Purposing the “poisonous” in people: Using narrative analysis to explicate “toxic” relationships in youths

In analysing two accounts of what the narrators deem as a “toxic friendship”, narrative analysis is deployed to interpret the meanings of “toxicity” and its overarching purpose in making sense of experience. University freshmen in Singapore were prompted in a casual interview setting to share whatever experiences they have had with “toxic” relationships. It was found that the term “toxic” was purposely left vague and unclearly defined such that it provided an opportunity for narrators and listeners to explore the issues in a problematic relationship. Instead of clearly defining “toxic”, the evaluation of the relationship allowed one to reveal sentiments such as blame, justification, and understanding, facilitating the building of group rapport in peer talk. Common attributes of the analysed accounts include clear delimitation of praise and blame, usage of moral policing and “othering”, as well as the construction of individual and group social identities.

“Toxic”, otherwise defined as “poisonous”, is a pervasive metaphor used to describe a relationship that is somehow problematic. However, what “toxicity” exactly refers to remains vaguely outlined. This is different from other pervasive characterisations, such as an “abusive” or “dysfunctional” relationship, which are characterised by particular features ­– violence, verbal abuse and so forth. Even so, moulded by personal experiences, one does have some intuitions of what a toxic relationship might be. It could be this sense of losing oneself or being underappreciated that lead the term “toxic” to be impulsively tied to a soured relationship. Ultimately, a universal definition of what a “toxic” relationship looks like is vague. Thus, by examining how “toxic” is utilized in peer talk, this research aims to explicate the meanings of “toxic relationships” and its broader purpose in making sense of experience.

Narratives are a medium through which such interpersonal experiences can be examined. Since narratives can reveal the interactional and developmental properties that constitute a toxic relationship, we can see how it serves constructions of identity, the evaluation of events and the normativity underlying peer relations. This was achieved through casual one-on-one conversations with friends of both genders, where they were prompted to share personal and/or vicarious narratives of “toxic friendships”. Such intimate conditions, as compared to a group setting, facilitated the elicitation of story details and drew out more explicit evaluation of “toxicity”.

The unspecified nature of a “toxic friendship” could serve as reason for the lack of prior research done on the topic. However, studies on friendship maintenance and conflict can provide a prefatory understanding of peer relations as well. In particular, studies on victimizing friendships have defined and illustrated features comparable to what one might understand to that in a “toxic friendship”. As defined by Daniels et al. (2010), peer victimisation refers to “the experience of being the target of a peer’s aggressive acts”. Hence, analysing such literature can provide a preliminary understanding of “toxic friendships”.

Forsythe and Ledbetter (2015) found that increased interconnectedness to sustain the “communal identity” and confidence in the stability of a relationship best facilitated satisfactory communication levels, and therefore continuation of a friendship. However, equity, which considers the cost-benefit ratio of parties in a relationship, serves as a “moderator” to the overall effect of interconnectedness and confidence in relationship stability on the continuation of a friendship. If one feels under-benefitted, should there be high levels of interconnectedness and confidence in relationship stability, it is likely that the friendship is still maintained. However, should one feel over-benefitted, decreased confidence in relationship stability lead to different outcomes on whether a friendship will be maintained or not. The over-benefitted party is likely to fall out of the friendship when feelings of guilt lead to employment of avoidant tactics. However, if there are signs of a stable and supportive relationship developing, there would be increased levels of relational maintenance instead.

Even so, Daniels et.al (2010) argued that relatively stable and healthy friendships were not exempted from peer victimisation via relational and physical aggression. Victimisation was mainly relational for girls and physical for boys, both largely resulting in poorer friendship quality and satisfaction. However, girls experiencing social aggression in friendships also encountered high levels of beneficial friendship qualities. Hence while the relationally victimised friendship was characterised by low levels of support, guidance and conflict resolution, the positive aspects such as companionship, recreation and intimacy make the friendship tolerable. Such negative outcomes are also intensified when the aggression stems from a close dyadic relationship. Expanding on the reasons underlying adolescent reluctance to leave relationally abusive friendships, Bouchard, Smith and Woods (2021) identified that “cognitive, relational and contextual” factors elicited a sense of acquiescence and despair which lead to “resigned” acceptance of the relationship. Cognitive factors such as optimism towards the potential for the relationship to improve and categorial self-accusation have led to increased affliction and helplessness towards the situation. The cyclical nature of victimisation and satisfaction in the relationship also reaffirmed positive interpersonal bonds in the friendship, making it hard to leave despite the emotional abuse. Perceived damage to one’s social identity by directly addressing the aggression, leaving the friendship or reporting it to authorities also discouraged the abused from leaving the relationship. Furthermore, youths cited “normalisation” of aggression in friendships as reason for unnecessary mediative steps.

