Lord of the Flies: A Marxist, Archetypal, Psychoanalytic Criticism

Sir William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is full of symbols and ideas that lend themselves to many different forms of criticism. The sow’s head and the conch shell specifically represent very important themes in the novel, relating to power and control. Examining what these two objects might represent symbolically can help the reader understand the greater ideas and themes in the novel itself. There are various types of literary criticism that can be applied to the novel, but the three most illuminating are psychoanalytic theory, Marxist criticism, and archetypal criticism.

Psychoanalytic theory sets out to interpret a work through the theories of famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. Psychoanalytic theory says that the human mind is made of three basic components: the id, the ego, and the superego. Throughout the text of Lord of the Flies, these three components come to be represented by three of the novel’s major characters: Jack, Ralph and Piggy. Jack represents the id. According to Freud, the id directs an individual’s needs and desires, regardless of moral or social expectations. Jack, early on, becomes power-hungry. He wants to lead the boys and is determined to do so, no matter what. His struggle to kill the pig, despite everyone else trying to stop him, is representative of the id, which does not pay attention to what should or shouldn’t be done. Jack’s painting of his mask is exemplary of his representing the id. Golding writes, “He began to dance and his laughter became a bloodthirsty snarling. He capered toward Bill, and the mask was a thing on its own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness” (64). Jack is so far removed from society and its expectations, that he has lost all contact with his own morals and is free of the self-consciousness most people feel. He is, at this point, the living embodiment of the id.

The ego, according to Freud, is what the human mind uses to handle reality. It is concerned with functioning with the world. It is not difficult to see how Ralph is representative of it in the novel. Ralph is the first one to try to set up a democracy. He tries to follow the rules that he himself has instilled. He is often on Piggy’s (the superego) side, and even when he does give in to the more wild natures of the boys, he does feel guilt after. For every id, there must be an ego to balance it, and this is Ralph’s function in the novel. The conch shell, too, represents this idea of the ego. It is used to keep order and rule on the island. It is the one thing that keeps Jack from totally taking over. It, like the ego, is used to instill order over something that cannot keep control of itself (Jack, the id).

The superego upholds the rules and standards needed to help the ego keep order. It is also responsible for the conscience of the human mind. In Lord of the Flies, Piggy represents the superego. Piggy is kindest to the “little ‘uns” on the island, simply because he knows it is the right thing to do. He makes it a point to learn the names of everyone because he wants them to feel important and included. When Ralph is teasing Piggy about the sun-dial, he smiles at him, and Piggy, “saw the smile and misinterpreted it as friendliness” (Golding 65). Piggy does so, because he expects the best and, like the superego, would not assume ulterior motive from others around him. Together, Jack, Ralph, and Piggy come to represent the id, the ego, and the superego in a psychoanalytic criticism of Lord of the Flies.

Marxist criticism can also help to bring a better understanding of The Lord of the Flies. Marxist theory is heavily concerned with classism. It takes note of the differences between the older boys and the “little ‘uns,” who represent the lower class, as they have no say in the ongoings of the island, and are at the complete mercy of the older children. Within the older group of boys, we also see a split between the ruling class (Ralph, Piggy, and at first, Jack) and the working class (the rest of the boys on the island). Ralph is the true leader of the group. A Marxist analysis of the work draws special attention to Ralph’s leadership and how it relates to the conch shell specifically, as those who have the conch shell have the power. Golding writes about this, “and most obscurely, yet most powerfully, there was the conch" (22). The conch is representative of the symbolic and actual power Ralph holds. Lastly, once Jack succumbs to the wilds of the island and finds himself at odds with Ralph and Piggy, the reader sees a conflict similar to the type of revolution Marx describes as inevitable.

Possibly the most obvious, but also the most interesting, way to examine The Lord of the Flies is through an archetypal criticism. While not all novelists intend to include archetypes in their works, (in fact, archetypes often exist without any knowledge of the individual representing them) it is difficult to imagine Golding did not. There are multiple examples of archetypes existing in the work. These archetypes are images, symbols, and patterns that exist in the work, but refer to—or occur in—works unrelated to it. These archetypes are instantly recognizable on some level to the reader because they are not necessarily new to the reader.

Jack, for example, is the archetypal villain. The reader first sees Jack dressed in his black choir robes. Black is a color closely associated with the archetypal villain. Jack’s bloodthirsty hunt of the pig and his ability to be cruel to the boys around him are actions that are villainous in behavior as well. The sow’s head, too, may be viewed as a villainous archetype. While it is not human, it does take on human characteristics, and in naming it the Lord of the Flies, the boys prove that they view it as more than just a sow’s head. Because it, like Jack, adds to the cruelty and disorder on the island, it fills the villain archetype as well.

The two victims in the novel, Piggy and Simon, are representative of the scapegoat and the Christ figure. Although Piggy just wants the order to be kept, he is constantly blamed for what goes wrong on the island. Because Piggy is weaker, heavy, and not as capable as Jack or Ralph, he is treated poorly. His accomplishments are constantly overlooked in favor of teasing and bullying. Golding writers of the way of the boys treat Piggy because of his "fat, and ass-mar, and specs, and a certain disinclination for manual labor” (65). None of these things should be reason enough to kill Piggy, but because everyone is so accustomed to treating him poorly.

Simon, too, dies at the hands of the boys, but in a way more representative of the Christ archetype. Simon is kind, simply because he chooses to care about the others. He is often on his own. He is also the only one who is not under the Lord of the Flies’ rule. If Simon is the Christ figure, then the sow’s head represents Satan. Simon’s statements, “I don’t believe in the beast” (Golding 105) and that the Lord of the Flies is just a “pig’s head on a stick” (Golding 144) are examples of the Christ figure triumphing over the devil. Lastly, and most clearly representative of the Christ archetype is the fact that Simon is betrayed by Ralph and dies at the hands of the boys. This parallels Christ’s betrayal by Judas and the crucifixion that followed because of it.

There are many ways to look at the symbolism in Lord of the Flies. The conch shell and sow’s head are two major symbols that lend themselves to analysis, but there are many other themes and symbols as well that can be explored through various criticism. Psychoanalytic theory, Marxist criticism, and archetypal criticism are three types of criticism that allow for a better understanding of The Lord of the Flies. Examining what these criticisms can reveal leads to a better understanding of the work than just a straightforward reading can alone.

Work Cited

Golding, William. Lord of the flies. New York: Coward-McCann, 1962. Print.