A Critical Evaluation of Friendship and Control
The article of choice is “Friendship and Control.” The article “Friendship and Control” provides a meticulous argument on the subject in question, with the premise of argument adopted therein being solid enough to provoke reproach and retaliation. This paper is meant to critique the article “Friendship and Control” by giving a clear stand point and adopting the appropriate angle of such a discussion while keeping such facets as factual based evidence on ethos, pathos, kairos and logos at a fingers grip. Moreover, a solid abstract stance is provided herein to allow an audience gets an opinion on the subject of friendship and control, gaining insight on proposing or opposing the argument based on the convincing power represented herein.
Roger Scrutonundeniably provides significant insight on the subject of friendship and control in his article, “Friendship and Control.” A mere scroll through the website glues an individual to the inclination which he takes in his discussions to the point at which he arrives at the most attractive conclusion. For one, the premise of argument against onscreen friendship as opposed to direct personal contact is an intrigue. He says, “The real friend is the one who comes to the rescue in your hour of need; who is there with comfort in adversity and who shares with you his own success” (par, 1). In reality, friendships struck in personal contact are more long lasting and invites both parties to the personal space of the other. This is well manifested in the argument that Rodger Scruton posits to the reader.
However, friendships made in personal contact may seem all appealing; there are its demerits that exhibit especially when the friend in question has a particular target. Such friendships are not exonerated from malice and stupefaction. However, this author grants the merits of direct personal contact type of friendship that is made while occupying the space of the other. Moreover, the author can be given the benefit of doubt for pointing out to the fact that friends made onscreen are more of circumstantial than long lasting. This is in the sense that such people are more of virtual than real, lots of safety measures are struck to keep such friendships glued. In comparison to the direct contact, type of friendship, on screen bare the demerit of lacking personal appeal and accountability when an individual is faced by misfortunes or greatly troubled.
Rodger Scruton’s words are a magnet. They attract attention and tend to focus an individual towards making friendships based on direct personal contact as opposed to making on screen types of friendships. He says, “people became friends by being in each other’s presence, understanding all the many subtle signals, verbal and bodily, whereby another testifies to his character, emotions, and intentions, and building affection and trust in tandem.” The audience fined these words convincing and antagonistic to the form of friendship that is developed based on chatting on social media or texting.
However, this is not entirely true, because the blind strike friendships through listening to the other party. However, there has to be some form of synchrony between an individual friend’s school of thoughts and the other persons’ line of thinking as expounded by the author. The direct comparison between on screen type of friendship and personal contact friendship is remarkable and woes the thoughts and actions of the readers towards ingesting the words of Roger Scruton and drawing solutions based on his premise of argument. In a way, his argument achieves his intentions of drawing the audience towards embracing direct personal contact types of friendships.
The argument about Facebook relationships is logical. Rodger Scruton says, “hypostatizes shyness, retains its principal features, while substituting an ersatz kind of affection for the real affection that shyness fears (par 7).” In a way, this is entirely true. The social media especially Facebook, has the effect of creating some virtual form of affection that shadows shyness. This emphasizes on the real kind of relationships that focus on building real networks that start with building trust right to the accomplishment of targets and ambitions together, which bears the risks directly linked with personal contact, and slowly being acquainted to another. Thus, Rodgers Scruton’s article is one to read if distinctions have to be made between what is virtual and real with respects to social media relationships and the direct personal contact form of relationships.
The practical nature of true friendship demands trust, personal contact, a share of power and sacrifice which is not guaranteed by a vast majority who utilize the social media as a way of striking true friendship. The more realistic way of making friendship thus lies in the interaction with the environment and instigation of trust through person-to-person interaction and communication with each other.
Rodger achieves to capture the attention of his audience through supporting his main premise of argument that friendships struck in direct personal contact are more bonding as opposed to on screen friendships that are limiting in terms of taking initiatives and sacrifices. Moreover, he categorically expresses the demerits of on screen friendships to such things as the lack of accountability and trust. Trust is the only recipe to a true type of friendship and this is impossible to achieve through making of friendships in the online platforms. Therefore, the only sure way to make friends as regards to Rodger Scruton’s article “Friendship and Control” is through personal contact involving, occupying the others’ space, reading the body language and sharing the power of privacy with each other.
Scruton, Rodger. “Hiding Behind The Screen”. The New Atlantis. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.