Sophie’s Choice: A Return to Nature

In the film Sophie’s Choice, Sophie (played by Meryl Streep) is ordered by a Nazi officer to make the difficult choice as to which of her two children she keeps – one would then be gassed to death, and one would be sent to a children’s camp.

As any parent will testify, it’s an impossible decision to make. How can we choose between our children?

And yet Sophie was forced to.

On the face of it, Sophie’s dilemma is brought about by the cruel, inhuman behaviour of a Nazi officer, but there is more to it than this. The situation arose because in the death camps, the normal protections and rules of society no longer existed. Although surrounded by others, Sophie was alone. There was nobody or nothing to help her.

Within this harsh, hostile environment, with society effectively vanquished, it was a back-to-Nature existence. And in Nature, difficult decisions have to be made:

If there’s a runt in a litter, when does the parent give up hope on its survival?

If there are not enough resources to support a full litter, how and when does a parent give up on the survival of certain members of that litter?

Does a mother with a large brood of chicks try to keep them all alive, or does she concentrate her efforts and resources on those most likely to survive?

If one of her offspring is badly injured, does a mother continue to nurture it, or does she concentrate her attentions on the others, giving them a better chance of survival?

These are all life-determining decisions – parents having to decide who shall live and who shall die. It’s a troubling, undesirable responsibility. And yet, when governed by Nature, when there’s no society to help, such decisions have to be made.

Living like this, Nature may give some supportive guidance. For instance:

• Nature does try to ensure that parents are not overly challenged in the raising of their young. A female does not tend to have more offspring than she can realistically be expected to rear. Evidence even suggests that nesting birds lay more eggs during abundant times than during times of food scarcity.
• Animals do not have the same emotional development as humans, so making such tough decisions may not be as difficult or as distressing for them.
• Very few animals will have additional offspring when they already have dependent young. Most animals only breed when their previous offspring have reached some level of independence. This means that, when comparing and choosing among their offspring during hard times, the calculations are simpler. It’s much easier to make comparisons between the survivability and prospects of each offspring if they are all at the same stage in their lifecycle.
• The instinctive “survival of the fittest” behaviours of young animals mean that the strongest and loudest, the most dominant and demanding, are the offspring that get more food and are therefore more likely to prevail. The process is naturally weighted to ensure that the most likely to survive are the ones who do. This can reduce the need for parents to make difficult decisions.

This grim world of Nature is one humanity has striven to escape. We have sought to cocoon ourselves from the ruthlessness of Nature and from having to make such difficult life-and-death decisions by establishing a societal existence. Society exists to support and protect us, to shield us from many of Nature’s hardships. It enables us to bypass, disregard or quash many of the decisions we might have to face if we lived entirely within Nature’s remit.

Sophie’s Choice shows us what we might experience if society is not there to protect us and if the rule of Nature (as represented by the Nazi’s) takes control. We might have to start making some of those difficult decisions.

In the film, Sophie opted to save Jan (her nine-year-old boy) by sending him to the children’s camp, whilst sacrificing Eva (the younger girl) by having her sent to the gas chamber. Fearful of losing them both, she had to choose, but did she make the right choice?

It is generally considered that Sophie’s choice was based on survivability – that she believed a boy was more likely to survive the harsh camp than a girl.

That may be true, but there is another reason why Sophie may have chosen the way she did. Living in Nature and having to make such a choice, parents would normally favour the offspring they have already invested the most in, perhaps feeling they have a greater stake in that one. That offspring would also be more grown and therefore, in all probability, more assured of survival.

There will, of course, be exceptions to this. There may be a preference for a younger child if that child shows an exceptional quality that could be considered genetically beneficial and advantageous to their survival. It should also be noted that, as societies emerged, in certain societies males are considered more favourably than females and therefore a younger boy might be favoured over an older girl.

Although Sophie’s decision, from an analytical perspective, was the correct one, having to make such an emotional choice when tired, stressed, and threatened cannot have been conducive to clear, rational thinking. She was in a desperate situation, when life becomes purely about survival. In such circumstances, people do what they have to do.

Unfortunately, whether her decision was properly thought through or derived from some deeper impulse or instinct, Jan didn’t survive the camp. Sophie’s hopes went unrealised. It’s a sad tale of what might happen without society there to look after us.

Perhaps the message we should therefore take from Sophie’s Choice is an appreciation of having a supportive and protective society, one that frees us from the rule of Nature; one that excuses us from having to make such impossible decisions.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index