In the course of giving his account of intersubjectivity (or the Being-with others of Mitsein), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) comments on two kinds of concern for the other — a leaping in for and a leaping ahead of the other . The one kind of friend, when confronted with a friend in distress, will leap in for them and take care of things. Although many of us would appreciate such a friend, Heidegger writes about why we should be weary of this kind of friend:

“With regard to its possibility modes, concern has two extreme possibilities. It can, so to speak, take the other’s “care” away from him and put itself in his place in taking care, it can leap in for him. Concern takes over what is to be taken care of for the other. The other is thus displaced, he steps back so that afterwards, when the matter has been attended to, he can take it over as something finished and available or disburden himself of it completely. In this concern, the other can become someone who is dependent and dominated even if this domination is a tacit one and remains hidden from him. This kind of concern which does the job and takes away “care” is, to a large extent, determinative for being-with-one another and pertains, for the most part, to our taking care of things at hand.” (Heidegger, Being and Time, p.122)

I think we can all relate to feeling relief when someone offers to step in and take charge, to steer us back to safety. And some of us, in speaking with our friends, may even want to be told what to do when faced with a difficult decision. Our friends may even think they are doing the right thing by stepping in, not realizing that this is a kind of concern that doesn’t allow us to make our own decisions and carry out our own solutions.

The problem is that in leaping in and taking charge, our friend has disabled us from taking care of our own business, and unburdened us of the responsibility — which, of course, is what makes it so appealing. In giving over our responsibility and power to act, we allow our friend to take over for us, a pattern that undermines our agency. In short, this kind of friend is one that robs us of our autonomy.

Compare this with the friend who leaps ahead of us instead:

“In contrast to this, there is the possibility of a concern which does not so much leap in for the other as leap ahead of him in his existentiell potentiality-of-being, not in order to take “care” away from him, but rather to authentically give it back as such. This concern which essentially pertains to authentic care — that is, it pertains to the existence of the other, and not to a what which it takes care of — helps the other to become transparent to himself in his care and free for it.” (Heidegger, Being and Time, p.122)

The second kind of friend will not leap in and take care of things for us, but instead will leap ahead, foreseeing what we may need by way of support to make a difficult decision or to undertake a difficult course of action. This kind of care gives us back our freedom and autonomy, specifically in a situation where this may have been compromised. This friend helps us to do and become what we want to, according to your own assessment of our possibilities. They refrain from projecting their own desires onto us, instead choosing to play an important (and often more difficult) supporting role.

However, we could imagine some situations where taking over for someone is necessary, and is the caring thing to do. If a friend asks us specifically for help because they are not able to make executive decisions, or they are otherwise not able to care for themselves, in this case it is clear that a good friend would step in, at least as long as necessary for the friend to regain autonomy. But what if the friend cannot even ask, are not in a position where they can communicate their need, then it’s a little more difficult. Have you ever been in this situation, caring for someone who is incapacitated or has lost their autonomy, and what was that like?

Another thing to note about Heidegger’s views on friendship is that these are culturally specific. Take *jumping-ahead, *what in one group is considered helpful for another group can be received as interfering or patronizing. In my Latin American culture, or small towns, in any tight-knit group really, it is quite normal for everyone to know your business and opinions are freely expressed about what you should or shouldn’t do. The line between me and my decisions or actions, and that of a close one, is blurred. If it is a kinship group (not necessarily blood-relatives, but chosen family) your decisions and actions affect others in such a way that they are not always just “your” decisions. Generally speaking, in cultures where alienation is not a norm, and individuality and autonomy is not placed as the highest good above community, the line between me and an Other is simply not that sharply cut.

Human relationships are complex, and are rarely carried out according to rational principles. (I know, unbelievable!) Friends often act out of instinct, emotion, and deep personal bonds that might not neatly align with Heidegger’s philosophical precepts. This can make his distinctions difficult to apply in daily life, where the messiness of human relationships defies clear-cut philosophical categories.

Nonetheless, I find the distinction between friends who leap-in and leaping-ahead very helpful for understanding what it means to be supportive and to play a supportive role in another’s life. (I find it especially helpful when trying to explain to men what it means to play a supporting role, so it helps me with some gender trouble...) And I do believe that this is key to being a good friend and a good human. To be able to lend an ear to another so that they can verbalize and externalize their reality, to back them up epistemically in situations where they are not sure what is going on, and to help provide the resources that they determine they will need to solve a problem, all of this is really important to being a good friend.

And not only when dealing with problems or situations, but in all their creative and productive endeavors. Being there for a friend or kin who is making or doing something that is a joyous as it is challenging, that is where the deepest bonds are forged. It is not about how much time your spend together, or trauma bonding alone, but it is having the privilege to play this supporting role in another’s journey. That is friendship.

I hope that we keep talking about friendship. What, if anything, did this piece spark for you? I’m here to listen if you want to be subbies, or Substack frens.

—

Quotes Source: Martin Heidegger (1962). Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson. London: SCM Press.