Month: November 2019

In reading both of these short stories there was an overarching theme of followership and the effect that it has on an entire culture. When growing up within a cultured tradition it can be difficult to see outside of this tradition, as it is all you know. If there is nothing else to compare that one experience to, it is understandable as to why it has never been changed. Still, this does not mean the members of the community cannot question the tradition. Although I have little experience, I am sure that all cultures generally have a rule that each member should not kill or harm one another—as this is ethically and practically necessary to maintain a civil society. In the lottery, their killings eventually happen more and more frequently yet it is never questioned. This practice goes against the basic necessity to maintain a society but, since it is agreed upon by the society it became part of their norm and how they maintain a civil society.

The story of Omelas is a bit different, for me, in that it is a question of ethics and less of tradition and followership. The child in the room is being abused and everyone knows it. Yet, according to their rules, it is necessary to keep the child in the room so that everyone else may remain happy. This is somewhat of a trolley problem–do you sacrafice one life for the life of hundreds of others or is each life valued the same and therefore the child should be released from the room despite the consequences. I believe that this story is beyond followership because there is an aspect of tradition and fear. No one exactly knows what would happen if the child was released hence why it has become a rule to keep the child in the room. This cannot simply be deemed bad followership and failure to question authority because the entire town could be killed once the child is released. Both of these stories are complex in the themes that they bring about on what would be ethically or logistically best for each town.

5 Comments

When reading The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a certain quote struck me as the most objective and most interesting was “Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive.” This is a concept I never would have thought to explore or consider before reading this excerpt, but it certainly seems that there is a definitive basis for happiness.

This quantification of happiness made me think of Thomas Jefferson’s “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One’s right to life is very objective – one has the right to not be killed by others whether it is on purpose or on accident. One’s right to liberty is more subjective, but still can be made objective when discussed as the right to self-autonomy and right to make one’s own decisions. One’s right to happiness, however, has always been super subjective; it seems impossible to ensure that any individual has the right to be happy as there are a bunch of factors which impact happiness, some being uncontrollable such as mental illness. This line, however, made this right much more clear-cut in my eyes. As long as one has the right to anything that is necessary in his or her life, then he or she is being granted the right to happiness.

4 Comments

The first story, The Lottery, is about a weird tradition in a town. A person from each family picks a piece of paper from the box and if it is blank then they are safe, but if it has a black dot on it they are to be sacrificed. It is also mentioned that they thought about changing the box because the one they had was breaking, but decided not to. This story emphasizes the role of traditions in society and even when it seems easy for someone to step in and make a change, it isn’t.

The Omelas had the same type of theme. In this story there is a society that is very peaceful and happy. However, this is only due to the fact that there is a young boy suffering and being abused. Everyone knows about him, but they think that their society runs so well because of his suffering. Similarly to The Lottery, to us it seems simple for someone to step in and stand up for the boy. The tradition and superstition is so ingrained in their minds that they are not capable of seeing the truth.

5 Comments

In Omelas, there is something wrong underneath, that the entire town knows about but no one addresses. They cannot fix the problem as it would ruin the city as they know it but instead try their hardest to live on while they know about it. When it becomes too much some may leave in the middle of the night. 

In the Lottery, there is a tradition that they will not go away from, as they believe that breaking away from it would be similar to returning to being barbaric. They see that the people in surrounding cities are breaking away from this system, but refuse to do that themselves.

Both of these short stories had twisted and chilling endings. Omelas began overly joyful, describing how happy the people were and how joyous the people of Omelas were there. The Lottery began describing the daily duties of the people, and the story began as normal but as it went on, there was always a singular word or phrase that made the background of the city more mysterious. I would how different or how much happiness they would actually sacrifice by saving the happiness of that one child. Or how much the city in the Lottery would change if they didn’t have the lottery system. It seems like neither of the places are truly dependent on it but they continue to hold on to it as if it did.

2 Comments

Both of these stories while interesting to read were extremely disturbing and had extreme twist endings. The first story the Omela’s describes essentially a Utopian society in which everything is perfect. The people are happy, the city is beautiful, essentially saying there are no problems with this society. However, the article towards the end discusses how there is a child locked in a room who is neglected and malnourished. The reason for this is that without his neglect the Omela’s would be unable to live in this utopian society and if they were to care for this child they would lose all their happiness. It essentially calls into question the trolly example. Asking in a sense if it makes sense to kill one and save multiple people. In the case of this story, it is essentially asking is it ok for one person to suffer in order for thousands to flourish. I think it also discusses the idea of how nothing in life can ever be perfect and sometimes for people to succeed others are sometimes neglected or are left behind.c

In the second story, the lottery described this lottery-based system in which representatives from each family had to pick a slip of paper from the lottery box without getting the black dot on the paper. Bill Hutchinson picked the piece of paper with the black dot on it. His family had to go up and place the black dot piece of paper in there with blank pieces of paper for the remaining family members. Tessie picked the piece of paper with the black spot and rocks were thrown at her for human sacrifice to ensure that their crops would grow. Discussing the idea of how some rituals are not worth holding on to. Believing that sacrifice would ensure crop growth is a ridiculous connotation/implication. Also,  it is ironic how winning the lottery in this sense means death whereas, in our society winning the lottery is associated with profit and essentially is a great thing.

