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.