"[W]hat makes things break up like they do?"
Alternative Explanations For the Societal Breakdown
in William Golding's Lord of the Flies
© Copyright 1999, Skylar Hamilton Burris (This version has been edited to remove spoilers for my class.
The original is available at http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/lord.html )
In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, Ralph asks Piggy, "[W]hat makes things break up like they do?" (127). It is a question that has given rise to much speculation in critical circles. What causes the societal breakdown on the island in Lord of the Flies? Golding himself has said the cause is nothing more than the inherent evil of man; no matter how well-intentioned he is, and no matter how reasonable a government he erects, man will never be able to permanently contain the beast within. But other critics have offered alternative explanations, most of which are based on the assumption that the beast can, in fact, be contained. Bernard F. Dick argues that the suppression of this natural, bestial side of man results in its unhealthy eruption and the consequent societal breakdown. John F. Fitzgerald and John R. Kayser suggest that, in addition to original sin, society's failure to reconcile reason with mystery causes the breakdown. Finally, Kathleen Woodward contends that when the beast is not suppressed strictly enough, when law and order is lax, evil erupts. Although we need not automatically accept Golding's explanation of his own text, when alternative views fail to provide an appropriate rationale, it is not unreasonable to assume the author's viewpoint. The three aforementioned critical views can be refuted, and Golding's simple summary can explain what these more complex theories do not.
Golding's own explanation for the breakdown of civilization in Lord of the Flies was delivered in a lecture given in 1962 at the University of California at Los Angeles. He describes the breakdown as resulting from nothing more complex than the inherent evil of man: "So the boys try to construct a civilization on the island; but it breaks down in blood and terror because the boys are suffering from the terrible disease of being human" (Golding, "Lord of the Flies as Fable" 42). For Golding, the structure of a society is not responsible for the evil that erupts, or, at least, it is responsible only insofar as the society reflects the nature of the fallen man. The shape of the society the boys create is "conditioned by their diseased, their fallen nature" (Golding, "Fable" 41). Indeed, Golding claims to have intentionally avoided inserting some things into the novel that might have led readers to conclude that the society itself, rather than the fallen man, is responsible for the breakdown:
The boys were below the age of overt sex, for I did not want to complicate the issue with that relative triviality. They did not have to fight for survival, for I did not want a Marxist exegesis. If disaster came, it was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another. It was to rise, simply and solely out of the nature of the brute. (Golding, "Fable" 42)Many critics, in spending time explaining the breakdown, talk about what the children did (or failed to do) to make the breakdown occur. The implicit assumption behind all of these explanations is that if the children had simply done something different, the breakdown might not have occurred; in other words, the beast within man can be contained under certain circumstances. But Golding's explanation provides no such hope. Disaster arises "simply and solely out of the nature of the brute." Of course, we need not accept Golding's explanation for the breakdown in Lord of the Flies simply because he is the author. New Critics, for instance, will argue that meaning is inherent in the text itself, and Reader-Response critics will tell us that it is the reader who creates meaning. (In discussing the accuracy of the various explanations for the breakdown, I will be looking to the text itself.) Whatever an author's intention may be, his work may end up communicating something quite different. As even Golding himself admits, at a certain point, the author loses authority over his text: "I no longer believe that the author has a sort of patria potestas over his brainchildren. Once they are printed they have reached their majority and the author has no more authority over them, knows no more about them, perhaps knows less about them than the critic who comes fresh to them, and sees them not as the author hoped they would be, but as what they are" (Golding, "Fable" 45). Other views than the author's may certainly be entertained, but they must provide an adequate explanation for the breakdown as it is depicted in the text itself before we can accept them.
One such alternative view is Bernard F. Dick's argument that the societal breakdown is caused by the suppression of the Dionysian, or "brute" side of man. Dick agrees with Golding that "evil is indigenous to the species" (Dick 15). Indeed, he seems to believe that his own explanation for the breakdown is perfectly consistent with Golding's view. Yet, implicit in Dick's argument is the assumption that the brute side of man can, in fact, be contained under other circumstances, a possibility that Golding's view, as presented in his 1962 lecture, does not supply. Dick argues that, in moderation, this brute side of man can actually be "beneficial to society" (13). This is an optimism that Golding does not seem to share when he says, "Man is a fallen being. He is gripped by original sin. His nature is sinful and his state perilous" (Golding, "Fable" 41). Furthermore, Dick argues that Ralph's "class consciousness" causes him to "think in terms of excess" which leads to his suppression of Jack's bestial side and its consequent eruption (19). Golding, as has already been mentioned, believes that the breakdown "was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another" (Golding, "Fable" 42).
<large section edited for spoilers>
Kathleen Woodward, like Fitzgerald and Kayser, also opposes Dick's interpretation, but not by introducing a third mythological parallel. Rather, her argument directly contradicts Dick's, despite the fact that she applauds him for "[a]ptly" describing Lord of the Flies "as an anthropological passion play" (Woodward 88). For whereas Dick argues that the suppression of the beast within leads to its eruption, Woodward argues that the indulgence of it does. In her article, "The Case for Strict Law and Order," Woodward contends that Lord of the Flies actually presents a convincing argument for the imposition of strict law and order to suppress violent behavior. Dick claims that Ralph excessively insists on more rules, while Woodward asserts that "the problem is that there are not enough rules: a system of rules is necessary for when the rules are broken" (94).
Woodward begins her argument by declaring that "Golding presents us with a completely unrealistic model of the origins of human politics" (90). She claims that Golding does not show us how a rational society breaks down, but "how the conceivably pleasant condition of anarchy disintegrates under the pressure of aggression" (90). Ignoring for the moment the seeming oxymoron of a disintegrating anarchy, we can see that Woodward is still addressing basically the same question as the other critics. Why does the trouble arise in Lord of the Flies? Woodward's answer contradicts her premise that Golding is showing how anarchy disintegrates. She argues that the problem is the lack of strict law and order. But if strict law and order is imposed, then anarchy ceases to exist. The imposition of strict law and order can not stop the disintegration of anarchy; if it could stop anything, it would be the disintegration of society. So let us assume, for the moment, that what Kathleen Woodward is really addressing here (despite her reflections on anarchy) is the reason for the disintegration of society.
Golding, Woodward says, "has misread the moral of his own fiction" (93). He does not show that violence arises "'simply and solely out of the nature of the brute'," but rather "how a society . . . can degenerate into lawlessness when there seems to be no apparent . . . ties binding people together" (Woodward 93). Lord of the Flies is not so much a "resigned plea" that the shape of a society depends on the ethical nature of the individual as it is "an argument for strict law and order within the democratic system" (Woodward 93). Jack causes the break up of the society; had he been contained, had "the sweet persuasions of democracy [been] sharpened by force," the problem would not have occurred (Woodward 93). Jack must be fought, for "[a]ggression requires aggression" (Woodward 94). Basically, Woodward argues that the only way the beast can be contained, the only way that society can endure, is if Ralph were to "smash Jack's political machine, which involves us in an unpleasant contradiction that Golding does not face (England was forced to go to war against Hitler)" (Woodward 94).
Golding does not fail to face the issue of World War II. In fact, the issue is very much at the heart of his novel. And if he declines to confront Woodward's "unpleasant contradiction," then that is because it does not exist, at least not in Lord of the Flies. The novel presents the war of the "grownup" world not as an "unpleasant contradiction," but as a tragedy, a breakdown of society not unlike the one that is occurring on the island. If Roger's sadism is temporarily restrained by the taboos that were once imposed through strict law and order, then let us not forget that this restraint is "conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was in ruins" (Golding 56). If the civilization is in ruins, then obviously strict law and order did not work there.
<large portion edited for spoilers>
E.L. Epstein calls Golding's explanation "merely a casual summing-up on Mr. Golding's part of his extremely complex and beautifully woven symbolic web" (186). Yet it is this "casual summing-up" that ultimately provides the most consistent explanation of the breakdown in Lord of the Flies. Of course, the four views examined in this paper are not the only possible explanations for the breakdown, and literary criticism may yet find a theory that explains the breakdown as well as or better than Golding's own simple summary. Neither does the fact that these other theories inadequately explain the breakdown in Lord of the Flies necessarily mean that they inadequately explain the breakdown of societies in the real world. Lord of the Flies is, after all, a fiction, and one may object to its premise.
Works Cited Baker, James R. William Golding: A Critical Study. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965.
Dick, Bernard F. William Golding: Revised Edition. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987.
Epstein, E.L. "Note on Lord of the Flies." Lord of the Flies. U.S.A.: Puntnum Publishing Group, 1954. 185-90.
Fitzgerald, John F. and John R. Kayser. "Golding's Lord of the Flies: Pride as Original Sin." Studies in the Novel 24 (1992): 78-88.
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. U.S.A.: Puntnum Publishing Group, 1954.
Golding, William. "Lord of the Flies as Fable." Readings on Lord of the Flies. Ed. Bruno
Leone. Sand Diego: Green Haven Press, 1997. 88-97.
Woodward, Kathleen. "The Case for Strict Law and Order." Readings on Lord of the Flies. Ed. Bruno Leone. Sand Diego: Green Haven Press, 1997. 88-97.
