The Circle: a lesson in perspective

I absolutely love The Circle, and if there was ever a program made for lockdown, surely this was it. I was delighted that we had another series and I watched my recording avidly every morning, busy messaging Debs without any spoilers. Once she’d caught up we’d bemoan the outcome or revel in delight. The Circle, if you haven’t seen it, is a virtual popularity contest between a bunch of individuals who live in total isolation (from everything, not just each other), communicating with each other only via messaging. That’s text only, no video calling. The players seem to be on a catfish hunt primarily, rather than trying to win a popularity contest, but that’s a conversation for another day. Personally I wouldn’t care if someone was a catfish if they were entertaining, I mean it’s not like I’m going to marry them. Oh sorry, Manrika, you were, weren’t you…. [this year’s series featured a blossoming romantic relationship between the beautiful exotic princess Manrika, playing as herself, and Felix, the army dude, played by Natalya, equally beautiful in a Russian Ice Princess kind of way, military policewoman.]

One of my first spiritual teachers was Gary van Warmerdam (pathwaytohappiness.com) and his self-mastery series helped me understand in practical terms, how to become the observer of my emotions. Note that none of these concepts are unique to Gary, they are pretty standard on the self-awareness journey, however he was the man who held my hand along this path and I would highly recommend his work.

He starts with simple exercises about our viewpoint and perspective and how it shapes our lives. As you learn about this stuff, much of it, piece by piece, is obvious, yet the realisation of how it affects your experience of life, is astonishing. His podcasts took me session by session learning to notice first where my attention was focussed, especially when not consciously directing it on to something. Did I think about problems (always), or things you appreciate (err, no not really)? Did I marvel at the beauty of the world (rarely), or reflect on the past (not much)? Did I judge myself on everything I hadn’t done today (bingo, that’s my favourite). I say “did”, as I can confidently say that I do a lot less of this; it’s only taken me 4 years, and when I do, I’m aware of it.

Next came the concept of agreements. Nearly all interactions with people are pulling you to side either with them or against them (i.e. drawing you into agreement, or disagreement) – a harmless enough activity (“lovely day, isn’t it?”, asking for your agreement) until you realise how these subtle agreements are an investment of faith, and before you know it, you’ve agreed to a whole pile of subsequent things you weren’t really conscious of. The exercise has you detaching from agreements. This is actually an amazing exercise, and I’m going to go back to it, as it’s a real eye-opener, subject for a future blog post.

He then goes into perspectives. Again, it’s not rocket science when it’s spelled out to you, but this can change your life. When you’re sitting in traffic, are you cursing the stupid bastard who blocked the box junction, and hyperventilating because you’re going to be late, or are you delighted to have a few extra minutes to listen to your comedy podcast? Obviously there is context here: are you late for an interview or out for a Sunday drive, however being aware of your viewpoint can help you change it. The idea that if you want to be happy, your happiness can not be predicated on your circumstances, is huge! This was a life-changer for me, becoming aware of how angry I was about everything, and how simply changing my perspective could change it. Not always, but often enough to make a huge difference. And as that constant anger starts to loosen, it gets easier to let things go, to change your perspective, even if the circumstances feel suffocating.

So what does this have to do with the Circle? Not a lot of spirituality lessons there I hear you say. Well you’d be wrong. One thing I love about this program is the ability to watch people’s reactions, based ENTIRELY on the written word. That means everyone is faced with exactly the same information. They are obviously prepped to read aloud the messages they received, so their tone alone tells you how they’re receiving the information. So when you have several people reading the same message, you have a real live experiment that shows you how people’s interpretation of information is entirely shaped by their own experience, and NOTHING to do with the person offering the information. Of course, the speaker’s previous engagement with each player has some bearing on how each interpret the words but how different people get such different messages from the same words is fascinating. Take Manrika and Tally, both previously disgruntled by “Gemma”, on receiving a slightly vulnerable message from Gemma. Both outspoken and hot-headed, both appear to have the same opinion of Gemma (dull, game-playing, tedious, souk*), they are on a group chat together. On the one hand Gemma’s message infuriates Manrika, reinforcing how much Manrika despises and dislikes Gemma, really forcing the mistrust to whole new level of contempt. On the other, Tally is taken aback, throws her hands over her mouth and says “awwww. That’s really quite sweet. That makes me feel quite differently about her”. I paraphrase as I didn’t record it, mesmerised as I was. From that moment, Tally starts to see the best in Gemma and forms a bond, Manrika spirals into out-and-out disgust for Gemma. This critical point actually sets in motion the decline of Manrika and Tally’s friendship with each other. One conversation. One message. Two different view-points. Gemma’s relationship with them both in the Circle, up till this point, has, for all that we see, affected them both similarly, nothing much to distinguish. So what changed?

Something in Gemma’s message triggered a difference response in Manrika than in Tally. This is almost certainly something in each of their pasts, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Gemma. These identical words triggered a compassionate response in Tally, and something akin to rage in Manrika. So what we’re seeing, in all its glory, is how different perspectives shape how that “truth” (as in the words as they were written) is received by Manrika and Tally.

Our beliefs, our experiences, our past relationships, all shape our reality. Taking responsibility for our reaction to circumstances is the first step towards self-awareness. When things affect you negatively, it really is worth a second look, calmly, first to see if you can identify your perspective (victim, villain, judge) and then to see if there is any alternative interpretation that would make you feel better. It doesn’t really matter what’s “true” or not, because my truth, Manrika’s truth, Tally’s truth and even Gemma’s truth, are all entirely different, and all irrelevant to your truth. What matters is how you feel, so if you can reframe something to make you feel better, you’re a step closer to happiness. And if you struggle to understand why the “truth” is irrelevant, consider Gemma’s truth: she wasn’t an NHS nurse but a 6’3” British gym buff James Crossley, best known for playing Hunter in the 90s TV series Gladiators.

 

* souk
SCOTTISH v., n., interj 
6. Fig., to wheedle, to coax, to fawn. Phr. to souk the laverocks oot o’ the lift, to be extremely persuasive. With in, to curry favour, to ingratiate oneself.