Monday, February 3, 2014

Discussing *Lord of the Flies* and Claims of Universality

Sudden Argument Tuesday
Be prepared to develop your position on these three questions in a "fish bowl" conversation tomorrow (Tuesday, February 4).

To what extent do you agree with the view of humanity that William Golding develops in Lord of the Flies?

To what extent can Lord of the Flies represent universal truths about human nature even though the characters are all male, all pre-adolescent, all in prep school, and all British?

To what extent is Lord of the Flies a critique of ethnocentrism (the idea that one's own culture is superior to others) and to what extent does it perpetuate ethnocentrism?

**********************
Tomorrow's conversations will be a springboard into our study of Question 3 on the AP English Language and Composition Exam.

**********************
After you participate in a conversation, extend your participation with a 300+ word response in the comment box below. What did you not have the chance to say? I'm especially interested in the following: clarification and refinement of your position, development of specific support for your position, and thoughtful rebuttal of alternative positions. (Alternative or opposing positions are also called counterclaims.) Post by class time on Friday, February 7.

34 comments:

  1. Golding's view of humanity is true, but not for al kinds of peope. Using simon as an example, he spends the entire story being kind to littluns, and trying to keep society alive, as opposed to the more anarchic characters like Roger who were obviously held back by society before the island, so therefore getting rid of the island's government would be more beneficial to him. The point is that Golding is trying to convey a generally negative world view, but also that certain archetypes of people (Proper leader Ralph, logical Piggy) represent hope that his world view is not always right. Even though a lot of people are all the same at a basic level, i.e the dance that Piggy and Ralph participated in, Everyone is different, and therefore not everyone will quite be affected by the primal, savage nation of people at the same level as others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To clarify and extend the position I took in class, I will say that I feel that Lord of The Flies is, overall, universal. I think that the main theme Golding wanted to illustrate - his main point in publishing the book - revolves around the innate nature within everyone to follow rules, coupled with their conflicting desires, darknesses, and surprising wills to commit violent and ruthless acts when put in extreme conditions. Based on my observations, and what I would say is really common knowledge, I think that the nature to feel and act the way the boys did in the book, is, universal. Golding certainly uses quite a narrow example to illustrate the theme of instinct’s influence, however, this is unavoidable; every book needs a platform and while it may be specific and exclude certain particular groups or stereotypes, it still does its job of making a universal observation. Yes, Golding could have included other ethnicities, ages, gender for the sake of avoiding the judgement being debated now. However, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with making a fictional piece, possibly with a specific platform, possibly with arguably far-fetched actions, if, for what it is, it strongly develops a universal idea - which Golding does. Golding develops the universal idea of the nature within people, through using major, believable and relevant archetypes. A classmate said “for everyone, anywhere, you do what you have to do” in a situation like the boys’. I wouldn’t necessarily characterize all of the boys’ actions as rightful nor rational; their idea doesn’t go with my point. I still agree, though, with the thought that everyone has something in them - everyone around the world - and will certainly “change”, when put in an intense situation. Golding’s theme is global, and solidly expressed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ethnocentrism is by definition viewing another culture through the lens of your own. When Golding wrote Lord of the flies the society was just becoming less ethnocentric as the English colonies were gradually being lost. William Golding was a man before his time and though that ethnocentrism was not acceptable the way his society was going. In Lord of the Flies Golding makes fun of the society of the time and their ethnocentrism by portraying English school boys (the epitome of his society) as being able to become the savages that English society at the time so looked down upon. This is a clear statement to our society now but back then it was less clear. Yes, the idea that English boys could become savages taught them something, but the fact that the savages were killers still perpetuates that tribal societies are worse than the society the English knew at the time because then killing was looked down upon. It taught them that perhaps they were no better than savages but that also being a savage was still a bad thing. Golding wanted his ending with the sailor showing up and having disgust at the boys to portray their society’s ignorance, unfortunately many people didn't see Golding’s critique of their ethnocentrism. Because Golding was a man ahead of his time I think he could have made his point of view more obvious to his society which, would have made it a more effective teaching tool for people with ethnocentric views. Golding’s subtle critique of ethnocentrism was lost on many in his time but is greatly appreciated by society today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Golding’s view that humanity is animalistic and barbaric at its core, but this human nature is more avoidable than Golding shows in The Lord of the Flies, because of the boys previously civil lives, and their ability to empathize. Realistically, the boys on the island would not resort to the extreme violence and cruelty that they did, as easily and early on in the book as they did. The ability for one to embrace barbarism and disregard any previous morals is dependant on the individuals lack of maturity. Humans will eventually resort to listening only to their instinctual drives and desires, as Golding shows by creating the island of boys a microcosm for the rest of the world which is at war. The war shows that no matter the level of maturity, human will eventually disagree and fight each other, it just depends on when the fighting will start.
    A balance between morals, and basic survival needs, such as hunting for pigs, would have to be reached for the boys to avoid becoming violent and irrational. Obtaining food is a necessity for survival, but allowing for hunting to be the only concern offsets a balance that keeps humans superego intact. This balance would be substantially easier to achieve if the boys were aware of their own nature, and were able to actively prevent their instincts to control them.
    The characters in the book cover a wide range of personalities allowing for Golding to accurately depict human nature. The traits that Golding eventually shows in the boys are universal, and relatable to by all humans. The reactions of the characters to significant events such as Jack breaking Piggy’s glasses and Roger pushing a rock down to hit Piggy, seem like an appropriate response to the characters situation, but they seem to be over dramatized. Even considering that the boys have apparently ignored their superego, I feel that some of their morals would prevent them from killing each other. It seems that human’s ability to empathize, and the morals that the boys were presumably accustomed to, would prevent them from turning on each other with the rate that they did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As the beginning of Lord of the Flies took place, the boys were nothing but well mannered, young, private schooled, English boys, however by the end William Golding portrayed them as savages. When the events unfolded throughout the story, the critique of ethnocentrism came into play. The tribe that was once all of the boys working together, split into two and they wanted to beat each other out because their own views were "right" compared to the other. Jack became more angry with the way Ralph was dealing with things so he decided to create his own tribe with the belief he is superior to Ralph. Ethnocentrism is portrayed through the thought of these boys being the perfect example of English boys, however when it came down to surviving, they turned into savages. The perfect culture was really just like another, less developed, culture masked by the put together attitude. All in all, every person has one common goal in mind, to survive whatever they are put through, but because different cultures deal with it in different ways, there becomes this ongoing critique of one another. William Golding develops his ideas on ethnocentrism by critique and observing the ongoing events outside of his story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To what extent do you agree with the view of humanity that William Golding develops in Lord of the Flies?

