Progress Halfway

As stated in my introduction, I could notice an improvement in my writing as the course progressed.

For the midterm, my WR39B class was expected to submit a portfolio and finalized version of the RA essay. Since oppression is a significant element in what separates utopian and dystopian societies from each other, I wanted to focus on the theme of oppression in The Giver. However, I did not realize this theme is particularly complex and could be delved into deeply. As a result, I had too many examples and a broad topic that was not specific enough. However, I made improvements compared to earlier assignments such as including a shorter summary and not paraphrasing nearly as much. My intentions were to relay how oppression was both explicitly and subtly placed on Jonas's community, although I still did not perfectly understand how to create a rhetorical analysis. 

 No Choices, No Mistakes, No Pain: Lack of Power in The Giver

     Lois Lowry’s novel The Giver depicts a dystopian society with a distorted reality that suppresses emotions and most freedoms. A group of meticulous Chief Elders carefully decide the fate of community members and secure a seamless environment with no choices, no mistakes, and no pain. Community members are disciplined to follow routined lives and fit into a “cookie-cutter” culture with essentially no flexibility or opportunities to stray from the norm. Although they have the freedom to decide a few things, these are not enough to truly be in charge of their own lives. Lowry carefully uses diction and perspective to successfully convey both explicit (obvious) oppressions and implicit (subtle) oppressions in Jonas’s dystopian society that highlight a system of power and lack thereof. These are present in the family model, physical appearance of people, emotional and visual abilities, and infiltrated intellectual thought. 

     While forming families is not a requirement either in today’s world or in Jonas’s community, the choice is not completely present in The Giver. Those who seek this option must first submit an application and be matched by the Committee of Elders—unlike American society where anyone is free to pair themselves up and date indefinitely—then are brought together to instantly form a family unit. Although any adult is technically allowed to apply for a spouse there is an undefined wait time until a match could be made and some do not receive a match at all. The ability to choose their own significant other and to date different people throughout life is utterly absent. There is no chance to make mistakes and learn from bad relationships that allow for change and growth as an individual. On the contrary, those “fortunate” enough to receive a match are simply known to be a perfectly compatible pairing. Jonas believes the matching system to be infallible because “all of the factors had to correspond and to interact perfectly,” (p.48) for a couple to be made; but all benefits from encountering and dating individuals not fully compatible are ignored as a whole.

     Furthermore, children must be applied for and there is a strict quota of “two children — one male, one female” (p.8) per family unit. Adoptions do not exist in the same sense as present society, for example: while Jonas’s family took care of Gabriel they were made to sign a pledge against becoming attached to the “temporary guest,” (p.42) making it impossible to expand the family even if all members are supportive and it arises no complications. Not being able to decide on becoming a single-child household or having the ability to raise more than two children is a serious flaw in the envisionment of Jonas’s society as a utopia. Families are often regarded as sacred because we don’t necessarily choose or give up on those composing ours, however, the Chief Elders in Jonas’s reality have this full control and power over family dynamics. Similarly, when Lily expressed an interest in becoming a birthmother she is firmly urged against it as the vocation would only give her “three years, three births,” before forcing her to become a physical laborer, “until the day [she] enters the House of the Old” (p.22). This has the subtle connotation that unlike today’s societies the children in The Giver are never placed with their biological mothers. Birthmothers have no power to indicate whether or not they wish to keep their children or place them in the care of others. Instead, it is evident they have no rights to their own brood or their naming (p.12). The Elders decide which babies to allocate in family units and their names are drawn from a rotational pattern of those released (p.44). These formulaic rules in themselves are oppressive because they denounce civilians the right to be creative with naming and give purpose to themselves. They are born as numbers and assigned recycled names that essentially destroys the capability to be unique or become more than an assigned unit.

     With the end goal of “sameness,” Jonas’s society has gotten rid of physical differences and variation within the community. Scientists have conducted heavy genetic engineering to dismantle race in general, with white being the baseline for normal and dark eyes significantly more prominent than light eyes. An unspoken rule for members is that pointing out any physical differences is “rude,” (p.20) but Lowry implies this is more-so the acknowledgment of failed genetic manipulation and “kinks” that have not yet been worked out (p.95). The system hopes to demolish differences in skin, eye, and hair color because they claim these are dangerous to order in society. The only reference to people of color is in an explicit memory from the Giver that features savage acts of violence and ultimately the death of an elephant (p.100). This is misleading to Jonas who comes to understand this single interaction as variation being dangerous when in reality it does not need to be. There is purposely no variation in Jonas’s society to impede people from forming biases, preferences, or having options. They are a society that highly values uniformity but do not recognize there is a higher value in diversity and individuality, without even being consciously aware the people are falling under the oppression of being physically molded into the Elders’ ideal race.

