Teaching Lord of the Flies for the very first time.
October 23, 2011 7:10 AM   Subscribe

How to introduce a post-colonial perspective when teaching Lord of the Flies to high school kids? I want to show that the "savage" behaviour of the boys on the island comes from a British imagining of savagery, not necessarily the absence of civilization.

I am a student teacher on my practicum, and I am currently teaching Lord of the Flies to a grade ten academic class. I want to introduce the idea that representations of "savage" behaviour are problematic, and that the boys are imitating a construct that results from colonialism. Can you suggest resources or activities that can help me with planning this lesson? Any video clips, writings from colonizers representing "savage" indigenous people, or anything otherwise?
Also, am I on track here? Once I steer them towards this reading of the text, how do I explain the darkness and evil that emerges out of the boys' situation, since it will no longer be the obvious civilization=good, lack of civilization=bad. Any suggestions will be appreciated!
(anonymous because I don't want the question linked to my account.)
posted by anonymous to Writing & Language (25 answers total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Maybe look at the history and influence of the "noble savage" idea and various backlashes/debunkings of it? Also maybe ask questions about where the kids got the idea to try some of the things they tried. ("wait, you put a pig's head on a stick? what's up with that?")

I'm not sure I agree with your reading of it, though. It's been a while (okay, decades) since I've actually read the book, but I think some of the behaviors are just as easily tied to pre-christian and (non-colonial) native superstitions ("there's a monster over there." "okay, leave it an offering.") as to colonial ideas of savagery. Although some of those may also be informed by colonialist views of more 'primitive' cultures (even their own). Regardless, it's certainly an interesting line of inquiry to get kids thinking beyond the text itself to the context surrounding it.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:35 AM on October 23, 2011


A useful website might be Postcolonial and PostImperial Literature: An Overview


Additionally, Homi Bhabha's work and others reflecting upon it may offer extracts that are thoughtful and relevant to discuss viz.,

In other words, Bhabha argues that cultural identities cannot be ascribed to pre-given, irreducible, scripted, ahistorical cultural traits that define the conventions of ethnicity. Nor can "colonizer" and "colonized" be viewed as separate entities that define themselves independently. Instead, Bhabha suggests that the negotiation of cultural identity involves the continual interface and exchange of cultural performances that in turn produce a mutual and mutable recognition (or representation) of cultural difference. As Bhabha argues in the passages below, this "liminal" space is a "hybrid" site that witnesses the production--rather than just the reflection--of cultural meaning:

Terms of cultural engagement, whether antagonistic or affiliative, are produced performatively. The representation of difference must not be hastily read as the reflection of pre-given ethnic or cultural traits set in the fixed tablet of tradition. The social articulation of difference, from the minority perspective, is a complex, on-going negotiation that seeks to authorize cultural hybridities that emerge in moments of historical transformation. (2)

It is in this sense that the boundary becomes the place from which something begins its presencing in a movement not dissimilar to the ambulant, ambivalent articulation of the beyond that I have drawn out: 'Always and ever differently the bridge escorts the lingering and hastening ways of men to and fro, so that they may get to other banks....The bridge gathers as a passage that crosses.' (5)


Or:

And yet Bhabha's central argument is that the English book -- a fetishized sign that glorifies the epistemological centrality and permanence of European dominance -- paradoxically is an emblem of "colonial ambivalence" that suggests the weakness of colonial discourse and its susceptability to "mimetic" subversion. As Bhabha argues in the passage below, the English book, instead of describing the fixity or irreducability of European rule, in fact betrays these foundations of authority and moreover empowers the colonized subject with a mode of resistance against imperial oppression:

The discovery of the English book establishes both a measure of mimesis and a mode of civil authority and order. If these scenes, as I have narrated them, suggest the triumph of the write of colonialist power, then it must be conceded that the wily letter of the law inscribes a much more ambivalent text of authority. for it is in between the edict of Englishness and the assault of the dark unruly spaces of the earth, through an act of repetition, that the colonial text emerges uncertainly...consequently, the colonial presence is always ambivalent, split between its appearance as original and authoritative and its articulation as repetition and difference. (107)

posted by infini at 7:41 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


One "text" I used when I taught Lord of the Flies last semester was the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street". It's not exactly about colonialism, but it does speak about the inherent savagery of man. We also watched the episode of Community about the debate team, "Debate 109"

