In the short story “the Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, one of the themes is that although the consequences of a tradition may be morally wrong, pointless, and inhumane, people as a society mindlessly continue to practice it for the only reason being that it is tradition. Such ways of thought have historically led to many devastating events on the human timeline. From the racism and slavery of African Americans, to the killing of thousands of Jews in the holocaust, to the losses at the World Trade Center, how have we as human beings and as a society performed such “pointless violence and general inhumanity” (Shirley Jackson)? In this short story, Jackson bestows this state of shock and horror in the audience by demonstrating how the power of traditional thinking can lead to the merciless stoning of an individual and the loss of civility within the society.
The fear of the unknown is one of the strongest emotions a person can possess. What will happen if “the Lottery” was given up? Will their society starve for the “’lottery in June, corn be heavy soon’” (199)? Will they as a society no longer strive and be forced “to go back to living in caves” (199)? In their village the “flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green” (194), but would this all go away if they stopped the lottery? For their parents performed it, and their parents before them, reaching as far back as to when their people settled into the village. This fear of the unknown brings power to a society as a whole. For alone someone can light a match, but together a society can burn a city to the ground. This leaves the reader in a state of distress, for how is the stoning of a woman justified by the mere fact that it is simply the outcome of a tradition they have always known?
Jackson also invokes shock and horror in the reader when she reveals the loss of civility as a result of these traditional practices. As villagers nonchalantly gossiped and children played, stuffing their pockets with stones, the shocking ending of the outcome of “winning” the lottery demonstrates the lack of remorse felt throughout the village. Furthermore, the loss of civility is observed when “someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles” (202) with which to stone his own mother. Another instance is when Ms. Hutchinson tries to give up the lives of her own children in place of her own, yelling “’There’s Don and Eva…Make them take their chance!’” (200).
War,
race, religion, and politics: four pillars that are present in a society. All of
which contain traditions that have been sent down generation after generation. However
the question remains will they also be the elements that bring us down? In
conclusion, in “the Lottery” Jackson sheds light on the consequences brought on
by traditions based on “pointless violence and general inhumanity”. Jackson demonstrated to the reader that,
although many may not be consciously aware, there are shocking and horrifying consequences
to traditions still present within their societies.
-Aryn Banovic
Aryn,
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post! I love how you implemented actual historical "devastating events" into your introduction. As a reader, that made me sympathize and understand more about what you are telling us. Also, I like how you asked rhetorical questions to the audience. My question is: although it was an ancient rite, did you find any other means for the anually occurring stoning? I think many people would have different answers. Again, great post.
David
Aryn, Awesome post. I'm right there with you when it comes to the atrocities of our world's past, too. I'd like to take that a step further though.
ReplyDeleteDavid, As to your question, the stoning, I think, can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Here's one.
Aside from war, holocaust, etc., I think it's fair to stay we "offer up our own" for "stoning" in many more ways than just that. More subtle ways, which we treat with the same casual consideration that the villagers in Jackson's story treat their horrific tradition. Let me offer an example.
Today, there are certain American citizens who are still not afforded the same rights and privileges as other Americans. Why? Because of their personal beliefs or way of life. These individuals are cast out by their own families, ostracized and belittled by society, and ultimately hung out to dry by the very laws supposedly designed to protect them. I'm not speaking about African Americans or anyone of a different color (though they suffered this - and still do to a degree - in our history). I'm talking about non-traditional couples. Non-traditional being: gay, lesbian, transsexual, etc.
Currently, there are laws in place across the country set up to proverbially "stone" those we deem not in accordance with our global ideas of right and wrong. The same groups who believe it only right to take down those "offenders of tradition and goodness" pass down their beliefs to their kids as a tradition of belief.
While all of us have our own ideas, and all of us should respect one another's ideas, is it not cruel and unusual to try to impose those ideas on others? To try to oppress or injure someone who does not think in the same way? I think Shirley's depiction of the stoning is intended not to highlight just our most horrible offenses against our fellow man, but against the individuals who are chosen by chance to suffer some difference.
In a less extreme example, the casual discourse between Mrs. Delacroix and Mrs. Hutchinson on 197 underline our global treatment of each other. Generally, we as a society are pretty polite and friendly. The relationship changes on 201 when the town discovers Tessie has won the lottery. Is this not an excellent analogy for what we do to each other when we discover an individual is an "other"? Other can be a lot of things. Gay, fat, skinny, black, brown, yellow, handicapped, etc.
I'd love to know y'alls opinion on the matter. What does Jackson mean, really, when she says the "everyday violence and general inhumanity in all our lives?" Maybe it's more than what I've said already.
-Serena
Serena, I think your comment here points something out that I have been trying to put my finger on. You say that when Tessie won the lottery, she becomes an "other," and suddenly the townspeople have no problem throwing stones at her. That, more than the stoning even, I think is what makes this story so terrifying to me. It's that Tessie was One of the Them at the beginning of the story, but that one slip of paper suddenly turned her into an Other, someone that no one could communicate with, relate to, or pity.
DeleteMaybe this is how it relates to the Holocaust, too, as Aryn points out. What is horrifying about historical moments like that one is the reality that people can all too easily turn a neighbor into an enemy, a friend into a nonentity. The Holocaust was frightening because it was neighbors turning in neighbors, customers turning in shopkeepers, teachers turning in students. A relationship had once existed between these people, but one realization or change was able to upend the trust and turn the people against each other.
Thanks for this observation. I had not looked at the story quite this way before.
Aryn, thank you for your insightfulness on the fear of the unknown and how it relates to Jackson's "The Lottery". Also, the loss of civility is very apparent, and stands out to me even more than the prior. It really is amazing how one short story can have so many meanings beyond what is just on the exterior. There is quite blatantly something else that Jackson is trying to do other than just tell a story about a innocent women getting stoned.
ReplyDeleteDelving more into the loss of civility, it is obvious that we as a people lose sight of the differences between right and wrong every day. We mosey along, living life without any consequence (usually). As a rule, here in the 21st century, we are protected from coming face to face with our problems. Whether it be email, texting, or even social networking, we rely on cyber space to deal with confrontation and other issues. This has brought us to a place where we are blind when it comes to morality.
Over a large expanse of time, we have become very desensitized to the common (sometimes dysfunctional) ways of the world. For example, rock and roll used to be considered something of the devil, but today it is one of the most popular music genres. What about foul language? Kids used to get their mouths washed out for cursing. Now it is all too common. Why? Because we do not see the forest for the trees. It is what we do. Why should we change?
This seems to be the same state and mentality of the people in "The Lottery". This is their tradition. It is what they have always done. Why should they change? They are desensitized to the fact that it is "shocking and horrific". They are more scared to change their routine than they are of maliciously killing a friend, mother, and wife for no apparent reason.
To answer the question: What does Jackson mean when she says the "everyday violence and general inhumanity in all of our lives?", to me, is Jackson asking what it will take. What will it take for humanity to remove the wool from their eyes and see the loss of morality? Obviously, this story is very extreme. But maybe that is the motive. Maybe Jackson feels like this is what it will take for there to be an awakening.
The most uncanny facet to me was that all of the characters seem to take this very lightly. It is comparable to a picnic or festival. I realize that this is tradition and it is what the people do, but why aren't people sad to see Tessie go? Can't it be tradition without the nonchalant attitude?
-Jordan
You brought up some really great points, but to answer your question "can't it be tradition without the nonchalant attitude?" I think you already answered it without even realizing it. "Because we do not see the forest for the trees", is the way I believe you put it. I think that the characters in the story are suffering from the same phenomenon of a sort of "desensitization" because it has just occurred for so long. All they see is a forest, not every single tree that is required for it to continue being a “forest”. In addition you brought up that the same phenomenon is occurring in our society from the internet, TV, and cell phones. Which is a good point but I don’t mean to sound rude but you say the result is the loss of “morality”? Did washing kids mouth out with soap (speaking from experience) stop children from using “foul language” in the past? And should we ban “rock and roll” because some people do not like it? Maybe I am getting the wrong message let me know!
DeleteWith internet and cell phones, we do not have to face up with our problems. We become a society that has no clue of how to act socially. What I was trying to say by loss of morality (difference between right and wrong) was a comparison to losing focus on what is "right". Washing kids' mouths out with soap didn't stop them from doing what they did (clearly). However, parents didn't stand for it and at least tried to stop it. We are desensitized to this situation now and don't necessarily consider cursing to be wrong. Some people considered rock and roll to be wrong also, but now we listen to it every day and are desensitized to some of its foulness. In the story, nobody even sees that stoning an innocent person is wrong....the society is desensitized to the horrible action (just because it is tradition), just as we have become desensitized to things that were once considered wrong in our society. I hope this may clear things up. I can see where it could have been misconstrued.
DeleteI think maybe it's not that they aren't sad. It's that the Lottery is normal, so they can't be -too- sad about it.
ReplyDeleteThe town is relieved when Tessie's youngest son and daughter are shown to not have the "winning" ticket (201). I think Jackson's intent in showing this emotion is to again underline what you said, Jordan. These people are still human, just as we're still human. They still feel loss and anxiety when their tradition victimizes the young. They're more worried about what change may bring than the results of the Lottery.
The definition of "tradition" is this: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation (dictionary.com). The nonchalance you reference is because it IS tradition.
Of course, if someone stepped into our classroom and demanded a sacrifice, we'd vehemently object because we're not used to such demands. However, anyone can get used to something if repeated over time. I think this, too, is another aspect which lends itself to horror.
WE react with nonchalance when something horrible occurs in our society. Take the Aurora shooting for example. Yes, we had that initial grief and shock at such an attack; however, where's that indignation now? Have we done anything to prevent something like that from happening again?
Not really. Maybe that's what Jackson's getting at. Yes, everyone in the story may be sad for a time. They obviously worried that the kids may have been chosen, but in the end it doesn't matter. To them, it's better to just get on with their lives, as we do, and have done, and will continue to do.
Wow guys I am so glad I was able to enlighten so many ideas! Alright there are so many questions so I think I am going to start off with David. You asked "although it was an ancient rite, did you find any other means for the annually occurring stoning?" Great question by the way I never really thought about that. I Understand Serena's post in saying that we do continue to "offer up our own" so that others who are more "privileged" can continue to live the way they do (at least that's what I picked up on), which was great incite. However, I feel like the real answer David was looking for was not examples of this occurrence in our society today, although I think that was one of Jackson's purposes for writing this story, but of why must we "offer up our own"? Is there any other way for others to not die so others can live? However, I feel as if this question cannot be answered just yet. If we as a society knew this answer don’t you think there would be no more war, hunger, or murder?
ReplyDeleteMaybe she's saying, too, that there isn't an answer. It could be that she's effecting change just by writing something like that. Maybe she guessed people like Mrs. Grover would come around, have us write and think about it, and that we could possibly pass on our thoughts to others and thereby inspire an answer.
ReplyDeleteYay that was along the lines of what I was trying to say in my paper! I'm so glad you got that and thanks for all your great points. It really got me thinking and its only lunch time!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe example that you used, Serena, really helped to clear things up for me. The "winning" ticket (201) not being given to the children brought about relief. The people in the community are at least a little bit remorseful when it comes to stoning the young. Maybe the community as a whole feels as if the children haven't even gotten to live their lives yet. But let me say this, if one of the children had been the "winner", would someone in the crowd have volunteered to stand in the child's place? An adult who had seen a little life, maybe? Possibly even his/her own mother, Tessie? Probably not. The remorse only goes so far, until one person's own life is at stake. This story is definitely inspiration. Inspiration not to allow the wrong things to become tradition, just out of the simplicity of repetition.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Aryn! I agree with David, I really love how you used examples within American society. Although this is a short story, relating it to the feelings of losing those in 9/11 and the oppression of African Americans, truly allows us to relate the story to events we have experience with.
ReplyDeleteSerena, I love your quote "To them, it's better to just get on with their lives, as we do, and have done, and will continue to do." Such a raw statement!
I have noticed the use of the word "repetition" (Serena, Jordan) and "annually" (David) and "tradition" (Aryn) within our current posts. I feel that these characters within the story are obviously undergoing obvious psychological disturbances.
REPETITION/ANNUALLY
From a psychological standpoint, repetition ultimately leads to persuasion. Old Man Warner is a great example of this, he, being the oldest man within the village, has been experiencing this "lottery" far longer than anyone. When the stoning begins, directly before the Mrs. Hutchinson's last words, Old Man Warner says,"Come on, come on everyone." (202) This, to me, shows a sign of leadership. He is the most ready and willing to get everyone to participate. Do y'all think this may be because he has experienced the most "repetition"? Therefore causing him to be the most persuaded individual? I think it is interesting to not only see how society deals with these instances, but also individuals. I guess because this story does not allow us into the minds of the characters, we all may have different interpretations. What character stands out to you? What do you think he or she is thinking?
TRADITION
In this short story, as for tradition, is this just an appealing adjective societies use in order to alleviate feelings of guilt?