Collaborative Arts

Definitions

A collaborative circle is a primary group consisting of peers who share similar occupational goals and who, through long periods of dialogue and collaboration, negotiate a common vision that guides their work. The vision consists of a shared set of assumptions about their discipline, including what constitutes good work, how to work, what subjects are worth working on, and how to think about them. For a group of artists, the shared vision might be a new style. For a group of scientists, it might be a new theoretical paradigm. Each member comes to play an informal role in the circle, and each role may have a history as the group develops over time. Even while working alone, the individual members are affected by the group and the roles they play in it. As C. S. Lewis observed, the group vision and the roles each participant plays in the group continue to guide and sustain the members, “even when… Friends are far away.” For members of the collaborative circle, each person’s work is an expression of the circle’s shared vision filtered through his or her own personality.

It is important to distinguish a collaborative circle from a mentorprotégé relationship. Although a mentor often plays a part in the development of a creative person, that role differs from the part played by a collaborative circle. A mentor is an older, more established professional who conveys the vision of a previous generation and guides the protégé’s early steps into a discipline. The protégé may in time become ambivalent about and rebel against the dependence inherent in this subordinate role (Levinson et al. 1978). In other circumstances, the protegé might become the disciple of the mentor, reluctant to accept creative advances that challenge the mentor’s work. In contrast, collaborative circles are groups formed by peers who negotiate an innovative vision of their field. Often they first come together as a friendship group that only later evolves into a collaborative circle. Although protégés of the same mentor sometimes form a collaborative circle, when they do, their relationship to the mentor and the mentor’s vision may be clouded by ambivalence.

Collaborative Circles as Pseudo-Kinship Groups

In modern and postmodern societies, collaborative circles play a more important part in adult development than they did in traditional societies. In traditional societies, children learned their occupational skills in their families. In modern and postmodern societies, where technological and cultural changes are relentless, family members rarely have the expertise to socialize a child into a discipline. Each professional discipline has a constantly changing body of knowledge and skills that must be mastered before a novice can become a practicing member. In the period between adolescence and adulthood when a person disengages from the family, masters a discipline, and crystallizes an adult occupational identity, a collaborative circle often becomes the primary group that completes socialization.

For those who begin their careers in a collaborative circle, the group provides informal socialization into their discipline. Working side by side, they master new techniques. In backstage discussions, they fine-tune their understanding of concepts and hone their ability to speak the jargon of their discipline. They orient each other to the great debates of the day, and even act them out in their arguments with one another. They learn about the political coalitions and animosities between important people in their field, and what should or should not be said to whom. They also learn about the social structure and career ladders. Eventually, they come to know where they stand on the current issues in their discipline, or, in other words, they clarify their professional identities. Most important, the shared vision, style, or culture of the group shapes their work during a large portion of their careers.

Transference of Familial Relationships

In a sense, the circle becomes a surrogate family, and the interpersonal relationships within the circle often are weighted by the emotional transference of familial relationships. Members may consciously or unconsciously see one another as brothers and sisters, or “family,” and a mentor may be seen as a parental figure. In turn, the mentor may see the members of the collaborative circle as intellectual “children.”

Once these transferences are engaged, the circle has the potential to work like a therapy group. Members may use the group to restage the dynamics of their family relationships and free themselves from constraining patterns. For example, one member may be overly compliant to authority because of anxiety about pleasing a parent; another may transfer a competitive relationship with a sibling onto someone in the circle. If compulsive styles of relating to authority and peers interfere with creative work, the interaction in the circle may enable members to work free of them and achieve a more mature style of working and relating to others. As they dispel the shadows of their familial relationships, the members gain increased mastery over the psychological processes that block or distort their creative work.

Freud himself was enmeshed in a collaborative circle laden with transference dynamics when he developed the foundations of psychoanalytic theory (Mahony 1979; Erikson 1989; Schur 1972). It could be argued that he crystallized his understanding of the dynamics of transference in part through his analysis of his relationships to the members of this circle. For example, some of his fundamental insights about transference emerged out of his analysis of the dynamics of his friendship with his collaborator, Wilhelm Fleiss. In 1897, while he was in the midst of his self-analysis and working on The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud became fascinated by the parallels in a youthful relationship with a nephew very close to him in age and his adult relationship with Fleiss.

