Who do we blame?

Most readers, including myself, would probably describe The Circle's influence on its society as a strong oppression of the rights of privacy. In fact, I may have even referred to it's oppressive nature in previous blog posts. However, as I started thinking about what exactly oppression means, I began to understand the more truly frightening aspects of this novel.

This is how Google defines "oppression":

An "unjust treatment or control" implies that there are two forces at work: an oppressor, and an oppressed. However, when we look back at The Circle's influence on society, at least in the beginning of the novel, there is no authoritarian control over anything. The Circle merely acts as a tool that is available for the public's use.

What makes this frightening to the reader is that the entire conflict over privacy within the novel is actually self-inflicted by society. No one forces the public to use The Circle's services. There are no crying children and mothers fleeing from the omnipotent grasp of The Circle's almighty hands. People willingly subject themselves and their private lives to The Circle. It is this earnest desire for more Circle products that drives the popularity and success of the company.

Of course, as the book progresses, The Circle does begin to take on more the role of the oppressor. This is first noted when government officials start being subjected to wearing SeeChange cameras around their necks. But wait. The only forces initiating this change again come from society itself. The public demands that their governors "go transparent," and eventually any government officials who choose to stay private are excluded from the rest.

Even the development of newer, more invasive technologies, such as the child tracking program, are only a result of public desire for them. So while the reader may view The Circle as an antagonistic force throughout the novel, there really is no antagonist, unless you count society. 

More questions...

Now, not all of society is on board with this Circle takeover, as evident in the case of Mercer. But when an overwhelming majority wants something, do minority voices like Mercer deserve to get in the way of them? Should they be protected or does majority rule? 

Only we, the readers, can see the double-edged sword of this society's motivations, but how is such a problem solved? If society acts as both the oppressor and oppressed, is there even a problem that needs solving? It's like asking whether suicide or obesity should be a crime. 

Ultimately, I don't think Eggers' novel is exactly a precautionary tale. It's more like a view through the eyes of a happily obese person who is content the way they are. The Circle lets readers glimpse into a possible world that they realize they never wish to be a part of. 

The Treasures from the Trench

            When Stenton, the business savvy, ruthless, executive takes the Circle submersible down into the Marianas trench he emerges with some very distinct animals: a shark, an octopus, and a father seahorse with countless tiny offspring. These creatures are not only interested and described with great detail, but provide some of the most potent symbols in the text.

The Shark

            The shark is a terrifying specimen. Transparent, angular, and bloodthirsty, it devours everything put in a tank with it before digesting it with unnatural speed and efficiency.

            The shark represents the company itself.

            The Circle is somehow strange, terrifying, beautiful, mysterious, austere, and efficient all at the same time. It astounds people with its new innovations and keeps the world on its toes. It eats up the competition and it destroys any political opposition. People love it, but people really should fear it. Its power makes it as interesting as it is unnerving.

The Octopus

            The octopus is constantly changing to fit its surroundings. It can be small enough to fit in ones hand in one moment, and in the next fill the whole tank. It is curious, it is smart, and it is powerful.

            The octopus represents the human race.

            We, as humans, are always looking for the next frontier, the next venture, the next invention that will change the way the world works. We adapt to our environment readily and change as the need arises. We are curious, we are smart, and we are more powerful than most people would believe.

The Seahorses

            The seahorses are tiny transparent creatures that seem too weak to survive. They are slow swimmers whose only real skill is hiding, yet somehow they continue to survive.

            The seahorses represent our dreams.

            Each and every person in the world has dreams. Unfortunately most dreams are just that, and will never come to fruition. Yet somehow, dreams live on. No matter how unlikely or even impossible they are, one dream creates a thousand more, which live on and change the world in which we live in new and unexpected ways.

The Ecosystem

            Eventually Stenton decides to combine the three types of creatures in the same tank. The scene that ensues perfectly symbolizes the interaction of the three separate symbols, and paints scarily accurate picture of the new order of things.

            When the creatures are put together the shark finds and eats every single other living creature in the tank without mercy.

            In this way, the circle consumes everything. It consumes the humanity and the dreams of the humans it is meant to serve. It dehumanizes as it brings the world closer together. It consumes everything that is not a part of it, and uses the resources of the outside world to continue growing stronger, till it is the only thing that remains.

