Rousseau and Golding: Opposing Views of Human Nature as Seen in the Lord of the Flies

William Golding's novel, Lord of the Flies, challenges the ideas concerning human nature offered by Jean Jaques
Rousseau in his "Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind". The novel begins with a plane
crash. His characters, innocent schoolboys, are left stranded on a remote desert island. The crash is a clever way to return
the boys to the state of nature described by Rousseau. Rousseau views people as originally pure, but ultimately corrupted
by society. On the other hand, Golding sees man as naturally evil. People, therefore, corrupt society. Golding uses his
characters to prove his point. The schoolboys who are left to form their own society fall rapidly into chaos and violence
when adults and the rules of civilized society no longer are in charge of their behavior. Lord of the Flies suggests
Golding's negative view of human nature, that people of all ages have a natural capacity for evil, and that chaos is never
far beneath the surface of civilized society.
Rousseau and Golding have different opinions concerning the true nature of man. Rousseau describes savage man
as physically robust and mentally untroubled, living solitary lives dedicated to self-preservation, "self preservation being
his chief and almost sole concern"(Rousseau 7). He is corrupted only when he is brought into society with others and
begins to desire things beyond what is necessary to meet his immediate needs. Rousseau writes, "let us conclude that,
being self-sufficient and subject to so few passions, he could have no feelings or knowledge but such as befitted his
situation" (Rousseau 19). Golding's characters are placed in perfect state of nature with abundant fruit to eat and fresh
water for drinking and bathing in. Yet they do not follow the solitary, peaceful life of Rousseau's savage man but instead
immediately begin to assemble and argue. Jack and Ralph argue over leadership and the conflict between them grows. At
first, Jack accepts Ralph as the elected leader. However, later, he becomes jealous of Ralph's power and wants to seize it
for himself. Jack says, "He's not a hunter. He'd have never got us meat. He isn't a prefect and we don't know anything
about him. He just gives orders and expects people to obey for nothing... Who thinks Ralph oughtn't to be chief" (Golding
115)? When the boys refuse to remove Ralph from leadership, Jack storms away and starts his own tribe. Later, Jack's
tribe raids Ralph's camp, stealing their fire and Piggy's glasses. For Golding, man is social, not solitary, and the social
nature leads to conflict as struggles for power occur.
Rousseau claims that reason is responsible for most of the mental and physical ills of mankind, while Golding
views reason as the only thing keeping order and stopping the destructive natural instincts of all men. Reason allows man
to move away from the rules of nature and therefore indulge in excesses resulting in exhaustion, pain and anxieties.
Rousseau concludes that "man frequently deviates from such rules to his own prejudice... Hence it is that dissolute men
run into excesses that bring on fevers and death: because the mind depraves the senses and the will continues to speak
when nature is silent" (Rousseau 7). Golding views reason differently. Reason is the foundation of civilized society and
the rules and order that Piggy and Ralph try to enforce on the group. Piggy tries to organize the boys and to keep them
from behaving without first thinking of what the consequences of their actions might be. After they rush off to start an
enormous wild fire, he yells at them saying "How can you expect to be rescued if you don't put first things first and act
proper" (Golding 42)? Ralph, realizing that it is their only hope for rescue, is concerned mainly with starting and
maintaining a signal fire on top of the mountain. For Golding, reason promotes order and therefore is man's best hope of
rescue. Natural impulses are more likely to be destructive.
Rousseau and Golding also disagree with respect to man's ability to have compassion for others. Rousseau
believes that natural man possesses an inborn compassion which prevents him from harming other creatures beyond that
which is absolutely necessary for his own self preservation, "a natural repugnance at seeing a fellow creature suffer"
(Rousseau 15). That Golding opposes this view is clear by looking at the character of Jack. Jack, at the beginning of the
novel, hesitates to kill a pig the boys find in the forest. Golding writes "they knew very well why he hadn't; because of the
enormity of the knife descending and cutting into living flesh; because of the unbearable blood" (Golding 29). Golding
does not view savage man as being compassionate; instead, it is the civilized Jack who cannot stand the thought of
harming the pig. Later on, after Jack has drifted further into savagery, he finds pleasure in brutally killing the pigs. The
games reenacting the hunt become more and more violent, until finally Simon is killed. Even Ralph participates in the
murder of Simon, suggesting that everyone has an ability to be evil under the right conditions. This central theme of the
book is clearly illustrated by Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies when it says "Fancy thinking that the Beast
was something you could hunt and kill... You knew didn't you? I'm part of you. Close, Close, Close! I'm the reason why
it's a no go? Why things are what they are" (Golding 130)? Clearly Golding disagrees with Rousseau's idea of the natural
compassion of savage man. Instead, he sees man's ability for cruelty increase when man is uncontrolled by society.
The Lord of the Flies reflects Golding's beliefs about the faults of human nature, and the possible consequences
for society. Man is not, as Rousseau would suggest, pure and compassionate but instead is often brutal and in conflict.
Golding's idea of the dark side of human nature, while frightening, appears accurate. Every day reports of man's violence
against others are seen, both individual acts and nations at war. Lord of the Flies delivers an important message to all