In the 1890s, his friendship and collaborations with Ernst Breuer and Wilhelm Fleiss stimulated and sustained him through a decade of professional isolation and discouragement. As he theorized about the causes of hysterical paralysis and other psychological symptoms, he saw himself as a member of this collaborative circle, and he saw the work of all three members potentially converging on a common theory. For example, 4 April 1896, he wrote to Fleiss that he was “busy thinking out something which would cement our work together” (Bonaparte, Freud, and Kris 1954, 141). Reluctantly preparing to abandon his initial neurological theory of neurosis in favor of a purely psychological theory, he explained to Fleiss: “It is primarily through your example that intellectually I gained the strength to trust my judgement, even when I am left alone … and, like you, to face with lofty humility all the difficulties that the future may bring. For all that, accept my humble thanks! I know that you do not need me as much as I need you, but I also know that I have a secure place in your affection” (1 January 1896, in Masson 1985,158).

Collaborative Circles as Delinquent Gangs

Collaborative circles usually form among persons in their twenties or early thirties. Although the participants are usually well beyond adolescence, in many ways the dynamics of a circle resemble those of a delinquent gang. By definition, creative work is deviant, in that, in form or content, it does not conform to established traditions in a field. Particularly in the early stages of the development of a circle, as members are developing a culture that encourages creativity, they often are more than simply innovative-they are deliberately provocative toward those in authority. During this period, the work sometimes resembles acts of vandalism, in which the members desecrate symbols of authority in their field. The group members see themselves as rebels, and responding to one another’s dares, they take pride in devaluing the sacred icons of the previous generation. An example of work done during this stage of circle development is Marcel Duchamp’s replica of the Mona Lisa. The replica is nearly identical to Leonardo’s original, except, reflecting the iconoclastic style of his Dadaist circle, Duchamp penciled in a moustache and goatee on Mona Lisa’s face. There is an element of conspiracy, or as Miller (1983) calls it, “complicity,” in a circle during this early stage of development. In his analysis of his own experience in the Inklings, C. S. Lewis takes just this tone: “Every real friendship is a sort of secession, even a rebellion. It may be a rebellion of serious thinkers against accepted claptrap or of faddists against accepted good sense: of real artists against popular ugliness or of charlatans against civilized taste; of good men against the badness of society or of bad men against its goodness. Whichever it is, it will be unwelcome to Top People” (1960,114).

For some circles, the targets of rebellion are broader than just the authorities within their own discipline. At times members may engage in pranks, vandalism, or more serious protests aimed at a wide range of authorities. For example, in February 1910, before they crystallized their mature styles in art and literature, several members of the Bloomsbury group carried out an elaborate prank on the British navy that came to be known as the “Dreadnought Hoax” (Edel 1979; Stansky 1996). As Stansky notes, the pranksters were a group of “disrespectful young people” with “some degree of subversive thought about the concept of Empire” (1996, i8). Instigated by Horace Cole and Adrian Stephen, Virginia Woolf’s younger brother, they concocted a plan to “hoodwink the British Navy, to penetrate its security and to enjoy a conducted tour of [the H.M.S Dreadnought], the flagship of the Home Fleet, the most formidable, the most modern and the most secret man o’ war then afloat” (Bell 1972,157).

They first sent a telegram that appeared to come from the undersecretary of the British Foreign Office, announcing a visit by the “emperor of Abyssinia.” A few hours later the group of six friends, including Virginia, age twenty-eight, and Adrian, age twenty-seven, Horace Cole, age twentyeight, and Duncan Grant, age twenty-five, arrived at the ship. Four of them, including Virginia, who played one of the princes, wore robes, turbans, and dark makeup, and pretended they could not speak English. Adrian pretended to be their translator. The navy reception crew met them on the dock and escorted them aboard the ship boasting about its capabilities. The guests were introduced to the admiral. Adrian bowed and struggled to translate the nonsense words of his charges into appropriate English phrases; then he struggled to translate the admiral’s English back into the visitors’ gibberish. The “prince” requested a rifle salute, and the admiral graciously complied. Bowing and smiling, the group of visitors returned to shore. The navy officers were completely fooled, until, much to their embarrassment, Horace Cole leaked the story to the press and provided photographs as evidence. Virginia Woolf participated partly in response to pressures from her brother and partly for the fun of it, but the events contributed to her feminist perspective on masculine subcultures. In summing up the significance of the event, Quentin Bell notes that “the theme of masculine honour, of masculine violence and stupidity, of gold-laced masculine pomposity remained with her the rest of her life. She had entered the Abyssinian adventure for the fun of the thing; but she came out of it with a new sense of the brutality and silliness of men” (1972,167).

