A Clockwork Orange & Modern Social Imaginaries: A Small/Large Scale Comparison

A Clockwork Orange & Modern Social Imaginaries: A Small/Large Scale Comparison

A Clockwork Orange, directed by Stanley Kubrick, shows us how society attempts to 'reform' those that are different from the 'norm'. Alex DeLarge is seen as a criminal, a delinquent, and an overall bad apple, but society uses him as a laboratory mouse, in a sense, in order to change his ways. DeLarge is taken from the streets and put into a program that utilizes drugs and psychotherapy in order to change him from an outcast anti-social to a more compassionate human. Modern Social Imaginaries by Charles Taylor highlights the shift within society as a whole through the centuries and talks about how society has shifted from a more selfish society to a more compassionate and selfless one. Taylor writes at length about this shift and the factors that allowed this shift to occur. Much in the way that DeLarge is changed from 'savage' to 'human', Taylor writes about how society has shifted from a society where few have a lot of power to a society where the overall good is a driving factor. There are similarities in the way that Taylor describes the shift from a ‘savage’ society to one that is more ‘human’ and the same shift within DeLarge in the film.

In Modern Social Imaginaries, Taylor writes about the use of religion as a tool for change in society; religion was used in order to separate the moral good from the morally corrupt. A Clockwork Orange also touches on the notion of religion as a means to self-righteousness. “With such men a safe, well-ordered society can be built. But of course, not everyone will be like them. The godly were to rule; the unregenerate were to be kept in check. The magistrate must force all men 'to learn the word of God and to walk orderly and quietly...till they are brought to a voluntary, personal profession of Christianity." (Taylor, 2004), states Taylor. In much the same way, Christianity is used in A Clockwork Orange as the definite moral order by which DeLarge must adhere to in order to become “cured”. The Prison Chaplain argues that DeLarge might be cured with drugs and therapy, but that he chooses to do so in order to serve his own purpose and that while he may be cured, he also stops being able to distinguish between right and wrong, “He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice,” (A Clockwork Orange, 1971) says the Prison Chaplain and the Minister argues that, “We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works,” (A Clockwork Orange, 1971). This speaks to a lot of the points that Taylor makes when talking about the shift in society; for example, Taylor talks about how Christianity was used to distinguish between right and wrong, and so, people were told that they were to be the perfect Christians to lead a fruitful life. In A Clockwork Orange, the doctors and psychologists seek to change DeLarge from an immoral citizen to a perfect Christian that is disgusted by the thought of committing crimes.

A Clockwork Orange serves as the perfect example of Taylor’s assertion that a morally correct society was sought and transformed throughout history, but one a smaller scale (i.e. one person, DeLarge). Much like in the course of history, as Taylor points out, (the shift from pre- to post-French revolution periods) DeLarge is used as an example of the corrupt member of society that must be transformed to a morally commendable one in order for society to function. As Taylor points out, peasants and beggars were brought up into a middle class and were put to work so that they could become contributing and productive members of society, “These men are industrious, disciplined, do useful work, and above all can be relied on. They are not tempted to mischief because idleness is the principle breeding ground of all sorts of evils,” he states (Taylor, 2004). DeLarge is treated so that he becomes a functioning member of society instead of a street hoodlum that causes mischief wherever he goes and, toward the end of the film, DeLarge finds that his former friends and criminals have become working men and are police officers; this theme of rehabilitation runs rampant in both A Clockwork Orange and Modern Social Imaginaries.

Taylor dwells deep into the shift of society from an hierarchically structured one to one that is for the “greater good of man” and A Clockwork Orange (through an individual example, DeLarge) touches on that theme that society (or an individual) can be changed for the good of society as a whole. "There is a complex causal story behind the fact that the ideal of civility develops an active, transformatory agenda. As time goes on, it is undoubtedly powered by the escalating demand for military, and hence fiscal, power, and hence economic performance by industrious, educated, disciplined populations." (Taylor, 2004), Taylor acknowledges the need that society has to strive for higher moral order and for ‘industrious, educated, disciplined’ individuals and populations. A Clockwork Orange serves as the perfect example of what Taylor describes on a much larger scale in Modern Social Imaginaries and puts it in a context that made more sense of the reasons why doctors, psychologists, prison officials, and police offers sought to change DeLarge, for the greater good of society.

