Article: Reflecting on Collectivity

On working together
We might often take for granted that ‘working together’ means just one thing. Group work can be understood as simply a category in grant applications, or something that is resolved once a working method is established, or it can also be thought out as a springboard for reflecting about what brings people together and apart when engaging in a creative project. The latter understanding is the one we will stick with throughout the article. 

What we were doing together – and still are – is an arts based doctoral research project titled Futuro. Futuro was initiated and designed by Camila Rosa, and Arlene Tucker was one of the 10 artists who were invited to participate. The project deals with memory stories, nonlinear views of time and its politics/sociality. It can also be said that the project is oriented towards understanding how a nonlinear idea of time can affect our ways of looking into personal memories, influence creative work, as well being used as a frame for understanding  today’s racialized capitalist economy. 

The group has been gathering online, this is where we’ve been working together and debating the continuation of our creative developments. Aside from Futuro bringing artists together through theme and content, the nature of a collective has become a topic of our attention.  Each group member brings different notions of collaborative work, echoing the different educational and professional environments we’ve been through. Distinct environments cater to particular views of how working together ought to look, setting into motion career paths underlined by those premises. When gathered in interdisciplinary and multicultural collective arrangements, expectations of ‘appropriate ways’ of working together most likely won’t look the same and can potentially clash. 

It is precisely the potentiality of having conflicting approaches and intention of care that led us to this discussion while Arlene was walking her dog in Joutsa and Camila was in her kitchen in Tampere. They were on the phone reflecting on happenings, whereabouts, and wishes regarding Futuro. Camila expressed that she would like to write in her thesis about collectivity in a conceptual form. That led us to the discussion of what that means for each of us. 

What does a ‘collective’ look like? 
Camila: Across projects, I suppose I have worked with different starting points for collectivity. But in this research, I departed from an idea of collectivity that is created with the repetitive motion of getting together, giving conditions for people who don’t know each other to get close. ‘Getting close’, in a group work context, can mean many things. But now I’m thinking of getting close as something that touches our sense of familiarity with someone. For instance, I’m referring to ‘getting close’ as opportunities to glimpse one’s sense of humor, getting a sense of one’s creative references, etc… But perhaps most importantly, I’m thinking of getting close as a process of noticing how my own worldviews are affected (e.g. by feeling a connection or discomfort) while hearing someone else. Those things that happen as we meet each other, which are hardly describable… 

But anyway, such a setting for collectivity trusts that creative exchange happens in proximity, or yet, synchronicity. Synchronicity in getting together means sitting in front of a computer at the same time despite different time zones. This is important because synchronicity creates a live-event quality of interaction – that is different from the flow and rhythm of correspondences in written formats – once meeting physically wasn’t an option since we work during Covid, and are based in different continents. Not that scheduling a time for everyone to sit together has been easy, or even achievable, throughout the 1-year period we’ve been meeting. However, getting together in synchrony has been the horizon onto which I envisioned a sense of collectivity to unfold in this project. 

Arlene: I’m not sure where to begin with how to describe my views on collectivity and working within a collective. I’ve worked and collaborated with so many different kinds of collectives. With all of them, at best there’s some sort of solidarity and way we support each other’s ideas and purpose for being in the collective or perhaps even the collective itself. As with any working group, how decisions are made, how information is communicated, and how sparks are nurtured is what ultimately makes me feel like I want to be a part of this collective.

It’s in my nature to seek clarity. Camila, is there a difference between being in a collective as opposed to being in a group?

Camila: That’s a very good and important question because it opens space for reviewing some basics about collectivity grammar. And indeed, collective and group evoke for me very different images of collaboration. I feel working in a collective has a configuration similar to that of a company but with less bureaucracy/administrative work. I think that it requires a deeper commitment, reflecting in a choice to continuously work together across different projects. So this would mean a prolonged type of setting –  that is different from the operational mode of participating in a project – often framed by its specific funding situation. Thus working together in a collective ought to ‘build a name’ for the collective before promoting the individual artist with an emphasis on long-lasting common visions- because such ‘branding’ is beneficial for the careers of the individuals participating in the collective. And perhaps the roles/responsibilities of participants shift across each project because everyone is closely involved in every step of the creative and production process. 

