AliciaRabbie

Well, what a surprise! It's been a year since I pasted this essay here~~ Well, my final GRE score is way low...only 3 for AW... But I've got into Yale~

It's my first attempt to write an issue~would you be so kind as to give me some suggestions or point out where i should work on better? Thank you very much for your precious time!:) 19. "If a society is to thrive, it must put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens." For the state founders, it reveals in the essential spirit of state constitution. For the bureaucrats, it relates to the political mechanism as a whole. The arrangement of the relationship between social success and individual well-being profoundly indicates the likelihood for a state on its endeavor on to prosperity. As a collective entity, the thriving results can be achieved nowhere without considering its welfare as a whole, speaking from the same aspect as the speaker. However, being more than a simply coalition of every individual, only when the interests of citizens are taken care of delicately can the society fulfill its own goal properly. Therefore it is the balance of the two elements that guarantees the mutual success. From the perspective of society, the overall social benefits have an indispensable priority, especially at certain circumstances when the overstatement of personal interest may put the whole state at stake. The typical result of is the ill arrangement of the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. It is already awful enough when the wealthy dressing up in delicate garment, having cate every meal, gaining political power by the exchange of money, while the poors endeavoring keep themselves warm, struggling for every meal and keeping extravagant hopes that their basic right would be respected. Situation is even deteriorated further more if the pure pursuit for personal interests is validated therefore selfishness disperses, avarice explodes, ending up not only as the gap being broader, but a vicious circle comes into being. How dangerous it is? The history of the Great Depression in 1930s at a global scale tells itself. The individualism that prevailed in the previous decade intensify the generation of the chaos as people tended to focus more on themselves rather than consider things from a broader aspect as a whole society. It is not until the New Deal, which successfully rearranged all the mis-function parts from a state-control prospective and brought people together under the slogan of working for the commonweal of the state, did things began to straighten up and American eventually evaded the jeopardy of being a Fascist country. That is how commonweal could save desperate people suffering from the over-emphasis of individualism. When it comes to the individual standpoint, however, always putting the success of society before each citizen’s benefits without taking specific circumstances into consideration appears to be quite perilous as well. Doubtlessly, a society can not be recognized as prosperous if its members are suffering of poverty, diseases, neither can it be regarded as thriving if its citizens cannot realize their deserved civil and social rights. We can tell from the criteria for judging developed countries and developing countries, among which the “average level” is always cited as an important element. Thus civil welfare is a crucial essence for the well being of the overall society. Furthermore, the paces of a society on the road of thriving would not be conspicuous if all the individual citizens are satisfied by their decent moderation in seeking personal success. Actually the society calls for capable individuals to lead its economy, politics and other functional parts. America, for instance, regarded as a super power, is the country from which the most Nobile Prize winners are as well. On the other and, it may sounds somewhat extreme, but ignorance of personal welfare may sometimes leads to social turmoil and revolution. Human beings have the instinct to fight for their happiness, or more originally, survival, and adversity stimulates this inherent power. Imagine a man in the lowest class of the social hierarchy, struggle around the brink of starvation and ailment, life and death, is oppressed by the outrageous officials everyday, what’s more, found out he himself is not alone with all his classes, then what will be his choice if a demagogic theory appears to call on all these people to fight for their freedom and future against the corrupted government who propagandas for the “social well being” and the “sacrifices of individuals for society” things all day long but leave those poor people behind and doing nothing about it? Will this it be appealing enough to evoke a social revolution? In some circumstances, it may, in some specific historic turning point, it did. In fact, the two elements of society and individual is not a pair of contradictory concepts, on the contrary, they can go along well once being properly taken care of. There is no need to sacrifice individuals’ boon in order to confine domination of social success. There we come to the conclusion that only when social and individual elements reconcile together, as individuals enjoying their life and devoting themselves to the commonweal ,can a society thrives in the end.