Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abstract

An important theme in the philosophy of education community in recent years has been the way in which philosophy can be brought to illuminate and evaluate research findings from the landscape of policy and practice. Undoubtedly, some of these practices can be based on spurious evidence, yet have mostly been left unchallenged in both philosophical and educational circles. One of the newer practices creeping into schools is that of ‘No best friend’ policies. In some schools, this is interpreted as suggesting that children should not have just one best friend but a group of good friends. In others, it is interpreted as suggesting that children should forgo having best friends altogether and be friends with everyone. What is common to both is that friendship is seen as somehow ‘dangerous’. This article offers a preliminary examination of what has been referred to as this ‘dark side’ of friendship. Whilst philosophers such as Patricia White have previously alluded to its existence, there has been little philosophical scrutiny in any broad terms elsewhere. I examine three common arguments commonly used to justify ‘No best friends’ practices: that children can be friends with everyone; that young children are developmentally incapable of ‘real’ friendship hence best friendship should be avoided until later age; that only good people can be good friends. I indicate why this unreflective adoption of practices matters so much and why we should be prepared to challenge these cases. I identify practices that we have good evidence to support as making a positive difference in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10031299/Children-shouldnt-have-best-friends-private-school-head-argues.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22383453 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/30097068—example from Denmark reported 19th November 2014.

  2. Despite the copious evidence proving the ‘benefits’ of friendship, victimisation, bullying and malicious gossip amongst friends are all well researched areas.

  3. To avoid possible confusion between policy (governmental level) and school based policies (procedures relating to the day-to-day implementation of practices), I will refer to the school based as ‘practices’.

  4. Just as one can deliberately reject another, it is possible to reject another without intending or realising that that is the effect of the behaviours.

  5. I am indebted to the feedback from one of the reviewers on this point.

  6. Generally seen as the ‘best kind’ or most desirable type of friendship.

  7. Utility and pleasure friendships are frequently regarded as lesser or incomplete forms of friendship, with virtue (sometimes called character or perfect friendship) regarded as the highest or most complete form.

  8. Such a stance, if realised in schools, risks being misinterpreted as suggesting that some children should not be chosen as friends or are undeserving of friendship.

  9. Elder gives the example of gamblers, who, he argues, may share a common interest and be directly sensitive to each others’ interests in gambling, and who, inadvertently, are helping each other to hurt themselves. However, it seems to me that it is possible that the two gamblers can be ‘best friends’ or ‘good friends’ to each other without that friendship being ‘the best possible friendship’ they could choose (using Cooper’s spectrum argument). This is not just a semantic point: it at least partially undermines Elder’s argument that ‘bad people’ cannot be good friends.

  10. I am thinking in particular of actions such as group bullying. Research on aggressive behaviour (such as bullying in schools) has often demonstrated that this can be often a group process in which children can reinforce each other through the shared behaviour (see: Salmivalli 1999). Similarly, it is possible for a Nazi soldier to be a good friend with other Nazis whilst being monstrous to those judged by their belief system to be outside and undeserving of common humanity. It should also be born in mind that relational ‘disorders’ such as folie a deux, cult memberships, perhaps even gang or terrorist groupings, can also show some features of close friendship to each other.

  11. Interestingly, Gutman and Feinstein found that more satisfaction with friendship seemed to correlate with higher KS2 English scores, and concluded that having friendships seemed to have particular importance for pupils in disadvantaged school areas.

  12. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4487859.ece.

  13. A common feature of Nurture groups.

References

  • Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. (trans: David Ross) 1953. Aufl. The World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Barker, Judith C. 2002. Neighbors, friends, and other nonkin caregivers of community-living dependent elders. The Journal of Gerontology 57B(3): 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., and S. Coleman (eds.). 1999. The anthropology of friendship. New York, Berg: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndt, Thomas J., and Keunho Keefe. 1995. Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school. Child Development 66(5): 1312–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, Laurence. 1993. Friendship as a moral phenomenon. In Friendship: A philosophical reader, ed. Neera Kapur Badhwar, 192–211. Ithaca: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, Lawrence. 1980. Friendship, altruism and morality. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London; Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, Rachel. 2007. Friends, peers and higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 28(6): 693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, Duane. 1990. Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development 61(4): 1101–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buote, Vanessa M., S. Mark Pancer, Michael W. Pratt, Gerald Adams, Shelly Birnie-Lefcovitch, Janet Polivy, and Maxine Gallander Wintre. 2007. The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research 22(6): 665–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocking, Dean, and Jeanette Kennett. 1998. Friendship and the self. Ethics 108(3): 502–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, John. 1977. Friendship and the good in Aristotle. Philosophical Review LXXXVI(3): 290–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, John. 1991. Friendship. In Encyclopaedia of ethics, ed. L. Becker, 388–391. New York and London: Garland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damon, William. 1977. The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, Julia. 1996. School friendship groups and their impact on learning. Education 3–13 24(1): 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, Edward J., Eric M. Vernberg, Peter Fonagy, Stuart W. Twemlow, and Bridget K. Gamm. 2004. Negative affect in victimized children: The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes toward bullying. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 32(2): 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, Alexis. 2014. Why bad people can’t be good friends. Ratio 27(1): 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, Leslie, and Leon Feinstein. 2008. Children’s well-being in primary school: Pupil and school effects [Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 25]. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education, University of London.

  • Hartup, Willard W. 1989. Behavioral manifestations of children’s friendships. In Peer relationships in child development, ed. Thomas J. Berndt, and G.W. Ladd, 46–70. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, David J., Lisa Zadro, Elian Fink, Rick Richardson, Kathleen O’Moore, Brendan Griffiths, Mark R. Dadds, and Kipling D. Williams. 2012. The effects of peer ostracism on children’s cognitive processes. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9(5): 599–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helm, Bennett W. 2010. Love, friendship, and the self: Intimacy, identification, and the social nature of persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jeske, Diane. 1997. Friendship, virtue, and impartiality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LVII 1: 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, Keunho, and Thomas J. Berndt. 1996. Relations of friendship quality to self-esteem in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence 16(1): 110–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingery, Julie Newman, Cynthia A. Erdley, and Katherine C. Marshall. 2011. Peer acceptance and friendship as predictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 57(3): 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, Laurence. 1981. Essays on moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, Gary W. 1990. Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment? Child Development 1081–1100.

  • Mikami, Amori Yee, Margaret A. Boucher, and Keith Humphreys. 2005. Prevention of peer rejection through a classroom-level intervention in middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention 26(1): 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehamas, Alexander. 2010. XII-The good of friendship. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback).

  • Pahl, Ray. 2000. On friendship. Oxford: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, Jean. 1932/1965. The moral judgement of the child. (trans: Gabain, M.). New York: Free Press.

  • Salmivalli, Christina. 1999. Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of adolescence 22(4): 453–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, Marlene J. 2004. Pitfalls of the peer world: How children cope with common rejection experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 32(1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selman, Robert. 1980. The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueno, Koji. 2005. The effects of friendship networks on adolescent depressive symptoms. Social Science Research 34(3): 484–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, John. 2012. The role of policy in philosophy of education: An argument and an illustration. Journal of Philosophy of Education 46(4): 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Patricia. 1990. Friendship and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 24(1): 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Richard. 1999. Friendship and commitment. The Journal of Value Inquiry 33(1): 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstanley, Carrie. 2012. Alluring ideas: cherry picking policy from around the world. Journal of Philosophy of Education 46(4): 516–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Healy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Healy, M. Should Children Have Best Friends?. Stud Philos Educ 36, 183–195 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9512-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9512-9

Keywords

Navigation