In the early stages of circle development, not only do the members’ attitudes toward external authority resemble those of a delinquent gang, but their interpersonal relationships have some ganglike qualities. The members of the circle, like members of a gang, goad one another on, encouraging their creative endeavors, until they cross the boundaries of accepted ways of thinking and working in a field. They set a pace for working, and they escalate the level of risky play on the edges of acceptability. ‘While working alone, a member may be tempted to try something new, something even forbidden by authorities in the field; but alone, the person does not follow through on the impulse. When the impulse is validated by other members of a circle, the conflicted member is more likely to act. An outrageous work by one member of the group becomes a dare for the next member to match. A wild idea thrown out in the midst of an argument may be picked up and incorporated into the emerging group vision. Like delinquents, the members say and do things together that none would ever have done alone. In analyzing his experience in the Inklings group, C. S. Lewis recognizes the thin boundary between collaborative circles and delinquent gangs:

Friendship… is born at the moment when one man says to another “What! You too? I thought that no one but myself… But the common taste or vision or point of view which is thus discovered need not always be a nice one. From such a moment art, or philosophy, or an advance in religion or morals might well take rise; but why not also torture, cannibalism, or human sacrifice? Surely most of us have experienced the ambivalent nature of such moments in our own youth? It was wonderful when we first met someone who cared for our favorite poet …. But it was no less delightful when we met someone who shared a secret evil. This too became far more palpable and explicit; of this too, we ceased to be ashamed. Even now, at whatever age, we all know the perilous charm of shared hatred or grievance.
(1960, 113)

Of course, creative work is much more than delinquency. If the rebellious urges are not sublimated into disciplined mastery of a field, and if they are not guided by the circle’s emergent vision, the creative work will not amount to much more than the graffiti of real delinquents. Nevertheless, in the early stages of circle development, the work of the members may be more like rebellious acts of vandalism than disciplined works of art or science. And, as we shall see, the conditions under which circles form resemble those in which some types of delinquent gangs form.

Circles and Creativity

In his analysis of Freud’s relationship with Fleiss, Kohut (1985) notes the limitations of conventional theories of creativity Traditional theories propose that creativity requires isolation and individuation, and that creative work is most likely to be done by highly autonomous individuals working alone (e.g., Storr 1988; Williams 1960). Kohut suggests that this theory has obscured our understanding of cases in which creative people, including Freud, have done their most creative work while embedded in a collaborative circle. He refers to the strong bonds that often characterize relationships in circles as “mergers with selfobjects.” To underline his conceptualization of interdependent, “merging” selves, Kohut spells “self object” as one word. The creative person experiences the selfobject as an extension of self, at once a fascinated audience and an idealized model. In a state of interdependent merger with one another, members of a collaborative circle trust one another with their wildest ideas, use each other as sounding boards and critics, and develop a sense of common mission. Erik Erikson characterizes Fleiss as Freud’s “other,” his coconspirator, applauding audience, and cautioning chorus who “seems to have had the stature and the wide education which permitted Freud to entrust him with imaginings, transpositions, and guesses … [that] turned out to be elements of a true vision and blueprint for a science” (Erikson 1989, 395).

Embedded in a relationship with a selfobject, the creative person feels more cohesive and centered (Kohut 1980), more free to explore untried or even objectionable ideas, less distracted by guilt, self-doubt, resentment, or jealousy. Under the spell of the selfobject, the creative person invests more energy in an inner life and is able to carry out sustained periods of creative work.

The Stages of Development of Collaborative Friendship Circles

Each stage of the development of circles will be examined in detail when we discuss the case studies in later chapters. At this point, I present a brief sketch of the stages. Although this conceptualization appears at the beginning of the book, it should be clear that it has emerged inductively as the end product of the research.

1. Formation

Collaborative circles are formed by friends who meet one another in a social network consisting of members of the same discipline or occupation. Fischer’s (1982) findings on the effects of social class and place of residence on friendship networks suggest that collaborative circles are more common among upper-middle-class people living in urban settings. Friendships of working-class people or of people living in rural areas are more likely to be with family members and neighbors. But in cities, middle-class people are
likely to reach beyond their families and neighborhoods to form adult friendships with members of their occupational networks. In rare cases, family members and neighbors may have the expertise to socialize a novice into a field, but it is more likely that those who break free of these local networks will form collaborative circles.

