Global Investors

University of California San Diego Michael Melvin

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

Firm Performance Pay as Insurance against Promotion Risk

Stockholm School of Economics Alvin Chen

Acrobatic Friendship as a Means to Détente?

View more insights in Professional - Education - Sociology of Education

View more figures from Boston College

View the page of Ana M. Martínez Alemán

Read the Study

Next in Education

Posthumanist new materialist pathways for reimagining music education research

Pamela Burnard | University of Cambridge

The Future of Great Universities

Jonathan R. Cole | Columbia University

Ana M. Martínez Alemán discusses the politics of friendship and acrobatic friendship

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 16, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video discusses the complexities and nuances of friendships, particularly focusing on the idea of "acrobatic friendships" that require balance and flexibility. It explains how social bonds are context-dependent and can involve negotiations of ideological and personal differences. The speaker uses the example of two Supreme Court justices who, despite their opposing political views, maintained a long-standing friendship based on shared experiences and mutual respect. Effective communication is highlighted as a crucial element in maintaining these relationships, especially when navigating tension-filled topics. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the messiness of human interactions and the need for better communication strategies, particularly in educational settings. The overall theme revolves around bridging divides, encouraging respectful dialogue amidst differences, and valuing the shared humanity that underlies friendships despite ideological conflicts.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are 5 key points from the video:

1. **Convideo-Driven Relationships**: The complexity and "messiness" of friendships arise from the mutual understanding and convideo in which they exist. It requires a balance between shared values and individual differences, emphasizing that social bonds are not straightforward but deeply convideo-dependent.

2. **Nimbleness in Friendships**: Successful friendships often involve negotiation and flexibility. The speaker illustrates this with the example of two ideologically opposed Supreme Court justices who maintained a strong friendship, suggesting that mutual respect and understanding can coexist with divergent viewpoints.

3. **Importance of Communication**: Effective communication is central to sustaining friendships, particularly those with differences. The speaker highlights that clear communication fosters understanding and allows for the exploration of complex and potentially contentious topics in a constructive manner.

4. **Addressing Political Polarization**: The video touches on the increasing political polarization, particularly in the U.S., and suggests that people generally share more common ground than is acknowledged. It advocates for improving communication skills to better express shared values and reduce division.

5. **Challenge of Uncertainty**: The speaker argues for embracing the uncertainty and messiness that come with engaging in discussions around complex issues. Rather than seeking absolute certainty, there should be a greater willingness to navigate confusion and challenge assumptions as part of a constructive dialogue.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from the video you've :

1. "I think that the messiness comes from a mutuality that's very convideo driven."

2. "The politics, which is really about negotiating that messiness."

3. "These types of friendships are fundamentally about being nimble and flexible."

4. "They had built a friendship despite, or in spite of these ideological differences."

5. "It was a tussle among friends... but the 'politics' of the friendship was about that negotiation."

6. "Communication is the big, big piece of this whole framework."

7. "Convideo and mutuality are kind of impossible without very effective communication."

8. "The collapse of the value of being okay with confusion and being okay with the messiness."

9. "We have more in common... but we're ineffective communicators of that commonality."

10. "How do we cross that communication divide?"

These quotes highlight themes of communication, the complexity of friendships, negotiation of differences, and the importance of convideo in relationships.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.325 --> 00:04.445
I think that the messiness comes from a mutuality

00:05.025 --> 00:06.725
that's very context driven.

00:07.705 --> 00:11.655
Um, that is this space where,

00:11.655 --> 00:12.735
where the politics,

00:12.735 --> 00:15.375
which is really about negotiating that messiness.

00:16.115 --> 00:20.295
Um, social bonds are by definition, context

00:20.815 --> 00:23.295
dependent, but these types

00:23.295 --> 00:26.375
of friendships are fundamentally about being nimble

00:26.515 --> 00:29.695
and flexible and balancing, this idea

00:29.965 --> 00:32.255
that we could have.

00:32.835 --> 00:37.375
And we do have a lot of, things in common, let's say,

00:37.375 --> 00:38.535
just for the sake of argument.

