Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Sacrifice

Different Perspectives: Warrior or Sacrifice in Omelas
“The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursla Le Guinn, is a controversial piece of literature. Thrown among many critics with discussions based on sacrifice, scapegoating, and the varying philosophies of the mind-action relation. In standing of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, the debate of the child’s role in society can be of many colors; but deeper is the child’s role specifically in relation to America, a topic yet to be uncovered. Critics have often simply asked if one would stay with the knowledge of the child underground or scapegoat. I question why the child is uninformed of the good it is causing, as well as the real benefit of violence,

war, and sacrifice for peace. Also, the real intentions and meaning of references to The Bible. To begin this analysis, Girard a major theorist will start us off, then Bruce Brandt as a theorist, Linda Simon as a writer, and last but not least Katniss Everdeen as an example.
In the fictional short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, the utopia is seemingly perfect. Introduced with an event, “The Festival of Summer came to the city” (Le Guinn 273), the community proves to be functioning efficiently. All the way down to the core, this city is seemingly naturally “joyous”. As “there was no king.” (Le Guinn 273), the author is careful to leave the needless rules and laws of the utopia up to the reader. Surely the city cannot simply be as flawless as described. Then inevitably, the darkness of their world is revealed: “In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas…” (Le Guinn 275) there is a child. A sacrifice, or warrior, or scapegoat, call “it” whatever you would like. This child, kept underground is the “scapegoat”, per se, of Omelas. This child keeps the cities balanced regime of complexity. “They were not simple folk, you see, though they were happy” (Le Guinn 273). This is where the untouchable child “sacrifice” comes into view, and the debate is sparked.
Girard for starters, explains his outlook on the structure of civilization.

He has found a way to relate religion, sacred, and violence. Girard’s theory explains the foundation of all humans and systems is primal violence, explaining their need for peace through that particular source: violence. In Violence and the Sacred: Interpretations of René Girard in Christian Philosophy and Peace Studies, Girard points at civilization and questions its structure based on human acts and The Bible. Humans try to follow a religion, unknowing of what “God” really expects us to do. We have a guideline, The Bible, but that does not point humans any which way in a real life situation. They tend to desire what they desire, even if it is undesirable by other humans. As a theorist, he focuses on the concepts of “mimetic desire” and “scapegoating,” linking them to “religion,” the “sacred,” and “sacrifice” through The Bible. The ironic characteristic Girard possess is that he has not always been Christian or looked for answers religiously. Violence, to Girard, is present in all men, not just one. It is built into the base of society through the prophetic writings and primitive religions. This is the reason Americans act through violence in daily life, it is natural. Other critics seem more concerned with the reality of scapegoating, structure of society, and all this in relation to

religion.
Furthermore, Bruce Brandt’s piece, Two Addition Antecedents for Ursla Le Guin’s, uniquely focuses on the connections between Le Guin’s themes to those of other authors. As well as the specific Biblical manifestations of sacrifice. Brandt is focused on the increased empathetic effect of a child scapegoat. Since a child as a scapegoat has more of an emotional effect on those being presented the setting of sacrifice. If the sacrifice was not a child, but instead a parallel to the suffering servant Isiah, the citizens may be able to accept it more freely. Many citizens say there is no chance, that they could accept the child of Omelas as a scapegoat. This inquiry, can be undermined by the simple statement by Brandt that “moreover, Omelas is not ultimately about the child per se, but about the choice that confronts each of the city’s residents.” It is the conscious choice of the citizens to live by their roots of violence. Girard would agree, as he also theorizes that the root of humans is violence. Society has been built to make the violent choices that are made. For instance, to imprison, sacrifice, and go to war.
William James's Lost Souls in Ursula Le Guin's Utopia is written about James, by Linda Simon.

She begins with stating one of James’s main analysis, that every citizen is a pragmatist. Pragmatism is an important term to James. He describes it as a method of making decisions based off of the consequences, to all, that follow. Simon argues that James, yet another theorist, supports the fact that they project their own community’s ethical systems. James is a firm believer that Americans act with the consequences of their actions in mind, or by a pragmatist method. Not one soul is forcing Americans to be violent, it is simply in their nature. The difference between The child and the “suffering servant” is that one does not act altruistic. The child will never have feelings of satisfaction or redemption for its purpose in life. James, alike Girard seems concerned with the actual meaning of God. Since the truth can be guessed, and debated endlessly. Every critic has their standpoint, but James states that God has a strong ethical voice that is “tragically challenging.” Humans inevitably, are guilty of committing countless sins to each

day.
In the end, the story is not about the child. Rather the choice everyone is faced with to stay put with guilt, or desert the utopia for solitude. Choices of sacrifice can be set in many standards. For example, Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 alike Isaiah but also very differently sacrificed herself for her family and community. The point that stands out about Katniss is she was named a hero. Warriors and soldiers are also oftentimes referred to as hero’s. They fight for what they love, their families, countries, and lastly their own life. Katniss, in terms went to war in place of her sister, which could have easily been avoided if she had not been willing. She had the choice, the feeling of redemption, and can be named a living example of a hero.
In depth, those in America who scapegoat millions of souls every day, are the main concern. Whether it is to produce goods in foreign countries in which they consume, or send soldiers to war. As arguable as it may seem, some may be more comfortable with the knowledge of a scapegoat if it is put in different terms. The child underground, could be awarded the name of a warrior—not a sacrifice. The child gets no redemption of knowing what they are suffering for. Americans can be compared closely with the those of Omelas, since the difference between the two is slim. Furthermore, this concept ties into the dispute of the acceptance we have created, to send thousands of men to fight for peace, but the sacrifice of one child is frowned upon. The root cause of these issues can be reasoned among multiple theorists who believe they have “discovered the structure of society.”
In conclusion, humans, specifically Americans accept the scapegoat every day. The difference from Omela’s utopians and America is slim. Citizens of America talking down on the utopians of Omelas, for the choices they make is cowardly. The scapegoat, sacrifice, and violence, uninformed theme is everywhere in America. The main world problems such as hunger, oppression, overpopulation, war, and lastly violence can be better understood by knowing the building blocks of a society. Americans do not truly know the expectations of God, or meanings of references from The Bible. According to Girard, James, and Brandt it is what it is; society is raised, formed, and kept violent.