Occupational networks vary in structure, opportunities for advancement, and the rate at which members move from the periphery to the center. Some networks are highly centralized, and at the center a small number of people control most of the opportunities to work and win acclaim. For example, in the network of Hollywood composers studied by Faulkner (1983), a relatively few prestigious composers at the center of the network wrote most of the music for movies, and freelancers on the periphery were highly dependent upon them for assignments and opportunities to prove themselves. This kind of network encourages a strong mentor-protégé system, but it does not seem to foster collaborative circles. In the forward to Faulkner’s work, a highly successful composer, Fred Steiner, contrasts this system to the one he knew in the earlier Hollywood studios:

Many of filmdom’s most accomplished composers learned the nuts and bolts of the profession from the inside… as anonymous cogs in the … large, flourishing music departments which were such vital parts of the studio system. They usually worked first as arrangers and orchestrators; then perhaps as member[s] of those two, three-, and four-man writing teams who pooled their efforts scoring the hundreds of quickie B and C “program” pictures… composing by committee . . . . An invaluable adjunct to this apprenticeship was the opportunity to profit from interaction with a group of talented and industrious colleagues… constantly exploring new ideas, developing and perfecting older techniques, and sharing knowledge with each other.
(Faulkner 1983,4)

Collaborative circles are more likely to form in occupational networks where socialization is prolonged, mobility is slow and uncertain, access to mentors is limited, and peers interact frequently with one another. Popular music, which is frequently composed and performed by groups, seems to combine these network properties in a way that fosters collaborative circles (e.g., Peterson 1997).

In the formation stage, the members may be no more than acquaintances who happen to be in the same place at the same time. Although it may seem that they met by chance, it is likely that their shared values and as-
pirations led them to gravitate toward a “magnet place.” By magnet place I mean an art studio, a laboratory, an artist community, a hospital, or some other place where people value the expertise and practice the skills the prospective members hope to acquire.

Often a group forms when a gatekeeper or a matchmaker who knows each member individually introduces them to one another. In other words, circles often begin as radial networks centered on a single person. The personality and values of the gatekeeper act as filters in the formation of a circle. When circles form in a magnet place out of the friendship network of a gatekeeper, the members are more likely to share a common language and set of values, and they are likely to possess similar levels of “cultural capital” (Bourdieu 1993; DiMaggio and Mohr 1985); that is, they are likely to be roughly similar in their levels of expertise in their disciplines as well as in their familiarity with the elite and popular cultures of their society. In short, they can talk to each other.

If they are selected by a gatekeeper, they may also share a constellation of personality characteristics. For example, they may embody poles of conflicts that the gatekeeper is attempting to work out in his or her own mind. One friend might represent the more traditional approaches to a discipline, while another friend may be seen as “wild” or fun to be with because he or she experiments with new ways of thinking. At a deeper level, the gatekeeper may be externalizing through transference some unresolved tensions in familial relationships. Regardless of the gatekeeper’s motives, because circle members are filtered through the gatekeeper’s personality, all members are likely to share a number of characteristics, including a similar orientation to their discipline, similar levels of ambition, a common language of discourse, and common attitudes toward success in their field.

Although most collaborative circles form when the members are in their twenties or early thirties, chronological age is probably less important than stage of psychological and career development. From a life course perspective, people appear to be most ready to form circles during transition periods-when they leave home, when they divorce or become widowed, when they change professions, or when they begin a new stage in their career. Novice members of a circle are likely to be in a state of identity moratorium (Erikson 1964) -at a stage when they have decided what they want to do in life and are working to master a set of occupational skills, but before they have established a professional identity.

Collaborative circles often form among those who are marginalized in their fields or blocked from advancement. Although circles sometimes form among those who are more established, such people are likely to become part of a collaborative circle only if, like Tolkien, they feel their current roles block them from pursuing deep interests. In cases like these, the culture of a collaborative circle may nurture a vision that is devalued in one’s public role or tangential to one’s work, as the religious, mythopoetic culture of the Inklings was devalued at secular Oxford.

