Never Gonna Stop

Okay, how many of you get the reference? I read the book at least four times when I was younger, and may actually still have a copy. At any rate, it's a kind of weird-ass tribute to Stanley Kubrick's film version of A Clockwork Orange, which is in turn based on the book by Anthony Burgess. Why include it here? Well, primarily because it's been a pretty dull week, all considered. Although on the other hand, I always liked this book and movie as a portrait of a monster. I like monsters, finding them to be interesting literary figures. The main character of Clockwork is definitely a monster, completely lacking in conscience or scruples, acting only out of purest self-interest and immediate self-gratification. However, he does display a surprising amount of intelligence and self-preservation. Is this a moral tale, to show the things we should avoid? Difficult to say. Is it just a freak show, to show us the Alex in our own lives, pure id, devoid of even the slightest bit of thought for the consequences of his actions? Nothing so melodramatic. There is a little bit of Alex in each of us, just as there's a Mr. Hyde for every virtuous Dr. Jekyll. Not that we do good out of this same bizarre self-preservation- I'm a firm believer in something higher than oneself. However, I think the point is that we need to acknowldege that Alex within us, and that any sensible moral system will make room for him, and put his considerable energies to some good use. Alex is not actually evil per se, just that he lacks any other outlet for his abilities. Is this to say the mass murderer was simply not put into the gifted class as a kid? No, although that may well be the case. We do the best we can and hope everything turns out all right in the end. The big bad forces of society attempt to re-channel Alex's hostile nature in a classic negative-reinforcement paradigm- this was originally proposed by psychologists B.F. Skinner and John Watson. However, Alex's violent nature remains ultimately unconquered, and he returns to his violent past. It seems somewhat arbitrary, and there is little doubt that Alex is a genuine psychopath, completely devoid of any compassion or feeling for his victims. However, if he became a psychopath by the same means that were later attempted to cure him or if he was born that way, is left for the reader to decide. Ultimately, Skinner's psychological model has one flaw- without constant reinforcement, (this is exactly what we see in the book) the connection between stimulus and reaction is broken, and it's back to dark old human nature to take over. And so on it goes.

However, this connection between stimulus and response can be self-generated. In fact, it's been one of the key mechanisms by which we survive. Pain is a good example- you get hurt doing something, you will then form a link between that stimulus/action and the negative response- that is, you get hurt. So we learn not to do whatever it was anymore. Animals do the same thing- feed an animal something that makes them sick, and they will not eat it again. What this says for human nature is something of a mystery. Are we just the sum total of our responses? Personally, I'd like to think conscious thought and decision also play a role in it, leading us to think through our actions, as again, the system can be self-reinforcing.