00:39.035 --> 00:40.095
And yet,

00:40.125 --> 00:44.335
because we've communicated our anxieties, our intimacies,

00:44.635 --> 00:47.375
we've communicated much of

00:47.375 --> 00:49.495
what our context has brought to the table.

00:50.315 --> 00:51.735
Um, it's not clean.

00:51.885 --> 00:55.775
It's, it's, oftentimes a place where we have to

00:56.605 --> 00:59.135
negotiate and be nimble about it.

00:59.275 --> 01:03.135
My example was the two Supreme Court justices

01:03.135 --> 01:05.335
of the United States that were politically diametrically

01:05.335 --> 01:09.855
and ideologically just paradoxical positions in paradoxical

01:10.055 --> 01:12.215
positions, but they had been friends for over 40

01:12.235 --> 01:16.815
or 50 years, very context, which they had lots in common.

01:17.635 --> 01:20.735
Um, they both shared a sense of themselves

01:20.795 --> 01:22.575
and their profession as outsiders.

01:22.805 --> 01:26.055
They also loved opera, which is a whole other issue,

01:26.135 --> 01:27.735
I suppose, but that bonded them.

01:27.735 --> 01:30.215
They had lots of things that,

01:31.605 --> 01:34.895
that were cultivated as both commonalities and differences.

01:35.345 --> 01:40.095
Their families, all shared, experiences together.

01:40.155 --> 01:43.135
So they had built a friendship despite,

01:43.155 --> 01:45.655
or in spite of these ideological differences,

01:46.635 --> 01:48.655
and fundamentally agreed to disagree.

01:48.715 --> 01:52.335
Now, that to me, in the scheme of acrobatics, is a lot of

01:52.645 --> 01:54.735
what we do in these acrobatic friendships,

01:55.045 --> 01:57.895
that there's the constant, you know,

01:58.435 --> 02:01.535
as most acrobats do, you have to bend, you have

02:01.555 --> 02:04.695
to be flexible, you have to move about an argument.

02:05.275 --> 02:09.925
Uh, and ultimately it's about that which is being discussed,

02:10.025 --> 02:14.555
not necessarily, the sort of,

02:15.415 --> 02:16.595
the value of the person,

02:16.795 --> 02:18.195
I guess is the best way of putting it.

02:18.735 --> 02:23.315
Um, in some ways it's, it's very Aristotelian in, in nature.

02:23.455 --> 02:25.955
You know, there's a mutuality with the other.

02:25.955 --> 02:29.795
There's, you know, they're gonna share goals

02:30.135 --> 02:31.515
for the time they spent together.

02:31.895 --> 02:36.155
Um, and that's, I think, very, very much a part of this.

02:36.415 --> 02:39.475
You have a very conservative Catholic, Italian immigrant,

02:39.745 --> 02:42.715
immigrant parents, Italian immigrant parents in Scalia,

02:42.715 --> 02:46.925
and then you have a very liberal Jewish, also

02:47.765 --> 02:50.285
a child of immigrant Jewish, parents tenure.

02:50.395 --> 02:52.125
They both grew up in Brooklyn, New York.

02:52.225 --> 02:54.565
So they had, they set the stage

02:54.565 --> 02:57.805
for themselves in their friendship, and they often,

02:59.765 --> 03:01.815
Debated, I guess is the best way of putting it,

03:01.815 --> 03:03.695
or at least it's been told I wasn't there.

03:04.255 --> 03:05.415
I wish I could have been there.

03:06.115 --> 03:10.175
Uh, you know about the, the marriage of things like,

03:10.515 --> 03:14.015
you know, in the United States, you know, constitutional

03:14.635 --> 03:18.175
points around what constitutes freedom,

03:19.105 --> 03:23.235
what constitutes the right to speech, free speech,

03:23.265 --> 03:25.435
what constitutes the free speech idea?

03:26.015 --> 03:29.955
Uh, and they often tussled about that at these gatherings,

03:29.975 --> 03:33.155
but it was in fact a tussle among friends, right?

03:33.545 --> 03:35.755
That in the end, they voted very,

03:35.755 --> 03:37.755
very differently in their decisions.

03:38.535 --> 03:42.975
Um, but the quote unquote politics

03:42.975 --> 03:46.375
of the friendship was about that negotiation,

03:46.405 --> 03:49.775
that they were going to negotiate that messiness

03:50.195 --> 03:51.535
and still have their own opinions

03:51.915 --> 03:54.815
and yet still value each other for who they were as people

03:54.915 --> 03:56.215
and who they were to each other.

03:56.365 --> 04:00.985
They, they were renowned for being very generous

04:00.985 --> 04:03.465
with each other and things like the opera and the theater

04:03.885 --> 04:06.505
and ways in which they gifted each other.

04:07.345 --> 04:09.945
I think communication is the big, big piece of this whole,

04:10.675 --> 04:13.305
whole, framework,

04:13.305 --> 04:18.185
because it, it requires that friendship requires that kind

04:18.185 --> 04:19.385
of exchange, right?

04:20.045 --> 04:23.585
Um, so to be sure of one another is that,

04:24.005 --> 04:25.265
I'm getting that information.

04:25.885 --> 04:27.625
I'm engaging in question asking.

04:28.365 --> 04:33.225
I'm engaging in that, moment where things are a bit

04:34.075 --> 04:35.845
confusing to me,

04:36.025 --> 04:38.485
or that I'm somehow,

04:40.795 --> 04:41.895
I'm doubting something.

04:42.395 --> 04:44.255
Um, but I can ask those questions

04:44.285 --> 04:46.735
that make the communication clear to me.

04:47.235 --> 04:49.815
Um, and I do think that they were very, very good

04:50.325 --> 04:52.895
with each other in that regard, from everything I've read

04:52.895 --> 04:54.175
that they were just a, well,

04:54.285 --> 04:56.415
they weren't Supreme Court justices, so they, I think,

04:56.895 --> 04:58.135
I think they had been vetted

04:58.135 --> 04:59.895
for their communication skills anyway,

04:59.915 --> 05:00.975
but then with each other,

05:00.975 --> 05:02.855
because they had the friendship, the foundation,

05:02.855 --> 05:06.495
and the context, the time spent together too.

05:06.605 --> 05:09.975
This is also about time and context, right?

05:10.595 --> 05:13.135
Um, but I do think the communication is at the,

05:13.555 --> 05:17.295
is a real important central piece of this whole framework.

05:18.075 --> 05:20.855
Um, and in, in many ways, context

05:20.955 --> 05:24.575
and mutuality are kind of impossible without,

05:27.315 --> 05:29.045
very effective communication.

05:29.185 --> 05:31.805
It, the collapse of the value of

05:33.885 --> 05:38.395
being okay with confusion and being okay with the messiness

05:38.395 --> 05:39.795
and the complexity that comes with being

05:39.795 --> 05:42.635
around other humans, that by the way,

05:42.655 --> 05:44.995
may not necessarily be exactly like us

05:45.015 --> 05:47.675
or not share a hundred percent in common with with us.

05:48.375 --> 05:52.195
Um, I think that's part of what is at the core of much

05:52.195 --> 05:54.395
of the deliberations that we now have

05:54.445 --> 05:56.915
among certainly psychologists and sociologists

05:57.065 --> 05:59.565
And philosophers around,

06:02.755 --> 06:07.535
the polarity that we have in, in many areas around,

06:08.005 --> 06:10.095
sort of the political polarization in many

06:10.095 --> 06:11.375
places, certainly the us.

06:12.115 --> 06:15.455
Um, and yet research tells us that, you know, actually

06:16.175 --> 06:19.215
probably have more in, we do have more in common,

06:19.355 --> 06:22.215
but we're ineffective communicators of that commonality.

06:22.875 --> 06:27.295
Um, Peter Coleman, who's a psychologist, at Columbia,

06:27.755 --> 06:31.535
and talks about it as getting in sync with someone else

06:31.555 --> 06:34.055
as opposed to, you know, leading a parallel life

06:34.485 --> 06:38.055
with some other person or sets of people.

06:38.675 --> 06:43.335
Um, and we really wanna do more with that.

06:43.655 --> 06:46.335
I think that, if I were to make sort

06:46.335 --> 06:49.855
of a very tangible example in our, in our universities

06:49.875 --> 06:53.175
and in our teaching, we could

06:53.295 --> 06:55.015
and should do more

06:55.155 --> 06:57.215
and, a better job of

06:59.515 --> 07:01.995
enabling our students to figure out how

07:01.995 --> 07:06.835
to communicate effectively, around those topics

07:06.985 --> 07:10.755
that are tension filled that apparently now we've seen

07:10.775 --> 07:13.915
to just sort of have retreated from, right?

07:14.505 --> 07:16.955
That there's a sense that my, my position,

07:17.055 --> 07:21.195
my polarity can be shaken, so I'm not gonna go any further.

07:21.975 --> 07:24.315
So I would like us to think much more about that

07:24.615 --> 07:26.315
and to actually act on it.

07:26.375 --> 07:28.555
You know, I'm in a good space where I can do it.

07:28.555 --> 07:31.155
I'm in a university. There are students,

07:32.005 --> 07:34.915
there are faculty, you know, we're, having a,

07:35.945 --> 07:39.625
a faculty, sort of luncheon.

07:39.925 --> 07:41.625
Uh, we're reading a few books,

07:41.685 --> 07:46.585
and the idea is to the, the theme of, of the, the lunches,

07:47.445 --> 07:51.345
is, you know, how do we cross

07:52.135 --> 07:55.025
that communication divide, right?

07:55.285 --> 07:57.265
How do we think about polarization?

07:57.365 --> 08:02.305
How do we think about a way through tension-filled topics,

08:02.965 --> 08:04.785
you know, and on college campuses today in the

08:04.785 --> 08:06.985
United States, that's around the Israeli

08:07.405 --> 08:09.265
and Palestinian conflict.

08:09.365 --> 08:11.305
But there are lots of other conflicts that we have.

08:12.125 --> 08:17.025
Um, so I'd like us to think much more, theoretically,

08:17.325 --> 08:18.465
philosophically,

08:18.465 --> 08:21.585
and yet be able to have action behind it

08:21.585 --> 08:25.585
and say, okay, how can we become better communicators

08:26.865 --> 08:28.165
across that difference?

08:28.275 --> 08:30.165
This has been a long, you know, in, in

08:30.715 --> 08:33.565
Western philosophical think thinking, this is a,

08:33.605 --> 08:36.365
a longstanding concern around this, this idea that we have

08:36.365 --> 08:39.045
to have certainty, like we have to be sure of it,

08:39.545 --> 08:42.045
and that there's no space for that.

08:43.215 --> 08:46.485
Again, the messiness of being confused or challenging myself

08:46.505 --> 08:49.765
or challenging you, I'd like, I'd love to be able

08:49.765 --> 08:52.005
to see folks do more work in that area

08:52.005 --> 08:55.245
because I, I, I'm feeling that that's a, a structure

08:55.435 --> 08:58.885
that really has just sort of been left to be,

08:59.305 --> 09:01.085
it hasn't really been challenged enough.

"Negotiating Friendship: The Art of Communication Amidst Ideological Differences"