By contrast, I envision ‘group’ in quite a different light, as a more temporary configuration of work, perhaps based on individual projects. I guess it is harder to change roles that were once initiated in a group setting. And I feel that in our project together, with such a demarcated interest for concepts, etc., it preserved the operational mode of a group and the structure of a project. I feel that this setting has, at times, unwillingly cultivated a ‘group mindset’ which occasionally called for the definition of specific roles (with their hierarchies), easing a static rather than a fluid mode of action/taking responsibilities. All in all, I feel that our group, or any group, could evolve into becoming a collective after deliberate decisions by the participants, but I don’t think it could be pre-assumed from the get-go.

Identifying intentions
Camila: Before the project started, I knew well the high-level quality of work  each artist brought to the table. I was happy to work closely with each of them, but I was first and foremost interested in what would come out of partnering these folks. From the onset of designing this project, it mattered how the different points of view, practices, and creative orientations intersect to create something that is bigger than each of us individually. How questions take shape in the midst of such synergy… Because what we have been doing is inquiry-driven, it matters how our group composition comes to formation. So in this exploratory setting, I see less sense in producing works that follow paths that are already familiar to us, to instead then follow questions emerging from the ‘strange’ – those things we cannot identify yet – and allowing them to be a guide to our practices. 

That’s to say that my intentions in this group are very much connected to the concepts and ideas that I’m trying to understand in my studies. It is key for me to understand how a particular philosophy of (linear) time was used as a foundation to create the notion of ‘the individual’ as a [Modern] philosophical entity that would be later used in law, scientific experiments, education, etc. So proposing ways to make ourselves unfamiliar with a preexisting and static notion of ‘self’ became one of my methodological goals. So I’ve been questioning in what other ways can we explore selfhood without departing from the [Modern] individual subject? This question consequently affects how I conceive collectivity because group is often conceived as a mere mathematical equation: 

1 individual + 1 individual = collective

If we are open to understanding selfhood not as a fixed unity stuck within the shape of an individual body (exclusively sourced with linear temporality), the notion of a collective also changes into something else. Into something that is distinguished more by its qualitative than quantitative aspects (1+1=2). Then collectivity becomes in itself an experimental concept/entity with a complex temporality that cannot be easily predictable and self-evident beforehand. So the project is a forum to experiment with such questions.

Arlene: You state your intentions clearly, which is so important for everybody involved. Do you feel that everybody got enough time to share their intentions or figure out what they were? 

Camila: At least for the last 3 months of the project, I can safely say that I don’t have a clear idea about people’s intentions or if they had figured them out. That could be due to my feeling that the communication has become more sparse towards the end of the year. So my ability to ‘read’ -or rather interpret- people’s intentions became jeopardized. If things are not spoken I can only assume. And assuming an individual’s intentions/motivations/interests is something I’ve learned I must avoid doing. But because I realized that, I dedicated more of my time to private telephone calls, or this article for instance, as mechanisms that I am trying to use to navigate into people’s universes, creating conditions for myself to grasp them. So I’m not sure if knowing or not knowing other people’s intentions is a matter of time management or rather a relational matter of calling for and answering calls for getting together/sharing. 

Arlene: I appreciate how a lot of our time in Futuro is spent getting to know each other as we open up memories, share our art practices and personal views on boundaries and togetherness, for example. In that sense, it’s been very relaxed and easy. We make and contribute when we can and how we can.

We were and still are dealing with so many different time zones, schedules, and people. That’s a huge challenge in itself! I’ve found that when a collective/group has different energy levels, what once had a more decentralized approach to decision making can easily get out of balance. I mean decentralized in the sense of distributing administrative powers or functions within a group. I have seen that groups can easily fluctuate between different energy levels or degrees of engagement, and that could lead to a couple of people making decisions or at least voicing their opinions. I have found this problem in various groups and projects I’ve been involved in. Do you know what I mean? How can these imbalances be curbed or restored?

Camila: Balance… Such a provocative frame to think about when working together! I tend to think that working collectively necessarily means working on unstable grounds, moving in and out of balance at every step. That is because working together is working in/with differences, and as such, balance and equilibrium may not represent the richest kind of communing. For instance, in this group, I understood that not everyone intended to engage with decision-making and not everyone intended to take part in extra meetings to plan actions. And that is very much OK. Differences are always there, even when they are less evident as we feel excited – being rather palpable when we feel displeased. So I’m not inclined to praise equilibrium because our distinct time constraints, comfort zones (and willingness to get out of them), and energy levels are most likely always differing. Then I’m tending to praise a willingness to not separate ourselves from one another when we feel stressed out about divergences. Just being respectful to our intuition about the timing and ways to craft proximity. 

