“But, brothers, this biting of their toe-nails over what is the cause of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don’t go into the cause of goodness, so why the other shop? If lewdies are good that’s because they like it, and I wouldn’t ever interfere with their pleasures, and so of the other shop. And I was patronizing the other shop. More, badness is of the self, the one, the you or me on our oddy knockies, and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty. But the not-self cannot have the bad, meaning they of the government and the judges and the schools cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self. And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines? I am serious with you, brothers, over this. But what I do I do because I like to do.” - Alex
I think Alex raises a very valid point here. Why is it automatically assumed that being good is the natural state of a human being, and anyone who deviates from this path is making up for something that prevents happiness? His point of view equates goodness with conforming to society. Then it is natural that people who want to rebel against the ‘system’, would choose to be bad instead of good. This probably explains the existence of so many violent teenage street gangs in the novel. Young people especially feel a need to be different, and violence is the natural opposite of the pale, compliant good behaviour that their society seems to demand. Alex almost takes aesthetic pleasure in violence, so his behaviour really is something that he chooses to do just because he likes it. Alex could choose to be good simply because of social expectations, but if he chooses to be bad instead, it implies that he is asserting his own individuality. Alex adds that God created the self, or free will. So he should have a choice, to be able to do as he pleases, else God could simply have made everyone automatically good. To him, being good or bad are equally valid lifestyle choices. I think this explains Alex’s attraction to violence and antisocial behaviour, despite having a good family life and natural intelligence. The book already shows that he readily gives away the money he steals, so greed isn’t his motivation. He simply sees violence as a way to express himself, and go against what society and the authorities expect. This passage makes him appear to consider the government, law and education to be agents of conformity, which suppress free choice and try to make everyone follow their predetermined rules. I think this attitude is the root of his dislike and disrespect for them. It is true that history is full of revolutions against the repressive policies of such institutions. Maybe Alex will also be driven to take some kind of serious stand against them; however, he seems to be too self-absorbed to sacrifice his thought and action for any particular cause beyond himself. What Alex doesn’t realize is that his actions do harm other people, and thus he cannot say that he does not interfere with their pleasures. I wonder if he will ever understand that, and how he would react to it.
I think Alex raises a very valid point here. Why is it automatically assumed that being good is the natural state of a human being, and anyone who deviates from this path is making up for something that prevents happiness? His point of view equates goodness with conforming to society. Then it is natural that people who want to rebel against the ‘system’, would choose to be bad instead of good. This probably explains the existence of so many violent teenage street gangs in the novel. Young people especially feel a need to be different, and violence is the natural opposite of the pale, compliant good behaviour that their society seems to demand. Alex almost takes aesthetic pleasure in violence, so his behaviour really is something that he chooses to do just because he likes it. Alex could choose to be good simply because of social expectations, but if he chooses to be bad instead, it implies that he is asserting his own individuality. Alex adds that God created the self, or free will. So he should have a choice, to be able to do as he pleases, else God could simply have made everyone automatically good. To him, being good or bad are equally valid lifestyle choices. I think this explains Alex’s attraction to violence and antisocial behaviour, despite having a good family life and natural intelligence. The book already shows that he readily gives away the money he steals, so greed isn’t his motivation. He simply sees violence as a way to express himself, and go against what society and the authorities expect. This passage makes him appear to consider the government, law and education to be agents of conformity, which suppress free choice and try to make everyone follow their predetermined rules. I think this attitude is the root of his dislike and disrespect for them. It is true that history is full of revolutions against the repressive policies of such institutions. Maybe Alex will also be driven to take some kind of serious stand against them; however, he seems to be too self-absorbed to sacrifice his thought and action for any particular cause beyond himself. What Alex doesn’t realize is that his actions do harm other people, and thus he cannot say that he does not interfere with their pleasures. I wonder if he will ever understand that, and how he would react to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment