-Conformity and Rebellion:
In my analysis of Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” I would tend agree that people are divided based on their roles and functions in society. This division of people may be outside of an individual’s or group of people’s control. This division of people may be driven by socioeconomic, geographic, political, ideological or technological reasons. There may be individuals in power that will dictate where classes of people should live and work. The divisions of people into classes can be seen in both the real world and fictional writings. There may be divisions of classes within the same group of people based on power and influence in that group. Some of these individuals in these groups may also consist of those rare individuals with a conscience, that Thoreau speaks of, who can influence change or incite a rebellion. If the actions of these rare individuals incites a revolution and takes down those individuals currently in power then I would agree they would be considered an enemy of the state.
People can also be divided based on their roles and functions in society without force or coercion. Their culture or customs of a society may dictate roles and functions. An individual may be born into this society with fixed expectations of their roles or functions. This agreement can be the seen in the case of Changez, in the Reluctant Fundamentalist. Changez was born into a caste system where his family held some form of power and influence based on their wealth even as their wealth was depleted across generations. The family’s status and role in society did not change. Some values or norms may be so ingrained in individuals that they are will to anything to uphold these values. These individuals may feel they owe a duty to their society and will make sacrifices to protect their ideologies and way of living. Changez choose what he is more familiar with in returning to Pakistan.
Behavior based on learned customs is not a bad thing. Being familiar with unwritten rules helps people feel secure and “normal.” Most people want to live their daily lives confident that their behaviors will not be challenged or disrupted. But even an action as seemingly simple as commuting to work evidences a great deal of cultural propriety. At birth, the human infant is a helpless biological being, completely dependent upon the care of others for its survival. Unlike other animals, we cannot rely on instinctual knowledge and skills. Somehow, that biological being has to be turned into a human – that is, a social – being able to function in culture and society. Socialization is the complex process of interaction and experience through which people learn the cultural ways of the society of which they are a part. But more than that, through socialization, they develop a sense of who they are: self-awareness, identity and personality. Socialization is the process that creates the fundamental link between individual and society: to be human is to be socialized.
Socialization is essential for the reproduction of society. By reproduction of society, I mean the persistence over time of a given social structure and cultural patterns. Societies endure over time when new generations learn and internalize – incorporate and make their own – the values, norms, language and practices of their society, a process called cultural transmission. Such learning and internalization is a major product of socialization so that even though members of society constantly change (through birth and death), the structural characteristics of society persist over time. Each generation is connected to the ones that precede and follow as they share a common social background that unite them as members of the same society. At the same time, such social continuity is essential for the survival of individuals. The human infant is kept alive through a network of people (parents, medical professionals and other caregivers) using their knowledge of child care, a knowledge accumulated in society and transmitted to them through informal interactions, education, books and other materials and distributed through social institutions (such as the family, the educational and health care systems). In other words, socialization makes possible the survival of society and its members because it is the process through which culture is passed from one generation to the next, through which social structures are maintained and through which new members are nurtured. As children are socialized into the way of life of their society, they accumulate social experiences that constitute the basis for the development of a personality. A personality is the combination of fairly stable traits that define social members as unique individuals. A personality generally involves a cognitive component (ways of thinking), an emotional component (ways of feeling) and a behavioral component (ways of acting). A personality develops through experience of our social environment as well as social interaction. And as children interact with others, they develop an awareness of how other people perceive them, that is, a sense of their social status. The set of statuses they occupy defines their social identity or social self. Without socialization, there would be no personality or sense of social identity. This has been demonstrated by cases of children raised without social interactions and experiences.
Humans are social creatures. Since the dawn of Homo sapiens nearly 250,000 years ago, people have grouped together into communities in order to survive. Living together, people form common habits and behaviors—from specific methods of childrearing to preferred techniques for obtaining food. In modern-day Paris, many people shop daily at outdoor markets to pick up what they need for their evening meal, buying cheese, meat, and vegetables from different specialty stalls. In the Canada, the majority of people shop once a week at supermarkets, filling large carts to the brim. The Parisian Roland Barthes disdainfully referred to this as “the hasty stocking up” of a “more mechanical civilization” (Barthes 1977). Barthes deliberately focuses on “ordinary people” to reinforce her point that mostly innocent people are forced into very difficult situations; they do not begin with an obvious anti-government stance. They often become “enemies of the state” despite themselves, often because they have simply refused to inform on their neighbor or family member.