What about groups initiated in virtual environments?
Camila: The virtual place is great for enabling a sense of contact even when we are distant. This type of relationship hasn’t been something I just explored while in the pandemic, but ever since I moved far away from my family and friends. But in a new collaborative setting, establishing new relations in the context of a group that is forming, the online is a complicated space to be in. Relationships via zoom tend to magnify the less spontaneous aspects of our social lives, reinforcing the acceptable norms of politeness and over emphasis on the spoken word. Only one speaks at a time so that we understand what everyone says, a sense of civilized norms re-appear in their strongest form. Other than the physical effects of many hours sitting in front of a screen issuing constant light and sound frequency emission that is just tiring to bear for many hours, for many days, with many groups. But for myself, I must admit that the sense of screen discomfort was minimized by the excitement of experiencing something new because every time new colors were revealed when ‘assembling’.

Arlene: It’s been a process figuring out how we can all work together virtually. Meeting virtually and the etiquette we figured out there as to which channels we can all convene on is another huge challenge. Somebody always doesn’t like something or doesn’t have access to it. Over the past year, we’ve used phone, email, Zoom, Google Meets, Messenger, WhatsApp, and Slack. Oftentimes one message will go through at least two of these channels to make sure that they’ve been properly reached by that person. Oh gosh, how exhausting! It takes perseverance to keep a collective going!

Camila, as you are the one who started Futuro and brought all the members of the group together, what have you learned about how to disseminate information as well as gather energy through these communication channels? How have your methods changed to make your life easier as well as streamline messaging? On top of it all, you always communicate in Portuguese and in English! 

Camila: Oh, I learned many things! For instance, I can assure a streamlining of information by consistently using the same platforms. But I also learned that doing this won’t necessarily mean that communication will happen. Even if we collectively debate and agree about the best channels, communication per se might not happen through them. Because even if using ‘the right’ channel, it might come to the point that when information is received in a moment that isn’t compatible with the possibility/ability to respond. I might save my energy in sending information via just one agreed vehicle, but I can spend emotional energy in handling not understanding or not receiving a response back for instance. So I might later use another (unplanned/spontaneous) channel to relieve my wish for understanding. Because sending information is one thing and receiving responses is another, and to my view, communication is what happens in the flow of information exchange. 

On a general note, I learned that managing ‘communication’ is something that rather quickly invigorates visions and claims for hierarchy. Leadership has been often called for in moments when people required clarifications from me as the initiator/researcher. And I felt that in these particular moments, implicit expectations for the existence of a leader surfaced, from the assumption that one person is responsible for figuring out solutions. 

Communicating can be a very hierarchical task, and more often than we expect, we wish for the comfort and order that a hierarchical position can provide to a group. Even if in other situations a hierarchical structure is widely disparaged. And I don’t say this as a criticism but rather a realization that this is the reality of collective work, pursuing what is ideal and unreachable. We are born and raised in individualistic and hierarchical societies and there are no ways to simply shed it when working with others. 

Arlene: What comes along with every experience is that I learn more about myself. What do I need to freely and creatively express myself? What are my boundaries when I’ve encountered challenges and how do I confront them? When I spoke with Camila on the phone, I felt totally safe as I knew her intentions for Futuro were coming from a good place and I trust her. More importantly, I felt that I could raise issues, bounce around ideas, and express emotions knowing that if there was a misunderstanding we both would want to take time to truly understand each other’s perspective from an objective point of view. Perhaps I just answered my own question of what a collective looks and feels like. Amen to open dialogue!

About the authors
Camila Rosa (she/her) is a performance-pedagogy artist and researcher born in Brazil and based in Finland. The research and performances she does draw on autobiographical memories as rich entry points to the entanglements of temporality and non-white subjectivity. She is interested in performance as a process and strategy to figure out decolonizing knowledge and pedagogy. She focuses on relationality and participation, exploring our ability to sensibly perceive others, blurring borders, individuals and groups, private and collective.

Arlene Tucker’s socially engaged work utilizes Translation Studies, Semiotics, and Feminist Practices. “As an artist, educator, and diversity agent, I realize my art through installation and dialogical practices. Always a co-creation with the public, my work allows us to share perspectives about identity and belonging through different mediums and approaches such as memories, hair, and letter writing. My work (i.e. Story Data, Free Translation, Knots) brings people together worldwide through a process-based artistic practice and makes all voices heard.”

Text: Camila Rosa & Arlene Tucker
Proofreading: Gabrielle Vaara
Picture: Arlene Tucker’s translative gift to Tai. Ink and watercolor. 2021.