Mercer vs. The Circle

Periodically throughout the book, Mae leaves the Circle campus and goes home to visit her parents. This is really the only glimpse the reader gets of the world outside the immediate Circle community. Every time she goes home, Mae also runs into an encounter with her ex-boyfriend, Mercer. He is one of the few surprisingly nonexistent characters in this world who opposes the Circle's ever-increasing foothold in society.

Mercer is characterized in a very interesting way, which often makes him seem like he's out-of-date with the times, and quite a bit of a social outcast. He builds chandeliers out of antlers for a living, writes letters by hand, and dresses like a lumberjack. None of these make him an appealing character, and Mae's perception of him as am ignorant, stubborn, and jealous ex almost make it seem like Eggers was trying a little too hard to prove the acceptable social norms in this Circle-dominated world.

However, because Mercer is the only voice of reason in this world, I couldn't help but connect with his logic and descriptions of social media. I even found some striking contrasts presented between his dialogue, and those of the Circle staff.

Mercer

"Here's the thing, and it's painful to say this to you. But you're not very interesting anymore. You sit at a desk twelve hours a day and you have nothing to show for it except some numbers that won't exist or be remembered in a week. You're leaving no evidence that you lived. There's no proof" (Eggers 260).

The Circle 

"Not good. I know that. But I was at the circus event and that was great. So great." [Mae] 

"It was great, wasn't it? And it was great to see you there. But we have no record of you being there. No photos, no zings, no reviews, notices, bumps. Why not?" [Dan] 

"I don't know. I guess I was caught up in the--" [Mae] 

"Dan sighed loudly. "You do know that we like to hear from people, right? That Circlers' opinions are valued? "(Eggers 178).

There is a startling contrast between these two passages. Mercer tries to tell Mae that everything she does through The Circle is not actually real or important. The smiles, reviews, and zings exist only in The Circle, and without it, they mean nothing. Mae's boss on the other hand, tries to show her The Circle's point of view, that everything that hasn't been documented hasn't actually happened. Despite the fact that Dan actually saw Mae at the company party, he says that there is no record of her being there because there is no electronic trace of her. The very definition of what is or is not "real" has changed in this society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercer

"You know what I think, Mae? I think you think that sitting at your desk, frowning and smiling somehow makes you think you're actually living some fascinating life. You comment on things, and substitutes for doing them. You look at pictures of Nepal, push a smile button, and you think that it's the same as actually going there. I mean, what would happen if you actually went? Your CircleJerk rating or whatever-the-fuck would drop below an acceptable level! Mae, do you realize how incredibly boring you've become?" (Eggers 261).

The Circle

Josiah leaned forward. "How do you think other Circlers feel, knowing that you're so close to them physically, that you're ostensibly part of a community here, but you don't want them to know your hobbies and interests. How do you think they feel?" 

"I don't know. I don't think they feel anything." 

"But they do!"Josiah said. "The point is that you're not engaged with the people around you!"
"It's just kayaking!" Mae said, laughing again, trying to bring the discussion back to a place of levity. 

Josiah was at work on his tablet. "Just kayaking? Do you realize that kayaking is a three-billion-dollar industry? And you say it's 'just kayaking'! Mae, don't you see that it's all connected? You play your part. You have to part-icipate" (Eggers 188).

The contrast between these two passages is more ironic than anything else. Just like in his previous quote, Mercer tells Mae that living through The Circle does not substitute for real life. He tries to make Mae understand that there is more to life than she's allowing herself to see. Josiah, on the other hand, makes the same point for a completely different reason. He tells Mae that she is not engaged with the people around her, because she isn't participating in the Circle's online community enough. Her physical presence and experiences with people are not enough to constitute as "engaging." Mae is bombarded with these differing views, but somehow manages only to see logic in what she wants to see, The Circle.

After looking back at these passages, I realize that one of the things that annoys me most about this book is the lack of Mercer-type characters that exist in this world. Eggers completely ignores the fact that everyone does not think alike in real life, and that large groups of people have differing views. Mercer is alone in his way of thinking, while the rest of the world jumps right on The Circle's bandwagon.