00:00:00 - I think that the messiness comes from a mutuality that's very context driven. that is this space where, where the politics, which is really about negotiating that messiness. social bonds are by definition, context dependent, but these types of friendships are fundamentally about being nimble and flexible and balancing, this idea that we could have. And we do have a lot of, things in common, let's say, just for the sake of argument. And yet, because we've communicated our anxieties, our intimacies,
00:00:47 - what our context has brought to the table. it's not clean. It's, it's, oftentimes a place where we have to negotiate and be nimble about it. My example was the two Supreme Court justices of the United States that were politically diametrically and ideologically just paradoxical positions in paradoxical positions, but they had been friends for over 40 or 50 years, very context, which they had lots in common. they both shared a sense of themselves and their profession as outsiders. They also loved opera, which is a whole other issue,
00:01:27 - They had lots of things that, that were cultivated as both commonalities and differences. Their families, all shared, experiences together. So they had built a friendship despite, or in spite of these ideological differences, and fundamentally agreed to disagree. Now, that to me, in the scheme of acrobatics, is a lot of what we do in these acrobatic friendships, that there's the constant, you know, as most acrobats do, you have to bend, you have to be flexible, you have to move about an argument. and ultimately it's about that which is being discussed,
00:02:15 - the value of the person, I guess is the best way of putting it. in some ways it's, it's very Aristotelian in, in nature. You know, there's a mutuality with the other. There's, you know, they're gonna share goals for the time they spent together. and that's, I think, very, very much a part of this. You have a very conservative Catholic, Italian immigrant, immigrant parents, Italian immigrant parents in Scalia, and then you have a very liberal Jewish, also a child of immigrant Jewish, parents tenure.
00:02:52 - So they had, they set the stage for themselves in their friendship, and they often, Debated, I guess is the best way of putting it, or at least it's been told I wasn't there. I wish I could have been there. you know about the, the marriage of things like, you know, in the United States, you know, constitutional points around what constitutes freedom, what constitutes the right to speech, free speech, what constitutes the free speech idea? and they often tussled about that at these gatherings, but it was in fact a tussle among friends, right?
00:03:35 - very differently in their decisions. but the quote unquote politics of the friendship was about that negotiation, that they were going to negotiate that messiness and still have their own opinions and yet still value each other for who they were as people and who they were to each other. They, they were renowned for being very generous with each other and things like the opera and the theater and ways in which they gifted each other. I think communication is the big, big piece of this whole, whole, framework, because it, it requires that friendship requires that kind

"Bridging the Communication Divide: Navigating Polarization and Conflicting Perspectives in Academia"

00:04:20 - so to be sure of one another is that, I'm getting that information. I'm engaging in question asking. I'm engaging in that, moment where things are a bit confusing to me, or that I'm somehow, I'm doubting something. but I can ask those questions that make the communication clear to me. and I do think that they were very, very good with each other in that regard, from everything I've read that they were just a, well, they weren't Supreme Court justices, so they, I think, I think they had been vetted for their communication skills anyway,
00:05:00 - because they had the friendship, the foundation, and the context, the time spent together too. This is also about time and context, right? but I do think the communication is at the, is a real important central piece of this whole framework. and in, in many ways, context and mutuality are kind of impossible without, very effective communication. It, the collapse of the value of being okay with confusion and being okay with the messiness and the complexity that comes with being around other humans, that by the way,
00:05:45 - or not share a hundred percent in common with with us. I think that's part of what is at the core of much of the deliberations that we now have among certainly psychologists and sociologists And philosophers around, the polarity that we have in, in many areas around, sort of the political polarization in many places, certainly the us. and yet research tells us that, you know, actually probably have more in, we do have more in common, but we're ineffective communicators of that commonality.
00:06:27 - and talks about it as getting in sync with someone else as opposed to, you know, leading a parallel life with some other person or sets of people. and we really wanna do more with that. I think that, if I were to make sort of a very tangible example in our, in our universities and in our teaching, we could and should do more and, a better job of enabling our students to figure out how to communicate effectively, around those topics
00:07:10 - to just sort of have retreated from, right? That there's a sense that my, my position, my polarity can be shaken, so I'm not gonna go any further. So I would like us to think much more about that and to actually act on it. You know, I'm in a good space where I can do it. I'm in a university. There are students, there are faculty, you know, we're, having a, a faculty, sort of luncheon. we're reading a few books, and the idea is to the, the theme of, of the, the lunches,
00:07:52 - that communication divide, right? How do we think about polarization? How do we think about a way through tension-filled topics, you know, and on college campuses today in the United States, that's around the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. But there are lots of other conflicts that we have. so I'd like us to think much more, theoretically, philosophically, and yet be able to have action behind it and say, okay, how can we become better communicators across that difference?

"Embracing Uncertainty: The Need for Challenging Certainty in Western Philosophy"

00:08:59 - Western philosophical think thinking, this is a, a longstanding concern around this, this idea that we have to have certainty, like we have to be sure of it, and that there's no space for that. Again, the messiness of being confused or challenging myself or challenging you, I'd like, I'd love to be able to see folks do more work in that area because I, I, I'm feeling that that's a, a structure that really has just sort of been left to be, it hasn't really been challenged enough.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis