LESSON FROM AN EXPERT

Reference: Thomson 2022.02: Lord Of The Flies; Lessons from a literary masterpiece

LORD OF THE FLIES

Lessons From A Literary Master Piece

Introduction

Navigating resolutions with vulnerable, high-risk, marginalised cultural, religious, and sectarian groups and individuals is the most complex and challenging to negotiate. Similar difficulties arise when dealing with those whose tightly held beliefs and ideologies govern social and cultural behaviour and responses. These groups tend to become belligerently 'entrenched' with distinct ideologies that alienate them from the wider community, fuelling heightened anxiety that gives rise to doctrines of justification, isolationism, and radicalised oppositional behaviours.

Mainstream society further alienates these individuals and groups by 'social mirroring’ so as to make them appear further away from reality. Few see the larger community as participants in the alienation and radicalisation of victims and minorities. By focusing on individual distinctive as nonconforming peculiarities, the community, with the support of speculative press reporting, creates a self-perpetuating cycle of disenfranchisement, an unreasonable and unjustifiable action that further exacerbates distinctive.

An example of this social anomaly is evident in matrimonial separation negotiations. Seventy-six percent (76%) of society believe men are the primary reason why relationships fail, and the same number say women should be entitled to more than half of the family assets. It is only when confronted with their own relationship failure that individuals, irrespective of gender, claim they are entitled to more than the other party.

In a 'passive social activism' survey, three percent of heterosexual men considered themselves social activists, while seven percent of heterosexual woman did. This increases to seventy three percent amongst the gay and lesbians and ninety five percent in the gender identity community, who reportedly have relationship failure rates five times higher than heterosexual couples.

Does social activism and relationship failures have a symbiotic relationship?

you are the only one that thinks in your mind,

you are the power and authority in your world

These groups, isolated by their beliefs and often rejected by society, are forced into an adversarial conflict driven by an "us versus them" mentality. Breaking into their rational mindsets can be extremely challenging. Despite this, questions must be asked when negotiating with marginalised, religious or culturally distinct individuals and communities. Irrespective of where we are on the social scale, power struggles for personal and group identity exist.

This lesson explores strategies for moderators and negotiators who need to navigate between insular, self-sufficient individuals and groups within the broader community.

William Golding's acclaimed novel, "Lord of the Flies," presents a gripping exploration of human nature and behaviour, societal structures, and the descent into chaos common within immature, highly governed, ridged societies and organisations.

Adopted as the foundation of the T.V. reality shows Survivor, Castaways, and Lost, the novel explores the 'dark side' of human transgressional behaviour and actions that violate social norms and rules of law. Evident with riots and social upheaval, looting, arson attacks, and high levels of violence against those attempting to maintain order in the aftermath of natural disasters, it appears as a natural primitive response to high anxiety and fearful disruptive chaotic events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and extreme weather events.

Internationally acclaimed and politically charged, the novel is banned in several authoritarian governed countries and has been removed from many school libraries due to its graphic portrayal of violence and the critical analogies of the dysfunctions within our societies are deemed by many as provocatively discriminatory.

However, 'Lord of the Flies' carries prophetic warnings about bullies, dictators and despots whose brutality and indiscriminate destruction is systemic in their quest for power and control. With scant regard for the foundations of civilisation, they destroy historical and anthropological sites of significance, dismantle stable cultural values and family traditions, prioritising personal ambition, their religious ideology, cultural mysticism, and political ambitions, and undermine the harmony of the broader society.

Many valuable lessons are learned from this outstanding inquisitive novel, lessons every negotiator needs to know. Written for negotiators and arbitrators, this article explores how cultural, technological, and economic developments drive change on both individual and collective levels, offering insights into how these forces shape the foundation and trajectory of societies.

you cannot subvert or silence your neighbours’ rights

without striking a dangerous blow to your own

Section One

Power Projection and Struggles For Identity

_________________________________________________________________________

A Microcosm of Social Evolution

Lord of the Flies follows a group of boys unexpectedly stranded on a deserted island, where they attempt to self-govern without adult supervision or with structured guidelines for the governance of their micro-civilization. Using the story to examine how power, leadership, conflict, and cooperation underpin negotiation processes, Lord of the Flies provides an opportunity to explore the intricacies of negotiating within evolving behavioural and social change accurately.

