The Cost of Happiness - Hashmi Rafsanjani 2

8/7/2019 The Cost of Happiness - Hashmi Rafsanjani 2

1/10

The Cost of Happiness

As depicted in the Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Hashmi Rafsanjani.

Eng 201.

Ursula K. Leguin in her short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas divulges fervently

into the realms of utopian happiness. Where divine happiness is achieved Leguin attempts to

comprehend the terms of achieving that very happiness and consequently, brings out the stark yet

innate reality of achieving happiness. I, in this paper would attempt something similar. I intend to

discover the nature and implications of achieving happiness as portrayed in the short story The

Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. Furthermore I intend to go into the portrayal of happiness

by learing of the foundations on which this happiness stands and its roles in forming an Utopian

state. Lastly and rather importantly to complete my understanding of this happiness I want to

realise whether the lengths we travel to achieve such happiness is truly vindicated at the end of

the day.

The story kicks off in absolute camaraderie. Resting against the prowess of the Eighteen Peaks,

and embraced by the warmth of the bright seas Omelas is home for the protagonists of this story-

the citizens of Omelas themselves. Riding the change of seasons the citizens of Omelas in their

mauve and grey make their way up north to the Green Fields. On the beat of tambourine steps

they walk, making small talk, watching their children run around abound in joy tending to their

race horses. As Omelas celebrates, a feeling of belonging was instilled in me wanting to be a part

of this great joy.

It seemed that this right here is pure joy sans complicated implications. This unbound and

humble depiction of joy however serves a fitting opening to the latter irony of the story, and a


2/10

reference to that irony is perhaps made when Leguin articulates the citizens apparent simplicity

with a not so simple remark. She writes of the Omelasians, They were not simple folk, you see,

though they were happy. I felt this remark here offered a subtle contrast to the storyline thus far.

There wasnt any evident notion of any complication to their happiness; however with this line

Leguin seemed to suggest quite the contrary. It leads one to wonder, if the concept of happiness

really is as straightforward and simple as the ardent wind on the banners of the Green Fields are,

then why its bearers-the citizens arent.

It is in the words of Leguin the array of elation is further captured. While the sights and sounds

of Omelas please it citizens senses, the citizens further go on to please themselves. There arent

kings, any monarchies, or the weight of submission. There arent bureaucracies, or sycophancies

or the entangles of financial agendas. There arent the burdens of propagandas and products;

there arent the enforcers of arbitrary morals. There arent pagans, nor the variants of divine

Gods. You wouldnt see a priest in Omelas, rather their temples is a space of individual rituals.

There isnt a divide between a subject and an owner; there isnt destruction, or the mighty tool

for it either. Leguin does without all forms of autocracies, institutions, slavery and weapons of

mass destruction. There isnt even a waste of the fundamental energy that ran Omelas.

Consequently implying that this very utopia on which Omelas stands has been possible due to its

citizens accomplishment in parting with all of the aforementioned ideas. Hedonism and

aggressiveness has been ineffective in bringing about Utopia, whereas simple happiness and

sacrifice has been.

While the ease with which years and years of masculinity, aggressiveness and hedonism has

been desensitized and the parting of ways with these principles and governances may suggest

that perhaps the protagonists are of hollow characters, Leguin sharply reminds us that it is not the


3/10

case. She states, Yet I repeat that these were not simple folk, not dulcet shepherds, noble

savages and bland utopians. They were not less complex than us. Henceforth, Leguin brings to

the floor an unique idea.

Leguin sheds a new light on our very idea of utopianism and its reverences to happiness. Utopia

as proposed by (Socrates) is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-

legal system. In popular literature and sociology texts it is often understood that such a system

will impound its citizens with a bordered realm of emotions, a fixed context of actions and

pacified remonstrations. For an Utopia to function, all its citizens must feel the same, must act

the same. They must be a strictly unified body of individuals with a strictly singular goal. That is

the holistic benefit of the state.

Utopia offers its subjects a perfectly harmonious life at the cost of liberation and individual

fulfillment. It leads us to believe that the cost is so extensive, that it even extends on to the

emotion of individual happiness. And thus once weve reached a certain Utopia, we are numb

and indifferent to stimuli and the world around us. Happiness is only that which has been

standardized by the governing forces. Happiness is only that, which has been unanimously

agreed upon by the governing authorities. A fixed set of coded reactions to stated stimuli

nonetheless. Therefore, since happiness in an utopian society roots from a lack of emotion,

somewhat a mandatory sequence of criterion it seems that happiness itself is of no value at all. It

looks as if happiness isnt an accomplishment of the heart and conscience, more of a knee-jerk

reaction. It is something whose inception in an human mind in an Utopian society, is merely

coded and seeded, and its conception is feeble and insignificant.


4/10

However it is here, I believe where Leguin casts her most wonderful spell and amazes us with

her contrary beliefs. Firstly, Leguin mentions our assumptions on happiness, The trouble is that

we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as

something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the

artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain It cuts through to

our basic notions, with the sole intention of creating a Utopia at the back of our mind, which is

our differentiation between the powers of happiness and evil. We attribute intellect and

pragmatism to emotions such as hatred and jealousy. We believe that the intrinsic qualities of

evil is interesting, something to ponder and perhaps praise.

On the other hand, we offer little thought on the lengths that one must travel in order to achieve

happiness. We presume that happiness doesnt render the bearer of the emotion burdened or

weighted. There is a sense that being happy is an inferior race of emotion, than being aggrieved.

She tells us this very idea is a stereotype, and that there is much to give and take in achieving

happiness. It isnt as insipid as one may concur. Not surprisingly her assertions were somewhat

influenced by the timing of the writing of the story.

Leguin compares the ideologies of her living world to that of the fantasy world of Omelas. Yet

the relevance of the two cannot be ignored. Leguin wrote The Ones Who Walk Away From

Omelas amidst the chaos of the Vietnam War contrasted by momentous social change in

America. The chaos abroad was contrasted by the pompous inauguration of President Nixons

second term. Rapid advancements were made in the space technology frontier with space station

launches and solar system explorations. A sense of arrogance seemed to have been educed by

these successes abroad and home. Society felt far more superior than ever. It is in that very sense

of superiority, that the possibility of the formation Utopia might have occurred to the American


5/10

society. Utopia seemed achievable only with such dominating attributes, and the concept of

happiness again fell insipid and feeble compared to the stronger emotions of hatred and pain.

Leguin went on to write in the story that,

We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe

a happy man, nor make any celebration of joy. This may well have been a reference to the

veneration with which the society regarded aggressive characteristics whereas happiness and the

emotion was considered widely to be a more elementary attribute of a human personality. It was

widely accepted that the aggressiveness is ever important to win wars abroad, advance

technologically at home and lead the state towards a near-perfect scenario. In fact this went on to

such an extent where it became increasingly difficult to describe a happy man, and much easier

to make out someone whos in pain or serving out hurt.

However what transpired since that age has clearly shown that the much revered characteristics

of aggressiveness and the emotions of hate, have failed to create any such panorama of complete

bliss. The world is still at war, differentiated and discriminated between social classes its citizens

are a flagrant contrast to those of Utopian Omelas. Instead, Omelas based on their shedding of

such domineering and instead embracing the idea of implicated happiness has been successful in

achieving an Utopian state. The implications of her indicated happiness will be understood better

in latter parts of this essay however, for the moment her assertion has been shown to have held

true.

Leguin, with the timing and inclusion of such parables indicate that happiness is not a simple or

uncomplicated emotion of the human soul rather it comes with much implications. That

happiness even amongst the citizens of Omelas came easily not because of their bland

personalities, but something more than that. Furthermore, the process of achieving of an Utopia


6/10

owed much to this implicated breakdown of happiness than it did to outright aggressiveness.

This assertion which would later be proven quite correct, then simply leads us to our next

questions. These questions once answered will make it evident as to why happiness really is not

a one-dimensional emotion.

We realize that achieving happiness is crucial in order to form an Utopian state. At the same time

if achieving happiness does have implications, then what are they? And if those implications

have a measure about them, to what extent do they lie?

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas gives us a paradoxical answer to that. When Omelas,

in the words of Leguin appear to us to be a most a perfect rendition of socio-economic success,

Leguin tries to inject some contrast to it. She within her wordplay allows the reader to include

any element or idea that might mar the one-tone perfect image of Omelas she created. Ranging

from promiscuity to outright alcoholism, Leguin now wants us-the readers to view Omelas in a

different light. She wants the readers to attribute any derogatory element that stresses the perfect

Omelasian image that she herself created. In doing so it shows us that happiness, even in the

minds of Omelasians arent as clean and unsophisticated at the earlier innocence of the

celebrations may have suggested. The importance of such drastic intervention is to show

happiness in a different light.

One may again wonder at this point the necessity of such suggestions, however it soon becomes

evident. The merry fair livens up amidst the music and rich crumbs of pastry. As one child

signals the start of the horserace, with his flutes decrescendo Leguin tells us a tale of yet another

child. She asks, Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? directly


7/10

engaging the supposals of perfect innocuous happiness that any reader may still hold. This

creates doubt and Leguin capitalizes in due manner.

She tells us of a child, locked in a cobwebbed dungeon somewhere beneath the metropolis. The

child lives on, curiously devoid of light, air or life. Fear, neglect and malnutrition (K.Leguin) has

rendered the child imbecile. The child once might have known family and from time to time

remembers it, but mostly what it remembers is the frequent torture and hunger it lives through. It

mostly remembers the eyes full of hatred that stare down at him at times, and the putrescent

room in which it has lived for so long.

Leguin tells us the importance of the suffering of the child, They all know that it has to be there.

Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the

beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of

their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly

weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery. Simply put, the

sustenance of the happiness, the Utopia that is Omelas is solely dependent on the inexplicable

suffering of the child.

Every Omelasian, that comes of age is made aware of the suffering of the child. Upon hearing

they are shocked and enraged, disgusted too. However they do realize that eventually they can do

nothing about it and hence carry on their lives in culpability. They are happy, but they realize the

reason behind their happiness is anything but. Leguin in what turned to be one of the most

important parts of the story explains that, Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is

necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive. Drawing parallels

to Omelas, she believes that its citizens are happy because they have successfully differentiated


8/10

and balanced between the three categories. Omelisians know that the suffering of the child is

necessary, that the luxuries and advancements they enjoy is neither necessary nor destructive, yet

the very torture and crucially the knowledge of the childs suffering is potentially destructive.

The principles of Omelass eternal happiness is explained.

Leguin argues, that those who are capable of maintaining a balance between the enlightenment

of the three divides are the ones who are truly happy. They are the ones who realize that their

own individual happiness resting on the hunched, fatigued shoulders of a certain child is

necessary evil. They may desire to reprieve the child of its dire situation, yet they understand that

it would mean the seizure of the Utopian society that is Omelas. They understand that the

destruction of one innocuous soul is important, to sustain the souls of their own civilizations.

They understand ultimately, that their happiness stands precariously upon their three pillars of

knowledge. It is therefore made clear, that an Utopia can only be sustained with complicated and

labored happiness, not bland happiness nor un-sophisticated.

However, Leguin enthralls us by adding yet another twist at the very end of the story. Once an

Omelasian has been made aware of the situation, they are faced with an astonishing reality. For

many, even though the reality is preposterous, it becomes a way of being. They understand the

deeper need for such an incongruous event to take place and move on with their lives. They seem

to have accepted the price theyve had to pay for their happiness regardless its decadence.

However, Leguin lastly focuses and perhaps praises those select few who decide not to continue

with this fiddled realm of nirvana. They are the ones who rejecting the balance of their individual

happiness, decide to walk away from Omelas. To them this abject torture of the child is not only

inhuman, but the happiness that the childs suffering invokes in them is much atrocious. As they

walk out of Omelas, Leguin contemplates their destination. She says, The place they go towards


9/10

is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all.

It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who

walk away from Omelas. Even though she concedes her inability to comprehend their

destination, she lauds their determination to walk away from this apparent immorality.

Conversely, that very concept of immorality brings us to the one paradox that this story

emanates. The very idea of this essay was to understand the nature of happiness Leguin has

attempted to showcase. However, the underlying motive for me was to understand the efforts and

obligations one has to have in order to realize that happiness. The story through the Omelasian

context, teaches us two lessons. Firstly, happiness is not a simplistic and immature emotion and

is the most important factor to bring about an Utopian society. And secondly, that happiness

requires a price of sorts.

The ending of the story depicts the loss of identity that some citizens have upon knowing the

source of their unbound happiness. However for them the very source that was supposed to

sustain their happiness is what brought them unhappiness. At the same time for those willing to

go ahead with their lives, choosing to put aside the knowledge of the childs suffering for their

own individual happiness, it also carried a price. That price being the abject unhappiness of the

child.

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K.Leguin captivated me, and taught me that

at the end of it all implicated, informed and intellectual happiness comes at a price. The price

being happiness itself.


10/10

Works Cited

K.Leguin, Ursula. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. NA Publications, 1973.

Socrates. Utopia. March 2011. Sunday March 2011 .

Documents

The Cost of Happiness - Hashmi Rafsanjani 2