Saturday, December 29, 2007

Society's Iron Gauntlet

Here's a question: are we free to make choices of our own, or are we limited and restricted by the rules of society? Is it like a pair of iron gauntlets: squeezing the throat of our free will and restraining our options?

Indefinitely, we as people do not have access to freedom to make choices in life; our surrounding societies indeed limit our decisions. What pieces of evidence do I have at hand? First off, a look back in time and history; Mao's regime - especially through the Cultural Revolution - through China's rise and development as a modern country.

In 1966, China's citizens could not freely express their opinions. This was a result of Mao's burgeoning paranoia at the time; his instincts as a political leader were kicking in overdrive, because within his close cabinet of colleagues were other individuals in power that decided to run the country in another way; more economical; more free for the people. And although Mao was only chairman of the Chinese Communist Party - and hence did not possess that great strength of the army and country - he still retained massive support from China's colossal population.

Armed with many who were steadfastly loyal to him, Mao instigated the purging of all forms of opposition. Stated clearly to the public, his conditions were effusively revealed to the public, and those who opposed would be forced to relinquish their jobs, their families, and even lives. China's citizens - many who loved Mao but possessed ideas that clashed against the Chairman's ideals - could not afford to make their own choices, and instead had to hunker down and simply endure his reign. His control extended so strongly that even the education system was banned and rewritten, and students were sent to the countryside for political reform. Even textbooks used for years and years in classrooms were not limited by the rules of society, for they could have contained ideas in conflict with Mao's own. In conclusion, this sums up just how individuals are not free to make their own choices in life; not when the rules of society is close at hand.

Another example to support this claim can be found in the literature work "The Lord Of The Flies" by William Golding. Ralph and Jack are potential candidates for leadership on an island where a group of young boys are stranded, and although the latter is the oldest member and does hold the most knowledge and strength, the former becomes overall leader due to common consent and majority of votes within the society of stranded kids. This shows that even one most suitable for the role as leader - being sagacious and strongest definitely brings out benefits - is turned down by the rules of society; that majority has to win.

Still, Jack refuses to let this hinder his ways; instead of falling under Ralph's leadership, he breaks off to form his own entourage, and Piggy, who remains steadfastly loyal to Ralph, faces a dilemma of either surrendering his loyalty and live, or else be held in grave danger. This shows the corruption of a society - a newly formed one under Jack's rule - that does not allow people to freely make decisions; blackmail emerges to try and gain control over the people, and as Piggy states that his spectacles - the only thing capable of creating fire on the island - can only be used by those who follow Ralph, he is killed by Jack's minions. This shows that speaking freely and heeding his brotherhood instincts only proceeded to get one killed, indicating that society's rules had overpowered him.

Also in the form of a literary piece of evidence is Arthur Miller's "A View From The Bridge"; Rodolfo is illegally immigrated to the states from Sicily in search for work. As he stays with his young cousin, and falls in love with her daughter, Catherine, and decides to marry her, he evokes the jealousy of Eddie, Catherine's father. In turn this builds up and catalyzes Eddie's decision to report the illegal immigrant and his brother Marco to the police, despite Rodolfo's justifiable reasons of coming to America. As the two Sicilians discover their incarceration is due to Eddie's betrayal, they ruin his reputation to the local neighborhood community, for everyone views blood loyalty above all others. Eddie, despite with good reasons to follow his choice of reporting to the police, is destroyed because society views his perfectly-justifiable course of action as the lowest insult and offense, and this leads to his swift death: an ultimate symbol that society - not rationality - governs one's decisions.

In conclusion, I again state that we as individuals are not completely free to make our own choices in life, because our surrounding society's will always restricts our options. Like Mao's regime in repressing opposition; like Ralph's entourage becoming attacked; like Eddie's rational actions initiating his downfall, the rules of society influence choices and decisions, and tightly controls the freedom of individuals.