These lessons are essential for maintaining order and achieving responsible common goals during social and relational shifts.

Examining microcosms, or small-scale versions of larger societies, such as isolated communities, experimental cooperatives, or virtual societies, provides valuable data on how social interactions and structures develop and adapt to internal and external pressures. Whether it is a matrimonial or partnership breakdown, corporate failure or broader community demand for change, we can view society as a microcosm, a smaller, representative system that reflects the larger dynamics of human development and cultural shifts. Understanding this concept helps unravel the complexities of societal change by capturing elements such as prior norms, entrenched behaviours, social structures and hierarchy within the framework for analysis.

For example, immediately before the death of a high-value family patriarch, the wider family maintains high levels of stability and civility, but in reality, it is a false calm. Upon his death, long-held perceived imbalances, feelings of entitlement and greed erupt with power struggles, infighting and bitter arguments. Anecdotal evidence affirms that few family structures remain cohesive and intact into the future after a strong parental managed families figurehead dies.

The interplay between the novel's themes is entirely relative to sudden and chaotic transitions within our own lives. It identifies immature, impulsive, and instinctive reactionary behaviours that become apparent as relationship, environmental, and political changes occur.

The dynamic consequences of impulsive powershifts during transitions critically impact social cohesion and future direction and challenge those responsible for managing cohesive, inclusive, structured development of societies and economic transitions.

Theory of Social Evolution

The theory of social evolution examines how societies and cultures transform over time. Societies respond to internal and external pressures similarly to biological organisms through mechanisms such as mutation (innovation), selection (the persistence of beneficial practices), and genetic drift (random changes in cultural practices and preferences). As species adapt to their environments in biological evolution, individuals and societies adapt and respond to new challenges, with either positive or negative outcomes.

While an extreme example, the extinction of species is a testament to their failure to adapt. The same could be said of personal relationships, business failures, cultural adaptivity and religious interpretation, where tightly held views prohibit flexible responses to changing orders.

Driven by the force of character, intellectual reasoning, openness to curiosity to explore and discover more effective and efficient methodologies, and a willingness to form supporting cooperative alliances, competition is an undeniable positive human trait and is the sole driver of transformation at personal and societal levels. Examples include farmers, fishermen, croppers and foresters who compete with the weather to maximise harvest and profitability, while law enforcement officials compete with criminals and those who seek to destroy society.

Lord of the Flies examines these fundamental characteristics as the boys’ test, discover and assert their influence and authority within the embryo of their emerging social order. Initially, they create order through negotiated rules of patriotism and are unified by blowing a conch shell (as we acknowledge a national flag). They take turns speaking at their assemblies and making decisions democratically. However, as the novel progresses, their democratic structure deteriorates into anarchy and savagery.

The four lead characters, Ralph, Piggy, Jack, and Simon, represent the four quadrants of human behaviour and leadership styles, identified as ‘dominance,’ ‘influence,’ ‘steadiness,’ and ‘conscientiousness’ (DISC), each initially influencing the group’s social dynamics and negotiation processes. Ultimately, prejudice, fear, and power struggles culminated in the deaths of three boys: Piggy, Simon and the boy with the mulberry birthmark.

Symbolic of socialist autocracy and feudal and immature cultures and societies, the analogies are also entirely relative to modern psychological responses to conflict.

This short book, Lord of the Flies, Lesson From A Literary Masterpiece, examines the three deaths in the context of power plays, manipulation, and deceit, the same power plays that often pervade mediation and negotiation processes as parties in conflict jostle for advantage and control.

Two Sides Of The Same Coin

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In simplistic form, all conflict arises from a position of sides. Nursery rhymes, fairy tales, doctrine, and theory try to explain the cause of conflict by utilising types and anti-types, good and evil personified in deities that act openly or subversively to perpetrate and conspire with human actors in the cycles of chaos, destruction, restitution, and order.

