Sovereignty In Lord Of The Flies Essay

1021 Words3 Pages

Golding’s Lord of the Flies initiates the thesis of the Hobbesian belief that without a system —such as society and religion— life will be brutish and barbaric. It develops on this proposition through the trials and tribulations of island life with a group of teenage boys that grow to be savage over the course of the novel. All the allegorical momentums shown in the novel predicate toward one conclusionary critique: who is at fault on the island? Who is to blame for the seemingly inherent violence of humanity? For those who believe that it is the innate nature of humanity to blame, but in my belief it is not a question to answer, moreso as to analyze. Through the breakdown of concepts, it is evident that all fingers point toward a single conjecture; …show more content…

Hobbes’ belief in sovereignty comes from the dialectical perspective of human nature. We are said to be social creatures, and in being so we thrive in political and societal interactions. This is shown in Lord of the Flies, as Ralph “lifts up the conch.” (22) and explicitly states “Seems to me we ought to have a chief to decide things” (22). One of the first things the boys decide to do is to federalize. In Ralph’s action to lift up the conch, he confirms that the conch is a signifier of power and authority at that moment. Hobbes’ also believed that a state without authority is in a condition of war, which can be said to be true for Lord of the Flies, as Jack “Crushes the conch into a million fragments” (something). The eradication of Ralph’s power as a state without authority contorts the situation into a conflict between Ralph and Jack. Yet how accurate are any of the events on the island? This entire situation is based on presupposition. Everyone was raised within the system. We were institutionalized with social will; the most important part of society is the sociological aspect. This being a key piece of information about the boys, they were raised in Britain, so suggesting that the first thing they do is to federalize is not the result of human nature, but the institutionalization of interaction as a whole. If applied to the bigger picture, it begs the question: is …show more content…

Stating that essence is of the utmost importance, ideally pushes the notion that the result of influence develops identity more firmly in contrast to existence. Yet this notion would also perpetuate the presupposition that human nature exists. Golding, too, presupposes the existence of this nature to an extent. He states in Why Boys Become Vicious, “Are men and women born with cruelty as a deep component of their nature? Is civilization largely a heroic struggle to build layer upon layer of varnish upon the rough and splintered raw material of humankind?” (paragraph 3). This goes back to Hobbes’ statement on a state without authority, when Ralph’s faction lost power, they directly went into war. Why would this be a problem? A state without authority too suggests that it is because humans have an inherent brutish nature, otherwise Ralph and Jack would not have instantly been on warring terms. Having to imply that humans have any predetermined nature at all is fallible. The idea of predetermined nature states that there is a purpose for everything. Yet the very concept of purpose is subjective, for example, a situation can be seen as oppressive. But it is until the oppressed see the situation as oppressive, then in the global consciousness it becomes an oppressive situation. The purpose of the “oppressive situation” isn’t given until it is seen as oppressive. The same can be said about life itself, for

Open Document