     Scientists have also disabled the function of seeing color and replace it with grayscale vision. When Jonas is becomes acquainted with the concept of color and choice his mindset shifts from being content in his society to wanting to break down the order. This suppression of knowledge and emotions affects all members of society in The Giver, only the Giver and Jonas can actually feel it since everyone else is unaware of alternate realities. Most members of Jonas’s society (with the exception of the Giver and Jonas himself) are not spared the privilege of encompassing emotions as these are muted after first signs. The assignment of Receiver forces Jonas and the Giver to carry the weight of society by single-handedly keeping emotions and memories that would otherwise impede society of functioning objectively. In his essay “On The Rationality of Sacrifice,” French philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy argues “sacrifices are imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many,” (p. 1) essentially justifying Jonas’s society because it got rid of potentially harmful freedoms in order to better function in a perfectly just manner.

     Yet, both myself and Jonas belief some pains/negative experiences are necessary for happiness to exist. The Elders unanimously decided to destroy evil for the greater benefit, but this, in turn, resulted in the loss of other beautiful things that highlight our finer experiences. The people had no say in what was better for them because they do not have the power to decide anything in their community. The Elders serve as an elite few who oversee everyone else and decide what is objectively best. At the first taste of love/lust, emotions known as “stirrings,” children must begin taking pills to halt all emotions. Emotions are often linked with goals and aspirations, which writers such as Bruno Bettelheim argue give purpose to life (p.1). Adults in Jonas’s society do not have strong emotions and many of them have therefore turned apathetic with no true role in society. They have been assigned simple jobs and will likely never form a family unit. This would reinforce Father’s bias that “lesser” workers are emotionally incapable, although it is more likely a negative effect of the community’s pill-taking norm rather than an intellectual disability. It is also interesting to note that despite couples being matched artificially and given children, the society bases itself on a strict “normal” model of mother and father parents with no reference to queerness; an indication that sexual preference is completely vain.

     Jonas’s society has the illusion of freedom in a few subtle ways. Lowry describes a rule against children below Nine riding bicycles but explains it is not observed seriously and most children know how to ride perfectly upon receiving their bike. Although this rule is set in place, it is almost always broken and there has been talk about the committee “studying” (p.13) the rule for an update. However, there is the connotation that the committee will not update this rule because it gives society members a rule to break that is not actually harmful to the order. Societal members truly believe they have many liberties and Nines take pride in being able to decide where to spend volunteer hours—not realizing that despite being able to choose where to volunteer they are still being required to do unpaid work. Additionally, if Twelves are appointed to an uncanny assignment they are allowed to file an appeal (p.91) although once again committee members would “study” a case and never get around to it. A change of assignment was practically unheard of even if not everyone was completely satisfied with their assignment. There is also the alleged ability to be released into a different society, although Jonas later finds out this means euthanasia. Those who wanted to leave Jonas’s society are not truly allowed to. Just as in Ursula Le Guin’s short story “Those Who Walk Away From Omelas,” anyone who realized the negative aspects of society would have been given the options of staying as if nothing were wrong or being released, to never return. With the initial intentions of becoming a perfect society, Jonas’s community becomes a model of total oppression and lack of choice.

     Ultimately Jonas realizes he is powerless to create change in his community and decides to seek his own freedom by fleeing to a better community. The illusion of choices is ultimately a device to appease the community members but can be identified as different layers of oppression that empower the Elders over the average citizen. They are not completely powerless to their own life, but they do not enjoy nearly as many privileges as people from free societies. The choices they have access to are extremely limited and in some ways counterproductive but Jonas’s society is an incredible depiction of how dystopias can emerge from extreme pushes toward utopias. The lack of choice guarantees no mistakes and therefore no unnecessary pain, but it is at the expense of personal freedoms and rights that ultimately make life a unique experience worth putting effort into.

 Works Cited
Bettelheim, Bruno.“The Struggle For Meaning.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989. (Article) Print.
Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. “On the Rationality of Sacrifice.” Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, Volume 10, Spring. 2003, pp. 23-39. (Article) Print.
Le Guin, Ursula K. "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas." The Wascana Anthology of Short Fiction. Eds. Ken Mitchell, Thomas Chase, and Michael Trussler. Canadian Plans Research, 1999. 273-77. Print. 
Lowry, Lois. The Giver. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Print.

This essay showcases a dramatic change in style and content-level compared to pieces before it that I would consider an improvement.

Nonetheless, I received comments about excessive colloquialism and an incoherent understanding of rhetorical versus literary analyses. After researching the differences, I understand that my RA did not pay detailed attention to the author's rhetorical choices and how these choices affected the audience. For example, I analyzed why the bicycle rule was oppressive and how it was viewed by the community, but in other circumstances, I did not focus adequately enough on how a certain event or rule was perceived by the people. This is the case in the elephant memory where I did not elaborate on how the memory affected Jonas's understanding of diversity. The main point of a rhetorical analysis is to understand the strategies used and choices made by a rhetor to achieve an effect.