Skip to main content

Why do the citizens of Jonas' community believe that the strict rules of the community are good?

I believe your question is in reference to Lois Lowry's novel, The Giver, which tells the story of a young boy named Jonas who holds a special role in his highly regulated community. There are at least two answers I can think of.


First, the people of Jonas' community have grown up in this strict way of life and have grown accustomed to it. As we learn from the experience with Gabe, people who do not adjust well to society are "released." Because these people have been told all their lives that this is the way society ought to be, and all evidence points to the efficiency of such a community, they do not have any reason to believe otherwise. What's more, almost everyone in Jonas' community lacks knowledge or memory of things like suffering and joy. Life just is as it is for most people. It is not until Jonas is given these memories by his mentor that he comes to suspect that his community might not be ideal.


We should also consider the practicality of Jonas' society, which is arguably modeled after highly utilitarian or communist societies as described by Karl Marx. In a truly communist society, everything is done for the benefit of the community and organized through the state. While it's a very attractive idea to create a society that aims to entirely support all its members equally, we find in The Giver that some people still suffer and are sacrificed to achieve this ideal. The point I want to make is that the community Jonas grew up in is so highly regulated that it must have been "designed" at some point. The person or people involved in outlining and organizing such a controlled society must have believed that it was truly for the benefit of the community to impose such a strict degree of equality on all people. Even though it requires actions like the "release" of difficult babies, people in Jonas' community must have felt that their societal organization was the best way to do things. That is, if they questioned it at all.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more