A Clockwork Orange: Am I crazy, or did anybody else...?

Think that this novel was almost a blatant criticism of religion...?

I just recently finished this brilliant piece by Burgess, and while I do agree with most of the central themes as presented by spark notes, cliff notes, articles etc., I haven't necessarily been able to find much of what "I" got out of the book.

Yes, we all know that it criticizes the government, inhumane psychiatric treatment, anarchism... But what about religion?

It didn't really strike me until towards the end of part 2 when Alex returns to the screening room for his final session. He's clearly brainwashed, and unstable; the thought of him committing an act of violence makes him sick to his stomach due to this "new" method of treatment. Then after presented by the interior to the audience, the priest, (ironically), stands up in a fit of outrage and in essence asks them all, "what about choice?"

I found this so very ironic in so very many ways.

First of all, it is the scientists who brainwashed Alex, not the priest or other religious figures... Second of all, the priest is the one asking the scientists if Alex is living through his own free will, and if he is still capable of using his own mind... Third of all, the priest makes a remark that goes somewhat along the lines of, "...simply refusing to commit these acts because he fears physical punishment!" (Hence, christians using God as a moral compass simply because they fear the almighty powers of hell; not because it is their choice, or even their desire)

Oh and I just want to make one thing clear - Before we start seeing some of these outlandish comments about Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, or any other type of belief system, you must know that I'm not trying to start a catastrophic religious debate here... I just want to know if anybody else caught on to these particular details. Could this be a possibility, or did I over-analyze?

Much love

I've found that pretty much anything can be interpreted through a religious lens, pro or con.

Ironically, the argument above makes it sound like a book that endorses religion, not vilifies it. You describe the priest as a voice of reason.

I think that Burgess was a Roman Catholic, by upbringing, belief and practice. It is not likely that the novel was intended as a criticism of religion in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I've found that pretty much anything can be interpreted through a religious lens, pro or con.

Ironically, the argument above makes it sound like a book that endorses religion, not vilifies it. You describe the priest as a voice of reason.

---

You know it's funny you say that because that came to mind as soon as I posted this.

Still, the priest represents the same arguments that scientists have brought against religion, which is why it is so ironic.

It seems as though, unless you want to make a case for Burgess' portraying the priest as hypocritical, that this scene could be read more easily as casting religion in a favorable light. I do not think that Christian morality is based solely on the idea that, if one chooses to behave morally, it is because he is afraid of corporeal punishment for choosing the alternative. It's like a scene in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: after three days of hearing the preacher describe the torments of Hell, young Stephen Dedalus rushes to the confessional in order to atone for his sins for fear of being subjected to those torments. Later on, when Stephen fully devotes his life to God, it's not because of this fear (even though the fear may have been the impetus). Rather, it's because Stephen fully believes in his faith as the means to achieve eternal bliss and the most meaningful existence possible - in the same way that he'll later place his faith in art.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I think you make a false assumption when you say, "christians using God as a moral compass simply because they fear the almighty powers of hell; not because it is their choice, or even their desire." Even with fear, you choose to turn to God. One can choose that which he fears, as many do ("It's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"), so I do not find it ironic at all that the priest would ask this question. In fact, there are many perhaps more powerful forces than fear that would influence someone NOT to choose God: vanity, worldly pleasures, etc. Further, just as an aside, perhaps the priest is being rather more stereotypical than ironic in asking this, considering the enormous amount of theological literature defending the existence of free will in a world that is not determined, as you say, by fear, but instead by divine providence.

If anything, it makes sense that the narrative of A Clockwork Orange would be favorable towards the priest, considering its, in my opinion, overall conservative bent. However, in light of what I have written, the priest may have just been dense in asking his question: Alex's fear is in no way an obstacle to free choice, since one can always choose even with fear influencing the choice. Although ultimately I do not think this last consideration is entirely consequential, because Alex's dilemma seems to be less that he's psychologically repulsed by choosing to act violently, than physically unable to act violently due to the debilitating effects of his "treatment." Thus, the priest's question remains valid, and he stands as some sort of mouthpiece for a Christianity which, I believe, is one thing definitely NOT being criticized in this particular scene.

It's been awhile since I've read it, so forgive me if I miss something, but I agree with the earlier statement that religious themes can pretty much be found in every piece of literature created. I don't remember my first read around finding that religion was one of the prominent themes but the priest's presence definitely adds a bit of religious interest and I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Perhaps it is a bit of irony that a priest is rabidly promoting such freewill. Or is that what you were saying?