Collaborative circles usually do not form among people on the fast track. As several writers have suggested (e.g., Kanter 1976; Bourdieu 1993), those who rise rapidly in a field are usually focused on winning the approval of established authorities in their discipline. Because they are more comfortable with authorities, they are likely to be protégés of an established mentor, and their commitment to the mentor often is stronger than their commitments to their peers. Rather than form a rebellious circle and create a new vision, protégés often reaffirm or elaborate the visions of their mentors. Although a sensitive mentor can nurture creativity in a protégé, the power differential in the relationship makes it more difficult for the protégé to acquire a separate voice.

Even when mentors are readily available in an occupational network, personality factors may influence whether a person chooses to work predominantly with a mentor, a collaborative circle, or alone. Sulloway’s (1996) work on birth order and creativity suggests that firstborns may feel more comfortable in the protégé role, while later-borns may be more likely to form collaborative circles. He finds that when innovative theories emerge in a scientific discipline, firstborns are more likely than later-borns to resist them. Firstborns seem more likely to defend the theories of the previous generation, whereas later-borns seem more open to new ideas. Collaborative circles of peers nourish the kind of thinking that Sulloway attributes to later-borns.

Like most friendships, collaborative circles are usually formed by persons of relatively equal status who possess relatively equal resources. With relative equality in economic, social, and cultural capital, all members are able to keep pace in the interaction and maintain balanced exchanges. One common characteristic of successful circles is open, egalitarian relationships among members. ‘When the distribution of resources among members is unequal, it is more difficult for them to maintain equality in their exchanges. In circles that become successful, early in the relationship the members evolve norms that encourage open communication and wide-ranging exchanges. However, in the formation stage, rather than focusing on their current work, the conversations usually center around more peripheral, less threatening, concerns. If they exchange work, they are likely to exchange finished products rather than work in progress.

INFORMAL ROLES IN THE FORMATION STAGE. Each stage of circle development is characterized by a constellation of informal roles. Informal roles are relatively stable patterns of behavior that come to be expected of each member. In the formation stage, the roles of the novice members have a quality of courtship about them. Brought together by a gatekeeper, they size one another up, discover areas of commonality, and engage in activities that require little commitment. Besides the roles of gatekeeper and novice member, in successful groups there is likely to be one member who plays the part of the charismatic leader-a narcissistic member, idealized by the other members, whose energy and vision sweep them into exploratory activities. This leader and the new members have reciprocal impact on one another: the charismatic leader sparks the involvement of the novices, and the dynamics of the group draw out the energy and vision of the charismatic leader.

2. Rebellion against Authority

Early in their relationship, before members develop the trust to explore their deepest interests, and before they sharpen the boundaries between themselves and nonmembers, they often discover a common antipathy toward authorities in their field. In this stage, they find it easier to talk about what they dislike rather than what they like. They may be vague about the kind of work they value, but they are very clear about the kind of work they reject. Indeed, there may be a “slash and burn” quality to their interactions as they attack with relish the conventional work in their field.

One of the most common group activities in the rebellion stage is the ritual of sharing anecdotes about the “outrageous” work of those in positions of authority. ‘When they are apart, members gather gossip about these authorities, then, when they come together, they share their stories. The stories serve as legends in the group: by repeating the themes in the stories the members come to understand more clearly who they are and what they reject in their field. At times the shared antipathy may be focused on a peer who serves as a scapegoat-someone who is seen as currying the favor of the authorities, or who embodies the conservative values that members are attempting to distance themselves from. When a scapegoat is present at a meeting, the group’s ritualistic activity may involve baiting him or her into an argument; and when the scapegoat is absent, they may ritualize storytelling about his or her faults.

In addition to the scapegoat, the role constellation during the rebellion
stage includes an authority figure who is seen as a “tyrant.” The tyrant, a
person outside the group, is a constraining or threatening authority who
has some power over the members. A third role is the “lightning rod,” a member who is most articulate in expressing the group’s shared hostility toward authority figures and scapegoats. Finally, the constellation includes the conflicted members who are ambivalent about rebelling. Caught in the middle, they share some of the values of the rejected authorities, but they also enjoy the flamboyant expression of contempt by the less conflicted, charismatic leader. For them, the group interaction serves as a stage on which their internal conflicts are externalized and dramatized.

3. The Quest Stage: Negotiating a New Vision

In the third stage of development, the members begin the process of constructing their own vision. By vision I mean a socially constructed set of beliefs about the basic “facts” that should be taken into account in a field, the most important problems to work on, and the best ways to work on them. For artists, it is a shared style-an approach to painting, including a set of beliefs about what to paint and how to paint it. For scientists, it is a shared theory and method of doing research. For social reformers, it is a shared set of beliefs about what is wrong with the world and how to go about changing it. In brief, a vision is a theory and a method for doing work in a field. A circle arrives at a vision through trial and error, argument, and eventual consensus.

