Lord of the Flies Case Study: Realism
Lord of the Flies, the critically acclaimed novel by William Golding, and its big-screen adaption directed by Harry Hook tells the tale of a group of British school-boys who are in the midst of a raging war. The novel’s themes surround the definition of morality and its ever-changing, circumstantial, role in the sovereignty of a state. While Golding seems to favor ideologies coinciding with a utilitarian ideology (Ralph), He also highlights the appeal of Realism (Jack). Golding seems to suggest that without evidence of progress, or a measurable progression towards a state’s desired outcome; the utilitarian ideology can wane in significance to common statesmen. Realism in this case scenario becomes much more appealing. So, the ethical issue raised by Golding in Lord of the Flies is whether or not realism should be favored over ideas of utilitarianism and liberalism during trying times. I think Golding would argue that utilitarianism, ideally, would reign dominate as the most favorable moral perspective, even amongst desperation or wartime. However, it is up to the leader of the state to implement this ideology with an iron fist to ensure his followership’s allegiance doesn’t waver.
Golding illustrates this realism vs. liberalism paradigm through his use of Ralph and Jack as the novel progresses. Analyzing their character development throughout the novel is imperative to understanding Golding’s ideologies regarding realism vs. liberalism and its challenges. But once the reader is able to fully comprehend the novel’s plot and its themes, they can begin to understand the different ethical perspectives presented throughout. And go on to come to their own conclusions regarding which ideology coincides with their own morality and for what reasons.
During an evacuation flight at the beginning of the novel, the British schoolboy’s plane is shot down. Amongst the carnage, only the schoolboys emerge alive. As the boys are organizing themselves, they agree upon a leader, Ralph. Ralph is a fair leader. Throughout the novel, it is clear that Ralph wants to make sure his decisions are in the best interest of all of the boys. He tries to maximize their chances of rescue, organizes the building of shelter, and always makes sure to have open communication amongst the boys to ensure that everyone’s voice gets heard. Ralph’s character and morality are very much in line with what a reader's morality may be. In other words, Ralph’s morality could be interpreted as just by the reader. He puts the sovereignty of the state first and foremost. However, another boy, Jack, who Ralph and the other boys assigned as leader of the hunters at the beginning, has a different moral compass than Ralph.
Jack’s goals differ drastically from Ralph’s. Unlike Ralph, Jack’s morality is largely based on his own ego. Jack cares about power and security over order and compromise. When scolded by Ralph early on in the novel for letting the fire go out as a ship passes, Jack seems aphetic as to why letting the fire go out was a big deal. He had instead gone on and accomplished his goal of hunting and killing a pig for the boys to eat.
Jack’s inability to comprehend the importance of the signal fire, speaks volumes to his capability to be trusted as a leader. As a leader of a state, Jack needs to have the best interest of the state in mind at all times, and while eating and hunting are important, the need to get rescued as soon as possible should trump his desire to hunt in my opinion.
However, some of the boys on the island seem to take a fondness to Jack’s maverick personality. This is Golding’s way of showing how appealing a realist perspective could be when utilitarianism does not seem to be benefiting one’s personal needs and interests.
Even though it is obvious to Ralph and some of his close followers that order, justice, and morality should triumph over egotistic needs and realism. Ralph comes to realize how people can quickly change their moral views when their security is in question.
Realism is appealing in certain circumstances without question. Golding lays this out as the novel progresses. But, questioning and critically thinking as a member of a state is important when determining followership. As the novel goes all of the boys slowly resort to savagery, following in Jack’s egotistical footsteps. Seeing any conflicting ideology as a threat to their own security, the boys actively use aggression when responding in trying circumstances.
One of my takeaways from analyzing the themes of morality throughout the novel is that convening those to trust in deontology is difficult when their own security is tested. It is human to favor one’s own self-interests over the states. However, it is up to the leader of the state to explain to the members of the state why they must conform to the laws and morals of the state in order to achieve the state's sovereignty. Because without a leader who can convince the state to conform to their suggested morals, the leader risks the spread of anarchy as each party will continue to act exclusively with their own self-interest in mind.
If Ralph were able to take charge more strongly, he would have been able to convince the boys to conform. But, as soon as Jack began to question the state’s morals, and Ralph was unable to sequester Jack’s concerns, he opened up the ability for doubt to creep in amongst the state’s people. This doubt led to security dilemmas amongst the boys, which lead to individuals acting out against the state in fear of their own safety.
So, according to Golding, Leaders preaching liberalism, and utilitarianism need to be wary of the appeal of realism to their citizens. Without a leader who is willing to take charge and do things that are in the best interest of the state (no matter how crude or immoral) the state could be subject to collapse. The Leader’s need to do whatever they must to achieve the state’s sovereignty, rains as most important in my eyes to keep power in war times or trying situations.
