The Unsophisticated as a Freethinker

After discussing Sarah's blog in class, I went back to it and reread it to better understand what she was saying. The thing that caught my attention most was the fable she included. (If you haven't already, go read Sarah's blog for a summary of the fable.) I've never heard this fable before, and the use of particular characters is what really made me start to think in-depth about the story. I think it's interesting that it's a wolf (typically scene in fables, myths, and other morality stories as "the bad guy") instead of a stray dog or other animal as the one who chooses to be malnourished and free rather than well-fed and enslaved. One layer of this animal choice implies that sophistication and slavery go hand-in-hand, and that freedom and is found among the dregs of society. It begs the question - does this slavery make the person sophisticated, or is it their sophistication that leads them to choose enslavement?

When this question first occurred to me I dismissed it as rhetorical, that it was just another chicken-or-egg question that bears no importance. As I was revising what I just wrote, I decided that I wanted to change the word 'slavery' because it has very strong connotations that have nothing to do with what I meant by the question in general. In order to think of another word, I had to decide what I do mean by 'slavery.' Suddenly the question left the realm of Rhetorical and plunged into the land of Yes There Is An Answer.

A dog is sophisticated only because he grew up around human masters who feed him and give him "kind words and caresses". Dogs that don't grow up around humans are labeled strays and are only barely above wolves on the canine class ladder. The dog chooses slavery because it is sophisticated. On the other hand, wolves do not grow up with human masters because they are initially considered unsophisticated. Dogs are sophisticated because they are enslaved, while wolves are free because they are unsophisticated.

The spelled-out moral of this story is that people should never trade their freedom for anything. Digging a little deeper, the allegorical meaning of this story is that humans should not give up their individual ability to think independently in order to conform to the thinking of the masses. It is better to be a freethinker (unsophisticated but free) and be shunned by the masses (socially malnourished) than to conform (socially fat and healthy) and not be a thinker at all (sophisticated, yet enslaved by the mass's thoughts).

So, back to the rhetorical-turned-literal question - does this slavery make the person sophisticated, or is it their sophistication that leads them to choose enslavement? If we refer back to dogs and wolves - yet another way that the character choices in this fable mean everything - we see that enslavement (by the pressure to conform) is what makes a nonthinker sophisticated, while the freethinker thinks freely because he is unsophisticated.