The Nature versus Nurture debate
(Some ideas to consider after reading part one)
Essentially this comes down to whether one believes that humans are born ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Or, whether innate qualities (what we’re like when we’re born) are more important than the environment that we grown up in (parents, housing, media etc) in determining how we behave. This is a simplification of the debate but serves as a starting point.
On the one hand, some have believed that human are born as innocent, inherently good and even noble beings. It is the influence of society that makes people act in selfish, cruel or evil ways. This standpoint is sometimes referred to as the ‘noble savage’ and is often (mistakenly) attributed to the French philosopher Rousseau. Whilst Rousseau did not invent the term ‘noble savage’ he did criticise what he saw as the corrupting influence of traditional education and affirmed man’s innate goodness.
On the other side of the debate stands the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who, in his book Leviathan, wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man". In this state, he wrote, any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Basically Hobbes felt that we need laws and rules to keep the selfish side of human nature in check.
In William Golding’s* Lord of the Flies the boys, left alone on a desert island turn against one another and the suggestion seems to be that without the restrictions of their schools and the authority of adults children will revert to savagery. The issue is complicated by the fact that they boys are on the island because they were escaping from a war. So one might argue that their turn to savagery is an imitation of the conflict they have witnessed in the wider world.
Some philosophers these days would argue that the whole nature versus nurture debate is simply naïve since it appears obvious that both one’s genetic make up and one’s environment are important factors in an individual’s development.
It is still worth considering the two extreme views that Alex can either be considered ‘evil’ or that he is himself a victim of society. Alex lives in a society where everyone has to work. Therefore he is neglected by his parents. He seems to be surrounded by a kind of nightmarish concrete jungle (see the description of the flats where he lives). He is beaten by the police when he is arrested.
Alternatively, can we view Alex as a young man who has somehow escaped the usual restrictions of society? Can we view his behaviour as somehow aberrant or a perversion of normal behaviour and so he needs to re-educated, re-conditioned, or re-programmed.
The latter view is called bahaviourism and will be considered later.
Have a look at some of the links below and develop your own ideas about Alex, his place in society and how society might deal with someone like Aaex.
Some introductory pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
http://portal.jarbury.net/essay/rousseau.html
A long and detailed essay
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/12710/a_comparison_of_jeanjacques_rousseau.html
*It is interesting to note that both Golding and Burgess had been school teachers.