As far as how to avoid steering them away from a particular reading, one thing I did that worked really well was to use Literature Circles and student lead discussions. I pointed some things out, but I also think it is SUPER important that the teacher isn't the everflowing font of perfect knowledge and that each and every reading of a text is valid because that student believes it. This isn't a teaching philosophy that everyone subscribes to, but for me, it is very important that students are reinforced in whatever reading they might have.

I think that if you see colonial ideas of indigenous savages in the novel, point that out, but also point out other readings and solicit ideas from the class as to how they see the text. They may see something that you or anybody else never even thought of, and that's one of the reasons great literature is so fun.

I think one other text you might look at is maybe Robinson Crusoe, it's been a while, but aren't there some savages in that novel? Possibly Heart of Darkness? They're both dealing with colonialism, so you've got that.

On a similar note, how does the idea of savages and colonialism jive with the time and setting of the novel, also the fact that there are no savages on the island save the boys?
posted by ThaBombShelterSmith at 7:43 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


This could be a great lesson! For this grade level I think you might consider emphasizing a deconstruction of:
1. The very premise of equating the "natural" state of "man" with both childhood and pre-nation-state civilization. This of course means you have to teach them the basic premises of Thomas Hobbes, who (from my hazy recollection of Golding) is probably heavily shadowing the premise of LOTF.
2. The other side of this coin is of course equating a "natural" state -- free from the constraints of civilization,-- with the goodness and innocence of childhood. The "noble savage" idea from Rousseau (ah -- on preview, above!) is clearly not Golding's sense of natural childhood -- but you can see that the equation of childhood with non-European cultures ('savagery') is a construction that goes both ways (children are savages, savages are children).
A good turn-your-brain-around film to try to check out, for re-thinking savage/civilization premises in modern times: Cannibal Tours.
posted by Tylwyth Teg at 7:50 AM on October 23, 2011


how do I explain the darkness and evil that emerges out of the boys' situation, since it will no longer be the obvious civilization=good, lack of civilization=bad

I don't agree with that reading of the text, but (and because) you can point out how the story begins with a war, and ends with the boys being found by the Navy. It's a story about the struggle for power in any group of people (aka civilization). Two wars, neither necessarily better nor worse than the other.
posted by Houstonian at 7:52 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think you're going down a dangerous path, drawing conclusions on a text before you've found any supporting evidence. It's also dangerous to determine the conclusions of the the text for your students. Let them draw conclusions on their own, present them, and then you can lead a discussion on how the text supports or doesn't support their interpretation. You can then present your own interpretation, framing it as just another perspective.

When I was in school (for an English degree), I always researched broadly first, and then, knowing what was out there, narrowed my research to an appropriate thesis. I'd suggest you follow the same path for this lesson plan.
posted by litnerd at 8:03 AM on October 23, 2011 [20 favorites]


It's also dangerous to determine the conclusions of the the text for your students.

I agree with the sentiments of the above, but it doesn't seem to be what the OP is doing. A teacher always presents the book within a particular lens, whether or not this is made explicit. Here the OP is illuminating the framework of savagery/childhood which forms the central argument of the book. Golding is coming from a very specific set of cultural ideas about childhood and savagery -- and these are ideas that are historical and political and have changed over the past half century -- and pointing them out as historical assumptions, rather than natural facts, to high school students is is not necessarily going to preclude other nuanced readings within in the novel.
posted by Tylwyth Teg at 8:11 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


LOTF is not in slightest about a reversion to a pre-colonized state of "native" social organization. Colonial ideology did not regard that state as one of Hobbesian anarchy but rather a defective form of organization -- social structures which were strong, but self-defeating in terms of advancing wealth and sophistication. Savgery was identified by the lack of palaces and grain storehouses, not by the lack of clear hierarchies and fat myopic kids being harassed.
posted by MattD at 8:15 AM on October 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


how do I explain the darkness and evil that emerges

I have no idea what the established thinking is on this WRT LotF; my own conclusion was just boys being boys in the absence of authority. However I very much like the idea of showing "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street" in conjunction with teaching LotF to tenth graders.
posted by Rash at 8:16 AM on October 23, 2011


Also, am I on track here?

No, I don't think you are. The darkness and evil emerge not "out of the boys' situation", as you put it, but out of the boys' own heads. Golding doesn't see civilisation as "good", he sees it as incapable of restraining the innate human propensity to violence.

That said, I think you're absolutely right that the idea of 'savagery' plays a crucial part in the novel. Why not ask your students to list all the passages in the novel where the word 'savage' occurs? It should quickly become obvious that Golding's use of the term is heavily ironic, as, e.g., when he makes Jack say 'we're not savages, we're English', or when he describes the boys as experiencing a 'liberation into savagery'. You could also ask your students to look at Golding's source-text, The Coral Island, and see how differently that book uses the term 'savage'.
posted by verstegan at 8:20 AM on October 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


LOTF is not in slightest about a reversion to a pre-colonized state of "native" social organization
I'm not an expert by any means on LOTF, but I do remember a lot of talk in the book about children forming "tribes," holding spears and face painting -- in other words, the cultural imagery prevalent about savagery at the time of the novel -- and of course this was conflated in the novel with an overarching idea about man's natural state as anarchic.
posted by Tylwyth Teg at 8:32 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't think most commenters are understanding your question, anon. The examples (as stated above) of "savagery" are definitely stereotypical images. Whether the author did thr on purpose or not, I don't know. I'm not an expert on history here, so I can't say that it started with colonialism. It might have been a more wide-spread stereotype due to colonialism, however. What about ancient Rome? I definitely seem to remember a lot of "savage" references thrown about when learning about that.

I would most certainly argue that those types stereotypical images are ethnocentric to some extreme degree. Ethnocentrism is a GREAT lesson for high schoolers. Maybe aim for that?
posted by two lights above the sea at 9:04 AM on October 23, 2011


I wouldn't call it the "imagining" of savagery, more like the direct and intimate knowledge of the savagery of the typical social behavior of British boarding school boys. In fact I have a theory that it was the emotional traumas of these schools, starting with being separated from and unprotected by their parents at the tender age of 7, and proceding on to bullying, beatings and possibly rapes, which deadened the emotions of males of the British ruling class, allowing them to implement colonial oppression with the legendary "stiff upper lip". The abused becoming abusers, etc., etc. See
http://www.boardingconcern.org.uk/index.php?pageid=49
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0953790401/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

Try having your students compare some fiction or non-fiction about the all-male boarding school--and I think American Prep schools have never been much different from British ones. You may want to use some tv or movie clips to liven things up. This TV-focused link has a list of literature too:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoardingSchool

Tom Brown's Schooldays is probably the oldest such novel, but I haven't read it so don't know if it would be useful. Stalky and Co. by Kipling explicitly ties into colonialism, but I haven't read it in years and can't remember if it would be a good choice. Heart of Darkness is also clearly related to the theme you want to bring out, but it may be too complicated to teach, as IMO Conrad never questions the "savagery" of the natives of the Congo. The beginning of Maurice by EM Forster is at a boarding school. Then there's The Lords of Discipline by Pat Conroy. Another list:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/literary%20fiction?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxTN99755I5FW0&cdThread=Tx28IMZHM5IY3SE&displayType=tagsDetail

Some real-life experiences: http://www.boardingconcern.org.uk/index.php?pageid=29

Christopher Hitchens has written quite a bit about his boarding school experience in Hitch-22. I'm sure you can find more high-quality non-fiction.
posted by r0w at 9:12 AM on October 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


I don't think most commenters are understanding your question, anon.

My sense is that there's a degree of wariness about the '[o]nce I steer them towards this reading of the text' approach, particularly with 16-year-old readers, because it feels a wee bit shoehorny. I think it's valuable to run alternative strands for discussion --- whether it's a reversion to a Hobbesian state of nature, an acting-out of received clichés of savagery, an ironic inversion of school-for-boys social order, or a combination of all three.

From a teaching perspective, is it necessarily a bad thing for stereotypes that you clearly regard as problematic to emerge from the initial reading? You can deflect them as necessary, but also use them to illustrate the propensity of prejudice to take over unless checked.
posted by holgate at 9:30 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


On a BBC Radio 3 podcast in September, there was an illuminating discussion of William Golding. I can only remember one relevant point, that the 'darkness and evil' was present among the boys from the very start, when Ralph callously disregards Piggy's pleas not to tell the other boys his nickname. The whole thing is about 20 minute long and probably worth sticking on your mp3 player, even if the rest of it doesn't directly address your question.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 9:34 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think your interpretation is wrong for the reason MattD gives. If you read Locke on property, or other contemporaneous apologists for colonialism, it's hard to resist precisely that conclusion. The problem with Aboriginal people, for Europeans, wasn't that they were savage or warlike; rather, seen through European eyes, the problem was that Aboriginals wasted the land and lived in poverty. Colonizers knew that Aboriginals lived in functional groups, but they believed those groups were economically inefficient.

Furthermore, I think the infamous Robbers Cave experiment lends credibility to some of Golding's conclusions, and I wouldn't quickly dismiss or downplay the dominant interpretation of the book. Granted, you might point out that the iconography does violence to Aboriginal groups, and that might be a valuable point, but it's not, I don't think, the motivation for the book's major themes.
posted by smorange at 9:52 AM on October 23, 2011


I think there are multiple layers of interpretation here. The boys do descend into violence; to what extent is that inherent, and to what extent do they do it because they've been socialized into it? The violence they descend into is typical of a colonial impression of savagery: to what extent is that inherent, and to what extend do they do it because that's what they've been taught will happen in the absence of a strong paternalistic authority? And finally, remember that these are not people, but characters; Golding controls everything they do and say. What influenced his choices to write his characters in this way? Is the aping of the colonial ideas of "savagery" conscious or subconscious?

A possible thought exercise -- I have no idea how you'd do this -- would be for the students to write an essay on how the depiction of what happens on the island would have been different for an author writing in 21st-century America rather than mid-twentieth-century Britain, and why.
posted by KathrynT at 10:01 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm saying one more thing, then backing out.
THere is not one single "colonial ideology," but rather centuries of imagining non-European others, some of whose riches and palaces were very admiringly described while being plundered. But the point here is not whether "colonial ideology" was Hobbesian (though it's impossible not to contextualize Hobbes as part of an era of early European expansion). The point, rather, is that Golding, as a *novelist* (not a rational synthesizier of "colonial ideology") used various master narratives about civilization, savagery and natural atavism. The OP should NOT be discouraged from exploring various master narratives with high school students learning the tropes of savagery and civilization that often go unsaid. That doesn't mean the OP will be reductive about the characters, nor that colonizing ideologies all match up with LOTF -- but really, no one can teach this novel anymore without exploring larger European/American ideas of savagery, "naturalness," childhood and civilization.
posted by Tylwyth Teg at 10:03 AM on October 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


The point, rather, is that Golding, as a *novelist* (not a rational synthesizier of "colonial ideology") used various master narratives about civilization, savagery and natural atavism.

But isn't Golding's experience in WW2 and the rise (and fall) of Nazism a more likely explanation for the novel's overarching themes? I think the OP risks misrepresenting both colonial ideology and the themes of the book.
posted by smorange at 10:20 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


-how do I explain the darkness and evil that emerges out of the boys' situation, since it will no longer be the obvious civilization=good, lack of civilization=bad

I don't think the basic conflict of LOTF is between civilization and savagery, exactly. Ralph and Jack both set up 'civilizations' with internally consistent rules, but one is internally sustainable and the other isn't. I think it's (partially) about order vs. chaos (though certainly not ONLY about that.)

-I don't agree with that reading of the text, but (and because) you can point out how the story begins with a war, and ends with the boys being found by the Navy. It's a story about the struggle for power in any group of people (aka civilization). Two wars, neither necessarily better nor worse than the other.