Leave a Comment

When I read both of these short stories, I initially didn’t see the connection to leadership. Both had twist endings where the happy reality of their lives is only maintained by an underlying evil – in the case of “The Lottery” an annual randomized stoning and in the case of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. Both were sad and forced the reader to confront the lengths humans are willing to go to in order to maintain the status quo. But I still wasn’t sure how leadership played into things.

Then I thought about the concept of sacrificing a “lesser evil” for a greater good. A common concept in leadership, particularly when thinking about war casualties, it’s easy enough to think about and accept in the abstract. The life of a couple hundred civilians to preserve order and prevent thousands more from dying. But when you’re confronted with examples like in these stories, especially of the child in Omelas, the lesser evils get faces. It makes me question if the ends really do justify the means and why we have become so desensitized to certain practices like the characters in the stories do. It also raises the question of what we can do when we’re put in situations that are so ingrained in our society and feel so much larger than us – maybe all we can do is walk away like some chose to do from Omelas.

1 Comment

The short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” started out being this perfect society where everyone was always happy. Towards the middle of the story, the reader learns that this society is not “perfect” at all. There is a locked room in a basement where a child is kept. The room is described to be very dirty. The child is being neglected and kept in very inhumane conditions. Children learn about this child when they are about 8-12 years old. Some children when they learn about this child want to do something to help but, they are told there is nothing they can do to help.

With that being said, I think this short story is an example of groupthink. This is because the people in Omelas are aware of this child and the condition it is in but, due to everyone saying there is nothing they can do they do not do anything about it.

2 Comments

The other night I watched Rafiki (2018) (part of the international film festival), a Kenyan film directed by Wanuri Kahiu. Rafiki, which translates to “friend,” is a drama with LGBTQ+ themes. This film is the story of Kena and Ziki, both daughters of rival political candidates, as they fall in love. While I don’t want to spoil this film, it’ll be hard to relate it to leadership without doing so. After Kena and Ziki enter a relationship with each other, they are soon found out about (as you’d expect) and are harassed by their family and neighbors. Both of them are physically assaulted by people in the small town they grew up in. It was a hard scene to watch. Then they face potential jail time for being lesbian (how is that a threat!? How can you be arrested for that?!). Furthermore, both sets of parents struggle to continue loving their daughters after their homosexuality is revealed.

What is the cause of all this? What could possibly tear families and neighborhoods apart like this? Rafiki does a great job of highlighting two causes: sexism and homophobia that is so deeply ingrained in society because of religion. The church is a place of high tension in Rafiki. Every service is full of nervous glances from the leading characters. There is one scene in which the pastor discusses homosexuality and claims that God’s laws can’t be broken, that changing the laws of man won’t save people who are homosexual. Furthermore, there is another scene in which he discusses the significance of matrimony between a man and a woman; how they need each other to be complete. During the discussion after the film, a student (who is from Kenya, herself) brought up the point of how she hadn’t even realized how many expressions were sexist or homophobic, she hadn’t thought about how accustomed Kenyan society was to excluding/degrading/alienating these groups of people. This reminded me of the Zinn readings on slavery and racism. While the origins are different, the way these mentalities stick and stay in society is very similar. And the violent reactions to these minority groups of people (though women aren’t really a minority)… just going through life is much like Plato’s Cave Allegory; people don’t want change/new/different/ Even if it’s for the better, even if it stops suffering. Even if it doesn’t affect them at all.

Leave a Comment

Coincidentally, I have read both of these short stories before; however, being that they are so interesting and that I forgot some of the details, I definitely did not mind reading them again. The lottery has a particularly slow build-up, then there is so much that happens so quickly at then end with Tessie getting stoned. It isn’t really revealed what the lottery is all about until the very end, which is great for building suspense. Anyways, on the leadership side of things, I have so many questions. It isn’t really clear who enforces this, rather it seems that the village does it every year out of pure ritual. Given how many years the lottery had taken place, it makes me wonder why no one ever took a stand to stop it. I think it’s particularly interesting because the village members aren’t being submissive to a person or a group, rather just an idea/ritual. It makes me wonder whether the village is subject to very severe groupthink.

