Have you heard of the inner circle-outer circle analysis? I remember being made to do this analysis in one of the moral education classes in school. First, you are asked to draw two concentric circles and write "ME" in the center. Then, in the inner circle you write the names of those who you are (or you feel) closest to and in the outer circle you put down the names of your second-level associations, which may include extended family members, cousins, friends, or whoever you think are more than just acquaintances but cannot be included in the inner circle. I can't recall what was the point of this exercise. May be we were being told to form close associations with only a bunch of people and have some restrictions before letting anyone enter our inner circle. I had a problem doing this exercise then and I am still unable to put names on an axis of zero to infinite emotional bonding.
Something prompted me to rethink about this analysis and it has been clouding my thoughts. So, I decided to do a bit of my own analysis, which is what I am about to start rambling about.
Are there any variables that decide who enters our inner circle? A few obvious ones come to the mind, like "Trust". Most of us will be able to come up with names of people we trust the most or don't trust at all. I am not sure how often we get a chance to gauge everyone around us on the basis of trust and how accurate is that analysis. Most of the time it's an assumption based on our history, when we tell ourselves, "I think I can totally trust him/her." And, sometimes those whom we trust let us down for no or little fault of theirs but because of an imbalance of expectations or different priorities. Doesn't this make "Trust" too stringent a criteria to let anyone into your inner circle?
Are "Expectations" and "Priorities" other variables that keep changing the dynamics between two people? I think they are. May be "Time" and "Space" are two more contributing variables. Someone to be listed in your inner circle needs to overlap with you in time and space. What else can be included here? "Love"? "Respect"? I am tempted to include "Respect" here, but I think it is too basic. For me, someone who fails to show respect may not go beyond the imaginary line marking the outer circle And, "Love" is too abstract to be defined and gauged, so I will leave it out.
I am wondering whether we really analyse so much before emotionally bonding with someone. I don't. I have felt emotionally close to strangers after meeting them briefly, never bumping into them again, remembering them in a special way by whatever little interaction or moment that we shared.
But we do meet some people who choose to stay around us for longer than just a fleeting moment and we let them stay or sometimes hold them, not letting them leave. How and why does that happen? It could be because of continued collision in a shared space over a period of time, which increases the chances of testing the variables that help in placing them in imaginary inner/outer circles.
What if we decide to let go of these lines and circles and replace it with a fuzzy, dynamic space, where all those with whom we have shared a part of ourselves can stay irrespective of where they stand with respect to time and space, where there are little expectations, where personal priorities are not questioned, where trust exists but not as a burden, and where there is mutual respect. No one feels the need to drag the other over a line and no one is pressured to stay within a line, being continuously tested against variables. The fuzzy, dynamic space can be that place where someone we have known all our lives and all those people with whom we have shared a relatively tiny but special moment can coexist.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Only if any of this made sense. :)
Comments