Friendship can only exist between persons with similar interests

"Friendship can only exist between persons with similar interests and points of view. Man and woman by the conventions of society are born with different interests and different points of view." These words by August Strindberg offer a reflection on the nature of friendship and the complexities that arise from the differences between men and women. Strindberg's view challenges the notion of universal friendship and suggests that true, lasting friendship can only be achieved between those who share a common understanding, a shared vision of the world. In his eyes, the inherent differences between men and women, shaped by the conventions of society, make it difficult, if not impossible, for the two to forge a deep and lasting friendship. He believes that these differences—the way each gender is conditioned to think, feel, and act—create barriers that divide rather than unite.

In the ancient world, the idea that friendship is rooted in shared interests and similar viewpoints was central to the concept of philia—the Greek word for friendship. Aristotle expounded upon this idea, stating that true friendship could only exist between individuals who were alike in virtue and moral character, for it is through these shared values that individuals could form bonds strong enough to endure. Aristotle did not dismiss the idea of friendships based on utility or pleasure, but he held that the deepest and most enduring relationships were formed when two individuals were united by their pursuit of the good. In this light, Strindberg’s idea seems to be an extension of Aristotle's thought, though with a more focused lens on the differences between men and women and the challenges these differences pose to the formation of genuine friendship.

Consider the famous friendship between David and Jonathan in the Bible. Their bond was forged through shared struggles and a deep, mutual respect for each other’s character. Despite the political pressures and familial conflict that surrounded them, David and Jonathan remained steadfast in their loyalty to one another. Their friendship transcended the external challenges of the world and was rooted in shared virtue and purpose. Theirs was a friendship built on common ground, on trust, and on a mutual understanding that neither could find in anyone else. This exemplifies Aristotle’s ideal of friendship—a connection formed between two people who are united in values and goals.

Yet, Strindberg’s claim challenges the ease with which we tend to view these bonds, particularly between men and women. The relationships between David and Jonathan and other historical examples may indeed be rooted in shared ideals, but Strindberg contends that men and women, shaped as they are by their respective roles in society, are naturally at odds when it comes to the deeper currents of friendship. The conventions of society, which have long dictated the roles and expectations of the sexes, create a gulf between them that is difficult to bridge. Strindberg suggests that friendship between men and women is often marred by misunderstanding, frustration, and discord, because of the inherent differences in their interests and points of view.

This is not to say that friendship between men and women is impossible. History is rich with examples of couples who not only loved each other deeply but were also the best of friends. Consider the bond between Marie and Pierre Curie, whose collaboration in science was not only a partnership in work but also a deep, supportive friendship based on shared intellectual curiosity and respect. Their relationship was built on a mutual interest in the pursuit of knowledge, and their combined efforts in the scientific community forever changed the course of history. Their friendship was not diminished by their differences as man and woman, but rather, their shared intellectual bond transcended those barriers.

Yet Strindberg’s warning still holds weight. Even in the most close-knit and successful relationships between men and women, the natural differences in the way each gender perceives the world can create challenges. A woman and a man may be able to love and respect each other, but when it comes to building a friendship, the differing interests and views can become obstacles that must be navigated carefully. Strindberg’s words speak to the importance of understanding these differences, recognizing that the natural inclinations of men and women may not always align, and that it takes work, patience, and deep compromise to overcome these divides.

The lesson we take from Strindberg is not that friendship between men and women is impossible, but that it requires an awareness of differences and a willingness to work through them. It teaches us that friendship is not merely a given, but a partnership—one that demands effort, mutual respect, and the alignment of interests and values. For true friendship to form between men and women, both must be willing to transcend their societal roles and engage with one another on a deeper level, understanding the unique perspectives each brings to the table.

In our own lives, let us remember that friendship is not a one-size-fits-all bond. It requires a recognition of the unique qualities that make each individual who they are, and a willingness to embrace those qualities without judgment. Whether between men and women, or among individuals of the same gender, friendship flourishes when both parties are willing to learn, respect, and adapt to the differences that may arise. By doing so, we can build friendships that transcend the boundaries of gender, expectation, and society’s conventions—friendships that are grounded in mutual understanding, respect, and the deep bond of shared humanity.