Works Cited

• Taylor, Charles (2004). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Kubrick, S. (Director). 1971. A Clockwork Orange [Film]. UK: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Premodern Moral Order vs. Modern

Premodern Moral Order vs. Modern 

Modern Social Imaginaries by Charles Taylor is a revolutionary piece of work because it  makes sense of the paradigm shift over time in different aspects of society. The most  interesting shift I found was the one that Taylor argues shifted from a hierarchical system  to a moral order that utilized the idea of social imaginary to bring about the idea that  people are social being that go about the world in a way that benefits both themselves  and the general society as a whole. This shift is interesting because in the past, people  lived in a system of chains that were interlinked in a hierarchical fashion, which meant  that the people at the lowest levels were there to serve those of higher status up until the  "summit" at the top. Although Taylor gave an incredible amount of information and  examples of how this shift to a more mutually beneficial society, I feel that there is still a  hierarchical system in place even today. Taylor does negate and admits that this social  imaginary is nothing more than imagined notions of how life should be and how societies  should function. Although moral order is the way we feel that people and societies should  act, social imaginary is a different aspect in that it's what we imagine would be the ideal  way that life should be. Taylor provides vivid examples, especially the French 1792-94  example that highlights this shift where peasants became Frenchmen instead of just a  stepping-stone for those higher up. After reading through the entire book (which includes  modern society up to the World Trade Center 9/11 tragedy) I feel that the potential of a  society that is ideal or in other words, the social imaginary, is something that will continue  to evolve and improve over time as Taylor argues. The shift of society in terms of  economy, autonomy, religion, and other aspects through this idea of social imaginary is  one that continues to go through a metamorphosis for the betterment of society. Although  I don't think that we have, at present time, reached the full encompassing idea of social  imaginary, I feel that we will continue to use this idea as a roadmap for equality and  inclusion, to a certain extent, of all people in our different societies.

Fahrenheit 451

Fahrenheit 451

Ray Bradbury wrote of the great pieces of literature of our time titled Fahrenheit 451. The book is a dystopian novel and I was immediately drawn into it when I read the book in high school. I reread the book and I still felt compelled by each page, the beginning alone is captivating and it gets better as it progresses. Bradbury effectively warns of the pitfalls and dangers of banning books from a society, in the book there is a made up society where books are outlawed and burned. Anyone found with a book becomes guilty of a crime and is punished. I can't imagine such a society where the lack of individual liberties and punishments are abundant. A world without books would be a world without life. For example, books, as pointed out in the book, are essentially to learning and growing for human societies. Without books, people would become illiterate and miss out on information that is important to their livelihood. A world without books would revert back to the time in history where the majority of the population was illiterate (before the Gutenberg printing press). The main character in Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag, serves as a visionary of sorts and a rebel against this restricting society. He runs off with a group of like minded people that believe that books are of great importance. The society in which the book is based is in the future, much like other books we have read thus far (Planet of the Apes, 1984, etc.) and it's a society in which critical thought is manipulated and extradited in an attempt to make the society "equal" in terms of knowledge. I believe that without books there would still be inequalities (as there were before Gutenberg) and that a lack of critical thought would be detrimental to progress because those with great ideas would not be heard. A society without books would seize to function because expression would be outlawed and that would leave the society vulnerable to greed and being taken advantage of. Bradbury's social commentary makes for a great read because it makes you think of how censorship can be harmful to a society and how it can reverse progressive thinking. I found it interesting that the professor mentioned that Fahrenheit 451 had been banned in certain places, it's ironic that a book that criticizes censorship ends up being censored. Not only is it ironic, but it proves Bradbury's point that a society without books devalues itself of expression and critical thought.