Such friendships can thus be analysed through a narrative lens as they reveal the attitudes, beliefs and relations of parties involved. Prior research on narratives of personal experience has also shown how narrative tools can be deployed to analyse stories on “toxicity”. Such analysis can be deployed to recognise values, beliefs and normative understandings of experiences, thereby reflecting on how human identity and relationships are constructed.

Labov (1972, 1997), in assembling a framework to study narrative syntax, has shown how experiences are construed as a chain of events based on a ‘personal theory of causation’ and evaluative functions to establish the way a speaker wants those events to be understood. These, broken down into identifiable genres, include the assignment of praise and blame, credibility and objectivity. This facilitates the “transfer of experience”, whereby listeners “become aware of the event as if it were their own experience”. With the construction of a story centering on the “most reportable event”, the causal relations between the series of events allow narratives to be a medium through which we structure and understand the world. Building on Labov’s work, Schriffin (1996) argues that the way in which we establish our self-identity, is contingent on the context and environment we are in. The participation framework thus matters as we orientate our narrative based on the sociocultural context and specific narrative event we are in. We display our “agentive” selves when reporting actions that portray a certain self-identity. However, our possibly different “epistemic” identities, drawn out through indication of “beliefs, feelings, and wants”, can highlight a broader narrative on our portrayed social identity and interpersonal relationships. This can be analysed to see how the speaker is making sense of experiences and establishing the evaluative perspective about them.

Apart from the narrative content, the way narrative is employed interactionally can also provide a lens for discussion. Cheshire (2000) suggests that narratives, told in a group setting, are crucial in the construction of friendship. Be it through the “tale”, the activity of “telling” or the various interactional styles one might use in a group setting, the connection established between self and peer(s) construct a shared group identity where group values and beliefs are ratified. Narratives can also take the form of gossip which, as defined by Jaworski and Coupland (2005), is “highly critical talk about others”. By employing “liminality” and “othering” in gossip, shared group identity can be constructed by “negotiating aspects of group membership”. Gossipers, in assigning a vague social identity to protagonists in narratives, allow the formation of “in-group” and “out-group” membership, where in deeming the “out-group” as abnormal, the “in-group” members can establish stronger bonding through common shared values and identities. Gossip also serves the function of “moral policing”, where in exercising moral judgement, certain behaviours are deemed whether they are acceptable by the group. Whereas “self-othering”, in which an ambiguous identity is designated to “in-group” members and/or self, seeks to manage intergroup relations. Either through minimizing deprecatory acts or glorifying atypical behaviours, the narrator can attempt to control the group’s perception of himself, usually in a more justifiable light. This segregates “out-group” members and allows “in-group” members to reinforce their belonging within the established social boundaries, clearly showing how narrative reflects and enacts group norms. Specifically, the use of “othering” and moral policing will aid most in unpacking the narrator’s take on toxicity.

While the above researchers have mostly focused on stories of that are “part of one’s biography” as Labov (1997) puts it, Norrick (2013) argues that vicarious narratives can largely fulfil the same role as stories of personal experiences in conversation. Understandably, the form and function of third person narratives diverge from that of first-person narratives. The change in participation framework, whereby the protagonist and the narrator are no longer the same person, hinders the narrator from establishing any social identities through the recount. Stories shared are also influenced and constructed to fit the narrative context. However, the events and characters in vicarious recounts derive their coherence and evaluation from the larger narrative context, whereby the content and choice of language serve a certain function or pans towards an established stance.  

Therefore, by utilising narrative analysis to analyse recounts of what one might deem as a “toxic relationship”, the construction of narratives can allow us to see the portrayal of self and group identities to make sense of experiences, and more specifically, explicate “toxic friendships”.

The following section will be my analysis of two stories presented by individual university freshmen, “Damsel in distress?” and “Alpha personality thing”. While they will be primarily analysed using narrative concepts, I also make use of my understanding on friendship maintenance and conflict to better evaluate the relations between parties involved.

In the first account, Max recounts the trajectory of his relationship with a female “toxic friend” he had in Junior College, where a friendship he invested in fell through when the other party got together with her significant other. He describes what Forsythe and Ledbetter (2015, 323) deem as inequitable elements of their friendship as well as his attitudes towards it. For easy reference, I will be referring to the “toxic friend” as Sarah.

From the orientation (Labov, 1972, 364) above, Max establishes “othering” as we see in Jaworski and Coupland (2005, 670), providing the opportunity to discuss the “toxicity” in his friendship. Vague notions such “personality issues” in line 4, “some kind of mild depression at some point” in line 5 and “prone to stuff like self-harm and a lot of things” in line 7 assign liminality to Sarah. These ambiguous identities constructed of Sarah allow Max to portray her as abnormal, having had such brushes with mental illness. In line 6 and 8, by setting up the premise that Sarah’s negative relationships could also be seen in other people, greater credibility (Labov, 1997, 9) and believability is also established for the following account that Sarah is clearly the one at fault as Max’s experience does not seem to be unique to him.

