How Ross Geller’s Friends are alright
The popular American sitcom Friends which ran for 10 years from 1994 to 2004, has had its mass-popcorn gobbling addicts, admirers, and critics. My article tries to throw some fresh light on this most significant of landmarks in Entertainment that still holds millions of fans in thrall, having also permeated the cultural landscape of not only the United States but the whole world in this era of globalization and cross-cultural communication. The ones this article specifically addresses, though, are the critics. For in addressing them it tries responding to two important objections. One, specifically regarding Friends and the other with regard to sitcoms in general.
David Hopkins wrote an article in The Medium entitled ‘How a TV-sitcom triggered the downfall of Western civilization’ (link: https://medium.com/@thatdavidhopkins/how-a-tv-sitcom-triggered-the-downfall-of-western-civilization-336e8ccf7dd0) focused entirely on one of the main characters of the series — the bookish, grammatically correct, University Professor and former Museum curator Ross Geller. No! my whole article is not just a response to another article without having an independent content and purpose. But, because Hopkins is among the first people to raise such an enormous charge as the downfall of a civilisation on, what might appear to be, an innocent Romedic TV-sitcom, his article would be the invisible pivaaat around which my analysis and argument would revolve. This is not the first or only opposition, though, to his claim and argument. There have been other responses like Orli Matlow’s in Some Entertainment and Catriona Harvey-Jenner’s in Cosmopolitan. Neither of these touches the broader questions that David raises that go beyond the particular sitcom he is talking about, nor do they respond sufficiently to his arguments about why Ross deserves better friends and that his predicament (that he is constantly bullied and derided for his nerdiness) reflects the precipitous fall in intellectualism in American culture. To do all of that requires an engaging philosophical reflection on these matters. This also, in my view, fulfils the task of bringing philosophy into the living room!
We need to address four major issues that are raised by Hopkins. His article suggests that Ross must have better friends (in fact that is the conclusion there!). What he really means is that Ross should rather hang around with intellectual friends (writers, curators, college professors perhaps, maybe he should’ve hung around with David the scientist guy) who’d love spending the whole time discussing, talking, and arguing about the newest pale-ontological findings, or new theoretical advancements in Evolutionary Biology. Basically, Ross must be part of a closely-bound clique. Joey cannot appreciate the brilliance of seeing the Bapstein-King comet, and so Ross must decide whether it is worth keeping him on his friend-list. There is a lot to say about this on its own level, but this suggestion, about the need for all the nerds and intellectuals to form friend circles of their own, has greater social implications and impinges on how we envision the relations and manner of discourse between the intellectuals of a society (scientists, philosophers, historians, political scientists) and the rest of society in general. The subtle elitism in this is what I am here trying to point out. This is the first issue.
Why only Ross? What is so special about his predicament? And also, why does he alone need a special interest group as a friend-circle? What about Phoebe Buffay? Why didn’t David choose to talk about her, or why didn’t she attract his attention or concern? Her vegetarianism, concern for animal rights, spiritualism, a belief-system verging on the magical, is derided, tolerated without interest and made fun of as much as Ross’ intellectualism. Talking from the point of view of interpersonal relations, is a person’s need for friends of this or that type or her ability or worthiness for friendship depend on the nature or type or the perceived worth/value of her views or interests? To put it in simpler terms, is Phoebe’s obsessive spiritualism something lesser than Ross’ love of science? If not, why should we be specifically bothered about the treatment of Ross over that of Phoebe. And what about Joey’s love of sports or Monica’s love for cooking and housekeeping? If you are really consistent, and are not partial about just one type of interest or passion, then all the members of society must be divided into special interest circles, and all of society’s spare-time or hanging-out-time must be segmented into different specialised hobbies, passions and loves. This is the second major point or issue I like to raise.
But are Ross’ friends really bullies or uncaring and selfish people that Ross must stay away from? What should real friends really possess? Don’t the qualities of care, love and concern buried deep inside the superficial crust of derision, sarcasm, and fun really constitute the core of a healthy and loving friendship? Wouldn’t we think that Joey’s lack of interest in the Bapstein-king comet is more than compensated by his deep concern, flowing out of love, for Ross when matters start to get intimate and problematic with Rachel? The same love and regard is seen on Ross’ part when he asks Charlie, a person he has feelings for, to give Joey a chance. Doesn’t David’s concluding line ‘Ross needs better friends’ completely overlook this deeper-running current at the heart of all true and loving friendship? Third point.
The last point is the one that goes beyond Friends to sitcoms and, to a lesser extent, televised entertainment in general. Sitcoms are considered shallow, numb, tantalizers that have no real value in the development and enrichment of the individual consuming it. Knowing references like Ross and Phoebe and Pam and Walter White and so on is not the first concern of an intelligent, educated person (I’d have wanted to use the word ‘American’ instead of ‘person’ but my article is talking to and about the global audience) in the world today. Hey! But the same was the status of David Copperfield or Moby Dick — newspaper op-eds of their days. And if TV existed then, much of the prized and studied gems of literature today would have been sitcoms. Being called a classic work of art must be the function of content and creativity and not just time.
