Grateful: The Subversive Practice of Giving Thanks by public theologian Diana Butler Bass is an impressive book that I finished reading a few months ago.* The last chapter is “Circles of Gratitude,” and I have been thinking, off and on, about circles ever since.
Western society emphasizes pyramids more than
circles. Bass (b. 1959) makes this point as
she reflects on how she was reprimanded for arranging a classroom in a circle.
She then realized, “Circles can be upsetting.” She goes on to say,
For many generations, the structure of Western culture imprinted on our imaginations was that of rows, lines, and pyramids. We were taught that everything was ordered from top to bottom, in vertical structures of family, social institutions, and politics by role, gender, and race (p. 174).
Other societies/traditions are different. For example, in Zen
Buddhism what is called the enso circle (pictured above) is considered paradigmatic (see here). At the beginning of “Circles of Gratitude,” Bass cites Tanahashi
Kazuaki (b. 1933), a noted Japanese Zen teacher:
The circle is a reminder that each moment is not just the present, but is inclusive of our gratitude to the past and our responsibility to the future.
Also,
as explained on this website, “The
circle has always been an important symbol to the Native American. It represents the sun, the moon, the
cycles of the seasons, and the cycle of life to death to rebirth.”
There has, of course, been some recognition of the importance of circles in both traditional and contemporary Western culture. Most of us are familiar with the story of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table. The round table of that 12th-century tale was a symbol of the equality of the knights.
Although I’m not sure what it signifies, I was surprised to learn that Apple Park, which was completed about five years ago as the headquarters of Apple Inc., is “a perfect circle.”
So perhaps there has been some recognition in most cultures that circles can represent ideals such as completeness, harmony, and balance. But, still, in much of the Western world, the hierarchical pyramid is often the dominant diagram of relationships.
Perhaps
much of the dysfunction, dissatisfaction, and divisiveness in the U.S. currently
is rooted in the pervasiveness of over/under relationships. Maybe a paradigm
shift to seeing others in a relationship circle would help solve such problems.
Circles
can be either inclusive or exclusive. Recently I was reading through my diary/journal for 1982,
considering what I was doing/thinking forty years ago. In June of that year, I
spoke at the annual Alumni Reunion of my high school. My talk was titled “How
big a circle can you draw?”
Of course, I based part of that talk on Edwin Markham’s well-known,
four-line poem “Outwitted”:
He drew a circle that shut me out—
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in! **
The following image graphically depicts the difference between the circle of inclusion from not only the circle of exclusion but also from what often occurs not only in segregation but also in integration.
Sociologists have long talked about “in-groups” and “out-groups.” In-groups are homogeneous and tend to exclude those who differ. That is clearly depicted in the exclusion circle. Out-groups might form a segregated circle excluded from the in-group—and if forced to integrate they might still be separated although within the in-group circle.
The
inclusion circle, though, is the ideal, although it presents various challenges.
But at some point, we all need to learn that, deep down, there is no “them”; there is only “us.”
Can
you, can I, draw a circle large enough to include all of us? May it be so.
_____
* Since Bass’s book
was published in 1989, I was surprised, but happy, to see in last
Sunday’s Kansas City Star that it was one of the bestselling non-fiction
books in Kansas City last week.
** My blog post for Oct. 15, 2015, was titled
“Becoming Inclusive,” and it began with a reference to Markham and his poem. Here is the link, if you would like to look at that post (again).