<p>Any feedback would be much appreciated! </p>
<p>Is it always best to determine one's own views of right and wrong, or can we benefit from following the crowd?</p>
<p>Along the path known as life, it is both hackneyed and expected that an individual will always follow the crowd. Our notions of the correct things to do are manipulated by the public opinion, and consequently that is what we follow through with. However, both history and literature beg to differ. While ostensibly, one may benefit from following the crowd, in reality individualism reaps far greater advantages.</p>
<p>By going against the status quo and speaking her own thoughts, Aung San Suu Kyi succeeded in bettering an entire nation. While living under the despotic governmental rule in Burma, Kyi and her fellow citizens were subjected to oppression, conformity, and coercive acts. In a heretical move, Aung San Suu Kyi pushed against the myopic regulations set on her by the government, speaking out against their repeated injustices. The implications of such an act were that eventually, Kyi and the National League of Democracy successfully supplanted the tyrannical government, and introduced democracy to Burma. While in an ideal communistic society, equality and similarity among everyone benefit the community as a whole, in situations where socialism has gone awry - like in Burma - a maverick who decides for herself what is right and wrong can upend an inferior country and launch it into development.</p>
<p>Just like Aung San Suu Kyi spoke out against the Burmese government, so does Winston from 1984 by George Orwell make his own justifications of goodness, and ultimately attempt to reform society. In Oceania, corruption and depravity abound. Winston and his neighbors are monitored unstintingly by the Party, and Big Brother is always watching to see who speaks out against the Party's ideals. While the majority of citizens docilely conform with the government's expectations, Winston comes to the epiphany that the Party is wrong; his lone thought is enough to spark the seeds of revolution between him and another woman, inspiring hope and a want for change in a city that quashes both. Consequently, when a person like Winston determines his own views of wrong and right, the large scale community benefits as a whole by potentially being able to reform its ways. </p>
<p>Ultimately, both Aung San Suu Kyi and Winston demonstrate similar ideals: against a society that faces left, it is possible - indeed, sometimes necessary - for an individual to look right instead. Nonconformity reaps its benefits from the uniform, monolithic views of its opponents, proving that individuality is more advantageous than going 'with the flow'. Indeed, it is sure to catalyze the world's development for many years to come.</p>