I agree that it's completely ironic that the priest is presented as the voice of reason and free will, but I'm less inclined to say that the novel is critical of religion because of that irony. Personally, I do see the parallels between the scientific method of brainwashing in A Clockwork Orange and the less scientific, but equally effective ones used by organized religion, but again, I wouldn't say that's a connection the novel makes overtly.

Alex is not brainwashed, he is conditioned, and there's a difference. Brainwashing would mean he'd been indoctrinated into a belief system, which clearly isn't what happens. Instead, he's been conditioned to have specific physiological responses to stimuli. The "Ludovico Technique" is a thinly veiled reference to B.F. Skinner's Behavior Modification:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html/

Skinner's notion was, "With the right behavioral technology, we can design culture."

When Alex and his gang invade the house of the writer and his wife, the writer is, quite ironically it turns out, at work on a diatribe against Skinnerian Behavior Modification. Alex picks up a sheet of manuscript:

"Then I looked at its top sheet, and there was the name -A CLOCKWORK ORANGE- and I said: 'That's a fair gloopy title. Who ever heard of 'a clockwork orange?'"

Alex reads aloud:

"The attempt to impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness, to ooze juicily at the last round the bearded lips of God, to attempt to impose, I say, laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen."

The goodness that is sweet to God, the writer is saying, is voluntary goodness. To create men who are incapable of wrongdoing is to turn them into "clockwork oranges", things that appear to be organic, but which are, in fact, mechanical.

The priest later echos this view:

"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."

"Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?"

"Choice... He has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."

The doctrine of free will is a core belief of Catholicism. God gave man free will so that he could find and eventually collect those people who voluntarily chose to be good. The priest isn't the voice of reason, he's simply the voice of Catholicism, which was a much stronger, louder voice at the time the novel was written than it is today.

The novel is "about" all these things without attempting to settle the issue. It's a story that relates one possible train of events when a certain kind of social reform is pushed. Other forces push back. It is Burgess' response to the assertion "With the right behavioral technology, we can design culture." The novel says "Good luck! Real Life always ends up quite a bit messier than that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadsat

Think that this novel was almost a blatant criticism of religion...?

I just recently finished this brilliant piece by Burgess, and while I do agree with most of the central themes as presented by spark notes, cliff notes, articles etc., I haven't necessarily been able to find much of what "I" got out of the book.

Yes, we all know that it criticizes the government, inhumane psychiatric treatment, anarchism... But what about religion?

It didn't really strike me until towards the end of part 2 when Alex returns to the screening room for his final session. He's clearly brainwashed, and unstable; the thought of him committing an act of violence makes him sick to his stomach due to this "new" method of treatment. Then after presented by the interior to the audience, the priest, (ironically), stands up in a fit of outrage and in essence asks them all, "what about choice?"

I found this so very ironic in so very many ways.

First of all, it is the scientists who brainwashed Alex, not the priest or other religious figures... Second of all, the priest is the one asking the scientists if Alex is living through his own free will, and if he is still capable of using his own mind... Third of all, the priest makes a remark that goes somewhat along the lines of, "...simply refusing to commit these acts because he fears physical punishment!" (Hence, christians using God as a moral compass simply because they fear the almighty powers of hell; not because it is their choice, or even their desire)

Oh and I just want to make one thing clear - Before we start seeing some of these outlandish comments about Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, or any other type of belief system, you must know that I'm not trying to start a catastrophic religious debate here... I just want to know if anybody else caught on to these particular details. Could this be a possibility, or did I over-analyze?

Much love

---

Through the conditioning, Alex's free will has not been removed.Free will in this context has been harnessed. Alex has been conditioned to experience severe nausea when violent thoughts enter his mind. Alex is in a similar situation as an alcoholic when prescribed some form of anti abuse drug. The user still craves for a drink, however he is fully aware that if he does indulge he will, due to the medication, become voilently ill. The drug does not remove the intial craving for alcohol it is simply designed to induce an adverse reaction if the patient does `fall off the wagon.`

Therfore God is in this context the anti abuse medication, which medicates believers to assume they will be punished if they commit crimes. It does not however, prevent the individual from contemplating or perhaps even enjoying the idea of any dubious action.

The scene in question,in my opinion, does not portray religion in a favorable light as the free will the priest talks of is simply harnessed, as is Alex's free will. In Alex's case through the fear of pain, in the believers through the fear of hell.

Lets look at Calvinism where free will is immaterial, as each individual believes in a pre-determined destiny. Free will does not enter the equation. Therfore in the Lutherian mind free will does not exist as every action is predetermined.

MB