When it comes to Leonie and Michael, their characterizations can largely be summed up in one of two ways: are they characters whose negative circumstances are merely a result of their own bad decisions or are they characters whose unfortunate lives are simply a direct consequence of their impoverished upbringings? Personally, I believe the answer to this question is quite complex and naturally requires a larger sample size than Leonie and Michael, and, on the whole, a very thorough analysis.
Regardless of political views, I think that, from a purely mathematical point of view at least, everybody can agree that poverty is often associated with drugs; or, in other words, children who grow up in low-income homes are statistically more likely to experiment with drugs. To back up this statement, I quote an article examining the relationship between "Economic Status and Abuse:" "Substance abuse is more prevalent among families living in poverty... Around 20 percent of people on welfare in America reported using some kind of illicit drug in the year prior to being surveyed."
Still, this far from answers my original question. I think far too many would see these aforementioned numbers and be ready to deem Leonie and Michael entirely blameless. I appreciate this sympathetic viewpoint, but I fear that this outlook is, in fact, a bit too sympathetic. My heart by all means goes out to low-income families; I can't even begin to imagine the struggles they face on a day-to-day basis. However, at the end of the day, people are human and have the power of choice. People (reminder: Leonie and Michael are people) are in control of their lives. It is the individual who makes the choice of saying 'yes' or saying 'no' to drugs. Will saying 'no' be harder for people of a lower economic status? Of course; this is exactly what the numbers show, but that is all that they show. The numbers are in no way an excuse for one to engage in drugs, nor are they a complete explanation of why one partakes in drugs. These numbers merely show that more people of a lower economic status engage in drugs than their wealthier counterparts-- a fact that has become blown out of proportion in America, and a fact that far too many use to justify the prevalence of drugs among low-income populations. Dismissing drug-abuse as a complete result of one's low-economic upbringing is no better than, say, giving up in a football game for being too small or completely giving up in school because of feeling too stupid. This is not to say that there are not some extreme situations in which a child grows up in such harsh conditions that drug abuse is simply bound to happen; I'm sure there are thousands of children in America who face such a tumultuous upbringing. On the whole, however, this is not the case-- the large majority of drug-addicted individuals, though they may come from a low economic background, made a choice at some point; a choice that they continue to make each time they pick up their drug; a choice that they continue to make every time they refuse help.
Getting back to Leonie and Michael, these characters in no way fall in the 'extreme' category I mentioned above. From what we are told in the book, both Leonie and Michael have a rather poor upbringing; however, both also went to a respectable high school and both seemed to have (at the very least) decent parents. We get a much closer at Leonie's childhood, and it is quite apparent that Pop and Mam were very loving parents-- parents that consistently looked out for both Leonie and Given. Accordingly, I categorize them as drug users who use their poverty as an excuse or justification for partaking in drugs. With this in mind, I think I can finally answer the question I initially posed: yes, Michael and Leonie had far from perfect upbringings, but they are indeed characters whose negative circumstances are a result of their own bad decisions.
Do you agree with me? Awesome, leave your comments below! Do you disagree? Even better, leave your comments below!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
(clicking view a bunch of times does not give you the crown of most views, just saying)
For the majority of your post, I will agree. Leonie and Michael, in my opinion, are predominately responsible for their terrible actions. However, I think that they do not blame the use of drugs in their financial situation but in their emotional/family situation. They both feel that they have been wronged by society and that they are no longer responsible for things such as following the law and raising a proper family. While yes people have done wrong by them, using that as an excuse is sad. Leonie and Michael just give up their lives and hopes for a better future because of their emotional state and outlook on everything else.
If the two individuals were to put down the unlawful behavior and focus on raising themselves up in society, I think they would have a much more fruitful life. Fruitful not necesarrly in the economic/financial way, but in terms of hapiness.
However the Leonie and Michael are just content, they frankly just don't care. This attitude towards life happens far to often in our own society, not just by people who struggle financially but also those whose families do just fine. I see it myself, everytime someone just stops trying. They simply don't care enough to study for the test, go to practice, or be kind. They are content with how they are and don't realize that by improving your own life you improve the life of all those around you.
I agree with Ritchie's comment in that Leonie and Michael blame their drug abuse on their family situations. They use the trauma from their family lives as an excuse to use drugs and become detached from society, not caring about how they effect the others around them. They're too self absorbed to genuinely parent their kids, no matter how much they actually seem to care for them.
I’m not saying money is the key to happiness, but typically people who are financially stable tend to have better family life and are better individuals over. Being poor doesn’t necessarily mean you are unstable, as long as you are satisfied with your wealth and are glad with what you have, money doesn’t really matter. Bennett says that sources have shown that a majority of drug addicts are individuals who are in poverty. What I am trying to say is that people who are in poverty in turn probably have terrible lives at home, which is why they use drugs to cope with their suffering and embarrassment. Poverty and family problems usually go hand in hand, so to pick and choose which one is the reason Leonie and Michael use drugs is kind of pointless. One usually leads to the other, so they are both complimentary causes. But yes, Ritchie is right in that there is such a lack of motivation in society. People do not care about bettering themselves or their family. It’s a terrible sight to see especially in today’s society. PS. This was not a must read post.
Post a Comment