!

THE COLLECTIVE I
MARY-WALKER RIPPE

The next time youre in the company of a pair of best friends, compare how they act. Do
they use the same colloquialisms? Share common hand gestures? Similar facial expressions?
Perhaps they laugh at the same moment in a joke, or express similar feelings about a story. Or
maybe they share the same style, same wit, same gregariousness, timidness, eating habits,
exercise regimen, fetishes. S
Theres a reason why our parents constantly encouraged us to hang out with people with
whom they deemed good influences: friends often assimilate each others traits; these
relationships forge our sense of self. Author Noel Carroll recognizes this role that others play in
establishing identity: he claims that shared sensibilities, such as tastes in art or humor, form the
foundations upon which relationships with oneself and others are built; and he empathizes with
the Aristotelian metaphor of friends as mirrors that reflect our qualities and values. Through an
analysis of Yazmina Rezas play, Art, Carroll, in his essay Art and Friendship, explores the
ways in which relationships affect each others ever changing self-concepts.
Carrolls investigation revolves around the deteriorating friendship of Arts main
characters, Marc and Serge. He ultimately attributes their disconnect in their senses of humor
and Serges instinctual, almost chemical aversion to Marcs lover to Marcs failure to find
worth in a piece of art that Serge empathizes with (30). On the surface, Marcs denunciation that
Serge is feigning appreciation for the painting in order to enhance his upward social mobility
seems to produce the point of disconnect (28). Its apparent that the vanity and insecurity that

!2
this reasoning would establish in Serges character is not consistent with Marcs. However, the
rift goes deeper, argues Carroll, for Marc realizes that Serge is moved by the paintingthat
there is something in Serge that is not in Marcand this is what disturbs him (28). It is this lack
of mutuality that leads Marc to question his self-identity since he no longer seems to value
that is, can not find worth in what the most accurate reflection of his own qualities and
beliefs, his best friend, does. His proverbial mirror is shattered. As Carroll illustrates Marcs
struggle to define himself without Serge, were introduced to Carrolls claim that we have no
way of objectively assessing our own qualities (27). Genuine self knowledge requires validation
from an outside viewpoint.
Friendship acts as that validation, confirming our sense of self (what we find most
important about ourselves) by reflecting in the other what both people value. Thus the wide-held
belief that you and I must seek independent self-affirmation to be happy is only partially correct;
its difficult for us to know ourselves, to know what we value, what we speak for without turning
to others for this confirmation. It is through others that we find our unique self-perception.
And yet, our remarkable ability to be crafted and molded, influenced by the most remote
interaction calls into question the very idea of a completely unaffected self. Are we not totally
shaped by others? From our parents we inherited DNA and an arguably ingrained set of personal
traits, but so, too, were we raised to reflect our primary caretaker's character and values. Our
relationships with non-family members challenge or reinforce these customs and consequently
affect our ideas of self, not in spite of our fostered personality, but because of it. Aspects of
others self-concepts are compared to that which we have grown up with. Whether or not we
resonate with and choose to assimilate external ideas is largely rooted in the culture of our home

!3
lives whether were satisfied, whether we see need for change. At no point is our identity not
influenced by relationships.
Influenced: a relatively neutral word. It reflects neither appreciation nor disproval
towards the subject in question. Carroll, however, chooses to focus on this influence in a semipositive light; he endorses change spurred by relationships and auxiliary opinions but remains
impartial to the manner in which individuals (Serge and Marc, specifically) affect each other, in
which others expand the excellencein this case of the sensibilityof the other self (31). It
matters not how the person is affected so long as their concept of self is challenged. Conflict,
Carroll and Reza propose, is the greatest way to uncover your identity and connect more deeply
with others.
Author Brent Staples may conclude the opposite. In his work,Just Walk on By, Staples
reflects on the injustices meted out to blacks in everyday social situations. His unconventional
solution to take precautions to make [him]self less threatening and change his public identity
offers conflict a different route from Carrolls through which to affect the self (60). Controversy
often forces an individual to assimilate or conform, to shade in the outline of his or her identity
with sensibilities that are not befitting in order to be accepted. In Staples case, the assimilation
of traits and characteristics is not a choice Staples is not resonating with such ideas but
rather a necessity for reintegration into society. And yet this conformity still has what Carroll
would believe to be a positive effect on Staples; through discovering what he is not, Staples
identity in the alternate is grounded. His labels as dangerous and ever the suspect lead him to
reminisce repeatedly on the roots of his nature and how he chose, perhaps even unconsciously,
to remain a shadow as a child, grounding his self-concept as a peaceful, timid man (60 - 61).

!4
But this, too, might be Carrolls point: perhaps friendships qualify our identities more so
than they confirm them. Our self evolves with our amassed relationships and experiences, and
it is only when two individuals change together or diverge enough to reach a different type of
shared sensibility that a single relationship upholds. After all, Marc and Serges friendship does
repair. But how? And, perhaps most importantly, why?
When I think of Marc and Serges broken friendship, I imagine The Panorama of the City
of New York at the Queens Museum. The Panorama is a metropolis in miniature, encompassing
all five boroughs of the city in only 9,335 square feet. Distance, The Panorama screams, give me
distance. It is so right. Only when I step away from the railing, when I allow my eyes to wander,
do I see the greater picture into which its details coalesce. I see possibilities. Large spans of hope
and opportunities contrasted with plots of heartbreak and struggles. Through this distance, an
objective difference, I can see the city for what it is and can be as a whole. In the landscape that
is Marc and Serges relationship, distance, too, offers clarity. When we detach ourselves, allow
unfamiliarity to seep through, we may be able to view the other objectively well, at least more
objectively than before to better relate. Distance dissolves details. Though such distance
proves isolating to Brent Staples, perpetuating the bias against him, it is received differently by
Marc and Serge for they once had an amicable relationship. One that offers them a pre-developed
foundation unavailable to Staples upon which to reconstruct their friendship, work out the
details, per se.
For Carroll, distance compels Marc and Serge to examine the generalities of their
friendship. A reflection upon which Carroll concludes that Serge cares for the friendship, and
that Marc must therefore efface [the painting] with a felt tip pen so that he can come to see

!5
something of value in [it] (31). And see he does; Marc eventually find[s] value where Serge
does, though not exactly in the way that Serge does (31). By Carrolls logic, the specific
component of the painting that Marc connects with matters little; its the establishment of a
common ground that proves important. A commonality, Brian Doyle furthers in his essay, Joyas
Voladoras, that lies in the universality of the heart. Marc and Serge have the potential to
reconnect, to understand each other, because they have and will always share one thing in
common: an emotional humanity. A shared humanity that feels pain and joy and confusion.
Every living thing has fluid eternally in motion, washing from one side of the cell to the other,
swirling and whirling, Doyle writes (42). We all churn inside (42). And churn Marc and Serge
have over the course of their disconnect, Carroll says as he details the minute nature of their
falling out, from disconnects in their sense of humor to their inclined violent natures towards
each others likes. So, too, does Doyle say that we all build up walls to protect our hearts from
inevitable bruisings. Walls, Carroll infers, that were broken down by Marc and Serges
disconnect; by their inability to relate to one another as they had before; by their failure to
reinforce those walls.
Overlooking The Panorama, I try to trace my way back to my hometown in New Jersey.
The Panorama doesnt extend that far and to my surprise Im disappointed. Even though
Westfield would be small and inaccurately formed not accounting for the forever stagnant
orange Volkswagon Bug on Elm Street; dismissing the graffiti that christens Washington Rock
I want to see it. I want to remember its crevices and details, the 2 am glisten of the park by which
I first told a boy I loved him, the uncooperativity of the Memorial Pool snack bars Cash Register
One, the chocolate and pink bedroom of my best friend that houses seven years of secrets and

!6
arguments and reconciliations. It all evades me. And my insides churn. They tumble around,
pulling on my heart, searching for something familiar to latch on to. Searching for common
ground. This is more than nostalgia; this is grief.
Perhaps it is this same grief for his old self, same yearning for a return to comfort and
normalcy, for the once concrete identity solidified by his past relationship with Marc that
encourages Serge to reach out one last time. Where Doyle claims the heart connects all, Carroll
elaborates, stating that we must share certain values in common even for meaningful
disagreement to proceed (31). Though Marc and Serge share common ground in the heart, its
ultimately their past history, the details of their hearts, that Carroll suggests re-bond the two in
friendship. Carroll illustrates that relationships form not on generalities but, rather, on the
specificities of ours sensibilities. Sensibilities are one of the most important things that friends
share, and though relationships must be grounded in an understanding of the heart that is,
ones feelings and general being so Doyle insinuates, its the more unique sensibility, Carroll
argues, that acts as a foundation, often, for everything else (30). The heart, in turn, remains the
bedrock upon which the sensibility is founded and a relationship constructed.
Our experiences pepper our existences to make them wholly ours; a seasoning that saves
the main course from utter blandness and insignificance. It takes ideas and values, beliefs and
adventures, controversy, all influenced by relationships, for friendships to form. For sensibilities,
as Carroll says, to be shared, for assimilation to occur. And for our identities to be forged.
Together we churn and churn and churn: a web of collective Is in constant tumble with one
another.

!7

!
!
Works Cited
Carroll, Noel W. "Art and Friendship." 2001. Writing the Essay Art in the World The World
Through Art. Ed. Benjamin W. Stewart, Darlene A. Forrest, and Randy Martin.
2014-2015 ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill Education, 2013. 27-32. Print.
Doyle, Brian. "Joyas Voladoras." Writing the Essay Art in the World The World Through Art. Ed.
Benjamin W. Stewart, Darlene A. Forrest, and Randy Martin. 2014-2015 ed. N.p.:
McGraw-Hill Education, 2013. 41-42. Print.
Panorama of the City of New York. 1985. panels and foam. Queens Museum.
Staples, Brent. "Just Walk on By: A Black Man Ponders His Power to Alter Public Space."
Writing the Essay Art in the World The World Through Art. Ed. Benjamin W. Stewart,
Darlene A. Forrest, and Randy Martin. 2014-2015 ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill Education,
2013. 59-61. Print.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!8

!
!
!
!