October 4, 2014 - 01:32
Looking back on my encounter with the neglected stray dog on the street, I see an intriguing resemblance to Ursula LeGuin’s short story “The ones who walk away from Omelas”1. Although the circumstances in the two incidents are quite different, the underlying elements in both events are quite similar.
The dog I encountered on the street was in an awful state of health and appearance. It was dangerously thin, was missing large patches of fur, and had several rashes on its skin. It could quite safely be assumed that food was a rare luxury for it and it was undoubtedly leading an abysmal life. Meanwhile, a few doors down, there is almost definitely a pet dog that is guaranteed to be leading a life completely different to the life of the stray dog on the street. These pets are served two or three substantial meals a day, bathed as frequently as recommended, rushed to the veterinarian at the first sign of illness, and assured of a very comfortable life.
As heartbreaking as the stark difference of lifestyles of these two creatures of the same species is, one cannot make the claim that one dog’s lifestyle is entirely dependent on the other. The almost torturous life that the dog I encountered on the street leads is not by any means the reason that pet dogs everywhere lead such luxurious lives, or vice versa. A similar case can be made for the difference in lifestyles of individuals who have a home to go to at the end of the day, and homeless people. This phenomenon can be further generalized to compare the lives of the wealthy and the poor. Are any of these circumstances the direct result of another? Or as LeGuin’s story implies, is the suffering of one portion of the population the sole reason for the prosperity of the other portion?
In the case of the stray and pet dog, it can quite easily and accurately be said that there is no interdependence as there is in the fictional Omelas. The suffering of the stray dog is not the reason for the pampered lives pet dogs lead. It is the result of a combination of various factors including, but not limited to, the breed, requirements and preferences of the humans seeking to acquire pet dogs etc.
However, the line gets blurrier as the context gets wider. When we examine the case of the wealthy and the poor, and the vast difference in the quality of the lives they lead, the interdependency (or lack thereof) becomes much more complex to comprehend. It cannot be stated in full certainty that the rich are not wealthy because of the suffering of the poor.
St. Jerome stated, "All riches come from iniquity, and unless one has lost, another cannot gain.” 2 This explicitly reiterates the theme of LeGuin’s story: that those who are wealthy have reached this status due to the losses made by another party. This line of thought also helps explain how and why the African continent is widely regarded as “one of the richest parts of the world when it comes to natural resources, yet it is also the poorest region”. 3 Despite having the largest quantities of valuable natural resources, most of the African people live in absolute poverty. This is mainly due to the large-scale exploitation of labor that takes place at the hands of the multinational companies that ruthlessly exploit the African people in order to extract the natural resources that go on to make the companies millions of dollars, while the workers are paid minimum wage or less.4 In such cases, the situation that arose in Omelas, as extreme and unrealistic as it seems, is not too large a stretch from reality.
However, on the other hand, there are some wealthy individuals who earned their wealth through legitimate hard work and it is important to make this distinction, as including them in the same category as those who acquired their wealth through direct or indirect labor exploitation and other undesirable means, would be a terrible wrongdoing.
Regardless of the blurred lines of poverty and wealth in certain scenarios, I cannot fathom the ease with which most of the citizens of Omelas accept the premise that their happiness and prosperity is solely dependent on the torture of the suffering child. None of the citizens of Omelas doubt this “fact” even to the extent at which they would feel the need to test the accuracy of it. There does not seem to be any evidence to support the claim of the people of Omelas, and neither are any of them eager to search for any.
LeGuin’s story unsettled me because it completely ignores the sort of cause and effect needed to make it compelling. “To throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one… would be to let guilt within the walls indeed,” she says—and so eliminates any reason for the people of Omelas to take responsibility for their actions, because they believe that everything that takes place in Omelas is entirely due to the torture of the child.
I find it impossible to comprehend that the starved and neglected child in Omelas is singularly responsible for the wellbeing of the citizens of Omelas—just as I doubt any causal connection between the suffering dog I encountered on the street and the pet dogs of the world. The existence of vast power differentials, although unfortunate and unfair, is the effect of years of luck, chance and perseverance. To assign the responsibility for inequity to the less privileged is an insult to both parties on an almost equal scale.
References:
- LeGuin, Ursula K. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Mankato (Minnesota): Creative Education, 1993. Print.
- Seldes, George. Great Thoughts, Revised and Updated. N.p.: Random House Group, 2011. Print.
- Mannak, Miriam. "INTER PRESS SERVICE." DEVELOPMENT-AFRICA: Why The Richest Continent Is Also The Poorest. N.p., 5 Sept. 2008. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
- Pear, David W. "Make Real News!" Africa: Incredible Wealth, Exploitation, Corruption and Poverty for Its People. N.p., 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.