A Clockwork Orange

A Clockwork Orange

Through the two readings assigned for this week I was able to analyze the film A Clockwork Orange in a way I had not thought of before. This first reading, Where Did The Future Go?, is the one that caught my attention the most because it talks about an uncertain future and how people embrace risk in order to attain that future that seems to amount to nothing more than empty promises. The reading talks about the way people have learned to embrace the risks and pitfalls that may benefit them even though they know there might be failure at the end of the road. This shift has also manipulated the way in which people invest in the market and how foreign policy is reached. People often invested in the market in hopes of substantial returns and were persuaded to take risks in order to gain profit and often times that has backfired, especially at the present time. I found this to be interesting in thinking about the film A Clockwork Orange. In the film, Alex DeLarge is cast as an outsider, a menace to society and an outright delinquent. He, along with his group of droogs, commits several crimes until one day Alex is arrested and taken to prison. He is then given the opportunity to leave prison if he becomes a sort of laboratory rat for psychological experimentation. DeLarge embraces risk as a means to escape the prison system that he loathes, but he is investing in an uncertain future. DeLarge, like those who invest in the market, or countries that invade other countries without knowing the true implications and consequences, takes a risk (in his case of being harmed by psychological drugs and testing in order to reach an uncertain goal, avoiding jail and becoming completely reformed). As the reading states, those who have the capacity to embrace risk are often those who have power and money and those that are not capable are those without power and money. DeLarge falls somewhere in between because he is not completely poor or without power but he chooses a lifestyle of perversion and crime for the thrill of it. DeLarge, then, is interesting because he is left with the decision of undergoing psychological alteration in order to avoid a place he fears, prison. DeLarge is given the capacity to take a risk in order to reach an ideal future because he continually mentions wanting to be reformed and refined.

The second reading, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, focuses on means of production and reproduction. The reading talks about the various ways that a company, industry or society is able to continue production by means of reproducing that very production. The article cites Marx’s theories and solutions and makes great use of
historical context to illustrate the way companies thrive on a sort of recycling of resources and the way workers are compensated for their contributions. DeLarge, in a sense, is used as a subject in a social experiment that uses him as a resource. Like the article states, companies invest their production resources as a resource for reproduction and, in the same fashion, DeLarge is used so that society can benefit from him being a reformed and refined individual. The articles says, “To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order” and this ties in with DeLarge in that he learns new skills to be put back into society as a new person, but also, at the same time, must submit to higher powers. The submission to the established order completely goes against what DeLarge believed prior to being sent to prison, he was focused on destruction and crime, but when he was told he would be released sooner by going to the hospital facility he was told he would become a new person, one that follows the rules of the land and obeys the established order.

After reading the two articles I saw the film in a completely different light and actually enjoyed it even more than before because I saw it through the lens of societal production by way of reform and through the eyes of DeLarge who embraced risk in order to attain an uncertain future, much in the ways that the actual world functions even today.

Eugenics & New Genetics

Eugenics & New Genetics 

Having read the article Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain by Anne Kerr, Sarah  Cunningham-Burley and Amanda Amos, I came to discover a completely different point  on the subject of genetics than the one I previously had instilled in me. Over the past few  years I've heard quite a bit about the new genetics movement and I recently learned  about the eugenics of the 20th century (thanks in part to a political science class I took)  and its detriments to society. I've been fixated with the idea that new genetics could  possibly be a positive one that could have great benefits for society, but as I read this  article I deciphered the language used by the group of scientist and clinicians and, like the  writers, I discovered parallels to the propagandistic language used the scientists and  clinicians of the new genetics movement and the old eugenics movement advocates. As I  was reading I agreed with many of the points presented by the scientists and clinicians  that champion the new genetics movement but noticed the stark difference they wanted  to make clear between eugenics and new genetics. The writers of the article posed really  thought provoking comparisons in the rhetoric used by eugenics scientists and the new  genetics scientist. Intrinsically, I compared the two differing arguments and came to the  conclusion that they are similar in some ways, but at the end of the day, societal  pressures do play a role in determining whether one chooses to abort or alter a fetus. The  new genetics scientists made the argument that eugenics was part of totalitarian  governments, but as the writers point out, it also occurred in the U.S.  and continues in a  mutated form The disdain that society places on the ill and disabled, in addition to the  financial struggles faced by many, makes individual choice a bit clouded and blurred and  the techniques used in counseling lean toward pressuring patients and that puts in on par  with the forced eugenics movement. As disability activists argue, it's the same old thing  but aimed at the disabled and those with behavioral and genetic diseases. I agree with  the writers that the arguments posed by the scientists in favor of new genetics are very  well positioned and their rhetoric serves as a vehicle to distance new genetics from  eugenics. However, I also agree that it is, in essence, much of the same rhetoric that was  used during the eugenics movement but with different wording and emphasis, so I think  that greater and more sophisticated research must be conducted in order to prevent any  possible abuse with the new genetics movement.

Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish, Panopticism

Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish, Panopticism 

The reading, "Panopticism" from Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, is a captivating  one because it explores the historical parallels with prisons of today. I found the  beginning of the piece to be really interesting because I was not aware of the tremendous  impact and severity of the plague and how it controlled life with extreme precision. The  fact that Foucault correlated the imprisonment of people during the plague to the inception  and running of prisons kept my attention firmly in place because it shows just how brutal  prisons really are. Foucault mentions dungeons and their purposes and goes on to explain  the mechanics behind Bentham's Panopticon and it was truly startling to know that it not  only employed a method used in dungeons but also made it impossible for the prisoner to  be hidden or have any sort of interaction. This system makes it possible for prisoners to  be watched at all times while being enclosed and unable to escape, it creates a sort of zoo  where the prisoner is being watched like an animal, but differs in that they have no  means of interaction. In parallel with Orwell's "1984", Foucault's piece speaks of the  detrimental aspects of imprisonment both during the plague and in modern prisons. As in  "1984", Foucault explains the notion of a prisoner being watched over at all times, being  under surveillance by 'big brother' and its effects on prisoners or those being under  surveillance at all times. I found this piece to be a bit disturbing because it gave very  grave details surrounding the treatment of people during the plague and compared that  same treatment to the way that prisoners in a prison system are treated. This piece  offered insight to me because I was not aware of just how deprived prisoners really are  when they are in solitude, stripped of their rights, and constantly being monitored. I  believe Foucault did an excellent job in comparing and providing a historical context to  prison systems that have emerged since the time of the plague.

The Politics Of Utopia

The Politics of Utopia  The Frederic Jameson excerpt, "The Politics Of Utopia", is one which illustrates very valid  points and also served as a wake up call for me personally. Jameson defines utopia as  something that isn't tangible and that means different things for different people. I happen  to agree with that because utopia can be quite different from one person to another. For  example, one person might think of utopia as a physical location where their deepest  desires are met with ease, while another person might think of utopia as an inner,  emotional state of nirvana. Jameson also makes great use of comparison and contrast  throughout the excerpt to showcase the great contradictions within the idea of utopia and  society in general throughout history. I found it very  that Jameson included a wide array  of sources and examples that have occurred throughout history in order to illustrate his  points such as the ongoing clash taking place between social classes and their differing  and coinciding outlooks on utopia. I really enjoyed reading the dissection of quotes from  great thinkers such as Freud and Marx in order to show the complex nature of the idea of  utopia. One of the important points that Jameson attempted to make was that utopia is an  ever evolving concept that has changes, as society has, throughout history. As Jameson  states, utopia is in parallel with the idea of human nature, an idea that is not 'natural' as  many are led to believe, but one that is man made and shifts with time. Utopia can be  seen under a similar light because it is an idea that has plagued humans forever and one  that, like others have stated, seems unattainable due to its complexity and its ambiguity  amongst different people and societies. Another important aspect of the excerpt is the  argument that is made about the contradiction between utopians seeking to sever ties  with politics but also being dependent upon politics at the same time. As Jameson states,  any substantial revolutions have been on the brink of occurring but end up not occurring  due to our inherit dependence on politics. When a looming revolution is in the horizon we  tend to focus on very specific issues and that diminishing the overall need for a revolution  and that leads to a cycle of conformity and dependence on a system that we sought to  abolish. I think that Jameson makes excellent points and vividly illustrates our innate  tendency to be walking and breathing contradictions, both in our thoughts and in our  actions. The idea of utopia is a perfect example of our inner contradictions and of our  individuality because, as Jameson states, we all have a different (but sometimes united)  vision of a utopian state and it changes within ourselves and within the larger society as  well. Overall, I think the excerpt from the Jameson book was excellent and it made great  use of comparisons and contrasts to drive the point home.