Omelas As An Extension of Our Society

3. To what extent is Omelas an analogy for our own society?  Please discuss and provide examples.


DRAFT


             In regards to the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, author Ursula K Le Guin explores to what extent Omelas is an analogy of our own society.  While Omelas is portrayed to be a utopia throughout the text, I believe it to be a paradox; what is defined to be,

“… a city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will arise to the occasion…”(Le Guin, 1-2),

does not in fact exemplify what an ideal utopia entails. Ironically, in this “utopia”, the author goes on to describe a graphic and lurid depiction of a caged boy that astonishingly represents the backbone for the society of Omelas; the utility and prosperity of Omelas that is “depended wholly on this child’s abominable misery”(3).

           While it is clear that the society of Omelas is prosperous, the average reader cannot help but sympathize with the mistreated boy locked up in a cellar. It is questioned why does the author include this in a society that is deemed to be “joyous” at all. But isn’t that necessary? To be able to acknowledge happiness with the presence of sadness and metaphorically in the text, the boy is caged, which in many ways is represents the fears of society that is locked away and separated from society to keep the peace and prosperity.  Similarly, in our own modern society, we have separated ourselves in order to create a better understanding of who we are and the values we stand up for. We have created “bad” and “good” neighborhoods to raise our families and to shape our future accordingly. We have then further separated ourselves based on majority ethnic backgrounds and global demographics. People from other countries are denied entry to more successful countries based on strict criteria to regulate and maintain the status of our region. Anything to aggravate the situation is frowned upon and receives immediate attention to either quarantine the problem or expel of it. Which is why sympathy of the child in the cage resulted in helplessness and anger, and ultimately a choice – to accept it or refuse to accept and find an alternative. The latter holds uncertainty, which is why it is a road less travelled and often travelled alone.

            Collectively, we constantly live in a world that ignores the needs of the few for the “greater good” of the majority. While we flirt with the fine line between individual needs and the needs of society, somewhere along the way of keeping the balance the needs of the majority ultimately outweigh the needs of the individual. This is heavily translated into utilitarianism and what we understand it to be in modern society is drastically different. While we are saddened to see third world countries struggle to make ends meet, we are content on being consumers that regularly buy goods that further reinforce work labor of malnutritioned children in more than unsatisfactory work environments. For example, companies such as Nike are running sweatshops in Indonesia, which are majorly filled with child laborers working endless days, but for the everyday consumer, it is just another item at a bargain price. While most are informed of this injustice, few actively show their disapproval with some sort of protest, which for the most part goes unheard. Why? Because it is only the opinion of the few and not enough to sway the majority that merely follow the status quo.

There are reasons to believe Omelas is a slight extension of our society, and with the exception for the lack of creative license, it certainly proves to be in regards to happiness and what we ultimately define it to be: the distinction between sadness and happiness, and doing anything possible to strive for the latter.

“This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil ad the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe happy man, nor make any celebration of joy.”(1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REVISED

In the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, author Ursula K Le Guin explores to what extent Omelas is an analogy of our own society.  While Omelas is portrayed to be a utopia throughout the text, I believe it to be a paradox. Le Guin comments Omelas as:

“A city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will arise to the occasion” (Le Guin, 1-2).

Ironically, in this “utopia”, the author goes on to describe a graphic and lurid depiction of a caged boy that astonishingly represents the backbone for the society of Omelas; the utility and prosperity of Omelas which is, in Le Guin's words, “depended wholly on this child’s abominable misery”(3).

It is clear that the society of Omelas is prosperous; however the average reader cannot help but sympathize with the mistreated boy locked up in a cellar. It is questioned why does the author includes this in her society that elicits a “joyous” ambiance. But isn’t it necessary to distinguish happiness in comparison to sadness. Accordingly, the caged boy represents the fears of society that is quarantined from society to keep the peace and prosperity.  Similarly, in our own modern society, we have separated ourselves in order to create a better understanding of who we are and the values we stand up for. We have created “bad” and “good” neighborhoods to raise our families that shape our future accordingly. People from other countries are denied entry to more successful countries based on strict criteria to the status of our region. Anything to aggravate this structure is frowned upon and receives immediate attention to expel of the source. This also translates into aspects of evolution; the less evolved were forced to evolve or be eradicated by the superior being. Even today, exclusion and the sense of normality define our everyday living. The disabled or mentally ill are separated from the “norm”, and are to be sympathized with, rather than viewed as equal. If we truly lived in a mosaic of accommodating social classes and cultures, there would be no need of immigration law and separate divisions for people with disabilities, especially in a school environment where the mind is most impressionable. We are raised to believe that the disabled need to be separated and overtly empathized with, thus excluding them or enable feelings of low self-worth.  This is why sympathy of the child in the cage resulted in helplessness and anger, and ultimately a choice – to accept it, or refuse to accept and find an alternative. The latter holds uncertainty, which is why it is a road less travelled, and often travelled alone.

Collectively, we constantly live in a world that ignores the needs of the few for the “greater good” of the majority. Society flirts with the fine line between needs of the individual and society, and somewhere along the way of keeping the balance, the needs of the majority ultimately outweighs the needs of the individual. While we are saddened to see third world countries struggle to make ends meet, we are content on being consumers that regularly buy goods that further reinforce work labor of malnutritioned children in unsatisfactory work environments. For example, companies such as Nike are running sweatshops that are majorly filled with child laborers working endless days, but for the everyday consumer it is just another item at a bargain price. While most are informed of this injustice, few actively show their disapproval with some sort of protest, which for the most part goes unheard. Why? Because it is only the opinion of the few, and not enough to sway the majority that maintain the status quo.

There are reasons to believe Omelas is an extension of our society, and with the exception for the lack of creative license, it certainly proves to be. In regards to happiness and what we ultimately define it to be, it is the distinction between sadness and happiness. The majority does anything possible to strive for the latter, even if this means negotiating with their values.