Fragile Society

Boys Alone: the Social Experiment, Lord of the Flies

J. Y. Gao

In 2002, the UK’s Channel 4 released the docu-series “Boys and Girls Alone”. The two 50 minute episodes featured one with an entire cast of 10-year-old boys, and one with a cast of 10-year-old girls, left alone to live in an empty house without adult supervision. All necessary foods, kitchenware, toiletries were available to them, whilst the rest of the storage space and backyard housed a myriad of toys. Of course, there is an obvious exploration that can be made into the comparison between boys and girls, and the way the two groups fell into certain behavioural patterns, and it is encouraged that such an exercise be performed outside the parameters of this article. Here, the comments will observe the boy’s episode.

Seventy years ago, William Golding published his most famous novel, “Lord of the Flies”, starring a band of boys stranded on a remote island. The story follows their descent into savagery and conflict. Through an ingenious dissecting of character arcs, character relationships, and social structures, Golding alluded to the core aspects of society, including civility, power, reason, morality, spirituality, and community. Golding showed that in the absence of external structures, people innately form social hierarchies that feature specific and distinct identities like ‘leader’ and ‘worker’. Throughout the novel, internal pressures such as the need to find purpose, recognition and a capacity to contribute to the group reinforce the extremity of the identities assigned to an individual. Likewise, external pressures such as expectation and support from others similarly contribute to the ‘boxing in’ of these identities. The extreme qualities between identities soon split the group in two, and conflict becomes the pressure point under which the social structure collapses. “Lord of the Flies” is a masterfully crafted comment on the fragility of civility and an exhibition for the battle between a tendency for chaos and a conscious will for order that governs humanity on the most fundamental level.

The Channel 4 docuseries made no mention of Golding’s novel in its narration, though the similarities between Golding’s dystopic character arcs and the dynamic social environment displayed on Channel 4 were eerily similar. During their first afternoon together, the 10 boys managed to utilise almost everything available to them to explore the limits of their freedom. Without any parental supervision, the boys all quickly adopted a free-for-all mindset, breaking the ice within minutes and littering the house with paint, markers, puzzle pieces and assorted cereals. This initial period of interaction and behaviour is the most crucial stage in the pecking order that develops. Subconsciously, this was the time for each of the boys to mould their behaviour into a pattern they thought was most similar to the energy of the group – they are well aware of the importance of fitting into the group and not being labelled as an ‘outsider’. Simultaneously, particularly for the more extroverted boys, this was a time to establish their significance within the group, which entailed behaviour that was noticeable and admirable. To strike a nice balance between fitting in and standing out is the perfect recipe for prominence during this initial stage. Naturally, louder (noticeable) and funnier (relatable) boys, Daniel, Michael and Paul, made their presence known early on, and their identity as the charismatic core personalities within the group were accepted by the others.

As the night developed, and tiredness grew over the boys, the 10 congregated in the living room. With less adrenalin, the group reflected on the look of the house and concluded unanimously that it might not be the most ideal state. The momentum of responsible and rational thinking was on them, and they were able to democratically vote for a group leader, George, an average height, dark-haired boy, who was more calm than Daniel, Michael and Paul but equally approachable (George received a total of 3 votes, two of which were from Daniel and Paul). A discussion about the day quickly turned into a series of accusations against one boy in particular, Michael, a smaller, more energetic boy, who might have extended his display of ‘standing out’ too far during the afternoon. Unfortunately, this earned him the label of the ‘scapegoat’ onto which all justice pertaining to the cleanliness of the house and the complaints of the other boys was brought upon. George, wishing to reinforce his leadership position, writes down a list of complaints and consults Michael.

This natural instinct for justice – crude and merciless – within the 10-year-old domain continued the next day as the quieter boys, like Sim, had his contribution to the group questioned. Up until this point, contribution to the group was measured by the amount of cleaning done by the individual. More introverted kids, like Sim, who kept more and more to themselves after the initial melting pot of character on the first day, had no choice but to obey the lofty requirements of the vast majority. One such instance of ‘punishment’ saw Sim cleaning up the plates and cutlery of all ten boys after their one and only organised, communal meal.

At night, the boys were split into two separate bedrooms. The noisier boys opted to sleep together in one bedroom, whilst the others happily formed the quieter dorm. By the fourth night, a midnight prank performed by the noisier boys that resulted in the waking up of the entire quiet-bedroom escalated into a retaliation performed by the quiet boys that resulted in an early wake-up of the entire noisy-bedroom. Feeling like they were unjustly done by, the noisy boys were fierce in the conflict that ensued the rest of the fifth morning. The last day saw the quiet boys isolated upstairs from the noisy boys, who decided to take their last chance to trash the house. And though the pent up anger had all but dissipated on the fifth night, the social structure within the group was nowhere near its organisation on the first two days. Their attempts to set up a civil environment was overtaken by their vengeful motivations and carefree attitude, eerily similar to the progress in Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”.

Though the image might not be as dark as Golding imagined. In the treatment of Michael, who was happy with his identity as the ‘crazy’ one IN the group so long as it didn’t result in alienation from the group, any hint of tears or an angry expression serious enough, was met with an immediate de-escalation of the situation whereby the boys made sure no physical or emotional harm. During a therapy session that the boys requested for to address the question of Michael, the group all came to the mature conclusion that they themselves were also at fault for trashing the house, and proceeded to surround Michael’s bed, on which Michael has buried his face in his pillow the whole time, in an effort to cheer him up. Such efforts that united the group under empathy also shows the compassion and maturity 10-year-old boys are capable of even in the absence of adults.

The experiment lasted five days and five nights, and the patterns found within the boys’ behaviour has been eye-opening. Though, if Golding were alive today, it might very well be in his appetite to question whether five days was long enough for the monster of the human soul to be unleashed.