Skip to content


April 27, 2013



Whenever you go back in your mind over Golding’s Lord of The Flies (1954) or you come across the film version of 1963, realize what is actually missing in the unsupervised universe of pupescent and pre-pupescent anthropological horror that is served to you.

In the literary-intellectual game that is proposed to you, the starting point is the transfer of culturally determined individuals into a context of no culture at all, in which food, however, in the form of fruit is a given-something that has to be looked for but not thought about or logistically assured.

And so above all, the problem for these boys is really what they should actually do with time as they perceive it.

It is their problem and it is the problem of human culture, also, especially after agriculture.

And just like in the novel-or film-the key to survival in anthropological culture is some kind of “hype”-some form of mythological engagement in wonder as collective life mechanism and existential context.

And human societies ultimately have a need for a form of supreme power that is clearly a mirror image of the tacit, ever present power of destruction of nature itself.

And behind all of it is the culturally shunned, crypto contemplation of collective annihilation itself.

And that’s why, ultimately, you must bow to this power, implore its mercy and personify it in the form of some kind of divinity that allows you to ritually address the truth of your existence in a mostly visceral contemplation of it as life itself.

And the child that is man needs a father-that is God, or culture figures of authority that have come to historically substitute him, like the concept of civilization itself.

And in the novel exactly this is symbolized by the British Naval officer or merchant marine who appears God-like on the beach at the end, and around whom the forlorn children huddle and cling to.

But, as I say, there is just one thing missing in the story.

Because there is really nothing to do-food is all around-the ideological-political conflict that arises within the group becomes the context in which life itself takes place.

And Golding’s final message appears to be that man is irrevocably destined to destroy himself without the appeal on the part of humanity to a higher plane of principles or even god, if that is all there is.

For Jack as the symbol of unrestrained man, bases ultimately the power of his collective appeal on the murder, every night, of another individual as prey for the collective quest to “kill the beastie”.

But what is missing from the story is human sexuality.

Because Lord of the Flies is a story told from the standpoint of the West and it is told by an Englishman-or “Brit”; and it is a story meant to be read by the West and by, most especially people of Anglo Saxon culture.

And human sexuality for Anglo Saxons is a most crypto phenomenon-even for anthropologist (most frustratingly!).

Within this group of mostly pre-puepescent males-in the circumstances just as they are presented in the story as being beyond all the cultural restraints of Western civilization-individual sexuality would have quickly risen to eventually act itself as a form of collective mediation or restraint.

And relationships of power and dominance through sexuality would have also come into play to define and structure the group in some way.

And the violence of the essential nihilism of man would have been diffused or dissipated to some degree into less deadly forms of group cohesion.

Because the good thing about sexual experiences-of whatever kind-as power and expression of more abstract psychological or cultural forces-and of even abuse or rape-is that you don’t necessary have to die-or kill.

And all your Puritan fears and terrors of Anglos Saxon man that may be surging in you, now as you read these words, would have an entirely different meaning on Golding’s island and in the circumstances of Lord of The Flies.

And the essential premise of the argument of the story itself is rendered invalid: life for the group in fact could have been possible into the future in a different way and form.

Thanks to human sexuality-which is not really about reproduction in its essence!

And the moral pangs of disgust that you feel now have more to do with the social and cultural medium you belong to, and not with a serious understanding of the literary lifeboat situation as anthropological enigma Golding brings to us.

Ever stop to think that the degraded sexual capacity-in all regards-of all other mammals compared to man, is because the capacity of mammals to form cultures is also most degraded compared to that of man?

Well now you can:

_________________________Human Culture


_________Human Sexuality                                             Cognizance

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s