In “Shooting an Elephant”, George Orwell feels out of place as officer or peacekeeper for the British Empire. Orwell is forced to take on the role to control the native Burmese people who despised him and his invaders. Orwell has his own reservations about this British Empire and his country’s hunger for world dominance. Orwell understands the Burmese people’s fears and sentiments towards the empire but he is also caught in the middle of the two. When Orwell is summoned by the locals to kill an elephant on a rampage, Orwell again is placed in an uncomfortable position or dilemma. Should Orwell kill the elephant to gain acceptance or become a hero of the people or should he stand his ground and save the animal? Orwell is also torn between his true beliefs with carrying out this deadly deed and protecting the image of the British Empire which he perceives as evil. Should Orwell conform to the norms of his society? To which system is he more connected to? The British Empire or the people his is tasked to control? This again is an example of being place in a role or function not out of free will but through fear and coercion. Orwell may be powerless, even while armed, to change his situation.
In many ways, Orwell’s experience mirrors that of Changez, in that both are caught between love-hate relationships with their new surroundings. Changez benefited from all the freedoms and great things America offers but is torn by his roles in an American society and what America stands for. Changez may feel he is turning his back on the values of his homeland, especially after then events of September 11. Changez feels America will not change its quest for world dominance and he may not want to play a role in those efforts. Changez chooses to return to his former role in society by returning to his homeland. Orwell may be trying to gain acceptance for his new environment but may feel he is not performing the duties expected of the British Empire. Orwell may not have the ability to change his function as easily as Changez was able to. In either case both Orwell and Changez are placed in roles that they may not conform to as easily or roles that conflict with their ideologies.
The Harlequin is a hero of the people in his efforts to rebel against a system that not only dictates people’s roles and functions in society but also a system that controls their time in all aspects of life. Losing time is a crime is this society. These oppressed people are expected to keep schedules and never be late or otherwise the loss time is deducted from their lives. By disrupting everyday activities and people’s schedules, the Harlequin is able to cause take away time from the system. These disruptions indirectly cause exponential delays in other schedules hence creating a disruption in the whole system.
While the people, at all levels, of this society seem to conform to the will of an authoritarian system, they also perceive the Harlequin as hero and savior. The reactions of these people when being disrupted by the Harlequin is not anger but applaud. They implicitly support the Harlequin in his efforts to rebel against authority. Harlequin is the rare individual who has become an enemy of the state. Although, the Harlequin was eventually caught by the Ticktockman, or master timekeeper, and sent for reconditioning, the Harlequin was able to disrupt the master timekeeper’s schedule. This action alone may have caused a critical failure in the system and prove that controlling people’s roles and functions does not work. The Harlequin may be born into a system that dictates his role but he may have also been born with a predisposition to be late or work at his own pace. The Harlequin is essentially sending a message to the people that they should be in control of their own time and role in society. This may be the impetus to influence change or start a revolution.
In Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”, the authoritarian government again dictates people’s roles and functions. There is no individuality, free will or self, but only the collective society. Any functions are controlled by the authority at departmental levels. This society impedes advancements and technology. The people are taught to speak in plural, there are no such words as ‘I” or “me” but only “we” or “us”. The people in this society are taught from birth that all roles and functions are controlled by the authority for the benefit of a collective whole. The main character, Equality, is born into the system and assigned as a street sweeper but possesses the intelligence to be a scholar. Equality is not in control of his destiny to become a scholar since there is no free will. Equality’s desire and actions to think and be creative are considered a crime or transgression.
When Equality finds a tunnel from a former more advanced society, he begins to perform experiments. Equality soon discovers electricity. Equality thinks that if he presents this new discovery to the authorities that he may become a scholar. Electricity would benefit the entire society and he would no longer be relegated to a street sweeper. When Equality presents his discovery to the authorities, he is deemed a criminal and is sentenced to punishment. Equality has taken a role outside of his assignment. The authorities request to have his discovery destroyed. Equality is able to escape to the outside and discovers another important thing, individuality and self-awareness. This is another example of how creating a hierarchy of roles and functions may not be in the best interests of a society as a whole. There is a natural process in the creation of roles or functions that materialize based on intelligence or free will to think and be creative. While most people will conform there is always the rare individual that will disrupt a system especially under oppression.

Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. 1977. “Rhetoric of the Image.” Pp. 32-51 in Image, Music, Text. New York:
Hill and Wang.
Ellison, Harlan. "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Literature: The Human Experience.
By Richard Abcarian. 11th ed. New York: St. Martin's, 1973. 401-410. Print.
Orwell, George. "Shooting an Elephant" Literature: The Human Experience. By Richard Abcarian.
11th ed. New York: St. Martin's, 1973. 816-821. Print.
Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.