At first glance, the city of Omelas appears to be a sort of Utopian
society. Everyone appears to be happy
and enjoying life, and they are repeatedly described as joyous throughout the
story. It strikes me as a very
Utopian-socialist sort of society, with no real class system, no leaders, and
very few rules or regulations. LeGuin
notes, however, that they are not naïve and simple, but “mature, intelligent,
passionate adults whose lives were not wretched.”(147) Then, slowly, this façade seems to unravel,
concluding with the little child locked in the basement. This beaten, broken down child is forced to
bear fear, despair, and every other negative emotion so that all of the rest of
the people of Omelas can be happy.
And yet, most of the society refuses to really acknowledge or react
to this oppression. Rather, they
convince themselves that, for this child, it is for the best to simply abandon
it because it could never fit into their society. Most of these people have just accepted that
this is the way things will be, that this one child must take the fall for them
all. They have fallen into the trap of
their “perfect” society and are afraid of change, simply accepting that nothing
can be done.
Did the “ones who walked away” solve the problem? No. Is it best that the child suffers for the rest of the people? No. So it seems like the “ones who walked away” did not help; however, I think that they responded wisely. It is much better that they walked away at first rather than trying to repair the society that seems to be so happy and successful. If they instantly tried to fix the problem, then they would probably be labeled as traitors or crazy and be rejected. However, I do not believe that their mission is complete. While they walk away in solitude, they should begin to think about the problem they just encountered. Then they must begin to consider options to improve the society. Finally, they should all come together and walk right back into town with the message that the current treatment of the child is wrong but we want to maintain happiness, so this is what we suggest.
ReplyDeleteWhenever we are in an argument or upset about something, it is common to respond without thinking. Therefore, taking a timeout to gather our thoughts is much more positive than simply acting on the spot. But in order to make a positive change, the “ones who walked away” must come back home with a solution, otherwise their insight and progressive ideas will be lost forever and the child will continue to unjustly suffer.
But it seems like they walk away forever, so to answer Jimmy's question, "the ones who walked away" did NOT do enough to solve the problem.
DeleteI think The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas reflects a culture governed by utilitarianism, a principle that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Regardless of the pressing ethical or moral tolls at the sight of the malnourished child, the citizens have to keep going and put a smile on their face to maintain the false happiness of the society. Although I wouldn’t accept a starving, suffering child being locked in a windowless basement, I do agree with the remark that the child is “too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy” in that genuine happiness comes from a place where one doesn’t feel despair, fear, or anger for anything (149). The child is beyond traumatized by his experiences, so I can see how he couldn’t be able to live in a community like Omelas.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jimmy that the citizens of Omelas exemplify the humanity in the world today. I wouldn’t regard the people as cold-hearted or sadistic but rather ignorant. If we take the child to represent a homeless man begging for money on the sidewalk, then we essentially become those who didn’t walk away. We have a glimpse of regret for not helping him but continue on with our day and forget it happened. Although I admire the independence of those who walked away from Omelas, I don’t hold the people who stayed in contempt.
I agree that the story reflects many aspects of our world. It also raises an interesting philosophical issue. Can good exist without evil? Can we have joy without sadness? This raises many problems, especially with human morality. Without knowledge of evil, we would not truly be able to appreciate good. There is a duality to this nature. When we have happiness, we fear despair. When we have despair, we desire happiness. The two sides appear inseparable, such as it is in Omelas.
ReplyDeleteConcerning those who walk away, I am not so certain if they do not solve the problem, for this may be a problem that cannot be solved. As a result, I believe that those who walk away do not exist (at least in our world). The place they go to is "even less imaginable" and may "not exist" (150). Essentially, they are an impossibility. To escape a fundamental rule of society is impossible for us. For someone or something else, perhaps it is not.