In the latest sections of reading, we find out a bit more about Ludovico's Technique that Russell had posted before about. Essentially, Alex is strapped into a chair and then graphic, violent films are played on a large screen in front of him. He is forced to watch the entire time since there are clips that hold his eyelids open.
After reading more about Ludovico's Technique, I think find myself somewhat sympathetic for Alex. From a psychological standpoint, Ludovico's Technique most closely resembles classical conditioning: by showing Alex extremely violent and gut-wrenching films, they hope that he will come to associate even small acts of violence with nausea and therefore end his violent streak. However, it isn't a perfect fit in that usually the uncomfortable feeling comes from an outside source (ex: getting pricked by a needle, electric shock, etc.), while in Alex's case it comes from himself. This begs the question: if Alex is so troubled by seeing violence, how come he hasn't been bothered by it before? After all, he has committed some very violent acts in the previous few chapters. Granted, the violence in the films is stronger than the violence he has committed, but it seems so strange that he would suddenly be so affected by it -- unless he actually isn't.
I'm speculating that the injections that Alex receives daily are what's actually affecting him. Of what we've seen so far of them, they definitely affect him physically, the first time rendering him so weak that he has to get around in a wheelchair. That sick feeling that he gets while witnessing the violence onscreen is most likely due to the drug's influence (though this hasn't been completely confirmed in the story yet). If that is the case, then I don't really think I agree with Ludovico's technique in that it isn't genuine; Alex isn't actually feeling remorse or sickness from violence, the drug is just creating a mental barrier between him and his ability to be violent. In a reverse-psychological way, Dr. Brodsky is really twisting Alex's mind by tricking him to think that he himself is against violence when it is just the effects of the drug. However, most of my criticism of Ludovico's Technique is that Alex's desire and impulse to commit violent crimes hasn't actually been cured. After a treatment session when an officer dares Alex to punch him in the face, Alex still attempts to hit him, only he can't because he immediately feels a wave of nausea which stops him mid-punch. The doctors haven't cured him at all, only taken away his ability to fight.
Overall, the latest chapters in A Clockwork Orange have raised a good question: is it better to reform criminals or simply pacify their ability to commit future crimes?
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteI also connected this to classical conditioning as I read the passage describing "treatment" - specifically Pavlov and his dogs. I'm not sure how many of you guys took Psych, but Pavlov was a Russian scientist who trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by feeding them directly after ringing the bell. Soon, they had the response to salivate without needing the stimulus of food. This is exactly what Ludovico's technique is attempting to accomplish; they want Alex to have an incredibly unfavorable response to the stimulus of violence without needing to induce it with drugs.
I know that I brought this up during our discussion, but Alex seems to present no emotional connection to his nausea, whatsoever. While Ludovico's treatment is undeniably effective, the response that Alex has against violence is not for lack of wanting to commit it, as you said, but is instead caused by a medicated response.
As to your last question, I would argue that reformation and pacification have exactly the same effect on society as a whole, so it doesn't necessarily matter which is used. Regardless of whether Alex is rendered incapable of committing crimes or if he genuinely believes crimes are immoral, this society (which, by the way, I think we still don't know the name of) will have one less vagrant on the streets with his droogs.
Maybe one topic we should think about in the future is the very nature of the treatment itself - is there a less barbaric, but still rapid and efficient, method to changing Alex's attitude toward wrongdoing? Are the Doctors evil, or are they genuinely working toward a common good? If Alex meets back to with Pete, George and Dim, how will they react to having him back, but back as such a changed person?
I must admit, when we first started reading, I looked up a website with a guide to Nadsat, and it referred to Part 1 as "Bad Alex" and Part 2 of the text as "Good Alex." What do you guys think? I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Em
Your distinction between "Bad" and "Good" is an interesting one, Em. He is certainly what the doctors would term "good" after his treatment, although in suppressing his true self, in some ways I'd call that the "Bad Alex." And you're right, Brian, that Ludovico's technique doesn't stop his desire; rather, it stops his action. It's a medicated and learned response rather than an innate acceptance of morality. I wonder if true reform is actually possible, or if all reform is just a learned and conditioned response?
ReplyDelete