Emanating from these fundamental ideologies, religions and cultures have developed and formed the collectives we define as nations, tribes, and peoples. We define these groups within lines drawn on maps, calling them countries and establishing governments and controls within each of them. In a perfect world, we explore their cultural differences as detached spectators, hoping they stay their side of ‘the line.’

Similar dynamics are at play within the micro-societies we call families. The front door of every home becomes a boundary line, separating every family's unique behaviours, beliefs and practices from the wider society and providing a testament to the intricate nature of societal structures.

the paradox of greater leadership is a leader's need to hold high conviction but be open-minded, kind but strong, humble but certain

John Thomson - When Trouble Comes

download your free PDFcopy

The Rise of Leadership

‘The Lord of the Flies’ explores the development and role of leadership. While graphic in its description of the development of new orders and their outcomes, the underlying psychology is profoundly disturbing because it reflects our own reaction to sudden social and security change.

In everyday life, this can become evident with the death of a patriarch or matriarch within a family, the resignation of a C.E.O within a corporation or the sudden incapacitation of the breadwinner within a family. In these examples, unexpected changes unbalanced the roles participants had learned to trust and accept as ‘normal.’

Change always demands a redefinition of our core values, morals and goals, often revealing the ugly side of fear, greed and personal ambition.

In these environments, mediators and negotiators enter a domain that is already toxic, caused by the nuances and underlying characteristics unique to those involved. This almost always involves diverse power plays between the individuals as they jostle to redefine order out of their chaos.

I have managed marriage dispute settlements where one party has suffered extreme manipulative abuse, coercive threats and intimidation, property damage and a few physical injuries resulting from domestic violence. In civil disputes, some parties make claims and counterclaims to the multiple of seven so that it is no longer distinguishable who the plaintiff or respondent is.

This is all part of ‘the game,’ called power struggles, and shapes the battle of culture, values, morals, ambition, and fear of loss caused when individuals or groups perceive loss.

While working as a negotiator for a large, upmarket property company, the C.E.O constantly reinforced the need to become a trusted, assertive leader. Trust emanates from within our self-belief and moral values and is exhibited externally by how we conduct ourselves, demonstrated by our confidence, courage and competence when making decisions. The ability to communicate precise, rational determinations forms the foundations people trust and, therefore, gravitate to. The C.E.O demanded we create an expectation of confident, assertive leadership and establish rules of engagement early in developing our professional relationship. While we are still determining the resolution outcome, we believe that a mature, responsible explanation of the process to a favourable outcome puts us in control of the environment.

Trusted assertiveness disempowers the 'power plays' that often frustrate and escalate mediation and negotiation processes.(for further information refer to The Power Of Pre-Emptive Suggestion, Strategies To Break Impasse)

Pre-emptive Reasoning

Referred to as 'pre-emptive suggestion,' everyone responds to leadership queues. If the queue is positive, a positive outcome is more likely; however, if the queue is negative, a negative outcome is probable. For example, when I enter a room and shake a client's hand, I say, "I am glad you contacted me. Working together, we will have this resolved within twenty-four hours." That statement shifts probability significantly in favour of the statement. If we confidently communicate that positive outcomes are probable, the parties are more likely to take actions that conform to those expectations.

The Experiment

The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations, but it became one of the most infamous psychology experiments ever recorded.

Professor Zimbardo recruited twenty-four male college students for a two-week study on the “psychology of imprisonment.” Twelve were to role-play prisoners, and twelve were to role-play guards. Assignment to the roles of prisoner or guard was random, and none of the students had any prior encounters with the law, medical conditions, or psychological disorders.

Within a few days, the “guards” began to implement authoritarian measures and subjected some of the “prisoners” to psychological abuse, and many of the prisoners passively accepted this abuse. After six days, the simulation had become so real, and the guards so abusive that the experiment had to be terminated.he study has been interpreted to show that we all have a capacity for evil.

