Circles

Life is full of circles.

We could reasonably stick the pointy bit of a compass into our house (heaven forfend that you should climb on the roof and thrust something large and pointed into it—my intent was to stick the point in a map!) and draw circles around it to represent the distance we can comfortably go in a day or a week, for example.

We might add more circles to show how far we can afford to go every month or year for breaks and holidays.

In these modern times we should be able to travel farther, and much more cheaply, than people could go even a hundred years ago.

Also in modern times we have increased our capacity for social circles. In the past our friends were, very likely, drawn from the immediate area where we worked and lived but now we have extended that circle to international levels.

This is courtesy of the Internet, of course, where social media sites abound and friends are almost endlessly available. Naturally, some are less friendly than others; to this end we may well be inviting people who are out to argue with you or try to bring you down to their level (whatever that might be) into our lives. It would, in this instance, be entirely reasonable to use the ‘unfriend’ facility with appropriate alacrity.

While we are thinking about social circles we should consider another circle. That is ‘social responsibility’.

This is entirely different from a ‘social circle’ in that it now implies that we have a duty of care towards other people. This duty of care must be indiscriminate or it doesn’t work, it becomes a selective duty that is not circular.

The size of the circle of responsibility varies with wealth and our individual state of honesty.

Criminals have no circle because they have no sense of responsibility; they care only for themselves and nought for others.

Politicians, likewise, give lip service to the care of others but their main focus is upon their own glorification rather than the upkeep of the population for whom they profess to care.

There are poor, honest people for whom the care of others is paramount. Mother Teresa typified that individual; her care crossed all sorts of boundaries, it disregarded race, caste (in India), religion and material belongings.

Such people as Mother Teresa have a vast circle around them—possibly, even, boundless.

Wealth brings its own responsibilities. Some people are generous and care but others are less generous and even less caring. Perhaps the incursions of the criminal classes upon their wealth makes them more cynical and more cautious.

Then there are defensive circles. These are well known to many of us because, in the old days, we should watch cowboy films in which there was, invariably, a cause to form the wagon train into a circle to defend themselves from hostile tribesmen.

These defensive circles are not necessarily physical ones. Many of them, in modern times, are formed in the mind as a result of attacks by others via the social media of which we spoke earlier.

One of my contacts, who possesses a considerable intellect and is forthright in his views, posted a comment about ‘apologists’. I asked him what that meant in the context in which it was posted. His response was as follows:

“R*** R****n: Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.”

(NB: I have put asterisks through his name because many people are sensitive about their name being used in contextual issues with which they may not agree. Not that I suspect this particular person is ‘sensitive’ but...)

Striking response. We accept, now, the word ‘apologise’ as being the same as ‘I am sorry about that’ in the sense of seeking forgiveness.

It does give rise to the thoughts about defensive circles. Such circles are highly variable in size. Unlike other circles that tend to be more fixed, these are quite flexible and depend entirely upon the foe that the ‘enemy’ seeks.

Suppose somebody threatens you. Your thought is ‘defence’. Just you. Nobody else is involved. That is your defensive circle.

Perhaps they threaten your immediate family. The circle now includes others of whom you are fond.

The circle widens considerably if that enemy now regards your Church (or Synagogue, Masjid, Temple, etc) as something to be attacked.

The attack may not be physical, it may be verbal in written or spoken form.

Either way we shall rally to the defence of our beliefs.

There might be an attack on our town. Now the circle widens so that even people we dislike, from other faiths, perhaps, will join us in our defence.

The defence does not have to be about our spiritual beliefs; it can be acts of civil terrorism, war or the spread of criminal activity.

So the circle widens until we get to a point where we believe that our Nation or our society is at risk. Thus are wars born. We all pull together in the ‘common cause’ to vanquish our foes.

During the Korean War it was a struggle between dogmas. Communism versus Capitalism—two major circles involving most of the World came into conflict to sway the people into their way of thinking.

Which one was right? That is up to you to decide.

You and your immediate circle.