INFORMAL ROLES IN THE QUEST STAGE. The role of “boundary marker” becomes important at this point in group development. Members of circles often talk to one another as if they are on a journey in a cultural space. Ahead of them are members who have “gone too far” in rebelling and embracing new ideas and techniques. Behind them are members who are “lagging behind”-too slow to abandon conventional or outdated approaches to the discipline. Those out in front are the “radicals”; those lagging behind are the “conservatives.” By reacting to the positions taken by these boundary-marking members, and by exploring tentative alternative ideas, the members begin to crystallize areas of agreement about a shared vision. By arguing about and clarifying what they reject in the work of the boundary markers, the members begin to build consensus about the kind of work they value (Erikson 1966; Farrell 1979).

PAIRED COLLABORATION DURING THE QUEST STAGE. Collaborative circles usually consist of three to five members; only rarely do they consist of more than seven or eight. Regardless of group size, as knowledge of one another’s values, abilities, and personalities deepens, each member is likely to pair off and work more closely with one other person. During the quest stage, these pairs become more established as coalitions within the circle. Most episodes of creative work occur within these pairs. Although the dynamics leading up to the pairing may include the whole group, it is the paired members who are likely to make the discoveries or to develop the style or the theory that defines the group culture. The moments of discovery, the “collaborative moments,” take place when a pair of friends are so open and trusting with one another that they can share their wildest, most tentatively held ideas. In these moments, new ideas seem to emerge from the dialogue without “belonging” to either of the pair, and afterward they may not be able to say who had the ideas first.

As they share their ideas, experiences, and ways of thinking, the partners become like two linked computers, sharing one another’s hard drive memories and software programs. I refer to this type of dyadic exchange as “instrumental intimacy.” While engaged in this type of exchange, members are vulnerable to one another. When they open up and exchange wild ideas that go far beyond accepted approaches in their field, they not only risk appearing sloppy, foolish, or even mad; they risk having someone steal their most original ideas. Before two members are able to establish this kind of exchange, they usually must test one another’s responses in less intimate exchanges and negotiate a high degree of trust. In an escalating set of exchanges, the collaborative pair develop a set of norms that facilitates trust, openness, and exchange. The norms can be explicit or implicit. They include rules about a time and place to meet, a pace for producing and exchanging work, and a constructive style of critical response. The rules may also include expectations about confidentiality and ownership of ideas.

Once these norms are in place, the stage is set for merging cognitive processes. At the least, creativity involves combining two or more ideas so as to produce something new and useful or beautiful. When two minds are linked in a trusting relationship, such that they can openly share ideas and cognitive processes, the likelihood of discovering new solutions to problems increases.

Throughout the quest stage, the members alternate between meeting in pairs and meeting with the whole group. The quest stage tapers to an end when the collaborating pairs refine their new vision in discussions with the whole group. While individual pairs may be supportive and nurturing, the larger group may be skeptical and critical. In these whole group meetings, a member who takes the role of devil’s advocate plays an important part in challenging the pairs to refine their thinking. A center coalition of members assumes responsibility for weighing and integrating the innovations into a new vision. Through dialogues with the creative pairs and the devil’s advocate, the center coalition eventually negotiates consensus on a coherent and engaging vision. The center coalition comprises members who have won respect through their contributions to the work of the group, and who use their emergent authority to socialize marginal members into the emerging group culture.

4. The Creative Work Stage

During the creative work stage, the group members alternate between times when they work alone or in pairs and times when they meet as a group. Often the place where they meet as a group is a particular restaurant, a bar, or a member’s home. Public meeting places of circles often have the qualities that Oldenburg (1999) attributes to “third places,” unpretentious settings away from both work and family life, like the English pub or the French café, where a set of regulars feel welcomed and participate in an ongoing conversation. The physical setting may become an important part of the group’s identity. The group may claim an accustomed table, and members may each claim their accustomed chairs. If they have not already done so, during this stage the group is likely to develop interaction rituals, such as reading aloud and discussing one another’s work. The rituals and established place for meeting contribute to a more self-conscious group identity. If they haven’t already chosen a name for their group, they are likely to do so at this point, and they are likely to think of themselves as a “we.” The boundaries between insiders and outsiders become more apparent.