This finding is underlined daily as the news headlines bring us stories of police brutality, violent riots, murders, child abuse and other horrific events. But more importantly, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates that we tend to conform our behaviour to preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we behave the way we believe we are expected to act, especially if the expectation is approved and supported by others.

Philip G. Zimbardo is an American psychologist and an emeritus professor at Stanford University. Aged 91 years, he continues to work as the director of the Heroic Imagination Project. (date of publication 2024)

Knowing Strengths and Limitation

Mediation is a democratic process of 'give and take,' 'win and lose.' While textbook learning suggests mediation is a 'win-win' situation, I teach mediation outcomes are 'balanced books,' no one wins, and no one loses; a balanced win-loss for all parties equals a fair outcome. The mediator is a democratic adjudicator.

Negotiators position themselves halfway between democracy and autocracy or the authoritarian ruler. Negotiation involves positive leadership and may include the negotiator's advice, legal opinion, and recommendations, but the final 'yes' or 'no' remains with the parties involved.

Arbitration is an outcome based on the independent assessment of the arbitrator, an autocratic form of resolution.

In the book Lord of the Flies, Ralph is one of two emerging leaders on the island. His leadership begins with an emphasis on structure, rules, and collective well-being, underpinned by the conch shell as a symbol of democratic order (i.e., a national flag). Ralph negotiates inclusive communication, attempting to elicit participation and consensus from the group and encouraging open discussion.

Examining the balance between democratic or collective decision-making and pure autocracy will always uncover levels of maturity and responsibility within individuals and societies.

As often happens when social dynamics rapidly evolve, Ralph's ability to involve participants in the decision and management of their community encounters limitations. The boys' fear of the unknown erodes their faith in rational governance, and Ralph's failure to identify the emerging threat and his inability to create strong alliances and renegotiate his leadership demonstrates how static negotiation strategies can falter in fast-changing dynamic environments.

In contrast, Jack's rise to power is authoritarian, leveraging fear and primal instincts. Jack's strategy does not involve dialogue and negotiation but is more coercive and manipulatory, demonstrating how power can be consolidated through non-inclusive and fear-based tactics. Jack capitalizes on the boys' anxieties, promising protection and the fulfilment of base desires like hunting, thereby drawing followers through persuasive yet aggressive means.

Jack's ability to adapt his leadership style and negotiation strategies as social dynamics evolve satisfies the boys' emotional and psychological needs, highlighting the importance of flexible, situation-responsive negotiation approaches in volatile contexts.

skilled negotiators must be able to read the play

and quickly adapt to the intensity and nature of the conflict

The conflict between Ralph and Jack epitomises the broader tension between civilisation and savagery. As Jack's faction grows increasingly violent, the negotiation space shifts from collaborative assemblies to divisive confrontations. This shift underscores a critical negotiation principle: the process must quickly adapt to the intensity and nature of conflicts.

Failure to address the root causes of conflict, such as fear and the need for security, can escalate tensions, leading to destructive outcomes. Lacking leadership skills, Piggy, the most intelligent but behaviourally awkward of the boys, is increasingly marginalised and becomes stigmatised and outcast, which culminates in his violent death, symbolising the collapse of reasoned negotiation in the face of unchecked conflict generated by emotional anxiety.

Simon, a supporter of Ralph, embodies innate goodness and empathy, emphasising the potential for intrinsic values to guide cooperative negotiation. However, his inability to effectively communicate these values limits their impact, suggesting that even virtuous intentions require adept negotiation to translate into tangible cooperation. Simons' empathy and protection of Piggy and his protests over Piggy's death led to a rock-throwing incident in which he was killed.

Piggy's reliance on Simon's protection highlights the infectious character of social stereotyping; the protector must be like the protected, or within the divisive environments of conflict, assumptions are made that, because we associate with them, we must be like them. The sayings 'birds of a feather flock together' and 'peas in the same pod' are analogies used to stereotype people, and in this generalisation, the risk to one person becomes a shared risk to all within the associated group.

the fearful wounded human soul is the most unpredictable element in creation

John Thomson - When Trouble Comes

Section Two

Killing The Pig

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Pig

Whenever there is a chaotic disruption within social orders, human psychology tends to revert to primal behaviours, instincts derived from the fight-and-flight self-preservation responses.

