In grade school, we were expected to read The Giver by Lois Lowry. When analyzing the book, we were asked to imagine if this is what the world was truly going to become. To get a better idea, one day in class we sat in the computer lab working on our analytical essays and they played Imagine by John Lennon on loop for the entire period. Think, a bunch of young students being allowed to listen to music during their studies. I felt all my classmates around me basking in the privilege, I, on the other hand, got to thinking. My class listened to the melody, most of them for the first time, where I felt alone in imagining what John Lennon was truly trying to reflect. Granted, since I have a father so heavily interested in the art and sound of music, I had heard this song a million times before. It was not until the million and first, though, mid-day in the computer lab at Florence Sawyer K-8 school, that I did precisely what John Lennon was asking.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today


Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

My imagination ran wild, just as Lennon wished. While my imagination was running wild, as was my appreciation for musicians such as John Lennon, but that of course is a horse of a different color and especially beside the point. With this song, I was led into a sea of thoughts revolving around what we had been learning throughout the unit circulating Lowry’s The Giver. Particularly, I found myself thinking of the term that had been stated so many days in a row inside the classroom, “Utopia” that is what both Lowry and Lennon were trying to depict, a perfect world of equality that had all problems solved. My initial thought: this idea of equality and a utopian world seemingly lacks the opportunity for individuality.

From a very young age my mother has urged me to become a lawyer, or a politician. Her typical explanation is, and always has been, “you’re passionate, smart, and you care about people,” While this is quite the flattering compliment to receive since a young age, growing up it was a heavy load to bear. I was passionate, yes, but that is because I pride myself on using logic and knowledge to work through my opinions. Looking back, it feels like everything I think I know has been heavily directed in my studies and the similarities to The Giver are truly stronger than we all think.

Now, in this piece I am going to dive into the ideas brought to life by Lois Lowry, but, since it has been so long since I read the book, I am going to more closely reference the art that again started up this fire within me. In 2014, Lois Lowry’s imaginative nature reflected in her book was brought to the big screen featuring stars such as Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Cameron Monaghan, and Taylor Swift. The movie, The Giver, of which I highly recommend, I watched very recently and is now etched into my brain, begging for a reflection. This movie was an insight into the world Lois Lowry begged her readers to understand. Essentially, the book reflected total and complete equality for the masses, and the movie closely followed a similar pattern. Entire equality, well, at least that is how the characters saw it. All memory of the past was erased, and the society they lived in was very far in the future. The idea of death was dismissed, and instead was considered being “released to elsewhere” a phrase that removed all loss and sadness from the term “death”. People saw no color, they lived in controlled climate, and they abided completely by the rules set forth by the elders. As described by Jonas, the main character,

After The Ruin we started over, creating a new society, one of true equality. Rules were the building blocks of that equality. We learned them as Newchildren. Rules like: use precise language, wear your assigned clothing, take your morning medication, obey the curfew, never lie.

This new society took the malleable nature of young minds and conformed them in a way the elders found best fit for the community. All memories of humanity and its history, poof, gone. In the community, there is no teaching of the past, there are no feelings, and there is complete conformity. Here, in what they believe has always been the truth of society. There is no knowledge or experience of violence, pain, or poverty, but with that there is also no music, color, love, or joy. This is where Jonas, the chosen receiver, comes into play. Besides Jonas and The Giver, all people are taught to know is that they have a single occupation, which is their only purpose, and they all work together for what they think is the ultimate utopia. Here is the catch, it is only utopia because it is all they know, and for the people without memory of the past, that seems to work just fine. Members of society remain completely obedient to the system and what it stands for and if they do not, or they have inappropriate questions of the system, well, they are released to elsewhere.

Jonas and The Giver are in a different boat than the rest of the utopian community. Their role, chosen by the elders just as everyone else’s, is described by The Giver as follows:

You see, no one in our Community has any memory of the past. Only me. When the Elders need guidance on matters that are beyond their experience, I provide wisdom. That is now your role. To provide guidance in the present using memories of the past.

They were both chosen to receive all knowledge and memory of the past. All the past is shared with Jonas where for the first time he is introduced to feelings, color, loss, tragedy, love, and conquest. Most importantly, Jonas is exposed to courage, and just how far courage can take the mind. When Jonas realizes what he has been missing, he realizes how important it is to share what he now knows with the rest of the community. While the initial purpose of his occupation is only to advise the elders to make decisions that will not be detrimental to the society they have created, he takes into his hands a bigger challenge; returning livelihood to those who have been limited and restricted from understanding it.

When we read this book in grade school, we were told that this was their version of utopia. I remember, after reading this book, feeling anxious entering the classroom because I felt like maybe we were in a similar world. We are taught only what others want us to know. Others choose what is in the History books as well as what sections to focus on, and which to skip… that to me, well, that is slightly terrifying. Often we find ourselves blindly following the norms of society, and if we question them, often we are set back into our place. Does that seem fair? Does that seem real? Most importantly, doesn’t that seem familiar to Lowry’s imagined world?

Looking back, potentially with strong hindsight bias, I see that with the knowledge provided by this book, I was already developing a minute understanding of the power of relativism. Are we simply stuck trying to persevere in a society that has limitations in place for us… are there simple holes in our knowledge today? I sound crazy, and I am unsure of how much of what I am stating I believe in. Society seems fair, I’m just curious if it seems fair because we have been taught that it is fair. Are we unable to develop a definition of fair without communication amongst our species? I would say so, because even language is relative, so I guess I am wondering why we aren’t more curious. We need to be curious again, I don’t mean question everything, if that were the case we would drive ourselves nuts. I mean we need to use logic and imagination to find answers, we cannot limit ourselves. It is time to quite literally think outside of the box, the box being and representing the limitation that society places on us.

So now I must ask, what would Marx think? This utopian world seems right up his alley, no money, no competition, a singular goal, particularly, a society acting with no questioning and no interruptions. Blind following and understanding of a system that creates conformity for all. Because, in fact, curiosity did kill the cat. When taught about Lowry’s imaginative ideas, we saw it as so far fetch, so impossible, but oh the contraire, her ideas are that of historic opinions now expanded, exaggerated, and made extreme. The ruler of all rules, the eldest character in The Giver, played by Meryl Streep, states that “When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong. Every single time.” This reflects that those in the community, depicted by both Lowry and the director of the film, are so brainwashed that all are under the impression that there is no version of choice suitable for humanity to be responsible for. That said, like Marx’s wishes, the freedom of choice, individuality, and inequality is eliminated altogether. Communism, complete and utter communism.

This strikes me, as it should anyone who takes the time to analyze the masterpiece Lowry created. When reading this book, and understanding its details, at a very young age my classmates and I were taught to have the opinion that this so called utopian world was both an impossible, and a potentially dangerous outcome. Ignorance is bliss, that is how Lowry’s community functions, but I feel as though removing all memories, history, and human experience from a community full of individuals would lead to a never-ending cycle of people trying to break the system. In the community depicted, there are no truths other than the absolute laws set by the elders, I believe if this were reality, we would be removing all individuality and personhood.

Marx recognizes socialism as a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. If Marx is right, the more socialist we become, the closer we get to the state of the community depicted within The Giver. That said, I am afraid that what I have been taught has catapulted me into the belief system that capitalism should rule all because individuality, competition, and goal oriented decisions are strong, driving factors in our society. Am I a strong believer in capitalism simply because I am so afraid of what the other side would offer? I want equality just as much as the next person, but there is a difference between absolute equality and equal opportunity? Is equality even possible? If it is, how are we having such a problem solving it? Simplified answer: we are too busy teaching different versions of equality, entitlement, and privilege, that humanity can no longer keep in line both their negative and positive rights, let alone which they deserve.

Here we are stuck trying to find a balance. Yes, we want equality, but how far are we willing to stretch the definition of equality to fit the needs of man. Who are we going to choose who decides said “needs” and at what point does conformity hurt, not advance, the progress of human livelihood? We imagine a world without pain, violence, and all the negative adversity thrown at man and it seems wonderful, but pain shows us the value of pleasure and violence shows us how much to value peace. I am a true believer that without hate, love is obsolete. There are always lessons to learn in life, and without conflict we are essentially product of a life create for us, not by us.

All of this said, I recognize that humanity always seems on the fritz, and that we are all trying to find solutions. By eliminating problems altogether, we eliminate the drive for solutions. This action would result in the boring and less purposeful life of going through the motions every day with no alterations, exceptions, or healthy competition. Leading this life would quickly turn into leading a life which lacks an overall understanding that one day, everything we learn from adversity we face will have the power to cultivate and expand the number of our opportunities in the future. If that is ever the case, humanity will cease to evolve. That, as a state of society, would be the most detrimental of all.