Also, THIS. When I was taught this book for the first time, in 8th grade, our teacher didn't point this out and none of us picked up on it at all. When I read it the second time and did pick up on it, I was floored. The parallels between what happened with the boys and the 'proper, civilized' gentlemanly Navy captain totally changed the way I saw the entire rest of the book.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:37 AM on October 23, 2011


Seconding Houstonian -- it's in the background for most of the book, but the boys crash on the island while evacuating from a limited nuclear war between the UK and "the Reds." The dead parachutist that sparks much of the fear of "the beast" is even from a nighttime dogfight overhead. Like the business with the conch shell and the glasses, the trappings of civilization in the outside world are just a facade for the same savagery that eventually erupts on the island.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:08 PM on October 23, 2011


Following on r0w's comment above, I seem to recall that we read George Orwell's essay "Such, Such Were the Joys" (arguably NSFW) around the same time as Lord of the Flies. Although it pre-dates LOTF by a bit, it might provide some useful (and quite vivid) context.
posted by sueinnyc at 5:48 PM on October 23, 2011


How to introduce a post-colonial perspective when teaching Lord of the Flies to high school kids?

It would be worth contrasting LotF with Robinson Crusoe. The latter was a parable of the rationalist European mindset, and in particular of Homo Economicus. It also has colonial elements, namely Man Friday.

Both novels obviously dealt with castaways on islands, but in the optimistic earlier novel, the "natural" state of man tended towards a utopian ideal, whereas in the later novel, it obviously fell into a dystopia.

(like others above, I'm wary about shoehorning LotF into a postcolonial framework, since there were only colonisers & no colonised people, but I do think the contrasts between one book written during a period of colonialism, versus the other near its death throes, can show a shift in prevailing attitudes, especially as both novels function mostly as parables)
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:57 PM on October 23, 2011


Okay, wow. I've taught this book a dozen times or so with different classes, and while I understand the desire to link it to post-colonialism (after all, my degree/research focus is Africa, particularly the literature, theatre and history of post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa), I think you're a little off the mark with your reading of it. Now, if you were doing Heart of Darkness or Things Fall Apart, sure. Savagery in those books are linked strongly to colonialism.

I would be happy to share resources with you via memail or talk about the Socratic Seminars I did (with great success). I also did a connection to the James Bulger case and have some great videos I've used (which I can also send you if you memail me) as well as a unit focusing on "Why Boys Become Vicious" (an article Golding wrote).

I would also encourage you to think about whether or not you want to push an external reading on this text. I always think it's more useful to have students read it and analyse it through various lenses, but also to allow them to find their own interpretation (or more accurately, THINK they're finding their own...by modelling and guiding that process heavily).

I have a student teacher right now, and this kind of idea is just the kind of thing you should be starting with - I love the enthusiasm you show. I am excited to see what you come up with, and I'm serious - memail me and I'll send you some stuff I've used.
posted by guster4lovers at 6:14 PM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think you're making a category error. When you say, "how do I explain the darkness and evil that emerges out of the boys' situation, since it will no longer be the obvious civilization=good, lack of civilization=bad" I think you're looking in the wrong place to reinterpret the activity of the novel. It's not about the internal reading - the post-colonial frame doesn't change the novel itself.

A writer invents the entire self-contained universe in his or her novel, no matter how much it touches on "real" stuff in the world. Bringing stuff from outside of that universe into the novel is dangerous - but understanding how the author conformed to or rebelled against conventional wisdom of his/her age and may have been explicitly commenting on it - that's a rich subject for consideration.

I think you want to keep it at a meta level - use post-colonialism to gain a greater understanding of Golding the writer and the frameworks in which he works (I would find evidence for this). LOTF is in many ways science fiction, particularly in that it's primarily about the time in which the author wrote. What is it, precisely, that Golding was responding to. Sure he uses the language of "savages" and the like - but is that to be taken literally? Or is there another way to consider it in the context of post-colonial thought?
posted by mikel at 2:55 PM on October 24, 2011


« Older Am I intolerant to alcohol, or just bashful?   |   Need some music blogs that post mixes! Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.