Within Lord of the Flies, a significant character and moral identity change becomes evident when the boys successfully kill a wild pig. This exemplifies the release of emotions as they celebrate with wild dancing, paint their faces with blood, and chant kill, kill, kill, denoting changed self-perceptions and a transition from childish innocence to self-determining adults.

As a professional negotiator acting for disparaging sides of a conflict, understanding the depth of life experience with those you engage with is critical. Often found in socially alienated communities, rigid secular and religious groups, and those experiencing significant trauma, many have limited life experience, underdeveloped cognitive reasoning, and rigid emotional regulation, which shapes their responses to conflict and power dynamics. To maintain control over their environment, they rely on binary thinking, which leads to impulsivity and susceptibility to group influences, limits reasoning abilities and negotiation capacities. It can be mistaken for deliberately creating an impasse, but it is most often an emotionally induced 'blind spot' they cannot see past.

The boys' response when they kill the pig provides insight into this common behavioural trait. It underscores the importance for negotiators to recognise their own need to understand their clients' psychology and the individuals' abilities to negotiate effectively.

In-Group vs. Out-Group Dynamics

Social identity theory (in group – out of group evolution) attempts to identify environments that create individual and group thinking and how individuals derive self-identity and confidence from group memberships. The rapid evolution of groups causes individuals to choose one side or the other rather than express and live 'true to self.' Roger Waters's song with Pink Floyd, 'Another Brick in the Wall, and George Orwell's book Animal Farm' typify how traumatised people conform to dictatorial leadership through social engineering and the social stressing of societies.

After the boys kill the pig, Jack's authority becomes absolute, which attracts weaker boys to his group. The dichotomy between Ralph's democratically governed group and Jack's autocratic tribe illustrates in-group vs. out-group dynamics. In-group favouritism and out-group hostility, driven by perceived threats, reduce the willingness to engage in cooperative negotiation. The boys' increasing dehumanisation of the 'out-group' highlights how entrenched group divides can obstruct meaningful negotiation and lead to conflict escalation.

Developing strategies to humanise the out-group requires finding common ground and emphasising shared identities or goals to bridge divides and foster cooperation.

Moral Ambiguity

We all face moral dilemmas, balancing wants and needs, affordability and desire while grappling with the broader cost of survival versus ethical considerations. A common example is when a relationship collapses, but parties weigh up the benefit/loss impact on their children and economic outcomes before moving on to more amicable relationships.

The movie series Mad Max (drawing from Lord of the Flies)is a powerful allegory for the confrontational challenges to societal order when order collapses. It vividly portrays the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise when survival becomes the paramount concern, often leading to actions that would be deemed unacceptable in a stable society. This moral ambiguity, born from the need to survive, challenges and compromises traditional moral frameworks.

A global prepping culture is a direct response to perceived threats. Energised by fear, preppers prepare for worst-case scenarios. Stressed cultures create a survival-at-all-costs mentality, compromising ethical standards, such as forcefully prioritising their interests over others to protect resources. The darker aspects of a collapse of structured order raise important questions about social resilience, ethics, and our collective response to potential crises.

Social Cohesion vs. Individualism

Every conflict generates anxiety, fear, and insecurity for those involved. Acute anxiety often leads to extreme behaviours, including violence (both individual and group-based), destruction of property (such as arson), relationship abuse, and social breakdowns. Persistent anxiety alters personal behaviour, causing both psychological and physical health issues.

When confronted with a sudden change of circumstances or a critical event, the immediate reaction can trigger a fight-or-flight response, which promotes a mindset of 'us versus them,' impacting perceptions of loyalty, faithfulness, and friendships. Those who experience ongoing fear, ambiguity, betrayed confidence, or bias often display heightened individualism.

