Slipping in Omelas

In “Slipping into Something More Comfortable” the concept of “slipping” is introduced as “an act of associative miss-speaking” (Cohen and Dalke 1), meaning it could be a Freudian slip, stereotyping, even micro aggression. It is usually negative but can become positive through regression into playful child-like behavior. However, for the sake of this paper, I will focus on the negative aspects of slipping that are offensive and even harmful in the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. Slipping occurs in the actions and inaction of Omelans.

Omelas is a metaphorical utopia. It intends to create cryptic imagery, making room for subjective interpretations throughout the story because it is like nothing that anyone will experience in this world: a world without inhibitions or guilt. Therefore, the people of Omelas are very susceptible to slippage due to their lack of remorse; because if you do not feel shame for saying something or doing something to correct the mistake you never learn to not say it or do that action. That means that things that are seen as common social norms to us, like being decently dressed when you’re out in public, do not in Omelas because you only learn that public nudity is wrong because people are made fun of and shamed when naked in public. It is even a crime. At the same time their lack of armies or organized religion show that no one takes offense enough to either cause a violent encounter or condemn someone to an eternal flame. 

In this short story, the citizens of Omelas never actually speak but their actions are instead illustrated so that the reader can understand the society. The catch to this utopian society is that a child must be kept in deplorable conditions away from the rest of the population. It is not a secret either. Children of Omelas are told about this when they are about eight or twelve and often visit the ostracized child after they learn of it. Some of them become angry and lash out at the child, others become depressed, but within a few weeks, most of the children come to understand that this is necessary for happiness. These actions or inactions are acts of slipping. By telling their children of the lonely child, the parents fall into an accepted tradition that creates a new generation of compliant adults who will not question the order of things. It is a repetitive cycle of giving children the idea of agency and then showing them the padded barriers that make their way of life very appealing.

By getting angry or depressed the kids shows how they truly feel, which is another act of slipping. These negative emotions are not completely foreign, but they “thought themselves superior” to strong negative emotions such as “anger, outrage, [and] impotence” (Le Guin 4). This is why the child in the cellar exists: so they can continually be happy and keep all of these strong emotions away from them. However, when seeing the child, they experience helplessness, which inspires these emotions. By slipping into these emotions, they display their true nature. This act of slipping occurs because the kids are vulnerable because they realize they do not have any true control over their lives. They are taught to give into any pleasurable desire they have but they cannot leave without losing this and it all depends on another’s suffering. Instead, they give in to deeper emotions that they were unaware that they were capable of unknowingly.  

Most people stay in Omelas for obvious reasons. The children who see the sub-human usually come to a place of understanding with themselves that it’s one child’s life versus the entirety of the village’s tranquility and prosperity, that even if they let the child out, it would get love and comfort that it wouldn’t appreciate or understand due to its feeble minded nature, and it wouldn’t last long either since their world would soon after crumble. Therefore they convince themselves that this way is better and they become comfortable with this way of life. The citizens are taking the easier route that avoids conflict and confrontation. 

Even on the other end of the spectrum when people just walk away from Omelas they are avoiding confronting everything about their little world. They see that this system is corrupt and still decide to leave it for someone else to figure out and avoid answering the hard questions that would bring the lack humanity of their neighbors and loved ones to the surface. In “Loner Chronicles” a short post by Free Rein, a child says Free Rein looks like a monkey (Free Rein 1). The mother had the chance to reprimand the child and teach the child that name-calling is rude and hurtful. Instead, the mom slipped, possibly without even thinking about the consequences. Not acting is just as harmful as active slipping because they can both negatively affect others around us. 

Slipping in Omelas locks the citizens in a paradox of what is safe and what is right therefore, their morals are constantly opposed to each other. They want to care for all children and provide a happy life for them but they cannot do that for the one child. However if they were to care for it then their own children might suffer. Therefore, they choose the safe path over the right path. It is commentary on how far we are willing to go to achieve happiness. However, is it true happiness if it depends on the suffering of another? This situation reminds me of the donut man, a Christian children’s show host who described the idea of shallow happiness by comparing it to a donut. This happiness is usually based off material goods and giving into one’s ego often. He would then get a donut hole, put into the donut, and say that the donut hole was Jesus and that you need Jesus in your life in order to achieve true happiness. I personally do not agree that you need an omnipresent being in your life in order to feel real happiness but instead I believe that if you practice compassion and kindness towards your fellow man, happiness follows. This is less of a reward but more a side effect. Therefore, when Omelians slip into what they consider comfortable, whether that is anger, giving in, or walking away, they all do it in order to fulfill a shallow happiness. Not until they confront the child and find a way to live without it having to suffer will their community truly be happy and content.     

 

References

Ursula LeGuin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. The Wind's Twelve Quarters. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

 

Chapter 8, "Slipping," in Jody Cohen and Anne Dalke, Steal This Classroom: Teaching and Learning Unbound. New York: Punctum Books, forthcoming 2017 

 

Free Rein (September 12, 2016). Loner Chronicles. Retrieved from /oneworld/changing-our-story-2016/loner-chronicles.