The story of the Omelas is another really mind-boggling one. The setting is first introduced as this wonderful place by the sea in which there is a life of perfection for all of its residents. Who wouldn’t want to live there? However, once it is said this is only possible because of an imprisoned and tortured child who never sees the light of day, it flips the entire story upside down. Of course, the biggest question then is whether you would live there knowing that your happiness is based on the misery of a child. This question could be debated upon for hours, and there is not necessarily a right answer. Nobody would want to be the one tortured, but it comes down to whether or not you could live with yourself knowing the reason for your happiness. Many people in the story decide to leave after they are told about the child, but many decide to stay as well. Does leaving make you a better person than one who stayed?

4 Comments

In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the city of Omelas seems to be a perfect place where all the people are happy. However, halfway through the story we learn that this “perfect” place only exists because of the child who is locked away and abused. Everyone knows that the child is there, and parents usually tell their children about it when they are between the ages of 8 and 12. When they are told about this, many young people want to do something for the child, but are told that they can’t because that would ruin the entire existence of Omelas. I think that this story is a good example of groupthink. People in Omelas accept that this one child will have a horrible life because they are taught to believe that it is for the good of everyone else. When anyone wants to do something for this child, they are told that letting the child out would actually be making their life worse, which is another way that the group justifies its actions.

In “The Lottery,” the village draws a name from a lottery on June 27 each year, and whoever’s name they draw will be stoned to death. Everyone in the village accepts this as a tradition and shuts down any criticism of it. When someone mentions that several other villages nearby have ended the practice of the lottery, Old Man Warner calls these villages a “pack of crazy fools” who are giving the young people too much influence. Once Tessie’s name is drawn, she protests, but the people in the village still go through with stoning her to death. Reading this story, I noticed a lot of similarities to the Hunger Games books/movies. I also thought that this story was a good illustration of groupthink. Because this event is so public and a long-standing tradition, no one wants to be the first person to question it no matter how many people are uncomfortable with it.

2 Comments

Both of these stories teach the same lesson: one must suffer for the good of the rest. I had read The Lottery before, so the ending was not much of a surprise. But this time I took notice to Old Man Walker’s opinion on the lottery tradition. Upon hearing that other towns have abandoned the tradition or changed it slightly, he was disappointed. He even said, “There’s always been a lottery” (pp. 32). This made me think, sure there has always been one, but is it still right? We have talked a lot about voting in class and how the popular vote more and more does not match the electoral college vote in presidential elections. This system has always been in place. But is it failing in modern day politics, so much so that it would be okay to rethink the system?

The tale of Omelas’s theme reminded me more of the trolley effect we have talked about in class. When the town thinks about changing their tradition and releasing the child from the darkness, they believe it would ruin all of the happiness of the city. That “to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one” wouldn’t make sense. In the case of the trolley problem, it is not common for one to decide to save one life over five because of mere numbers. If thousands are to benefit, it would seem extreme to save one life. But does that still make it alright to lock a child away? 

2 Comments

The Lottery, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

Susan Nevin

 

To begin, I read the Omelas story. To me, this had been one of the most impactful readings I have read for a class. This story showed the idea of a fake utopia, as the society tries to put on a front of “perfection,” when in reality, there is true suffering at its base. In addition, this story begs the question of the utilitarian perspective. Is it better for one child to live a horrible life for the happiness of the majority? This is something I could debate on for hours, and that many people continue to argue about. This argument is also seen in the city of Omelas. Some of the people once the see the child are very upset, but decide to return home. Others are so hurt by this idea that they cannot bear to live in these conditions anymore and walk straight off the city, and are never seen again. This story, along with utilitarianism, brings in the idea of groupthink. While every single member of this society knows that the treatment of the child is horrible, no one does anything about it. And those who cannot bear to watch it run from the city instead of helping the child and making a change. 

Next, I read “The Lottery” story by Shirely Jackson. This story showed many similarities to the Omelas story, however, the person who had to accept the suffering was an active member of their society. In detail, the town would hold a “lottery,” and whoever won was stoned to death. This again brings into light the idea of the “ideal” society, which isn’t ideal at all, but instead tries to cover up their suffering through a decision they believe to be better for the group. They also use the idea of a “lottery” which usually has a positive connotation to it, to cover up the horrible events that occur if you win. This argument is extremely popular within hollywood today, as they are making countless films to debate this idea. I first heard of this concept when reading The Hunger Games Series, and this idea has stuck with me since.

