William Golding’s ‘Lord of the Flies’ contains one major overarching theme: the
innate evil in humanity.
It’s a theme Golding himself explained in a 1962 UCLA lecture, later published under
the title ‘Fable’ when he said, “man produces evil as a bee produces honey”.
Just what causes this evil is open to debate: is it that without rules and regulations we
devolve into primitive savages?
Is it that we are all sinners in the eyes of God following the fall of Adam and Eve?
Is it that Freud’s id and ego compete with each other symbolically through the characters
of Jack and Ralph?
In this video we’ll take a look at all three ideas, beginning with Darwinian theory.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work On the Origin of Species, in which he detailed
his theory of biological evolution.
In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin suggested that apes and humans may have a common ancestor.
The question raised here is if people had evolved from animals, was it possible to devolve
back into an animalistic state?
Is there always an ‘animal within’ us?
Golding taps into this idea in ‘Lord of the Flies’ with the animal imagery, and
specifically those images related specifically to apes, for example when Jack is described
in chapter three as ‘ape-like among the tangle of trees’.
So in this interpretation, we can suggest that the boys, released from the rules and
regulations of the civilised world, devolve into a primitive state.
Let’s begin with language analysis, exploring some of the animal imagery found within the
novel when Golding describes the boys – as you can see, there’s a lot of it.
Pause the video and take a look:
Firstly, we can argue that Golding uses animal imagery simply to present the boys as savage
and dangerous.
But we can also make a connection with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
David Anderson, in his 1969 book ‘The Tragic Protest’, writes: ‘It might be thought
that Golding’s theory concerning the origin of moral evil is, after all, an evolutionary
theory – in the sense that evil is thought to be the persistence in man of pre-rational
drives belonging to his animal ancestry which further development will eliminate’.
So this idea of animalistic behaviour, and Golding’s abundant use of animal imagery,
can be linked to the animal ancestry proposed in the theory of evolution.
It’s an idea which is reinforced through Golding’s use of language in the labelling
of the twins, ‘Sam’ and ‘Eric’.
In chapter 1 these boys are called Sam and Eric.
By chapter 2 this has changed to ‘Sam ‘n’ Eric’ and by chapter 4, it’s become ‘Samneric’.
It’s as if the language being used has devolved, and become more primitive.
In ‘The Descent of Man’, Darwin wrote ‘A moral being is one who is capable of
comparing his past and future actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving of them.
We have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have this capacity.’
When we read the novel in light of this theory, it becomes clear that once the boys regress
back into their primitive animal states, their morals disappear.
But the question is why?
Golding’s point could be that it is only law and order – the rules and regulations
of government, police etc etc, that keep us in check.
Without them, we devolve into an animalistic state.
However, in the back of our minds we have to remember that this is not the unique result
of a special island experiment where there is no law and order – the reason the boys
are there in the first place is because war is taking place back in the real world.
We only learn this through glimpses of detail, but in Golding’s first draft:
‘The first pages described a nuclear war, and contained no characters at all.
Later, attention switched earthwards, where there was a hurriedly organised evacuation
of schoolchildren.
The planes in which they flew had detachable cabins, ‘passenger tubes’, which could
float to earth beneath giant parachutes.’’
(William Golding: The Man Who Wrote ‘Lord of the Flies’ – John Carey).
So what we think of as the backdrop of nuclear war was actually originally presented first
and foremost in the novel.
And of course the novel ends with the same reminder.
The naval officer who ‘saves’ the boys comes to the island armed, and is about to
take them back to the war ship from which he has come.
The message, then, is that the island functions as a metaphor for what is happening in the
wider world.
Whilst the Darwinian interpretation would see the root of the boys’ actions as their
animal ancestry coming to the forefront on the island, a Biblical interpretation of the
novel might look at how the boys are evil because of original sin.
In the creation account of Genesis, God created a perfect world free from death and pain and
suffering of every kind.
He formed a beautiful garden, where he placed Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve sin, causing widespread chaos and destruction.
In the novel, we see something similar taking place.
Let’s start with a look at the garden of Eden in the book of Genesis.
What was it?
In Genesis 2, verses 8 and 9, we read:
‘Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man
he had formed.
The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing
to the eye and good for food.
In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil.’
So Eden was an idyllic garden setting, and the island in ‘Lord of the Flies’ is similar:
a beautiful natural setting made up of lagoons to swim in and fruit to eat.
The description of ‘acres of fruit trees’ in chapter 3 reminds us of the ‘all kinds
of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food’
from Genesis.
Just like in the idyllic Eden, the island is paradise.
There seems to be a plentiful supply of food and water for the boys to enjoy, whilst they
await their rescue.
If they could just get on with each other, everything should work out just fine.
But of course it doesn’t work out that way.
Now back to the Bible.
Adam and Eve are tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil.
This is the one thing God had told Adam and Eve they were not to do, but they did it anyway.
This is what is referred to as the original sin.
After this, according to the Bible, things changed.
Suffering and death entered the world, and every person born thereafter was sinful.
So crucially, it is humanity which ruins the perfect Eden setting.
In ‘Lord of the Flies’, we see something similar.
When the boys land on the beautiful island, they bring with them the evil that Golding
spoke about.
They ruin the perfect, Eden-like setting.
And this is seen from minute one: not a slow process where the boys start off good and
end up evil.
Look at Golding’s use of setting when he describes the plane crash site in chapter
1: ‘the long scar smashed into the jungle was a bath of heat’.
The use of the words ‘scar’ and ‘smashed’ suggest that it is the arrival of the boys
on the island which brings with it a sense of damage and destruction.
So just as Adam and Eve’s sin in the idyllic garden of Eden caused destruction, the boys’
own evil natures brings about the same.
There are lots of other Biblical allusions and references in the novel – the boys’
fear of a snake beast reminds us of Satan in the Garden of Eden, and pretty much everything
to do with Simon can be seen as a Biblical reference (which we’ll look at in a later
character analysis video) but for this point about original sin, it’s the parallels between
Eden and the island that are key.
Now Golding’s own views on religion seemed to vary, depending on the point in his life
in which he was interviewed.
However, we read in the author’s official biography that ‘‘Golding, asked if he
was a Christian, replied, ‘No, but I like to think of myself as a religious person’.
So it’s not necessarily that Golding was trying to present a Biblical message in his
novel.
It’s more likely that he was exploring all possibilities, and the Biblical allusions
to the Garden of Eden setting draw us to just one of them, just like the evolutionary link.
Now let’s finish by looking at the novel as an allegory of Freud’s concept of the
id, ego and super-ego.
As was pointed out in the 2019 AQA report on the GCSE English Literature exam, critical
theories should only be used in an exam answer if they enhance your interpretation of a text.
You should not merely ‘bolt on’ comments about Marxism, Freud, feminism etc.
With that caution in mind, let’s take a look at Sigmund Freud.
If you’re studying this on a different exam board, it’s worth checking the exam board
documents to find out their take on these kind of critical theories.
Born in 1856, Sigmund Freud is the founder of psychoanalysis, a method of treating patients
through dialogue.
In a talk entitled ‘Creative Writers and Daydreaming’, later published in 1907, Freud
describes the relationship between the unconscious and the creative arts.
He expresses envy towards creative people who instinctively understand human nature
while he has to work harder to do this through psychoanalysis.
Freud says: ‘If we could at least discover in ourselves, or in people like ourselves,
an activity which was in some way akin to creative writing!’.
Freud believed that the human personality (psyche) can be divided into three parts.
He explained this in his 1923 work, translated into English as ‘The Ego and the Id’,
which is where all the following Freud quotes come from in this video.
First up is the ego, which we might call ‘morality’.
Freud wrote ‘in each individual there is a coherent organization of mental processes;
and we call this his ego…
The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense.’
Second is the id which we might call ‘instinct’.
Freud explained how the id ‘contains the passions’.
This is the subconscious part of the mind, linked to instinct, animalistic urges, emotions
and hidden memories.
Finally we have the super ego which we might call ‘reality’.
This part of your mind controls your conscience – tries to control the id, and distinguishes
the difference between what is right and wrong.
Freud explained how ‘From the point of view of instinctual control, of morality, it may
be said of the id that it is totally non-moral, of the ego that it strives to be moral, and
of the super-ego that it can be super-moral.’
So how can we apply this to ‘Lord of the Flies’?
Well, we can see the characters of Jack, Ralph and Piggy as representatives of each part
of the psyche.
Jack would clearly represent the id.
His animalistic urges are perhaps most obviously demonstrated in his passionate obsession with
hunting, torturing and killing pigs.
I think it’s a mistake to simply put Jack’s hunting obsession down to a desire for food:
he delights in torture and inflicting pain, and this isn’t just the case regarding the
pigs either.
Ralph would represent the ego – he tries to lead the boys with common sense, suggesting
they need a signal fire for rescue; they need to use a certain area as a toilet because
the tide washes the waste away etc etc.
Piggy would represent the superego.
Now this is actually open to debate, whether you think Piggy is the ego and Ralph is the
super ego, or the other way around.
However, if we look at Freud again we see this statement: ‘the superego is being influenced
by processes that have remained unknown to the ego…Thus in this case the super-ego
knew more than the ego about the unconscious id.’
Freud is saying that the super-ego understands the id better than the ego does.
And we see that in the novel – it is Piggy who makes the most astute judgements about
Jack’s character.
An example of this is seen in chapter 5 when Piggy tells Ralph: “I know about people.
I know about me.
And him.
He can’t hurt you: but if you stand out of the way he’d hurt the next thing.
And that’s me.’
Piggy understands Jack better than anyone.
So why does all this matter?
What is Golding saying?
Well, again in ‘The Id and the Ego’ of 1923, Freud wrote ‘The division of the psychical
into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premiss of psycho-analysis’.
So, perhaps Golding is suggesting that the conflict between Jack and Ralph symbolises
the conflict within all humans, between our conscious ego and our unconscious id.
In this way, the novel serves as a metaphor for human psychology.
We must remember the context in which Golding was writing and living.
In the previously mentioned 1962 UCLA lecture, later published under the title ‘Fable’
the author explained: ‘Before the Second World War I believed in the perfectibility
of social man; that a correct structure of society would produce goodwill; and that therefore
you could remove all social ills by a reorganisation of society…but after the war I did not because
I was unable to…man produces evil as a bee produces honey.’
So that’s the crucial bit of context: following his service in WW2, Golding seemed to be searching
for the cause of the innate evil he witnessed in humanity.
In this video we’ve looked at different ideas about where it came from: from original
sin, from evolution, or from the conflict between id and ego.
If you found this video useful please do give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel.