The Giver: Safety at the Cost of Freedom

In Lois Lowry’s dystopian novel "The Giver," a meticulously controlled society presents a dilemma familiar to many: would you be willing to sacrifice your personal freedoms for the guarantee of perpetual safety? This society, devoid of personal freedoms and individual rights, operates under a façade of harmony achieved through the erasure of memories, manipulation of language, and suppression of emotions. While these methods maintain order, they come at the cost of individuality and autonomy, raising profound questions about the value of safety versus freedom.

Societal Control through Spousal Selection

In the community depicted in "The Giver," even the choice of a spouse is dictated by the Committee of Elders, who analyze potential partners for compatibility over several years before allowing them to form a family unit. This system is exemplified in the quote, “They balanced each other. Their Match, which like all Matches had been monitored by the Committee of Elders for three years before they could apply for children, had always been a successful one.” (Lowry, 62). This reflects a broader theme within the society: the eradication of personal choice in favor of societal stability. By controlling such intimate aspects of life, the elders ensure that family units function without conflict, yet this control strips individuals of the right to choose their own partners, thus denying them the personal growth and emotional depth that come from freely formed relationships.

The Illusion of Safety in Decision-Making

Beyond marital choices, the community further suppresses individuality by limiting personal decision-making. The elders fear that allowing individuals to make their own choices could lead to undesirable outcomes or societal chaos. This is highlighted when Jonas, the protagonist, realizes the implications of choice: “Oh. Jonas was silent for a minute. ‘Oh, I see what you mean. It wouldn’t matter for a new child’s toy. But later it does matter, doesn’t it? We don’t dare to let people make choices of their own.’ ‘Not safe?’ The Giver suggested. ‘Definitely not safe,’ Jonas said with certainty. ‘What if they were allowed to choose their own mate? And choose wrong?’” (Lowry, 124). This conversation reveals the underlying fear of risk that governs the community, where the potential for error is deemed too hazardous to allow personal autonomy. By assigning jobs and roles, the society eliminates dissatisfaction and ensures compliance, but at the expense of the individuals' right to pursue their passions or challenge themselves, leading to a uniform yet unfulfilled populace.

Suppressing Emotions and the Human Experience

Another method of control within the community is the suppression of emotions, particularly through the regulation of "stirrings." These are natural feelings of desire and affection that are chemically subdued with medication. As illustrated in the text, “No, no,” she said. “It’s just the pills. You’re ready for the pills. That’s all. That’s the treatment for Stirrings.” (Lowry, 48). The administration of pills to suppress these emotions serves a dual purpose: it prevents the formation of deep emotional connections and regulates population growth by diminishing sexual desire. This control mechanism not only inhibits personal relationships but also deprives individuals of a fundamental aspect of the human experience—emotional depth and the capacity for love. By numbing these feelings, the society ensures predictability and order, yet it also creates a population incapable of genuine human connection, reducing interpersonal relationships to functional interactions devoid of passion or affection.

Conclusion

In "The Giver," the community's stringent control mechanisms ensure a superficially smooth functioning society, but at what cost? The suppression of personal freedoms—ranging from choice of spouse, career, to emotional expression—creates a conformist and emotionally barren community. While the elders' methods prevent conflict and chaos, they also suppress the essence of what it means to be human. The novel challenges readers to reflect on the balance between safety and freedom, questioning whether a life devoid of risk, choice, and emotion is truly worth living. In pursuing safety through control, the community sacrifices the richness of human experience, raising poignant questions about the value of individuality and autonomy in our own lives.

Did you like this example?

1104

58