--Sanjukta

Synthesizing Freedom and Safety

           The technology brought up in The Circle has the power to do so much good in the world, but also so much evil. Not only do the SeeChange cameras make it easier to catch crime, but also new ideas are being presented all the time to stop all crime and make the world a safer place. Unfortunately each development that is meant to protect people also strips away their freedoms, and could potentially cause more problems than it solves.

SeeChange: The First Step

            The SeeChange cameras (described in an earlier post) are a great way to limit crime. They can be placed in any public area and will see and hear everything in that area, while being almost undetectable. This advancement makes it very easy to identify and track down the culprits of crimes, and eventually starts to act as a deterrent for future crimes.

            These cameras also make it very easy for anyone to track the movements of any person. That not only is creepy and a violation of privacy, but also could lead to different types of crimes than the ones it may be stopping.

TruYouth: Child Tracking

            I’m sure many parents would say that they would love to know where their kids are at all times. With TruYouth, that is finally possible.

TruYouth is a program that imbeds a microchip into a child’s bone which tracks where that child is at all times. This technology was introduced to stop kidnappings. If a child can always be tracked, they cannot be taken from their parents and locked up and tortured for years on end. Even if a child is taken, their parent can see where they are and law enforcement can arrive on scene, hopefully before too much damage is done.

This program, while it was designed with a positive purpose in mind, is not just dangerous, but a huge violation of trust. Part of growing up should be getting to make mistakes, try new things, and yes, occasionally, break some rules without your parents knowing. This technology would make it impossible for children to do anything without their parents consent. This may seem like a good thing to some, but this technology would take away a lot of what it means to be a child, and that is something that really should be protected.

The possibilities for harm if the technology got into the wrong hands are even more sinister. The technology could easily be used by a government body to track the exact movements of all their citizens, giving them immense and unregulated power over them. This technology could also be used by pedophiles and other child obsessed people to find the exact whereabouts of children.

Can Freedom and Safety Exist Together?

            Although safety could be considered a freedom, it dramatically inhibits another important freedom: freedom of privacy. Both of these examples presented in the story could be very important in stopping crime, but yet both have tremendous drawbacks.

            So, can freedom and safety exist together? I think so. But the right balance has to be reached. The real question is: How much privacy are we willing to give up in order to feel safe?

When Would You Stand Up? (Part II)

Stage 3: Transparency

            The next stage of the takeover seems like the most important, innovative, and exciting thing to ever happen in the world of politics. Suddenly, political leaders from every democracy the world over are “going transparent.” This means that they wear a camera around their neck that sees and hears everything they do.

This technology is most widely proliferated among politicians, but some “normal” people are going transparent as well, including Mae. This transparency makes her an instant worldwide sensation. She always has millions of followers watching every minute aspect of her life. She becomes not only becomes a world famous role model, but also becomes the eyes and ears of the world within the company. Whenever they release a new product or hear a new pitch, Mae is there, and her watchers instantly give feedback.

Although most people probably wouldn’t want to go transparent, it’s hard to see the drawbacks of this technology for those people who don’t want to participate. Why would it be bad for politicians to have their lives on display? What politician would dream of doing any sort of shady dealing or go against the publics interest if they knew they were being watched? As Mae notes, being transparent helped her become her best self. She knew she was being watched and was an important role model, so she played the part well, and felt like a better person because of it.

This technology, while it may seem to have the most positive effects, also has some monumental drawbacks. Although politicians are supposed to work for the people, by publicizing their every move they are constantly at the mercy of their constituency. Our country was created as a republic, not as a democracy for a very specific reason. Humans are hot headed and often are not prepared to make an informed decision. We should be able to trust our elected officials to do what is right without having to look over their shoulders all the time.

            This technology is also dangerous among normal individuals. Any individual who is transparent is constantly forced to think about any insignificant acts in their lives. They lose their individuality because they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary. Transparent people become little more than robots, designed to please their watchers.

            So would you stop it? Would you push for politicians to go back to their private dealings? Would you protest as people around you became transparent? The scary thing is, I don’t know if I would. Although I wouldn’t want to be transparent, I don’t think I would mind if other people did. I wouldn’t see all the drawbacks, I would only see the positives, and that is where the issue lies.

