Oppression is prevalent throughout human history. The general population experiences what can sometimes be the harsh constraints of the parameters implemented and enforced by the prevailing authority within their system. There are times when these parameters can lead to incongruity in what the individuals of the society believe to be moral and fair. It is when this occurs, that a brave few will choose to act out in rebellion against the imposed system. This is illustrated in the short stories written by Ursula K. Le Guin, who is well known to have an anarchical streak of her own. Her works illustrate the empowerment that individuals can gain by holding on to their own beliefs. Her characters are able to experience how personally rewarding it can be to break free of both ethical and societal oppression. In The Masters, Those who Walk Away from Omelas and The Day After The Revolution, the characters rise above the constraints imposed by society by making conscious choices that result as they development their own set of ethics, and reveal a common ideal that criticizes oppression in society.
Knowledge is what lies at the very basis of freedom. The people in the world of The Masters are held in oppression as they are forced to take an oath to never learn more than the “Light of the Common Day” (42), or that which is already within the common knowledge of all people. The act of computing original numbers causes the people to be “accused of heresy” (53). Ganil, the main character, develops his own beliefs as he is forced to “struggle with [this] evil power and suffer in the process” (Scholes). He faces inner turmoil as he decides to refute the rules dictated by his society, and join an underground system dedicated to mathematical invention. Ganil finds that his beliefs lie congruent with the groups. The group believes in the freedom of the individual as they say, “come freely, day or night. And go freely. If we’re betrayed, so be it. We must trust one another. Mystery belongs to no man” (50). This line, “Mystery belongs to no man,” is a very profound way of illustrating the main theme of combating oppression. This story supports the “idea that knowledge itself, particularly self-knowledge, is a way to pass through power and into wisdom” (Scholes). Even though a member of the group is killed in his pursuit of knowledge the others are able to continue their journey into wisdom behind the backs of their Overmasters. They are able to rise against the oppression, and use their ethical beliefs to seek this wisdom and become free. Not free in the society, however, but free of society and its constricting parameters, for it is evident that there are times one cannot have both.
A world that at first seems to have both freedom in, and from, society is Omelas. In Those Who Walk Away from Omelas exists a utopia “without clergy, [and]…without soldiers” (280) and seemingly without oppression. Pages upon pages describe a city of which the freedom of the people can only be marveled over. The system seems to have been created perfectly, as the ultimate goal of life is reached as, “the people of Omelas are happy people” (278). But their happiness is tainted; for their utopia is built upon the retched treatment of one small, tortured 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…depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (282). Most are appalled at first but almost all of the Omelisians are able to rationalize this behavior. As Collins explains it, the conscience must do a lot of rationalizing in order to believe that the child would not be able to live outside of the life that has been created for it. And so the people are able to move on, they accept this one rule imposed upon their conscience by society in exchange for their own happiness. “In Omelas, the mean and the vulgar are accepted as a necessary part of existence” (Knapp). But there are others in Omelas, citizens who Sobeloff describes as being unable to “accept this bargain” as they feel “its hideous nature, even though an impulse arose within…to clutch at the happiness so offered.” These are the people who ‘walk away from Omelas.’ They rise against the single constraint of their society, based on the fact that their own morals will not let themselves live with the guilt. These people know that “they, like the child, are not free” (283) because “human beings ‘are not objects’ but subjects’. Hence, ‘whoever…treats [them] as objects is acting inhumanly, wrongly, [and] against nature’” (Burns). And for these few people, acting against nature and against their own beliefs is their personal oppression, present even in a city as ‘perfect’ as Omelas. And so, “they leave Omelas, and they do not come back…but they seem to know where they are going” (284).