 

Slipping in Omelas                 

In “Slipping into Something More Comfortable” the concept of “slipping” is introduced as “an act of associative miss-speaking[JC1] ” (Cohen and Dalke 1), . Mmeaning it could be a Freudian slip, stereotyping, even micro aggression[JC2] . It is usually negative but can become positive through regression into playful child-like behavior.,run-on h However, for the sake of this paper, I will focus on the negative aspects of slipping that are offensive and even harmful in the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas[JC3] ”. Slipping occurs in the actions and inaction of Omelans.

Omelas is a metaphorical utopia. It intends to create cryptic imagery, making room for subjective interpretations throughout the story because it is like nothing that anyone will experience in this world: a world without inhibitions or guilt. Therefore, ransition word?Tthe people of Omelas are very susceptible to slippage due to their lack of remorse; because if you do not feel shame for saying something or doing something to correct the mistake you never learn to not say it or do that action[JC4] . That means that things that are seen as common social norms to us, like being decently dressed when you’re out in public, do not in Omelas because you only learn that public nudity is wrong because people are made fun of and shamed when naked in public. It is even a crime. . At the same time their lack of armies or organized religion show that no one takes offense enough to either cause a violent encounter or condemn someone to an eternal flame.

In this short story the citizens of Omelas never actually speak but their actions are instead illustrated so that the reader can understand the society. good The catch to this utopian society is that a child must be kept in deplorable conditions away from the rest of the population. It isn’t a secret either. Children of Omelas are told about this when they are about eight or twelve and often visit the ostracized child after they learn of it. Some of them become angry and lash out at the child, others become depressed, but within a few weeks, most of the children come to understand that this is necessary for happiness. These actions[JC5]  or inactions are acts of slipping. By telling their children of the lonely child, the parents fall into anis accepted tradition that creates a new generation of compliant adults who will not question the order of things. It is a repetitive cycle of giving children the idea of agency and then showing them the padded barriers that make their way of life very appealing[JC6] .

By getting angry or depressed the kids shows how they truly feel, which is another act of “slipping[JC7] ”. These negative emotions are not completely foreign,  aren’t illegal but they “thought themselves superior” to strong negative emotions such as “anger, outrage, [and] impotence” (Le Guin 4). This is why the child in the cellar exists: so they can continually be happy and keep all of these strong emotions away from them. However, when seeing the child, they experience helplessness, which inspires these emotions. By slipping into these emotions they display their true nature. This act of slipping occurs because the kids are vulnerable because Tthey realize they do not have any true control over their lives. They are taught to give into any pleasurable desire they have but they cannot leave without losing this and it all depends on another’s suffering. Instead, they give in to deeper emotions that they were unaware that they were capable of unknowingly.  

Most people stay in Omelas for obvious reasons. The children who see the sub-human[JC8]  usually come to a place of understanding with themselves that it’s one child’s life versus the entirety of the village’s tranquility and prosperity, . [fragmentTthat even if they let the child out, it would get love and comfort that it wouldn’t appreciate or understand due to its feeble minded nature, and it wouldn’t last long either since their world would soon after crumble.] Therefore they convince themselves that this way is better and they become comfortable with this way of life. The citizens are taking the easier route that avoids conflict and confrontation. New paragraph?

Even on the other end of the spectrum when people just walk away from Omelas they are avoiding confronting everything about their little world. They see that this system is corrupt and still decide to leave it for someone else to figure out and avoid answering the hard questions that would bring the of lack humanity of their neighbors and loved ones to the surface[JC9] . In “Loner Chronicles” a short post by Free Rein, a child says Free Rein looks like a monkey (Free Rein 1). The mother had the chance to reprimand the child and teach the child that name-calling is rude and hurtful. Instead, the mom slipped, possibly without even thinking about the consequences. Not acting is just as harmful as active slipping because they can both negatively affect others around us.

Slipping in Omelas locks the citizens in a paradox of what is safe and what is right[JC10] [AH11]  therefore, their morals are constantly opposed to each other. They want to care for all children and provide a happy life for them but they can’t do that for the one child. However if they were to care for it then their own children might suffer. Therefore they choose the safe path over the right path.  It is commentary on the human condition and how far we are willing to go to achieve happiness. However, is it true happiness if it depends on the suffering of another? This situation It reminds me of the donut man, a Christian children’s show host who described the idea of shallow happiness by comparing it to a donut. This happiness is usually based off of material goods and giving into one’s ego often. He would then get a donut hole and put into the donut and say that the donut hole was Jesus and that you need Jesus in your life in order to achieve true happiness. I personally don’t agree that you need an omnipresent being in your life in order to feel real happiness but instead I believe that if you practice compassion and kindness towards your fellow man, happiness follows. Not even as a reward but it is more of a side effect[JC12] This is less of a reward but more a side effect. So when Omelians slip into what they consider comfortable, whether that is anger, giving in, or walking away, they all do it in order to fulfill a shallow happiness. Not uUntil they confront the child and find a way to live without it having to suffer will their community truly be happy and content.     

 

References

Ursula LeGuin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. The Wind's Twelve Quarters. New                  York: Harper & Row, 1975.

 

Chapter 8, "Slipping," in Jody Cohen and Anne Dalke, Steal This Classroom: Teaching and                    Learning Unbound. New York: Punctum Books, forthcoming 2017 

 

Free Rein (September 12, 2016). Loner Chronicles. Retrieved from           /oneworld/changing-our-story-2016/loner-chronicles.