Leave a Comment

Both of these stories were pretty shocking. I remember reading The Lottery in an english class and high school, but I was still equally interested reading it for the second time because the ending is so unexpected. This story has always kind of reminded me of The Hunger Games, which I think has a very similar premise to both of these stories.

I think both stories were good illustrations of groupthink. It was clear that people in both of these towns understood that what they were doing was wrong. In fact there are people in both stories that either try to suggest that there are other better ways to live that do not require such brutality, or that simply cannot take learning of what is going on in the town and leave. These ideas, however, are called crazy and shut down. The idea of not having a lottery each year seemed foolish to some members of the town. These people shutting down the idea of cancelling the lottery are acting as mind guards and keeping out new ideas. It seems easier for these people to live with their current situation than to actually do something about it. Also, nobody wants to be the first person to seriously propose a change.

Both of these stories were kind of illustrating that there is no such thing as a perfect society. Even the happiest of societies have some flaw that is allowing them to be that way. The stories suggested that not everyone can be happy. Some person is always going to end up unhappy, but one person being unhappy is worth it if it makes the rest of society happy. Having this one example of an unhappy person seems to be a way of maintain control over society. It shows people how they could end up if they don’t conform to the societal norms that allow people to operate the way they do. The stories, however, also suggest to me that having on person imprisoned, or otherwise harmed, leaves everyone else imprisoned to a certain extent because they know they must conform and they know that everything is not perfect.

1 Comment

While reading the beginning of “The Lottery”, I was not at all expecting the last part where they stoned her. I kind of got some foreshadowing of something bad happening to whoever drew the “correct” paper when Tessie originally began to complain about Bill not receiving enough time to pick a slip of paper and when the girl whispered that she hoped it wouldn’t be Nancy. Therefore, I disagree with whoever wrote the response/summary article B because they claim that the only surprise was the stones and not the act of execution, while I think the entire execution of Tessie and the dark manner of it was surprising. Another surprising aspect was how willing and able the villagers were to stoning her; almost immediately after the crowd knew she was the one to be stoned, her friends and their children were hitting her with the stones without hesitation. It shows how deeply-rooted tradition can become to the point where immoral acts like murder become mindless action, without thought to how it will affect those around them.

Similar to the first story, “The ones who walk away from Omelas” tells the story of the brutal abandonment and horrible life of one child in order to maintain the happiness of the rest of the city. I’ve read this before, and it still makes me angry but it demonstrates, like “The Lottery”, how once a tradition or ideology is imbedded into society, the chances of it becoming unrooted or people going against are so slim. It shows how that this ritual or concept will lead to mindless action, like ignoring the child’s existence and not speaking to the child at all, which then furthers the ideology and continues to harm people.

Kind of maybe a stretch but I think these stories are creating an analogy to slavery, in the way that white people became so mindlessly blind and ignorant to the suffering and pain that the slaves endured and continued to create all of these laws and rules to maintain their happiness and “balance”, when in reality, if they spoke to the slaves or were empathetic to them (like how those who left understood the horror of what Omelas was doing to that child), they could’ve seen the damage they were doing and created an equal society from the beginning.

1 Comment

These readings were very interesting, to say the least. “The Lottery,” was about a village that does a lottery and whoever wins gets stoned to death. While “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” was about, to my understanding, a fake or made up happy society by a child that was locked in a closet made possible only due to their lack of happiness. 

Both of these stories are sad and pulled my heartstring, but more importantly, talked about leadership roles through literature. For example, “The Lottery,” allows the reader to understand the differences between the importance we place on males between females. This is seen by the interactions between Mr. Summers and Janey as he asks if she did not have a “grown boy” to take her place, inferring that a boy had more power or more authority to take her place. 

In the story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the importance we place on leadership roles to help create structure in a society is evaluated. This is seen as the author begins by illustrating some characteristics of a king, just to say that that leadership role was not needed in the happy society created, which still had structure and function without a clear leader. 

Before reading these pieces of literature and viewing them from a leadership perspective, would I have truly seen the importance or the impact narrative literature had on leadership. I truly believe that the way the author sees leadership has an impact on their writing, but the way literature creates leaders makes us reevaluate the way we see leadership. 

Leave a Comment

These were two very interesting stories that touched upon the power of tradition, culture, and ritual, and essentially discussed the mysteriousness of humans and why we think and act in the ways that we do. In The Lottery, Mrs. Hutchinson demanded that her family be given the chance to draw again from the black box since her husband was not given adequate time to choose his slip of paper. When each member of her family draws again, she wins the lottery, but that means she gets stoned to death by the rest of the villagers. Why do these customs of sacrifice have such a strong presence in the village? Why does old man Warner fear the younger folk deserting these customary executions? Similarly, The Omelas story explored the mystery of humanity. Here, the people of this free and joyous city could only experience joy when they knew the small, naked, emaciated child was trapped in a holding cell below them. If the child was ever to be freed, the city would crumble.