Stage 4: Full Participation

            Finally, at the end of the book Mae “completes The Circle” with a revolutionary idea. To get political participation up, let people vote through their circle accounts. And to make sure everyone has a voice, just force everyone to get a circle account. Although a bit unorthodox, the government contracts work out to private companies all the time, so how is this any different?

            Since everyone is the country will have a circle account, everyone can be a part of every decision. Politicians will instantly know how the public feels about an issue, and eliminate the need for lobbyists or polls. It could even eliminate congress, as every person can vote using the new “Demoxie” (democracy with your voice and your moxie) technology to respond to every issue.

            Suddenly, mob rule is a reality. The whims of millions of undereducated people with volatile emotions take over the country. The idea of full participation and voting, which the government so desired, suddenly makes the government itself obsolete. And, of course, The Circle controls the whole operation.

            This is probably the point where people would step up and say it has gone too far, the circle must be stopped. But by the time the public gets to that point its already a law, and dissidents will be fined or imprisoned, or worse.

Conclusion:

            The scariest part is, no matter how clear the flaws in The Circles system of sharing and transparency are to an outside observer, the system appears perfect to most participants till it’s much too late.

            So where would you step up and try to stop it? When would a large enough group to make a difference step up and try to stop it? When you think about the changes that were made, the drawbacks to each of them, and how you would react, it’s easy to see how such a system could form without any real opposition. Perhaps Eggers’ analysis of our culture and how we react to loss of freedoms isn’t as inaccurate as we would like to think…

Josiah and Denise

Josiah and Denise are two HR employees at the Circle who have an extensive talk with Mae about "community" about a quarter of the way into the book. I found it to be perhaps one of the most infuriating parts of the book. I've taken out some excerpts here for discussion, from pages 179 to 189. Why is it that these passages are so horrifying? They reveal some of the values of the society in The Circle. (Blogger doesn't permit indenting, pardon the formatting errors in the quotes.)

One

“And that sharing with other young people whose parents suffer from the disease [MS]—do you see the benefit in this?” [asked Denise.]
“Absolutely.” [replied Mae.]
“For example, when you heard your dad had a seizure, you drove, what, a hundred miles or so, and never once during that drive did you try to glean any information from the InnerCirclers, or from the larger OuterCircle. Do you see that as an opportunity wasted?”
“Now I do, absolutely. I was just upset, and worried, and I was driving like a maniac. I wasn’t very present.”
Denise raised a finger. “Ah, present. That is a wonderful word. I’m glad you used it. Do you consider yourself usually present?”

This is a society that would choose social networking about an emergency over physically responding to the emergency. I can pretty concretely infer that if someone got hit by a bus in this Circular world, we'd see pictures of the individual's mutilated body and "zings" (much like tweets) of the incident before anyone would rush to help the injured individual. I, personally, hope this shift in ethics never occurs.

 Two

"Can you talk about what you did on Saturday?”
“It’s embarrassing,” Mae said. “Nothing.”
“Nothing meaning what?”
“Well, most of the day I stayed at my parents’ house and just watched TV.”
Josiah brightened. “Anything good?”
“Just some women’s basketball.”
“There’s nothing wrong with women’s basketball!” Josiah gushed. “I love women’s basketball. Have you followed my WNBA zings?”
“No, do you have a Zing feed about the WNBA?"
Josiah nodded, looking hurt, even bewildered.

Why do something when you can talk about doing it? Whereas in our world, language more so shapes reality, in this world language can create reality in the mundane and literal sense. This turns out to be not such a good thing...

Three

"Okay. Let’s go to Sunday. Tell us about Sunday.”
“I just drove back.”
“That’s it?”
“I kayaked?”
Josiah and Denise registered dual looks of surprise.
“You kayaked?” Josiah said. “Where?”
“Just in the bay.”
“With who?”
“No one. Just alone.”
Denise and Josiah looked hurt.
“I kayak,” Josiah said, and then typed something in his tablet, pressing very hard.
“How often do you kayak?” Denise asked Mae.
“Maybe once every few weeks?”
Josiah was looking intently at his tablet. “Mae, I’m looking at your profile, I’m finding nothing about you and kayaking. No smiles, no ratings, no posts, nothing. And now you’re telling me you kayak once every few weeks?”
“Well, maybe it’s less than that?”
Mae laughed, but Denise and Josiah did not. Josiah continued to stare at his screen, while Denise’s eyes probed into Mae.