Alternative Explanations For the Societal Breakdown
in William Golding's Lord of the Flies
© Copyright 1999, Skylar Hamilton Burris (This version has been edited to remove spoilers for my class.
The original is available at http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/lord.html )
In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, Ralph asks Piggy, "[W]hat makes things break up like they do?" (127). It is a question that has given rise to much speculation in critical circles. What causes the societal breakdown on the island in Lord of the Flies? Golding himself has said the cause is nothing more than the inherent evil of man; no matter how well-intentioned he is, and no matter how reasonable a government he erects, man will never be able to permanently contain the beast within. But other critics have offered alternative explanations, most of which are based on the assumption that the beast can, in fact, be contained. Bernard F. Dick argues that the suppression of this natural, bestial side of man results in its unhealthy eruption and the consequent societal breakdown. John F. Fitzgerald and John R. Kayser suggest that, in addition to original sin, society's failure to reconcile reason with mystery causes the breakdown. Finally, Kathleen Woodward contends that when the beast is not suppressed strictly enough, when law and order is lax, evil erupts. Although we need not automatically accept Golding's explanation of his own text, when alternative views fail to provide an appropriate rationale, it is not unreasonable to assume the author's viewpoint. The three aforementioned critical views can be refuted, and Golding's simple summary can explain what these more complex theories do not.
Golding's own explanation for the breakdown of civilization in Lord of the Flies was delivered in a lecture given in 1962 at the University of California at Los Angeles. He describes the breakdown as resulting from nothing more complex than the inherent evil of man: "So the boys try to construct a civilization on the island; but it breaks down in blood and terror because the boys are suffering from the terrible disease of being human" (Golding, "Lord of the Flies as Fable" 42). For Golding, the structure of a society is not responsible for the evil that erupts, or, at least, it is responsible only insofar as the society reflects the nature of the fallen man. The shape of the society the boys create is "conditioned by their diseased, their fallen nature" (Golding, "Fable" 41). Indeed, Golding claims to have intentionally avoided inserting some things into the novel that might have led readers to conclude that the society itself, rather than the fallen man, is responsible for the breakdown:
The boys were below the age of overt sex, for I did not want to complicate the issue with that relative triviality. They did not have to fight for survival, for I did not want a Marxist exegesis. If disaster came, it was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another. It was to rise, simply and solely out of the nature of the brute. (Golding, "Fable" 42)Many critics, in spending time explaining the breakdown, talk about what the children did (or failed to do) to make the breakdown occur. The implicit assumption behind all of these explanations is that if the children had simply done something different, the breakdown might not have occurred; in other words, the beast within man can be contained under certain circumstances. But Golding's explanation provides no such hope. Disaster arises "simply and solely out of the nature of the brute." Of course, we need not accept Golding's explanation for the breakdown in Lord of the Flies simply because he is the author. New Critics, for instance, will argue that meaning is inherent in the text itself, and Reader-Response critics will tell us that it is the reader who creates meaning. (In discussing the accuracy of the various explanations for the breakdown, I will be looking to the text itself.) Whatever an author's intention may be, his work may end up communicating something quite different. As even Golding himself admits, at a certain point, the author loses authority over his text: "I no longer believe that the author has a sort of patria potestas over his brainchildren. Once they are printed they have reached their majority and the author has no more authority over them, knows no more about them, perhaps knows less about them than the critic who comes fresh to them, and sees them not as the author hoped they would be, but as what they are" (Golding, "Fable" 45). Other views than the author's may certainly be entertained, but they must provide an adequate explanation for the breakdown as it is depicted in the text itself before we can accept them.
One such alternative view is Bernard F. Dick's argument that the societal breakdown is caused by the suppression of the Dionysian, or "brute" side of man. Dick agrees with Golding that "evil is indigenous to the species" (Dick 15). Indeed, he seems to believe that his own explanation for the breakdown is perfectly consistent with Golding's view. Yet, implicit in Dick's argument is the assumption that the brute side of man can, in fact, be contained under other circumstances, a possibility that Golding's view, as presented in his 1962 lecture, does not supply. Dick argues that, in moderation, this brute side of man can actually be "beneficial to society" (13). This is an optimism that Golding does not seem to share when he says, "Man is a fallen being. He is gripped by original sin. His nature is sinful and his state perilous" (Golding, "Fable" 41). Furthermore, Dick argues that Ralph's "class consciousness" causes him to "think in terms of excess" which leads to his suppression of Jack's bestial side and its consequent eruption (19). Golding, as has already been mentioned, believes that the breakdown "was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another" (Golding, "Fable" 42).
<large section edited for spoilers>
Kathleen Woodward, like Fitzgerald and Kayser, also opposes Dick's interpretation, but not by introducing a third mythological parallel. Rather, her argument directly contradicts Dick's, despite the fact that she applauds him for "[a]ptly" describing Lord of the Flies "as an anthropological passion play" (Woodward 88). For whereas Dick argues that the suppression of the beast within leads to its eruption, Woodward argues that the indulgence of it does. In her article, "The Case for Strict Law and Order," Woodward contends that Lord of the Flies actually presents a convincing argument for the imposition of strict law and order to suppress violent behavior. Dick claims that Ralph excessively insists on more rules, while Woodward asserts that "the problem is that there are not enough rules: a system of rules is necessary for when the rules are broken" (94).
Woodward begins her argument by declaring that "Golding presents us with a completely unrealistic model of the origins of human politics" (90). She claims that Golding does not show us how a rational society breaks down, but "how the conceivably pleasant condition of anarchy disintegrates under the pressure of aggression" (90). Ignoring for the moment the seeming oxymoron of a disintegrating anarchy, we can see that Woodward is still addressing basically the same question as the other critics. Why does the trouble arise in Lord of the Flies? Woodward's answer contradicts her premise that Golding is showing how anarchy disintegrates. She argues that the problem is the lack of strict law and order. But if strict law and order is imposed, then anarchy ceases to exist. The imposition of strict law and order can not stop the disintegration of anarchy; if it could stop anything, it would be the disintegration of society. So let us assume, for the moment, that what Kathleen Woodward is really addressing here (despite her reflections on anarchy) is the reason for the disintegration of society.
Golding, Woodward says, "has misread the moral of his own fiction" (93). He does not show that violence arises "'simply and solely out of the nature of the brute'," but rather "how a society . . . can degenerate into lawlessness when there seems to be no apparent . . . ties binding people together" (Woodward 93). Lord of the Flies is not so much a "resigned plea" that the shape of a society depends on the ethical nature of the individual as it is "an argument for strict law and order within the democratic system" (Woodward 93). Jack causes the break up of the society; had he been contained, had "the sweet persuasions of democracy [been] sharpened by force," the problem would not have occurred (Woodward 93). Jack must be fought, for "[a]ggression requires aggression" (Woodward 94). Basically, Woodward argues that the only way the beast can be contained, the only way that society can endure, is if Ralph were to "smash Jack's political machine, which involves us in an unpleasant contradiction that Golding does not face (England was forced to go to war against Hitler)" (Woodward 94).
Golding does not fail to face the issue of World War II. In fact, the issue is very much at the heart of his novel. And if he declines to confront Woodward's "unpleasant contradiction," then that is because it does not exist, at least not in Lord of the Flies. The novel presents the war of the "grownup" world not as an "unpleasant contradiction," but as a tragedy, a breakdown of society not unlike the one that is occurring on the island. If Roger's sadism is temporarily restrained by the taboos that were once imposed through strict law and order, then let us not forget that this restraint is "conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was in ruins" (Golding 56). If the civilization is in ruins, then obviously strict law and order did not work there.
<large portion edited for spoilers>
E.L. Epstein calls Golding's explanation "merely a casual summing-up on Mr. Golding's part of his extremely complex and beautifully woven symbolic web" (186). Yet it is this "casual summing-up" that ultimately provides the most consistent explanation of the breakdown in Lord of the Flies. Of course, the four views examined in this paper are not the only possible explanations for the breakdown, and literary criticism may yet find a theory that explains the breakdown as well as or better than Golding's own simple summary. Neither does the fact that these other theories inadequately explain the breakdown in Lord of the Flies necessarily mean that they inadequately explain the breakdown of societies in the real world. Lord of the Flies is, after all, a fiction, and one may object to its premise.
Works Cited Baker, James R. William Golding: A Critical Study. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965.
Dick, Bernard F. William Golding: Revised Edition. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987.
Epstein, E.L. "Note on Lord of the Flies." Lord of the Flies. U.S.A.: Puntnum Publishing Group, 1954. 185-90.
Fitzgerald, John F. and John R. Kayser. "Golding's Lord of the Flies: Pride as Original Sin." Studies in the Novel 24 (1992): 78-88.
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. U.S.A.: Puntnum Publishing Group, 1954.
Golding, William. "Lord of the Flies as Fable." Readings on Lord of the Flies. Ed. Bruno
Leone. Sand Diego: Green Haven Press, 1997. 88-97.
Woodward, Kathleen. "The Case for Strict Law and Order." Readings on Lord of the Flies. Ed. Bruno Leone. Sand Diego: Green Haven Press, 1997. 88-97.