I think there are some serious elements of groupthink in upholding tradition. It’s not always a bad thing, but often when something is repeated so much and is more than just habitual, it is an ancestral and historical practice, it can be very difficult to stop or to change people’s minds. Mind guarding, and unquestioningly believing in the group’s morality and invulnerability are just some of the issues that shroud around tradition. However as humans, we cling to tradition as it often gives us an identity, purpose, and meaning in life. As seen in the city of Omelas, the sacrifice of the morals of one individual to the good of the group is very powerful. This is why people in the city leave behind their own morality and let the child suffer. Tradition and making sacrifices for the common good of the group do not always have to be bad, but as seen in these two examples, they can be manifestations of selfishness, ignorances, and a loss of individuality.

1 Comment

This week I have watched another lecture. This one was presented by Dr. E. Bruce Heilman. He gave a lecture to a leadership class with the topic of Military Leadership. To begin with, what caught my attention almost immediately to this lecture was the title of the lecture: “Why They Never Talked About It.” Once I realized this lecture was going to be given by someone who had served in the military, my interest only grew greater, because I wanted to know the answer to the question of why they, as in people in the military, never talk about it. It being war. 

At the beginning of the lecture, Dr. Heilman created a timeline with his life. He explained how he had lived through the Great Depression, WW1 and served in WW2. He went on to express to the class that the hardships he faced at war, especially at such a young age as a teenager, prepared him for the challenges he later experienced in life. He then followed by explaining the surface reason why returning military did not talk about their experiences at war with their family by saying there wasn’t enough time to do so. They returned home to their wives and family to find jobs and continue living, without the time to address stories at war. At that moment Dr. Heilman addressed my interest in the topic by acknowledging that the lack of communication of those war stories, left future generations on a cliff hanger, hungry for what actually happened at war and what it was like. 

Dr. Heilman reveals to the audience that the reason he will reveal those realities was that he believed that they would increase the appreciation of the military and those who gave their lives for the country. He explains three things war movies have not been able to illustrate, the sound of the dying, the smell of the body decay, and the process of dying on the battlefield. These things he explains are things that veterans cannot to this day surpass. Interestingly but not surprising, Dr. Heilman, also divided into the idea of survivals’ guilt. He describes it as feeling selfish for surviving. He continuously expresses the questioning of his survival by talking about things his comrades were unable to experience a college education or the formation of a family. By the end of the lecture, Dr. Heilman reveals to us why veterans never talk about it. He says that he and his partners understood the severity of their experiences, and understood the lack of social norms they had. They were that their war stories were not presentable in table-talk. 

Leave a Comment

Although I was taught that women were granted the right to vote much later than men, I did not realize how big of a fight it took to reach that point. The videos definitely gave me a good look into the effort and years of fighting it took for these women to earn a right that all people should have. This then makes me think of how different things might be if women had been leading this entire time. In the article “Would Women Lead Differently?,”Schein writes about the different approach that women have to leadership that men generally do not possess. She mentions that the world would be a much more inclusive and peaceful place which I can definitely imagine to be true.

I also thought it was intriguing that women described themselves as transformational leaders and genuinely had the best interest of their followers in mind. This really makes me wonder how different our society would be with more women leaders, especially in the past. In general, the readings and videos really opened my eyes to the struggles that women faced in the early 1900’s.

 

7 Comments

    Appropriate Play

Susan Nevin 

I chose to go to the production, “Appropriate,” as one of my out of class Jepson Leadership events. This play’s storyline was focused around a family in which the father had just died, so all the grown kids had to come back to their childhood summer home to clean out his belongings and sell the house. When the children arrive, there is a clear conflict and unresolved issues between all of them, and they struggle to each take charge of the project. However, all their issues halt when photos of lynchings are found in their father’s house, along with the body parts of a black person. 

After this horrible situation, the siblings start to take sides. The daughter, Toni, believes that it is just a coincidence, while the two brothers claim that they may not know their father as well as they thought. This also causes a huge divide amongst the siblings, as Toni doesn’t want to think of her father in a negative light, while the brothers claim that she was his obvious favorite. After this, one of their own children finds a Ku Klux Klan hat in the attic, and all hell breaks loose. The siblings begin to fight, and they all leave in a hurry, leaving the house with its horrible secrets.

Leave a Comment