A Clockwork Orange: An Ultra-Violent Take on Morality

Enjoy, my droogs

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess is more than a shock-factor novel full of ultra-violence. Burgess used the story to share his philosophy on morality, with the scenes of ultra-violence as a tool to show how serious he was.

I found the book in the “banned books” section in The Strand Bookstore in NYC. The title has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I decided to give it a go. The book was “banned” in the sense that the final chapter, which shows the redemption of some characters, was removed from the American publication (and not included in the film) because publisher’s didn’t think the American public wanted something like that. So no, the book doesn’t have political views that prompted governments to take it off the shelves (unfortunately). However, it contains some graphic-ish scenes, which were widely critiqued and actually inspired a series of copycat crimes around Europe. Today, however, these scenes aren’t much - if you’ve watched Game of Thrones or read American Psycho, this book is a walk in the park.

The story is listed as a top 100 novel by Time Magazine, a distinction I agree with, given that the plot wasn’t horribly interesting and I never really found myself that attached to characters other than Alex. The book used to be a required reading for high schools, this will be clear to you as you read it. Maybe it was too hyped up for me, setting it up to fail. Nevertheless, I did find myself empathizing with a murderous psychopath in certain parts, for which I will applaud Burgess.

Plot aside, the most interesting part of the book, at least for me, was Burgess’ take on the morality and justice of criminal reform. When you think justice, what first comes to mind? I will guess that you think of something like prison, punishment, “an eye for an eye”. Recently, society has been pushing for reform rather than punishment as a form of justice. Burgess expertly explores (forgive me for the word choice, I know you picture me as a tweed-jacket wearing arrogant intellectual now) this question, or at least a special case of it. Alex, the main protagonist whose past time includes murder and rape, is offered a two-week treatment to get him out of prison. In this “treatment,” he is forced to watch violent clips while injected with a nausea inducing drug. This effectively makes him incapable of thinking about, or committing, any more acts of ultra-violence. After the “treatment” is complete, he is put on stage, where he is tempted to act ultra-violently. Although he wants to, he cannot, as he cowers in sickness as the thoughts cross his mind.

Alex has been reduced to a “clockwork”. He is no longer a human, as he incapable of making choices. He has no morals anymore, as he cannot choose between violence and kindness - he is forced in to kindness. It felt like Burgess was telling me that even if used to stop the most heinous of crimes, brain-washing and “clockwork”-ifying people is NEVER justified. Alex is a horrible psychopath who hurts people for fun, but it is still not ok to take away his freedom of choice, to take away his humanity.

I follow Burgess’ point here (if that is indeed the one he is trying to make), and see why he wanted to show such extreme levels of criminality in his novel. He is telling us that under no circumstances shall we ever dance with the devil of clockwork-ification, as it takes us down the classic slope that is all too slippery.

So we can’t simply “reform” convicts to the best of our ability, we have to enforce justice somehow, and we have to preserve the criminal’s ability to choose. That way, we can keep the “eye for an eye” sense of justice while not ripping the souls out of the violent. This seems to be Burgess’ message.

This is a classic message in the libertarian / anarchist sphere. We cannot trust the government, so give it no power, no matter how convenient it can be. It would be convenient for Alex to remain “reformed” but once he is, more people will be, and sooner or later we will be reforming people from talking too loudly or chewing with their mouth open. I guess this take is fair.

I will leave you with this point. When Alex is on stage, being examined by the prison employees and psychiatrists, it feels like he could be on display as a “perfect citizen”.

“Look at our reformed Alex!” They might say. “He no longer has any desire to kill, rape, or steal. He wants to wake up at 7:00am, go for a run, work until 9pm, and come home to read to his state-loving children!”

The audiences OOOs and AAAHs.

“This treatment need not be limited to the criminal! The whole of the people can be transformed to obedient citizens. Together, we can create the perfect country!”

Yes, I sound like a tin-foil hat wearing prepper. But this is the message I got from the book. Ayn Rand would definitely enjoy something like this. You? I don’t know.

Y.H.N.