Schriffin (1996, 194) states that our agentive selves are revealed when “we report actions directed towards goals”. Through the repetitive use of “I” in lines 9-12, we can see how Max displays his agentive self. Using strong agency to recount his guidance and support to Sarah, there is a sense of ownership and confidence towards his proactive contribution in the friendship. His principal role is established by him having the perspective to see the bigger picture and providing the encouragement Sarah needs. An inequitable balance in the relationship is also subtly hinted at, with Max potentially under-benefitting since he seems to provide more than receive in the friendship.

Gradually, the assignment of praise and blame (Labov, 1997, 10) becomes more apparent in the narrative. Even though Max was trying to exercise empathy and understanding, such as through “ok now I understand where she was coming from” in line 20, he clearly felt that Sarah was ultimately to be blamed. Max’s construction of group normativity (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 688) to ratify the shared group beliefs between him and Xin also allowed for the justification of his actions. Line 20’s “I couldn’t really relate to it, because I was too busy just trying to study too” appeals to the collective experience Max and Xin share as students where they had to undergo an intensive study period for the ‘A’ level examinations. Another instance includes line 26’s “But I know you can’t say that to someone who’s actually depressed because it never ends well” where Max expects Xin to align with his moral positioning that people with depressive symptoms have to be treated with sensitivity. This elicits compassion and empathy from Xin who would then be more inclined to side with his choice of actions given the complicated situation Max was in, further building group rapport. Bouchard, Smith and Woods (2021, 83) have noted that intermittent periods of satisfaction and victimization can strengthen relational bonds, making it difficult to leave. In lines 27-29, the cycle of victimization and satisfaction in a friendship that Max was reluctant to leave is clearly illustrated. Max has evaluated that despite the negative emotional pains and the likelihood that he is under-benefitting from the relationship, the perceived support and companionship outweighed those factors, and hence deemed acceptable for the continuation of the relationship. Additionally, Sarah is again “othered” (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 670) as Max’s vague descriptions of “her concerns” (line 22), depression (line 26) and “[pessimism] on life and everything” (line 27) place her in a liminal light.

Max then transitions to put clear blame on Sarah for the falling through of the relationship in lines 36-40. However, this is again prefaced by establishing an empathetic understanding of Sarah’s situation in line 33 and 35, using variations of “you” for Xin to align with his compassion for Sarah. “Othering” (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 670) is again employed through a vague generalisation of their soured relationship in lines 32-40, without any narration of specific events.

Signposting in line 41, Max ends the narrative with his evaluation (Labov, 1972, 366) of the “toxicity” in the friendship. Jaworski and Coupland’s (2005, 675) notion of “self-othering” can be seen in lines 46-48 where he assigns a liminal identity to himself. In line 46, Max partially takes on responsibility for the failed friendship by raising the notion that he could have better approached it. However, he quickly justifies his actions in line 47 by stating that he did so as he felt “obliged to sort of help her see through it”. By portraying his devotion to a friend as overstepping of boundaries, this self-blame for something typically not considered blameworthy is clear reaffirmation that he is not the one at fault in the overall picture, further building his social identity as this caring and empathetic character. Sarah is “othered” (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 670) as well through vague descriptions of how the friendship fell through. These include line 42’s “no longer necessary in a sense”, line 44’s “The drifting apart, felt very sudden?” and line 47’s “had these issues…” which vaguely outline reasons why the friendship failed. Max concludes that the friendship was “toxic” because of two factors – Sarah’s betrayal and neglect towards their friendship he had invested in and Max’s over-supportiveness towards her. However, it can also be argued that the “toxicity” stemmed from the imbalanced relationship wherein one party invested more than the other. Bouchard, Smith and Woods (2021, 83 and 85) have noted that self-blame and investment into the relationship can explain reluctance towards leaving a victimising friendship. Hence, others might even argue that the “toxic” lies in the fact that Max is unwilling to let go of the relationship. Therefore, it can be seen that “toxic” was this opportunity for Max to justify and make sense of his position in the relationship. Rather than clearly defining what “toxic” meant to him and pinning it to an instance or event in the relationship, the whole narrative event was an occasion for Max to process what this relationship meant to him.

While Max presented a narrative on personal experience, the second recount by Lin is what Norrick (2013, 385) would define as a vicarious narrative. For easy reference, the perpetrator will be referred to as Pete. Lin begins by recounting a general instance where Pete rudely shoots down a proposed explanation, followed by a narrative on how he tried to pressurise another friend into going for a drinking session. The narrator personally knows the people involved, and while she has likely experienced Pete’s “toxicity” before, she is not involved in the following narrative and hence renders it in the third person. This narrative will be analysed in a more general sense to see the meanings of “toxicity” in vicarious narratives and how they serve the broader aim in making sense of experiences.