    Golding reiterates throughout Lord of the Flies his view that humans suffer from an appalling ignorance of their own nature. Through a group of privileged English schoolboys, a prestigious lot, you watch as they degenerate into their barbaric nature that Golding insists is part of all of us. He exhibits the most primal instincts in adolescent, supposedly well-educated, boys as a way to prove that all humans, even the young and privileged, are susceptible to indulging in the most dark and taboo parts of our nature.
    Although Golding revealed a truth about all humans there is an extent to which that truth holds. Take into account the fact that the boys were of middle school age they were still naïve and young. The majority of the boys did not possess the logical thinking abilities of adults nor the patience often associated with adulthood. They indulged in tantrums and taunted the weak or the ugly which is so relevant to today’s youth. Yes, adults pick on one another but they also have a greater sense of reason. Whereas adults would have been more likely to maintain a fire and hunt for a pig, the boys, in their excitement over the pig, forgot all about the fire and let it go out. They may make fun of another person but they do so discreetly and are able to look past the flaws of one person when they realize they can benefit from them. Adults are better with schedules and maintenance. Children still let their emotions get the best of them. Again, I agree with Golding in that it is in everyone’s, adult and children alike, nature to want to hunt, lust, and kill. We should be aware of our flaws but at the same time we need an awareness of our redeeming qualities. Compassion overwhelms the desire to kill. Without compassion, and with a hardwired desire to murder as Golding suggests, wouldn’t society have degenerated into complete barbarism already? Even if we must kill for survival human compassion still can play a role. The boys became savages when they killed the pig. They enjoyed it thoroughly and were ruthless. Yet, Native Americans used to kill every day for survival but not without repentance and prayer. People also have guilt, which bars us from doing so many of the things that are part of our id. This guilt was evident when Ralph took part in Simon’s murder. His own guilt almost destroyed him. He would have broken down and given up had it not been for Piggy convincing Ralph that he didn’t do anything wrong. If humans could override their compassion, their guilt, then we would in fact have barbarians on our hands. Vengeance and ruthlessness are in our nature but they are in constant battle with our redeeming qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When Golding strived to make his point about the inner darkness and ignorance of humanity, he stressed the fact how awful deep down he thought human's nature is. Golding one group of people to judge every one. The simple school boys that were used to judge have no purpose to most of the world, most of the world is not young teen British boys. Also, Golding's view was shaped because of his war experience. Because of the harsh reality he saw during the war, he figured that everyone who was not in the war was not aware of the horror mankind is capable of. War is a terrible thing, but fighting for a cause should not be used to judge an entire species and say that they are cold hearted. That was only Golding's experience, no one else. Others could have had different thoughts about the entire thing. To an extent yes, humans are capable of very disturbing things in order to survive, but it is only in extreme conditions. Society has molded a cage around these inner desires, telling us unconsciously that this is not what we must do in order to survive. The cage around these emotions is what Golding considers ignorance, but there is a significant difference between ignorance and the suppression caused by the unconscious mind. Humanity over the years has been shaped by this and by saying that deep down we all have a "beast" in us is somewhat true, but to say it is caged by ignorance is a completely different matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Josie, you've made an impressively sharp distinction between ignorance and suppression in this post.

      Delete
  8. Through William Golding’s novel Lord of the flies Golding as the author argues that humans will resort to savagery and violence. I disagree with the proposal of savagery Golding incorporates with humanity. Lord of the flies is an extremely narrow view of a certain society that is only made up by male pre-adolescent prep school brits. One may make the argument that though there is narrowness in the book that still provides universality, but does it? That human nature is stronger than any influences from upbringing, culture, gender, and religion. The answer is no, not everyone stranded on an island will lose the values their prior society had. The influence and order of women is present for example “Piggys aunt”. She was someone who was influential to Piggy and in result from this influence you get Piggy’s rationalism and his want for keeping the values of the old society. One may ask if more influences like this were to be present in other characters we would see a greater influence of order. Upbringings all of these boys were preps meaning their families were fairly wealthy allowing their children to be ungrateful, posh, and arrogant. If the upbringings of the kids were more centered, this would allow them to see the struggle of others and to be mutually beneficial to each other. Similar to the way Simon helped the littluns with gathering food and keeping them somewhat orderly. Simon is the closest person to truly understanding that they all have to work with each other to prevent the beast from taking over. Culture and religion provide huge influences to human nature. Someone from the UK and someone from Japan have two very different lives influenced by two very different cultures. The model golding creates fits for the UK but would it for other culture that bring up their children differently. In Japanese culture its taught that close bonds with others leads to your own personal fulfillment as this is similar for most other Asian countries. Golding’s proposed model would not be able to fit within this culture. Religion also plays a large role in human nature most to all religions teach good ideals such as treat others the way you want to be treated. The only connection Golding makes with religion is within Simon’s personality. Golding’s model of human nature that resorts to savagery in Lord of the Flies does not have the capability to represent universal truths.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Question: To what extent can Lord of the Flies represent universal truths about human nature even though the characters are all male, all pre-adolescent, all in prep school, and all British?

    In perspective, I do believe that a majority of the boys’ actions in Lord of the Flies can be truthful. However, the severity of things for all ages and races is not something I agree with. If someone is going to do something they know is wrong, they may well go ahead and do it, but I do not think that anyone other than those boys would go absolutely wacko and kill other children. If there were adults on the island instead, the democracy would have further continued. The adults would have a better time getting along with one another and things wouldn’t be so tense as they were with the boys. The big separation due to beliefs by the boys would not have occurred with older and more civilized men. Older folks would have gone through more and understood how things work to get what they needed from other people or the island. These boys did not even know themselves, let alone each other. They wouldn’t hear each other’s beliefs and if they disagreed became hostile. But any adolescent would, yet an adult would not. Someone mature would agree to disagree in order to keep the common goal and stay in balance. Also, the goal is to escape and the boys seemed as if they wanted to stay, which the adults are not so adventurous and would want to go home.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I stand strong with my claim that William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is in fact universal. The boys, while British prep school boys, acted like any boy would. I feel that if you took any boy from any part of the world, with any upbringing, or culture; that that boy would act similar if not the same as the boys in the book do. I believe that since the dawn of time, the male has had the nature to fight. And fighting extends from a school yard scuffle, to that of possibly having to kill. While most boys may deny this nature, deep down, if our values were at stake, we would likely do anything to defend what we believe is right. You may be asking, but what about girls? Well, as I connected during class, the main character of the book The Hunger Games is forced to kill when in a similar situation, except in her situation she is forced to do what she does. Meanwhile, she is killing the others because that is what she has to do. Rachel commented that their upbringing, and what they have always been told, would affect the outcome on the island, but if Katniss knew of what she had to do, then why did she volunteer as tribute to enter an area where her nature would be to kill to survive? Because it is everyone’s nature, much like the boys in the book, to fight for what they believe is right. The nature in women is also prominent as they have begun to join the military with jobs on the front line. We have always believed that women are meant to be housewives and nurses, but lately, as times change, women have the desire to let their nature show, and to fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember that when discussing fiction, like The Hunger Games, in an argument that you should remember that the characters, like Katniss, are created by authors. So it is truer to say that Suzanne Collins author of the Hunger Games agrees with your view than to say that Katniss, as a character, supports your view. Does this makes sense? I mention it now because an issue like this might come up when writing your AP Q3 or your SAT argument essay. It's also just a good idea to think of art this way.

      Delete
  11. William Golding uses his characters as examples of ethnocentrism to critique his views of one culture's belief of superiority to another's. His overall message by the end of the book was that ethnocentrism is wrong and that it can only lead to bad things but his position is easily confused by readers because he uses his characters, especially Jack and Ralph as perfect examples of ethnocentrism happening on a smaller scale. Great Britain, known to many other cultures and countries as a big power has been known to have exerted its powers over other cultures. As mentioned in class, we have read examples of Great Britain's cultural oppression in pieces like Jamaica Kincaid's Essay. Her essay exposes that they believe their culture is superior to others. This belief of British ethnocentrism was not new at the time of Golding's book and his decision of making the boys turn into bloodthirsty savages was his way of showing that their incompetence that is the same as any other culture.
    His characters, however, do not express his views as clearly. They perform the opposite of what he is trying to critique and by showcasing the ethnocentric qualities in Ralph and Jack it is Golding's way of critiquing this major idea. Jack believes that his tribe is superior to Ralph's and Ralph feels that Jack's tribe is full of savages who can't possibly have good intentions because they're "acting like Indians". By fighting each other over who's tribe and values were right, it brought their downfall. By the final chapter, the boys' civilization is in shambles and they are killing each other. Golding has shown that their demise has been caused by the ignorance of their belief of superiority. Ethnocentrism is related to belie fin power, and Jack and Ralph both thought that they had the right to hold power and those beliefs is what ignited the feud between them.
    The Naval Officer at the end of the book is the cliche character to almost make fun of Great Britain. He comments that he thought they should've put on a "better show" because they were British-- that makes them proper and superior, right?-- but he finds them in absolute chaos. Golding has effectively shown that ethnocentrism even on a small scale is the center of all disputes. He chose to make his characters perpetuate this cultural superiority to one another to inversely make his point of the negative effects of ethnocentrism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe that Golding wants to show that all humans, not just one select group, have the ability and potential to cause great harm. “Maybe there is a beast… maybe it's only us.”, a quote used by Golding to show that there was the possibility that the only monsters on the island is the actual nature of the boys themselves. One example is when Ralph joins Jack and the hunters to hunt the pig. Ralph develops a form of blood-lust and participates in the reenactment of the hunt, using a young boy named Robert as the pig. They prodded and jabbed him with their spears, to the point where he was forced to crawl away from injuries. Another is when Ralph and Piggy participate in the ritualistic murder of Simon. There is no rational thought, just a mob mentality and how each person has the potential in them to do great harm. A perfect character to use is Roger. The first important action that Roger does is when he throws rocks at the littluns, but purposely avoiding contact with them. He still ponders over idea of his past actions and how he was reprimanded by the constraints of a civilized world with rules and structure. Without these rules, Roger finds himself becoming increasingly despondent toward reason, acting on a whim. This is unfortunately apparent when he rolls a large boulder into Piggy, knocking him over a cliff and to his death. Gloding wants us to see that we all have the capabilities to do evil and cause harm, the state of pure id if you reference Sigmund Freud's Model of the Psych. It doesn’t matter who you are; whether it be preppy English boys, poor street kids, or middle class women. We all can commit horrible atrocities. Do all of us act on them? No, to simply put it. There will always be a semblance of our humanity (or, superego) in a mid dominated by id. It’s just that others will be more easily swayed by the temptations of (what I like to call) “The Darkness”, or the savagery any human being is capable of committing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To what extent can Lord of the Flies represent universal truths about human nature even though the characters are all male, all pre-adolescent, all in prep school, and all British?

    In class I argued that it did not matter their age, gender, or nationality because human nature applies to all humans. My point is that Golding wrote this book to explore human nature and its primitive side. What makes his argument universal to some extent is the Id, Ego, and Superego concept. This concept is true to all humans, everywhere. The id being the primitive part that only cares about its wants and has no conscience of rules or morals. It speaks to our primitive side: our baby- like side that does not know right from wrong, it only knows need and want. Although I do agree with the fact that the characters are kids in the book helps illustrate the id easier because it helps the reader understand this more primitive side of our nature, I feel that he could have written the book with any genders, ages, and ethnicity because when it comes to human nature, it applies to all humans. Everyone can relate to extreme feelings; when someone is very angry with someone else, one might think of killing that person but does not do it because the superego comes into place. The superego is the part that cares about rules and morals of society. It will act to get what your id wants but in a way society will find acceptable. Golding uses the boys in the island to illustrate our own human race. He demonstrates our primitive nature with extremely explicit descriptions like the public and violent killings of the pigs and the boys becoming cruel savages and killing their own. His argument on human nature can be applied to many situations because even the most civilized nations still act as if savages: wars, violence, crime, and murders all still take place in our world today. These things happen everyday in our "civilized" world dominated by rational adults that should know how to behave better than a bunch of kids stuck in an island. People act according to the rules so we can all coexist and make the world a livable place for all of us. Golding gives the reader something we can all relate to which is not gender, age, or ethnicity, but the primitive side of our nature (our Id) that we as humans learned to suppress in order to be a rational and civilized society.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To what extent is Lord of the Flies a critique of ethnocentrism (the idea that one's own culture is superior to others) and to what extent does it perpetuate ethnocentrism?

    Golding is critiquing ethnocentrism throughout the whole novel and perpetuating it through the actions of the boys, especially when they have split into separate "tribes". Golding wants his audience to realize that the people who are extremely ethnocentric are the ones who's ideas and actions are usually considered unacceptable in regards to people who accept all cultures as their own entities. The entities that are ethnocentric usually gain power by force and oppression, just as Jack has done when he creates his own tribe. He forces his ideas on the younger, more vulnerable and more impressionable children that are easier to control, because he feels as though the way he wants to rule his tribe is the best and only way. This is also seen in the story we read by Jamaica Kincaid and it also stems from British ethnocentrism. Britain suppressed their ideas and culture onto a small and vulnerable colony, believing that their way is the best way for other cultures to live. Antiguans suffered due to this way of thinking, and the younger boys are suffering from Jack's way of thinking. They end up killing their own. Ironically, Britain is doing this on a much larger scale during the War while the boys are doing it on the island. When the naval officer comes to rescue the boys, he mentions how he thought they would have been better behaved because they were "British", which is total nonsense considering he is a British man partaking in the War at the very same moment. Golding is showing how people who are ethnocentric are quite ignorant to their own actions, and do not feel as though anything they are doing is wrong. They want to live their own way and not even consider accepting other cultures for their differences, but rather suppress their culture onto others so there will be no potential differences that they will eventually have to deal with. This is how Jack's thoughts work. If he takes all the boys out of Ralph's tribe and forces them to think and act like hunters, there will be no other tribe that Jack will have to worry about. Ethnocentrism stems from ignorance, of ones own nature as well as of other's ways of living, and Golding exemplifies this through the boys actions and tries to convey his critique of ethnocentrism through the boys as a microcosm, and as the war being the macrocosm.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (I'm so sorry this got really out of control and longish part 1)
    Upon further analysis between other various questions and observations my own opinion has been slightly molded in regards to the question. There are in result, little to no opinions to Golding’s point of view on humanity is basically spot on with a few exceptions that he made to emphasize the point of the story. Both Simon’s and Piggy’s deaths are not a typical formula in society in which we go off killing the intelligence of our societies, and in fact they remain to come out as the brightest. Both of these characters however were killed to show off that humanity tends to ignore the voices of reason for a more barbaric way. This form can come in many double edged sword situations but the most prominent to use would be the act of emotions. There are positive and negative emotions within a human’s personality and while both are necessary too much or too little of them will result in chaos. For example caring is a tool most humans tend to need in today’s society the youth end up being coddled into naivety which can result in ignorance of the world around them including themselves. Propaganda in today’s media also can affect the minds of human’s by plastering moral codes of right and wrong within a being’s head which could possibly alter their subconscious super ego. In a way, and ends up being a terrible thing to say, the reasoning as to why we, as the people, are not in a state of barbarism in more on the twisted and forced control of the super ego that is implanted within our minds when young. When Jack, Ralph, Simon, Piggy, etc., are on the island there is no other force of representation to affect their psyche other than each other. There are no jolly elves baking cookies to entertain them or any source of what a “proper” form of authority would be. Instead Ralph is left in charge of a concept that can barely be grasped while his mind is still learning about a past society and his new found home. But to further question the ideas and topics of humanity wouldn’t we all act like this? Rights and wrongs are placed into your head around the age of the littluns and stays present through the duration of your life. Almost everyone faced with a new boundary without their morals will attempt to recreate it such as Ralph and his society or with any invading country enforcing their own cultures upon another such as with England and its many territories. The only difference being between Lord of the Flies and English conquest being that Ralph’s island is a blank canvas. There are many different things Ralph and the kids could do on the island, but instead focus on the formation of society before anything else like any age or race or gender would do. Honestly nothing really matters on a blank canvas, such as the island, as there are no regulations pressed against anyone’s backs besides the burdens they may carry. Even so it is the culture in which the group grew up that effects them more than the identification of the character themselves. Either way in the end we all will fall given the chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (yet again I am so sorry this really got out of control part two)
      As for ignorance, it is almost impossible not to recognize that we are surrounded by ignorance in our daily lives, along with myself indulging into these acts. However although ignorance stemmed off by Golding to be a negative aspect of humanity ignorance can represent both. Yes, ignorance has caused countless deaths and countless wars as explained through history. People have done extremely strange things in their own delusions of life through an ignorant mind. For example Elizabeth Báthory ended up killing a good amount of young females just so that she could, according to legends, bath in their blood to remain young. That example points more to barbarism existing within societies more than anything else actually, it does to a point but it is brought out more on the island as countless other peers have suggested. To go back to Báthory, the point putting across is that ignorance can lead to horrible things. At the same time however if we look at current society and the previous paragraph’s mention of coddling the youth into a twisted propaganda of naivety and ignorance. The ignorance is used to easily maintain a grip or hold on society by influencing the young into with holding the super ego conscious, with a few exceptions such as Roger, and so a non-barbarian culture is formed. Roger, like Elizabeth, are both concoctions of mentally unstable minds and part of the negative aspect of ignorance. As for the control of the youth through super ego, the laid done rules become a code for society to follow and when anything goes out of line it is hard to accept the reality that goes against their psyche such as with Piggy and Simon’s unholy death. That, technically puts both super ego and id as ignorance in humans which Golding displays with both Roger and Piggy.
      Lastly, just to add a small idea, the reasoning behind using young British boys as the test subjects in Lord of the Flies not only connects to Golding’s surroundings, but also could have been used as a better way to shock the audience. Britain, if we look at stereotypes, is used to represent a classy place full of extremely civilized people. To see British boys fall so low in the acts of barbarism is rather shocking and brings the meaning of the book across more clearly as to display that everyone can succumb to the acts of humanity and that it is more obvious than once prior thought.

      Delete
  16. To what extent can Lord of the Flies represent universal truths about human nature even though the characters are all male, all pre-adolescent, all in prep school, and all British?

    I definitely understand where the other people in my group (Lauren, Bethany and Paula) were coming from, but I have my own stand on the extent of which Lord of the Flies represents a universal view on truths about human nature. I do agree with the fact that each character in the book symbolized an emotion or innate want/need everyone possesses. That being said, I deeply feel that had Golding included more varied age groups, as well as including women, the story would have appealed to a much wider audience and therefore been accepted by more people like me. I understand that Golding was trying to create a part of each human in each character, but I would appreciate the book much more had it not been so entirely exaggerated, like when the boys basically raped a pig with a spear. I do not believe that every single person has the desire to murder, especially people older than children. Even if Golding wanted to exaggerate the innate instinct to kill, I don't think that every person would give in to this desire. Golding should have included people older than children and perhaps I would have taken the book as a whole more seriously. Adults would have handled everything, from the hut situation, to the pig hunting situation, in a much more civilized way. I think that the book dwelled on these portions of the book far too much in such a childish way. Often while reading I laughed a little at how childish the book really was, resulting in me not taking the book as seriously as Golding would have arguably wanted the book to be taken. I do not believe that this is what Golding wanted readers to take away while reading Lord of the Flies, I believe that Golding ultimately wanted readers to realize that the innate desire to kill was something that needed to be watched and taken account of, rather than left to spin out of control. I regret to say that I only realized this to some extent, and while I deeply enjoyed the book due to it's way of being presented and it's interesting story line, I don't think I fully understood Golding's message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Often while reading I laughed a little at how childish the book really was, resulting in me not taking the book as seriously as Golding would have arguably wanted the book to be taken." I hear you. When you say "how childish the book really was," I wonder if you mean that the boys' behavior is childish. The writing, I think, is not. I mean the visual imagery and heightened language, to me, lend dignity and mystery to what (I agree) might otherwise be very silly events and behaviors.

      Delete
    2. & the above, after thinking about it a bit more, makes me thinking about the important difference between summaries of texts (in which events and behaviors are emphasized) and the texts themselves (in which word choice, syntax, imagery, etc. contribute, if they're handled well, to thematic development).

      Delete
  17. I believe that Lord of the Flies is a direct criticism of ethnocentrism, and I think it is pretty easy to see. Throughout the entire novel, we are constantly reminded of the supposed “civility” of the british. Roger is abated from hitting Henry with rocks by an invisible wall of his past life, and the courtesy he is supposed to live by. The Naval Captain laments that he expected more out of a group of “british boys”. The book also illustrates a sense of ethnocentrism in the boys. Piggy asks whether it is “better-to be a pack of painted Indians….or to be sensible like Ralph is?” Jack’s group wants to be seen as a tribe, as a group of warriors with painted faces, because to them, Indian culture is synonymous with savagery. Piggy even flat out says “After all, we’re not savages. We’re English, and the English are best at everything. So we’ve got to do the right things.” Golding includes these ideas to continuously reaffirm the idea that these boys are ethnocentric. He also makes the behaviors of these boys look like savagery. If the “English are best” and they behave the way they did on the island, then what business do they have labeling other cultures as barbarous? Could a tribe that is always fighting for it’s own survival really be more malicious than the so-called “chivalrous” British? Golding wants to convey to his reader that these ethnocentric ideas just don’t seem logical. The boys talk of the savagery of other countries while they behave in ways similar to their own stereotypes for different countries. Even though the British are supposed to be better than everyone else, there is no way an indigenous group in South America of the same age would’ve behaved the same way as these British prep school boys. This book criticizes ethnocentrism by creating this hypocritical contradiction of the boy’s ethnocentric beliefs and their own brutish behaviors.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kerri C.

    What I did not get a chance to elaborate on when in class today in our class’s fish bowl conversations was that Mr. Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies has a minimal amount of universal truths in it and that even though many people had made strong points based on the facts and their beliefs does not mean that there are a multitude of universally applicable truths in the novel by Golding. The novel itself contained observations on behavior that was obtained while he was a school teacher and put the boys that he had in his class in particular situations to see what their actions would be. This group was pre-adolescent boys that had grown up their entire lives with structure and by taking this away Golding creates chaos between characters and a power struggle. If any aspect of this group was to be changed such as the way they grew up or if they were females instead the extent of universal truths may change along with the moral of the story and how it is supposed to be different now. Michael made the point in class that he had believed the boys were very universal in theory, but were they? He brought up the point that men have had the natural urge to fight or hunt for centuries, by bringing this up how does it not solidify the point that Golding’s novel is minimally applicable to the world that we live in and have lived in the pss as well. For this to be extended universally completely Golding must have observed multiple groups of pre-adolescents both male and female with various cultures that they come from. So how does this belief that the focus on one type of people work in this case? Easy it doesn’t, this one type of people is intended for one audience when Golding was writing, however if another variety of people were put into a group and observed the truths behind the story would be completely be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. William Golding perpetuates ethnocentrism in Lord of the Flies in order to critique it, and make the argument that no culture can truly claim to be superior to another. Jack, is the prime example of this, for in the beginning of the book, he says that the British are the best at everything, and that they are not savages. The word savages, in the context of British English refers to non-Christian, non-white people, who dress differently, speak a different language, and overall live life completely contrary to that of the British. In Lord of the Flies Jack eventually switches to living a savage-like life. He resorts to painting his body, and removing all of his clothes, fully immersing himself into being a traditional hunter. When he kills the sow he performs a ritualistic religious sacrifice of the head of the sow, to give to the beast. These mannerisms are characteristic to that of a member of a tribe of indigenous people, and certainly not that a of a proper British school boy. Golding uses these details to show that, the parts of other people’s culture we critique is done out of ignorance of their lifestyle, and all that they have to encounter. To the average reader, Piggy’s racial slur in calling the boys “…a pack of Indians…” or Ralph calling Jack’s tribe “…the reds…” seems like evidence of the author’s ethnocentrism. However, based on the behavior both Piggy and Ralph it is evidence of his critique to ethnocentrism. Piggy and Ralph both took part of the once again ritualistic tribal event that was the dance at Castle Rock resulting in the murder of Simon. The Native Americans have a traditional of reenacting hunts in a dance-like fashion, which is what the dance at Castle Rock was. By showing how British school boys were acting in a “savage” behavior, Golding argues that there is no true superior culture and that in the end we all behave the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your thesis and support are impressively sharp. Thanks