Again, we see that it's almost unreal if it's not recorded. These standards are excepted so much so that Josiah and Denise become angry when Mae questions them. Let's remember, in the Circular world, Mae's the one who's wrong here.

Four

“I’m sorry,” Mae said.
Josiah rolled his eyes. “No, I mean, this is a tangent, but my problem with paper is that all communication dies with it. It holds no possibility of continuity. You look at your paper brochure, and that’s where it ends. It ends with you. Like you’re the only one who matters. But think if you’d been documenting. If you’d been using a tool that would help confirm the identity of whatever birds you saw, then anyone can benefit—naturalists, students, historians, the Coast Guard. Everyone can know, then, what birds were on the bay on that day. It’s just maddening, thinking of how much knowledge is lost every day through this kind of shortsightedness. And I don’t want to call it selfish but—”
“No. It was. I know it was,” Mae said.

That about sums it up: privacy is selfishness. Text (in a broad sense) is necessary for a "knowledgeable"  and unselfish world. To me it's quite scary to think that doing anything privately would be considered, really, a sin.

The values in the society of The Circle are more different from ours than they first appear. I shouldn't judge, but it's impossible not to: these values are horrifying.

Written by Seth

When Would You Stand Up? (Part I)

When would you stand up? (Part I)

Throughout the book I kept wondering why didn’t more people stand up and try to stop the panopticon that they were helping to create. Why did everyone become so enamored with the social networking sites? Why did the whole world decide to place the SeeChange camera’s everywhere and share them with everyone? Why did the world give their wholehearted support to the transparency movement? And how could people sit idly by as The Circle took over the government?

Stage 1: The Networking

            This stage at first glance seems pretty harmless. You go out to a restaurant and you share a picture and/or “zing” a review. You go on a hike with your friends, and you recommend it on a chat room. These little updates not only show your friends what you’re doing, but also provide them with information that could inform their decisions on where to go this weekend or what to buy.

            But this technology causes issues. People begin to feel left out. They know if their friends are hanging out without them, and they can’t do anything about it. People begin to see social networking as a replacement for real experiences. Why hike a mountain when you can see the view anyways? People begin to see their online lives as more legitimate than their real ones, and personal relationships suffer as their number followers/friends on their particular website grows ever greater.

            So would you stand up and say no?? Probably not. Although it may not be an ideal world, I don’t think there is any harm is sharing your views/life experience, and if people want to be boring and live through their online life, that’s their prerogative.

Stage 2: Surveillance

            The SeeChange camera facilitates the next stage of the takeover. Not only can you see almost anywhere in the world with brilliant detail, but anyone else can too. There may be people who place SeeChange cameras without sharing the feed publicly, but it doesn’t seem like that particular method really catches on. The technology is instantly hailed a revolutionary way to limit crime, while giving people a chance to see the world.

            But this technology too has many issues. People are more and more likely to “see the world” from the comforts of their own home, rather than actually go out and do it. This is helpful to people with disabilities, but for the rest of the world just makes people lazy. People begin to have literally every aspect of their lives on display to the whole world, as the cameras are placed in their houses and shared to all of their friends.

            But would you stand up and say no? Would you fight for the camera’s to only be allowed in public places? Would you use the cameras to see a foreign country rather than save up to visit yourself? Would you put the cameras in your home, allowing them to see every insignificant detail of your daily life?

            Now this is the stage where I started to get a little nervous. I could see the benefits of the spread of such technology, but the loss of privacy started to scare me. I think this is the point where I would start to break away from the pack. I wouldn’t let the cameras in my house, and I would probably make the few cameras that I did place private.

            Yet the rest of the world, at least in Eggers’ mind, wouldn’t follow suit. The SeeChange cameras took over the world by storm, and with them, another layer of privacy and personal freedoms was removed.

(This blog post will be continued in part II, coming later today).