Influenced by the stress of predefined psychological paradigms, individualism can propel unfounded or delusional paranoia that one is being persecuted, harassed, or betrayed by others, drawing others into the 'us-them' culture of division. While diversity is something to be celebrated, it is also entrenched and fearful. Individualism is often characterised by intransigence, stubbornness, selfishness, and a lack of empathy toward others. Resolving conflicts with such individuals requires high trust and stable communication processes to prevent irrational communications and actions that could escalate the conflict.

Balancing individual preparedness and collective resilience is a critical factor in conflict resolution. While self-sufficiency is essential, overemphasising individuality can undermine social cohesion and cooperation. Effective conflict resolution strategies must balance personal preparedness with principles prioritising consideration of others, human dignity, social justice, and compassion.

This involves advocating for equitable resource distribution, non-violent resolutions, and inclusivity in the aftermath of conflicts to strengthen community, social, and individual relationships. Ethical preparedness helps mitigate the potential for further conflict, ensuring that personal efforts do not compromise ethical principles.

We can address the challenges presented by conflicts by fostering ethical preparedness, promoting social cohesion, and implementing supportive policies.This approach ensures that our efforts to manage and resolve conflicts do not erode the principles that sustain a just and humane society.

Summary

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Every negotiator and conflict resolution specialist should read Lord of the Flies, as it serves as a compelling allegory for negotiation within evolving social dynamics. It illustrates the intricate interplay of power, conflict, cooperation, social identities, and psychological influences. Portraying the boys' descent into chaos underscores the challenges and critical principles for effective negotiation in real-world contexts.

First published in 1954, immediately after the Korean War and at a time of heightened anxiety in response to a perceived aggressive communist threat, the ‘Cold War,’ and an all-out nuclear war, the book is a compelling allegory for the need to negotiate within evolving social dynamics, illustrating the intricate interplay of power, conflict, cooperation, social identities, and psychological influences.

By embracing adaptability, inclusive dialogue, emotional intelligence, bias awareness, and sensitivity to group dynamics, negotiators can navigate complex social landscapes to achieve more harmonious and productive outcomes.

The five Keys are; -

Adaptability: Effective negotiators must continuously and quickly adapt strategies to align with changing social dynamics, addressing emerging needs and motivations through flexible approaches.

Inclusive Dialogue: Democratic and inclusive negotiation processes foster greater buy-in and cooperation but must be balanced with assertive leadership to address crises and conflicts and ensure the mediator maintains civil conduct between all parties.

Emotional Intelligence: Understanding and managing emotional states are crucial for mitigating conflict and fostering constructive negotiation, particularly in high-stakes and volatile environments.

Bias Awareness: Awareness and mitigation of cognitive biases enhance negotiation objectivity and decision-making quality, facilitating more balanced and effective outcomes.

Group Dynamics: Recognizing and addressing in-group vs. out-group dynamics can bridge divides and promote collective goals, emphasizing shared identities and mutual interests.

References

Golding, W. (1954). Faber and Faber.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Penguin Books.
Thompson, L. (2011). Pearson Education.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 33-47.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Bantam Books.
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Free Press.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). McGraw-Hill.
Axelrod, R. (1984). Basic Books.
Lencioni, P. (2002). Jossey-Bass.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Pearson Education.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), , 150-167. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. (1), 1-39.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Gulf Publishing Company.

Lesson notes from THE NEGOTIATOR, are part of the CODE RED Training Program written and published by John Thomson Consulting. All rights reserved. International copyright and trademark laws cover the contents of this publication John Thomson (John Thomson Consulting: ABN 74325624056.) Students of Social Sciences, Law, Negotiation or Mediation may use material extracted from this note for learning and academic use with reference to John Thomson 2020:5

About John Thomson

John Thomson is an keynote, session and plenary speaker, authour and mediation and negotiator lecturer and teacher. A successful practitioner since 1985 John is Senior Partner at N.Z. Mediation Services and consultant mediation and arbitrator at John Thomson Consulting (Aust). He has personally closed over 3,000 contracts across a wide range of property, business and proprietary sectors and has a 94% closure rate in mediation. A frequent flyer between Australia and New Zealand John manages and advises a professional team of qualified mediators, negotiators and arbitrators in both countries.