“…demented but partly secure society.”

{This is an experimental essay.}

There are two kinds of dynamics. Intended, or assigned, dynamics and those that emerge as a result of the implementation – or at least the attempt thereof –  of the original intended dynamics.

[“Simon spoke aloud to the clearing. ‘What else is there to do?’ Nothing replied,” (Golding, 145). “Turned away from the open space,” (Golding, 145). “[The boys] bumped Piggy, who was burnt, and yelled and danced. Immediately, Ralph and the crowd of boys were united an  relieved by a storm of laughter. Piggy once more was the center of social derision so that everyone felt cheerful and normal,” (Golding, 149). “Give me a drink,” (Golding, 150). “Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky, found themselves eager to take place in this demented but partly secure society,” (152). “Now out of the terror rose another desire, thick, urgent, blind,” (Golding, 152). “Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood! Do him in!” (Golding, 152).]

[“As such episodes suggest, prisoners frequently found cause to overlook their natural kinship with guards from familiar backgrounds, and expressed their resistance to penitentiary discipline by instead drawing their overseers into open conflict. Aggravated to the point of violence by the monotony of solitary confinement, inmates sometimes lashed out at overseers, their most frequent visitors. Throughout the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, prisoners targeted overseers in a series of brutal attacks often triggered when an inmate refused to be transferred to special punishment cells. Desperate to avoid a darkened cell and reduced diet, they armed themselves with makeshift weapons fashioned from tools, work supplies, and even pieces of furniture and lashed out at their unarmed guards.” (Janofsky, 120). “So extensive had these communication networks become that by the 1850s the Prison Society worried that any semblance of inmate isolation was little more than a fantasy,” (Janofsky, 110). “Guards were the primary targets of prisoners’ violent actions, demonstrating the precariousness of interpersonal relationships behind bars,” (Janofsky, 120).]

Boys will be boys will essentially be men without alcohol.

The intended—.

            Through the lens of the resultant, (perhaps).

In violence there is the victim, and prior to the actualized victimization there is a relationship between the victim and the aggressor. This relationship can be constructed by a hierarchy. In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a hierarchy naturally established itself over the course of the boys’ time on the island. The group that kills Simon, however, ignores that hierarchy and order and instead acts as a collective identity, united against a common object. Fear.

Victim’s identity was mistaken, and this fact only reinforces the panic and violence caused by fear of the unknown, or the projection of a threat onto uncertainty

Entire body of boys isolated; physically removed

Earlier, habitually, the victim was self-isolated, causing to be mistaken, as something feared, though originally part of the same group.

Men in prison have no access to alcohol. A group of young school boys stranded on an island also has no access to alcohol, let alone their being underage. 

Institution Isolates Itself In Its Ideals

Physically constructed to remove and itself be removed. 

Institution created hierarchy. Enforced implementation of pressures, forces and dynamics—. Lowest, most pressured and forced group – inmates, the prisoners.

Gang mentality – behaviour of the inmates, though living individually in isolation, managed to disrupt a system and rebel against it

Does gang mentality occur in the individual, and then collectively manifest itself? Or does there need to be a togetherness, a community?

How they’d manipulate relationships with guards and with the priest over time… but arranging that when they are theoretically in isolation, very limited communication with each other, except for the handful of other inmates they can contact through holes in the wall of through the water pipes.

Chains and networks of communication, but not solid unit with everyone simultaneously present.

Or did simultaneity manifest itself regardless of lack of crowd formation, [congregation required?], and is that then a much more powerful indicator of the nature of men’s mentalities in response to their environment? If a thousand individuals individually respond and act in the same way without the total awareness of all the others, can that still be called functioning as a population and performing a certain behaviour collectively because of group dynamics, etc., or is this a demonstration of the commonality of natural reactions among men and boys?

Imagine the relationships… warped? Or authentic? Genuine dynamics?

I think the effective, functional result is the authentic representation of the reality involved.

Relationships between guards and inmates, common social and moral background, makes perfect sense. Aggression from inmate to guard seems so self-contained, at the end of the day. Dead end, feels like. Is this retaliation against institution? Or in response to frustration and fear? The latter seems to be more analogous with Lord of the Flies. Effectively, the boys attacked one of their own boys and killed him. Effectively, this was in response to frustration and fear. Effectively, this did nothing to change their situation, their state of being. Their island ‘institution.’ They remain inmates. Trapped.

…a result of the implementation – or at least the attempt thereof –  of the original intended dynamics.

Works Cited:

Golding, William. Lord of the Flies, William Golding. New York: Putnam, 1954. Print.

Janofsky, Jennifer L. ""Hopelessly Hardened"" Buried Lives: Incarcerated in Early America. Ed. Michele Lise Tarter and Richard Bell. Athens: University of Georgia, 2012. 106-23. Print.