Human Nature in A Clockwork Orange
While it was not what he was hoping to be remembered for, A Clockwork Orange stands to date as Anthony Burgess’ most memorable work. A novel that Burgess claimed to have written in three weeks, it has since weaved its way into popular culture, with a famous (and infamous) film adaptation by Stanley Kubrick in 1972 entrenching the story even further into the public consciousness.
The novel is often discussed as a critique of society and authoritarianism but, in his writing, Burgess uses the story as the basis for a dialogue about human nature, presenting the reader with various perspectives on it. These perspectives range from that of 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, his opponent in the Age of Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the modern thinker Friedrich Nietzsche, and in the end, Burgess’ own views shine through in his writing.
The Firm Hand
Thomas Hobbes was a major philosopher in the English Renaissance, with his 1651 book Leviathan making waves in political thought since its publication. Hobbes believed that man was inherently corrupt and only a strong authority could change that. He described human nature as “a condition of war of everyone against everyone.” The State’s methods in A Clockwork Orange reflect this, as their use of the Ludovico Technique shows themselves attempting to be Hobbes’ ideal authority. The State goes as far as to tamper with human nature itself, reducing Alex from a living thing to a mechanism, the titular “clockwork orange”.
Burgess, however, refutes this sort of ideology in the novel. By forcing Alex to do good, he cannot and does not truly change, and the Ludovico Technique robs him of the humanity the State means to preserve. In the end, after their experiment on Alex proves to be a failure, the State winds up co-opting Alex as a symbol, a testament to their ultimate failure in mastering human nature and Burgess’ rejection of Hobbes’ philosophy.
The Gentle Touch
Thomas Hobbes’ greatest philosophical opponent emerged a century later in the Age of Enlightenment, the French thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His view on human nature was sharply contrasted to Hobbes’s, as he wrote that “man is born free and everywhere he is in chains,” blaming civilisation and governments for the corruption of humanity. His views are present in A Clockwork Orange through the character of F. Alexander, a countercultural revolutionary penning anti-authoritarian works (“subversive literature” as the State deems it) in the hopes of battling the State’s corruption. From his introduction, his writing identifies him as a strong believer in liberty, opposing “laws and conditions appropriate for a mechanical creation” in his unfinished manuscript “A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.”
However, Burgess exposes flaws in Rousseau’s thought just as he does for Hobbes through the State. “The tradition of liberty means all. The common people will let it go, oh yes. They will sell liberty for a quieter life. That is why they must be prodded, prodded— Eat well, poor boy, poor victim of the modern world.” F. Alexander reveals that he too views human nature as an abstraction, just like the State does, and after he discovers that Alex was the specific criminal who raped his wife, his thoughts turn to revenge. He uses the effects of the Ludovico Technique to try and drive Alex to suicide, which gives the State an excuse to lock him away. Burgess uses this storyline to illustrate his perspective that Rousseau’s thought, although more idealistic, is still as reductive and flawed as that of Thomas Hobbes.
Burn it to the Ground
Friedrich Nietzsche would be a name familiar to most, but the exact nature of his philosophy is often misunderstood. While his thought is wide-ranging and varied, one of his concepts, that of the Übermensch, is featured heavily in A Clockwork Orange. Nietzsche defines the Übermensch as a man who rejects the predetermined moral codes and laws of humanity and instead lives by his own law, and Burgess writes this idea into the character of Alex. Alex shows himself as a radical individualist, and despite his knowledge that his actions are morally wrong (“you can't have a society with everybody behaving in my manner of the night”), he continues to perform acts of “ultraviolence” with his friends, such as theft, assault, murder, and rape. Alex acknowledges that this is known to be wrong, but does not care, as he thinks he is a law unto himself.
It is for Alex that Burgess displays his rawest critique, painting him as immature and juvenile, in thought and in deed. F. Alexander is the freedom-driven rebel, not the nihilistic, anti-intellectual Alex, who rips up the writer’s revolutionary screed as he and his gang proceed to violently attack him and his wife. Any delusions that Alex would have about being an Übermensch are undercut by the fact that he has no values of his own, and his destructive nature only brings suffering to everyone, including himself. Burgess deconstructs the Übermensch from Nietzsche’s grand ideals to the petty and violent Alex, who brings about nothing but destruction.
Time to Grow Up
The novel’s climactic twenty-first chapter was cut from Kubrick’s film adaptation, but it uncovers the book’s final message about human nature. After being “cured” by the State, Alex plans to resume his old ways, only to find that he has little to no interest in ultraviolence anymore, and that he wants to settle down. He meets his old friend Pete, who has gotten married and is living a respectable lifestyle, which Alex decides that he wants for himself.
This is how Burgess sees human nature. Subject to change not by external forces such as authoritarians and philosophers, but of its own volition. Indeed, it is portrayed as a moment of maturation for Alex, outgrowing his destructive impulses and wanting to create something: a child. The novel ends with Alex reflecting on what sort of person his hypothetical son would wind up becoming, and whether or not he could ever hope to mould him into a better person than he was.
A Clockwork Orange, having taken its main character and the reader through a milieu of opposing views on what lies at the heart of humanity, concludes its story on an ambiguous yet poignant note, reminding the reader of the fluidity of human nature, and how dangerous it is to assume that it can be controlled.
Last image - by Mathiole