Re: [Marxism] Lord of the Flies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary's completely right about the pessimistic worldview of Golding. But it's always seemed to me that Lord of the Flies was an extremely effective portrayal, even if done unintentionally, of how thin the veneer of our civilization is, in this case despite all the advantages and privileges and supposed culture of the English upper classes. In that sense it mirrors Conrad's Heart of Darkness. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Gary MacLennan gary.maclenn...@gmail.com wrote: Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Lord of the Flies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Andy Pollack wrote: Gary's completely right about the pessimistic worldview of Golding. But it's always seemed to me that Lord of the Flies was an extremely effective portrayal, even if done unintentionally, of how thin the veneer of our civilization is, in this case despite all the advantages and privileges and supposed culture of the English upper classes. In that sense it mirrors Conrad's Heart of Darkness. But isn't that one of the mostr misanthropic things about the novel? I studied it in high school in sixth form (when you're 16). I hated it and thought it was not merely pessimistic but anti-human. The assumption that you take humans away from an existing society and they revert to some barbaric, savage state is without any foundation at all. It's in line with the whole 'Naked Ape' idea of humanity. In fact, taken out of a civilised society, humans tend to attempt to recreate civilisation rather than fall back into some savage state. I'm not quite sure what Golding's purpose was. Maybe he was trying to show that the English upper class institutions don't really civilise people. But if that was his point, there were better ways of showing it. I've just finished reading 'The White Tiger'. Its portrayal of the Indian upper class reminds me a lot of Rohinton Mistry's magnificent 'A Fine Balance'. Now there are two really good writers portraying the lack of civilisation among the social elite without writing novels that are misanthropic. Plus, for kids behaving badly Susan Hill's 'I'm the King of the Castle' is better than Golding's 'Lord of the Flies'. Phil Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Lord of the Flies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Right, and my personal experiences with Alaskan Natives, some of whom lived in what Marx called a culture of primitive communism was completely different. One chief who died in 1993 at the age of 116 commented that his impression of Europeans or white people was their incredible obsession with material things. His obit in the Anchorage Daily News talked about how he first ran into them in 1890 at the age of 14 while hunting with his father when they were confronted by these prospectors who were starving; they gave them food and while they shoveled the food down they were frantically asking questions about gold. Say what? they couldn't believe it. Thus from the Western perspective, Golding's attitude is somewhat different from that of Rousseau who questioned the whole notion of civilisation in the first place and of course Marx and others realized that this was really a self-serving monicker for class society. In that vein, wasn't it Lenin who talked about the difference between the bourgoisie in its incipient progressive phase and the bourgoisie in its decadent reactionary nihilistic dying imperialist one? On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Philip Ferguson philipfergus...@gmail.comwrote: But isn't that one of the mostr misanthropic things about the novel? I studied it in high school in sixth form (when you're 16). I hated it and thought it was not merely pessimistic but anti-human. The assumption that you take humans away from an existing society and they revert to some barbaric, savage state is without any foundation at all. It's in line with the whole 'Naked Ape' idea of humanity. In fact, taken out of a civilised society, humans tend to attempt to recreate civilisation rather than fall back into some savage state. I'm not quite sure what Golding's purpose was. Maybe he was trying to show that the English upper class institutions don't really civilise people. But if that was his point, there were better ways of showing it. Phil Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Lord of the Flies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == then of course there's the whole sanctimonious imperialist propaganda going back to Cortez of the colonialists subjecting the benighted natives solely for the altruistic reason of bring Christian civilization to these barbaric heathen. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Philip Ferguson philipfergus...@gmail.comwrote: But isn't that one of the mostr misanthropic things about the novel? I'm not quite sure what Golding's purpose was. Maybe he was trying to show that the English upper class institutions don't really civilise people. But if that was his point, there were better ways of showing it. Phil Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Lord of the Flies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I have had occasion recently to teach this book again after a gap of nearly 45 years. What is evident to me now looking at the novel again is that William Golding's basic assumptions about humanity are very dark. Quite simply his thesis is that humanity = a piece of shit. However because he is an artist he can structure this very banal thought into a series of dramatic events.The basic technique would appear to be that of the spiral. First the event is briefly and fleetingly broached, then it is returned to in more depth. this is how the topic of evil appears. First the little ones speak of a beast. This talk is dismissed. Then one of the little ones seemingly vanishes, but nobody can explain this, nor are they sure it has happened and in any case they will not talk about it. Then there is a fuller discussion (round p. 111) and here the central conflict at this discussion is between Piggy and Simon, but he disguises this with a lot of sleight of hand about holding the conch, which conveys the right to speak at the assembleys. It would seem that the major protagonists at the discussion are jJack and Ralph, but it is Piggy's ideas versus Simon's ideas that Golding is targeting. Piggy is fully of common sense and routine. The Piggys of the world get up, walk to the station, buy the paper, sit there on the train and read it, get to their office and then repeat the whole procedure backwards. Arrive home and go to bed and so on for the rest of their lives. They question nothing and take all for granted. Simon is however at a different level. He is the mystic who wants to see into the heart of things and what he sees deeply disturbs him. He sees that humanity is intrinsically flawed/ evil or a piece of dirt. His encounter with the beast is strange and quite mystical. Simon gets into a dialogue with the head of a pig which has been put on a stake as a sacrifice to the beast. The pig is presented as saying to Simon - You knew didn't you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I'm the reason why it's no go? why things are what they are? Mystics close the distance between themselves and god - they merge with their creator - whatever that is and then fall into silence. So Simon merges into an awareness of the dark forces within himself. No mystical union is ever likely to happen to Piggy because day to day living has dulled his consciousness, but Simon lives on a deeper plane of terror. Now what of the central thesis humanity = piece of shit? What are the political implications of it? Well of course there is no point in reforming anything because humanity is shit and will always make a mess of it. Life is doomed to be nasty brutish and short as Hobbes put it. Better to leave things as they are in case they get worse. That is the heart of the conservatism of Golding's art. It helps of course to have a conservative view of the world if one is at the same born into a middle class family and becomes a success later in life. In any case, we get the kind of dystopic classic which can safely be recommended for generations upon generations of school boys. In many ways Lord of the Flies is the natural successor to Animal Farm./ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Lord of the flies environment at U.S. embassy in Kabul
Our Embassy in Afghanistan Is Guarded by Sexually Confused Frat Boys By John Cook, Wonder what it's like to guard State Department facilities in Kabul? In photos first published by Gawker, security contractors get their kicks peeing on one another, simulating anal sex, doing butt shots, and eating potato chips out of ass cracks. These photos were provided to us by the Project on Government Oversight, which has just written a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing its investigation into the Lord of the Flies environment that has overtaken the private contractors who guard State Department employees in Kabul, Afghanistan. According to POGO, employees of ArmorGroup North America—a unit of contracting giant Wackenhut—get their jollies off by deviant hazing [that] has created a climate of fear and coercion, with those who declined to participate often ridiculed, humiliated, demoted, or even fired. What sort of hazing? The traditional desperately homoerotic frat boy kind, mostly involving eating and drinking things off of other men's butts. Also some nipple-biting, as you can see below. One POGO whistle blower described it thusly [PDF link]: They have a group of sexual predators, deviants running rampant over there. No, they are not jamming guys in the ass per say [sic], but they are showing poor judgenment [sic]. Most of it appears to have been voluntary, but those who didn't really want to drink vodka shots out of the clenched butt-cheeks of their male co-workers were penalized and reported barricading themselves in their rooms. And sometimes the behavior extended to the locals: An Afghan national employed as a food service worker at the guard corps' base at Camp Sullivan submitted a signed statement dated August 16, 2009, attesting that a guard force supervisor and four others entered a dining facility on August 1, 2009, wearing only short underwear and brandishing bottles of alcohol. Upon leaving the facility, the guard force supervisor allegedly grabbed the Afghan national by the face and began abusing him with foul language, saying, You are very good for fXXXing. The Afghan national reported that he was too afraid of them I could not tell them any thing. So anyway, these are the people who are guarding our national security in Afghanistan, being paid vast multiples of what soldiers, sailors, and marines get with your tax dollars. Are these guys asking, or telling? full: http://gawker.com/5350465/our-embassy-in-afghanistan-is-guarded-by-sexually-confused-frat-boys/gallery/?skyline=trues=x YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
