In Shirley Jackson's, "The Lottery," one theme is
Man's ability (and need) to rationalize generally unacceptable actions. Murder, murder in the first degree, is what
takes place once a year in this village and many others. But the people of the
story don’t view it that way. Not once in the story do the villagers, or the
narrator, mention that someone will be chosen to die. This ceremony is
something that has been practiced for longer than the villagers can remember. Everyone
has their role in the ceremony. In the beginning of the story, all the boys
collect rocks, which we find out in the end, are used to kill the “winner”.
This heinous act is rationalized by the people; it’s even viewed as a burden by
some. One woman even says “come on, hurry up” once the winner has been chosen.
This story is not the only case of people rationalizing generally unacceptable actions.
In our own society murder happens daily. When I read this story, I compared the
villagers to gang members. Once their target has been chosen, some take part in
the killing, and some just stand around and watch. Murder is rationalized by
the gang members, whether it is for territorial rights or power, or simply
because their leader told them too. If these gang members couldn’t rationalize
murder, one would be safe to say they wouldn’t commit it. "If there's a will, there's a way" especially if behind that will there is a reason or a rationalization to back it up.
Playing the Devil's advocate, I would say that the villagers' rationale behind the sacrifice is easier to empathize with than the rationale of a gang member fighting over territory. Still, I think you've drawn a good corollary between the two concepts. I will note, though, that I think the villagers are trying to hurry up not because they are eager to stone someone to death, but because the ritual needs to be completed before a certain time to be effective. I could be wrong about that, but that's the sense I got from the context.
ReplyDeleteHere's some food for thought: since the "sacrificial lamb" was implicitly volunteering by participating in the ceremony, are we really talking about murder here, or suicide? Perhaps both?
I would agree that the villagers aren't eager to stone a woman to death, I mean some of them mention in the text that they want the Lottery to end.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call it suicide, I still definitely side with murder. I'll give you ritualistic murder, "its for the greater cause of the village", yadda yadda yadda, but not suicide. How I understood the story, she was standing up for her husband and saying that he didn't get enough time to pick. And then when it was determined that she was the one to be sacrificed, she screamed and pleaded with the crowd. People who want to die generally don't beg to be saved, correct?
Thanks for challenging my opinion of the story. I have a feeling that lecture will be good tomorrow. :)
^Wow! You've started quite a discussion here. I hope you'll bring up your gang member comparison in class. I think there's plenty to talk about, especially in this sentence: "Murder is rationalized by the gang members, whether it is for territorial rights or power, or simply because their leader told them too." It makes me question...what exactly do the townspeople get out of participating in the lottery? How do they benefit?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good connection in a way because in both cases the people involved are not valuing a person's life.
ReplyDelete