readers; man's only hope is to recognize the beast within and attempt to control it through the civilizing effects of
government and religion.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/197465/rousseau_and_golding_opposing_views.html

Rousseau's The Social Contract develops a series of antitheses between natural existence and
civil society:
Natural Existence
Civil Society
instinct
justice
amoral
moral
appetite
reason
the mere impulse to appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty (The Social Contract,
196).
natural liberty, possession based on personal power
civil liberty, secure proprietorship based on respect for the law
individual strength
general will
from a stupid and unimaginative animal to an intelligent being and a man (The Social Contract, 196)
http://www.uoregon.edu/~jboland/rousseau.html

On Human Nature -- John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

"for John Locke (1632-1704), human beings are driven by both emotions and reason, and they are both self-interested and naturally
social or altruistic ("other-interested").
This conception contrasts sharply with the views of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes argued that human beings are centrally
desire-driven and solely self-interested. This view of human nature leads to a very different conception from Locke's of what political
arrangements are appropriate for human beings.
Given Locke's conception of human nature, we are further capable of self-rule - that is, especially through the facility of reason, Locke
will argue, individuals can be (largely) trusted to manage their own affairs in ways that are (more or less) consistent with the interests
and well-being of others.
This conception of human nature as capable of self-rule is crucial to the democratic argument.
If Hobbes is right - if human beings are primarily self-interested and desire-driven - we are not capable of self-rule. On the contrary:
our ruthless competition with one another to satisfy individual desires will quickly lead to what Hobbes calls "the war of each against
all," a "state of nature" in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short."
Such chaotic and uncertain conditions, he goes on to argue, will lead us to happily give up the sort of freedom from society and its
laws which we enjoy in the state of nature: on Hobbes' view, we would rather live under an authoritarian monarch who holds all
political power, for the sake of achieving a measure of social order.
In short, Hobbes' conception of human nature leads us to an either/or: either we enjoy freedom from society and its laws - resulting in
chaos; or we give up this freedom for an authoritarian regime - and enjoy a social order established by force.
By contrast, if Locke is right - if human beings are naturally rational, social, and thus capable of self-rule - then we don't need an
authoritarian regime to save us from ourselves.
On the contrary, as capable of self-rule, we are rather suited to establish and participate in democratic modes of government - i.e.,
modes of government which rest upon the consent of the governed.
http://www.drury.edu/ess/alpha/Locke1.html]]]]

Thoughts on the nature of human beings -Rousseau -- Man is originally pure, but later corrupted by society -"ignorance is bliss" -- reason is responsible for the many ills of mankind -the more we think, the worse things get.
Locke -- humans are driven by both reason and emotion -- we are
naturally rational, social, and self-interested, and therefore capable of selfrule -- or rule (government) that rests on the consent of the governed.
Hobbes -- humans are desire-driven and solely self-interested -- we will
do anything it takes to satisfy individual desires -- we enjoy a social order
established by force, or we enjoy freedom from society and its laws and the
resulting chaos.
Golding -- reason promotes order and survival, man's ability to inflict
cruelty grows in the absence of society -- humans are social beings rather
than solitary beings, and our social nature leads to conflicts as power
struggles ensue -- all humans have a loosely veiled dark side; that is, we
are all capable of horrific acts -- LOTF espouses Golding's view that
human nature is faulty, and the consequences for society are potentially
dire.