Barbarity of Human Nature in the Lottery by Shirley Jackson

Barbarity of Human Nature in the Lottery Game by Shirley Jackson

One of the significant styles of Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery game” is the barbarity of human nature. The story illustrates an apparently typical American town, where individuals willingly take part in an annual custom of eliminating among their own. The person is selected randomly by a lotto, which provides individuals enough humanity to continue with the routine. Nevertheless, individuals of the town are not happy about their responsibility, as they see it. “There’s constantly been a lottery,” they say, and they believe this indicates there always should be.

They motivate each other, not for the killing, but for finishing it so they can get on with their lives. They mainly believe in what they’re doing if only since that’s just the way life is. In the exact same way, things we see as regular are barbaric or inhumane to other individuals or cultures. For instance, the majority of Americans consume beef and pork numerous times a week, and yet individuals in other parts of the world may think about that barbaric. Similarly, we would be frightened if someone ate a cat or canine, however it happens in other cultures.

Individuals of the small town also carry out this ruthlessness with removed civility. “Let’s get this over with,” they say, as though they were talking about repairing a roofing system in the rain, instead of stoning a neighbor to death. It’s hard to envision ourselves doing that to somebody we understand and even like. Impossible to consider. But things like this have happened on the planet on numerous occasions. People who range from humble beginnings to royalty, and from ancient to modern mimes, have actually devoted murder, and even genocide on extreme scales.

However, one may consider the lottery game itself as a sort of mercy. If the population must be scaled down, is it not more fair to do so by a random drawing? In basic, individuals would rather be amazed with their own death, rather than dreading it, maybe for their whole lives. Perhaps the concern is not of cruelty, however of ‘fairness.’ And obviously, fairness is extremely objective, and develops so much debate that no one can agree on anything.

One IEEE, undoubtedly, is that this is the most reasonable way of doing it; the other is that it merely should not be done at all. I agree with the latter. After all, “The Lottery game” states that several other towns have actually abolished the act entirely. Why shouldn’t this one, too? It is indisputable, though, that human nature can be extremely barbaric. Human beings have, and possibly will once again, stone individuals to death. When stoning is a common ritual worldwide, individuals end up being desensitizing to the ruthlessness, but that doesn’t change the reality that it is cruel.

You Might Also Like