Jaworski and Coupland’s (2005, 670) notion of “othering” can be seen throughout the narrative. The repetitive uses of the term “like”, the term “this” in line 5, and “kind of” in line 22 are a few examples of how vague Lin constructs her recount to be. This is further contributed by lapses between evaluation (Labov, 1972, 366) of Pete’s toxicity and reporting of actual narrated events. By disclosing a lot of specific details of events and instances, these ambiguous happenings thus serve a generalised function for Lin to evaluate and construct Pete’s “toxic” identity.

Norrick (2013, 389-390, 400) argues that since the protagonist and narrator are different, this establishes clear distance between the narrator and the events. Lin’s personal interest is not at stake and hence the story offers opportunities for her to make certain judgements towards Pete and his actions. The stances she takes then reflects her overall position towards “toxicity” and how she makes sense of the narrated events. Such instances can be reflected in how she exercises her moral judgement to deem Pete’s actions unacceptable and “toxic” through moral policing (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 668). Therefore, even though the story is reported in the third person, by responding to the prompt on sharing about a ‘toxic” friend, the narrative event creates a chance for Lin to process and evaluate this problematic relationship she observes and her overarching perspective on “toxicity”.

By examining how “toxic” is utilised in peer talk, this research has explicated the meanings of “toxic relationships” and its broader purpose in making sense of experience. Since sharing about a “toxic” friend/relationship in itself is a form of gossip, both narratives consisted of large amounts of “othering” (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 670) interspersed throughout. Using ambiguous language and generalisations to gloss over events contributed to the construction of the characters’ liminal identity. Thus, an opportunity arises for the narrator (and listener) to process, discuss and evaluate the “toxic” elements in the relationship.

Moral policing (Jaworski and Coupland, 2005, 668), in which the narrator exercises moral judgment towards characters and happenings in the narrated event, is used in the construction of individual and group social identities. The clear assignment of praise and blame (Labov, 1997, 10), where blame is squarely placed on the perpetrator, allows the narrator to define themselves by what they are not. In allowing the group (listeners) to align with the narrator’s beliefs and actions presented, this also serves the function of building group rapport and identity. While the narrator may at times put him/herself in a liminal light by showing empathy and understanding, this vague position is quickly justified which further reaffirms the idea that the victim in the story is largely blameless.

In narratives of personal experience, “toxicity” is hence used for the narrator to understand his/her relationship with the parties involved. Such “othering” and formation of group rapport is present in vicarious narratives as well, wherein the narrator is able to reflect his/her position towards “toxicity” and how he/she makes sense of the narrated events. While the form and function of third person narratives differ from that of the first person, “toxicity” here is used to illuminate the narrator’s perception of the “toxic” relationship, putting forth her stance(s) on “toxicity” to fit the larger narrative event.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the term “toxic” is purposely left vague and unclearly defined such that it is able to initiate a ritual for the narrator (and listeners) to explore and make sense of the issues in a bad relationship. In establishing an evaluative perspective about the relationship and how it is deemed “toxic” to the narrator, the term “toxic” is not concretely defined or attributed to a specific instance, but serves instead the larger purpose of making sense of relationship experiences, as well as forming group identity and solidarity through peer talk.

Bouchard, Karen, J.David Smith and Heather Woods. 2021. “Individual and Social-Contextual Factors Underlying Adolescents’ Commitment to Victimizing Friendships: A Qualitative Analysis’. The Journal of Early Adolescence 41, no. 1. Pp. 70-96

Cheshire, Jenny. 2000. “The Telling or the Tale? Narratives and Gender in Adolescent Friendship Networks.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, no. 2. pp. 234-262.

Daniels, Tina, Danielle Quigley, Lisa Menard and Linda Spence. 2010. ‘“My Best Friend Always Did and Still Does Betray Me Constantly”: Examining Relational and Physical Victimization Within a Dyadic Friendship Context’. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 25, no. 1. Pp. 70-83

Forsythe, Katherine E., and Andrew M. Ledbetter. 2015. ‘Relational Uncertainty, Self-Other Inclusion, and Communication Satisfaction as Predictors of Friendship Relational Maintenance, and How Equity Changes the Story’. Communication Studies 66, no. 3. Pp. 321-340

Jaworski, Adam and Justine Coupland 2005. “Othering in Gossip: ‘you go out you have a laugh and you can pull yeah okay but like…’:” Language in Society 34, no. 5. pp. 667-694.

Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 1997. ‘Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis.” The Journal of Narrative and Life History 7, no.1-4. pp. 395-415

Norrick Neal R. 2013. “Narratives of Vicarious Experience in Conversation.” Language in Society 42, no. 4. pp. 385-406

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1996. ‘Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity’ Language in Society 25, no. 2. pp. 167-203