Is it worthwhile labeling those with middle-sized circles? The average or moderate-sized circle (however politically and historically defined) could be named for the character at the center of the Travels, Gulliver himself, yielding the Circumgull, or gull for short. Gulls, people with middle-size circles, seem to like floating above the social and political conflicts that shape their futures, and metaphorically, to dive for crumbs when they can. They typically have a middling  circle that encompasses their perceived more-or-less local society, with various exceptions. Today in the West the in-group is usually one’s nation, but the circle can be drawn tighter to include only a region, ethnicity, sect, tribe, even a neighborhood or village. For the Gull, it’s about compassion inside, antagonism out. Those outside the Gull’s circle can be killed in “legal” conflict without blame or guilt, or even focused attention. The Gull’s is a circle of simple feeling. And if the label gull isn’t any more flattering than Lily or Nag, it seems equally appropriate.

Some circles may have grey-areas near the boundary. The “liberal” label is often used to describe someone not just because they have a relatively large circle, but because of what we could call a grayish band at the outer margin that’s sometimes inside, sometimes outside, depending on the situation. This type of liberal is someone who might include conservative colleagues against working people in some cases, but who would reverse the band, favoring the lesser-advantaged in others. If we are to consider such liberals Nags, it might be useful to discriminate them as being particularly Grey Nags.

In any case, a circle’s boundary is not a fixed one. The boundary of the Gull might appear to express a tolerance of minority ethnic groups unless they break the law, in which case the severity of their punishment may reveal that they’ve actually been on the outs all along. Some people are disinterested, some are confused. But this just means that some circles, like their persons, are obscure, and/or vacillate broadly.

Despite all the qualifications, it may be possible to devise an objective test to measure the approximate size of one’s circle. I wouldn’t call it a personality test, as again, everyone is friendly, sweet and tolerant inside her circle. Maybe one’s circle could even be quantified with some accuracy, like a golfer’s handicap. We might hear someone proudly proclaim “I’m a certified number 9 Nag”, or “I’m officially a really little Lily.”

To know oneself is a good thing, I believe. Have you been content to see yourself as a true and virtuous conservative, only to discover that you’re actually just an especially small and chilly Lily? Well, that’s got to be an improvement. I consider myself a Nag, but upon reflection, I realize that I tend to admire people with larger circles than my own, and it becomes apparent that my circle could be bigger in some ways – if I were to be more inclusive of animals that happen to taste good, for instance. It impresses upon me in a picturesque way that growing is a good thing, that maybe I can be someone who can continue to grow more. By envisioning our view of others and the world as an enclosing circle, relatively constricting or expansive, who can help but think of progressive growth?

There may be some drawbacks in the circle model, and inconsistencies in the Lily/Nag and Gull classifications. Of course labels are always inexact and debatable. Being pigeon-holed by a label may seem an unpleasant thing, especially if the term itself is unattractive. But if substitution of circles for the political spectrum leads people to, in effect, grow their circles – who wouldn’t be for it, and roundly so?

 1  |  2