Having reached consensus about core elements of the circle’s vision, each member of the circle begins to follow through on the implications of that vision. Working alone, they may attempt new approaches, run into obstacles, and become discouraged. The group meetings are occasions where members replenish their self-esteem, sharpen their understanding of the vision, and share solutions to problems. They often leave the meetings with renewed energy and commitment to work.

5. The Collective Action Stage

The collective action stage begins when the members decide to carry out a large project together. A group of artists may decide to stage an exhibition; a group of writers may decide to start a journal; a group of scientists may decide to develop a research proposal. New roles emerge as members divide up the labor of the project, make decisions, and become interdependent over a long period of time. The demands of obtaining resources outside the group require energy from someone who acts in the executive role (Mills Collaborative Circles and Creative Work 25 1984), or as the “wheeler-dealer” (Dunphey 1972) for the group. This person may spend a great deal of time organizing the group and negotiating with outsiders for such things as space, equipment, and money. The demands of the executive leader for decision making, increased commitment, equity in workloads, and coordination of efforts may generate tension and conflict in the circle. The group lightning rod-the member who had been most vocal in attacking authorities outside the group-may now be called upon to act as an agent of control inside the group, saying what needs to be said to the members who are not contributing to the group project. As conflicts among the members escalate, the role of peacemaker is likely to become more salient. The peacemaker spends time clarifying miscommunications, soothing hurt feelings, and negotiating compromises to conflicting demands from members.

During the collective action stage, the circle participants deal directly with the outside world. Members may be attempting to sell their work or to win recognition for it from authorities in their field, such as editors, grant reviewers, or art juries. The public’s reactions to the circle can have significant consequences for the group. Labels and criticisms addressed at the group as a whole may affect the group identity as well as the individual selfconcepts of the members. Reactions to an individual’s work may alter the internal status structure of the circle. For a variety of reasons, conflict among members is likely to increase during the collective action stage.

6. The Separation Stage

In part because of the strains of collective action, the group begins to disintegrate in the later stages of its existence. Conflicts may accumulate and go unresolved. The conflicts may polarize the group, so that the same subgroups confront each other over and over again. Difficulties in decision making may lead some members to act without group support. Chronic conflicts may eventually swamp the member who plays the role of peacemaker. Eventually, some members may conclude that the costs of working together outweigh the gains. To the others, those who leave may be seen as disloyal to the group.

Perhaps an equally important factor that speeds disintegration is the individuation of the group members. Over time each member gains from the interpersonal relationships in the circle in ways that contribute to more autonomous functioning. The increased emotional independence, along with the increased skill and intellectual maturity, lead some members to pursue separate projects. Earlier the members may have experienced the group as an aid in nurturing individuation from authorities. Tyrants outside the circle were seen as the constraining forces to be overcome. But in the separation stage, the culture of the circle and the pressures within the group may be experienced as constraining. Some members may become obsessed with breaking out of the circle and gaining recognition on their own.

As the interaction with the public increases, some members may receive more recognition than others. The question of who deserves credit for what idea may lead to divisions and antagonism. For authors, the order of their names on publications may cause tensions. For artists, the visibility of each artist’s paintings at exhibits, or the degree of recognition for originating a style may become a matter of contention. For scientists, credit for an important discovery may be a subject of dispute. Behind many of the conflicts is a sense of resentment and betrayal because of confusion about ownership of ideas and inequities in recognition. As these stresses mount, the members develop even stronger urges to strike out on their own.

7. The Nostalgic Reunion Stage

As the members become more distant from one another, one member may emerge as the group’s “alumni representative.” This member gathers information about the whereabouts of the others, and may attempt to bring them back together. Although some reunions may occur, reunited circles rarely achieve the synergy they had in the earlier stages of their development.

The circle as a whole, or individual members within the circle, may acquire loyal disciples during this stage–younger protégés who attempt to codify the group’s vision or construct a narrative account of the group’s history. The attempts to construct a final vision and an official history of the group may divide the group even more, as some members’ roles are seen as more important than others. But often the bonds of affection transcend the divisions over history, intellectual property, and differential success, and the members support one another during the personal crises of later life.

To begin our examination of the stages in the development of a collaborative circle, we turn first to the French Impressionists, a prototypical case against which to measure the group dynamics in other collaborative circles.