      Delete
  20. I was interested by how the progressive feeling of the 1940s affected William Goldings writing of lord of the flies and wether there was anything historically that gave life to the theory of lord of the flies as a critique of classic British ethnocentrism. With a more progressive civil rights era opening up in the United States it would seem strange for such a forward thinking man to create a book promoting ethnocentrism. Golding would have known that African Americans served their countries in World War Two, but were still struggling for rights in the US. Also around this time, in 1947 to be precise, two of the largest remaining British colonies were granted independence. Golding could have been using his novel to critique in particular the British stereotype of far off lands and the adventure of conquering them. Looking at the historical timeframe that Golding was working in leads to the possibility that lord of the flies is a social critique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you consider the historical context for the novel. Now connect the context to some of the passages in the text that we considered in class--and perhaps some others mentioned by your peers in their posts--that seem relevant to the question of ethnocentrism.

      Delete
  21. The idea that Lord of the Flies is universal is mostly true but for different reasons than what was said today in class. There are many universal truths shown in Lord of the Flies but the idea that the aggression was caused by there only being males there if false. The addition of females on the island would not have effected the agression done. I know many girls that are more aggressive than me. The agression doesn't come down to gender but to personality. On a cultural level I think Golding got it right, if you changed the ethnicity of the boys it would be very similar. Also if you changed the gender of the boys so that they were all females, then there would still be a power stuggle. Even with this Lord of the Flies can not be totally universal. The statements about human nature are very true but the fact that women are not talked about makes it narrower. There is talk about Piggy's aunt but her role is more a super ego. There is also no talk about sexuality. If the boys were older and there were girls on the island, what would happen. What about there human nature then. Would there still be a power stuggle not only over ideals but also over human desires. The points that Lord of the Flies makes is true but there is so much more to be discovered. Golding wrote this before modern psychology but was able to observe the desires of humans and what we will do to get them. Our society is constantly changing but the one thing that remains the same, the one universal truth is that our desires will take over if we don't control them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. During class today, I think I said most of the things that I needed to say, however there are some things that I left out. I believe that William Golding wrote Lord of the Flies as a way to critique the ethnocentric idealism of Great Britain. Great Britain was a very powerful country at one point, and the citizens were very proud. I think that this pride was part of the children’s idealism on the island. In class, my group talked about how Jack was ethnocentric, but I also believe that Piggy illustrates ethnocentrism in Lord of the Flies. Piggy refers to the savages as “Indians” and not “sensible”. His views on Indians, as well as other cultures, are that they are not as important or powerful as England. This is interesting, especially because he was the character that was killed by a savage. Even though the members of the Savages were from England, I think they were viewed as separate and completely different from the beliefs they had when they first landed on the island. However, Jack and the other members of this group were proud of this new group they created.
    If I had the opportunity to answer another question, it would have been question number two, “To what extent can Lord of the Flies represent universal truths about human nature even though the characters are all male, all preadolescent, all in prep school, and all British?”. In my opinion, Lord of the Flies represents the universal truth that people can relate to regardless of age, nationality, gender, or background. The qualities that these characters posses, are qualities that everyone has inside of us. Subconsciously, we are all made up of hunters,leaders, shamen, and clowns. However, normally only one of these qualities make its way into the foreground of our personalities. Whether we want to admit it or not, I believe that we are all capable of doing things that may seem devastating and horrifying.. Even though the book is about a specific group of boys, and the book probably would have been very different if they were more mature, or if there were girls on the island as well, I think Golding’s overall message was to show us what can happen if we act without taking the time to think things over, or what could happen if the laws of society crumble. Every person in the world has and id, their wants and desires. If people stop focusing on the what is best for the society, and focus solely on what they want, then the society will not be able to function properly. I think that Golding wanted to make the readers to become more aware of their ids, and to illustrate the chaos that will result without the laws and society of the superego. I believe that Golding took this book to an extreme level, but he did it purposefully to make a point of what human beings are capable of.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To what extent do you agree with the view of humanity that William Golding develops in Lord of the Flies?

    In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, I believe that Golding’s views of humanity are a bit limited in that he only focuses on the negative aspects of human instinct, whereas realistically, the human capabilities can be much more compassionate and gentle than the author gives credit for. For some, the instinct to nurture and comfort are just as strong as other’s instincts for power and blood. Where Golding believes that humanity boils down to no more than a thirst for blood, power, and dominance, I believe that much of humanity is capable of compassionate and sympathetic actions that the author simply does not cover in the story. I agree with Golding in that every human is capable of horrible things if they allow those dark instincts to prevail, but by limiting the group on the island to just pre-pubescent boys, the author is restricting the possibility for other reactions of the situation. Were the author to expand the diversity of the characters on the island- including characters with higher levels of maturity, opposite sexes, or differences in personalities- many may agree more with Golding’s view on humanity. The limited, negative perspective of his views don’t really captivate the entirety of humanity because I don’t feel that the boys reaction is the same that all of humanity would have. By limiting the diversity of the characters, Golding eliminates much of the character’s instinct to nurture and show compassion towards each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your writing is always elegant and thoughtful, a pleasure to read. It's also thought provoking:
      "I believe that much of humanity is capable of compassionate and sympathetic actions that the author simply does not cover in the story." I think this is Simon's role in the novel. Ralph certainly shows compassion at times, too. I also think that Golding often oversimplified the novel when he wrote and talked about it. The novel itself is more complex than what he said about it. Do you agree?

      Delete
  24. Though many believe that Lord of the Flies is an accurate portrayal of the universal truths of human nature, I believe otherwise. How can a novel be universal when the only characters are British school boys? Due to the lack of diversity in race, gender, and age, the book cannot be considered universal. Perhaps other ethnic groups would react to the situation in a different way. With the boys all being so accustomed to a structured life in their school they may have reacted a bit more drastically to their freedom than someone used to a less structured society would. The boys had never had the experience to do what-they-want-when-they-want, and now, in a situation allowing this, they took advantage of it. Some may say they accurately portrayed the boys-will-be-boys nature and thus the book must be universal, but here’s where they’re wrong: there is no girls-will-be-girls nature. There are also no females in the book. With only one gender being depicted the book cannot be a universal portrayal because a female may respond differently to the same situation the boys are in. This is even shown by Golding in the fact that the only female mentioned in the book was Piggy’s aunt. He would continuously refer to her in ways of reason, such as the repeated “my auntie says…” So this brings up the thought that if there had been a female figure, such as Piggy’s aunt, who was a voice of reason for the boys they may have not abandoned all reason and simply conformed to the wants of the id. It is also arguable that a different age group would have not responded the same way as the adolescent boys. As time progresses, the norms of society and the taboos become engrained in one’s mind, and are almost impossible to shake. Golding showed this slightly in Roger, but he had not been in society long enough for the norms to be unshakable. However, if an older group of people had been on the island they would likely be unable to shake the norms and taboos and would have attempted to withhold a structured society until their rescue. The ideas of different ethnic groups not wildly reacting to a nonexistent society, females providing a voice of reason, and taboos and norms engrained in an older persons mind, it becomes clear that a book strictly about on age group, gender, and ethnicity could not be considered a universal portrayal of human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lord of the Flies is certainly a critique on ethnocentrism, but the delivery of Golding’s critique perpetuates ethnocentrism to an extent.
    Golding’s characterization of the boys on the island ensures that the ethnocentric view of western society is apparent. Take, for example, Jack’s proclamation that “the British are best at everything.” This unchallenged belief that Britain reigns supreme over all other nations (I doubt Jamaica Kincaid would be a fan) represents the similar beliefs held throughout Europe, in addition to the United States. Only once separated from our behavior can we begin to critique it, and observe the flaws that are hidden from us by our ego. Piggy’s characterization of the other boys as “acting like a bunch of Indians” possesses a similar ethnocentric tone, though instead derived by insulting another culture. Even the sailor places Britain on a pedestal, stating that he expected “a bunch of British boys would have been able to take care of themselves.” Any receptive reader would recognize that Golding is critiquing the very pedestal we stand on.
    Golding’s attempt to make a broad statement about man’s nature is compromised by the lack of diversity among characters. To connect with the second discussion question, I feel that it is impossible to make a universal statement about man’s nature when only taking in to consideration the wealthy white male. If the British boys were replaced with young children who survived as beggars on the the streets of India, perhaps they would have coexisted perfectly fine. Imagine if the plane had been filled with refugees from Somalia; a desert island would seem like paradise in comparison to their last setting.Encompassing other races, genders, and cultures is crucial to delivering an overarching statement on man’s nature. Thus, including a homogeneous cast as opposed to a heterogeneous one perpetuates ethnocentrism. However, knowing Golding’s complex idea, it is possible that he never intended to make a critique on man as a whole, but more so on male-dominated western culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your ability to explore complexity while maintaining clarity.

      Delete