Hi, everyone, my name is Mr. Chandrapala and I'm really looking forward to working with you today looking at Golding's message about human behaviour in "Lord of the Flies." We've seen how Golding presents biblical illusions with the text.

We've considered how he shows the descent into savagery within the text, but really, we now need to start thinking about what he's trying to say about that descent into savagery and what he's trying to suggest about humanity and maybe even consider what inspired him to get there.

Let's dive in.

So our outcome for today's lesson is to be able to clearly explain the purpose of Golding's novel and his message about human behaviour.

To do that, we need our keywords as ever.

So we've got the adjective inherent, which is used to describe a quality we are born with, something that is instinctive and natural.

We're gonna be considering the significance of nurture, so to take care of something, raising it through feeding it and protecting it from harm.

We'll be considering that adjective brutal, the noun form of brutality, which is extreme cruelty and/or violence.

And then we'll be considering ideas about traits, which is a quality or characteristic belonging to a person.

So we'll start off by beginning to look at Golding's aims for the text.

So it's important to begin by looking at what we know about William Golding.

So it's key to remember that Golding was born in 1911 in England.

He was an English teacher before the war and joined the Royal Navy in 1940 when he was 29 years old.

He served until the war ended in 1945, but did go back to teaching before retiring in 1962 and dying in 1993.

Crucially, Golding fought in World War II.

What kind of experience might he have had while away at war and how do you think that experience might have changed his perspective on humanity? How would it change anyone's perspective on humanity? Pause the video now and see if you can answer that question by discussing it with your partner.

And when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas there.

And what I was really happy to see was so many of you were thinking back to your work on war poetry, thinking about previous poems or exposure to war that you have had from maybe different units.

So you may have said as Lucas did that Golding would've witnessed incredible brutality whilst away at war.

In the Navy, he fended off enemy submarines and even commanded a rocket launcher.

So he's going to have known what violence looked like and the horrors of it.

Or if you were like Sofia, you may have discussed how actually experiencing war would be a life-altering event.

You would come to appreciate the great evil in the world and the human capacity for hurt and for destruction.

William Golding once stated that the war showed him what people were really capable of.

He stated that over a period of years, most people in society had come to understand that evil comes from the work of men in the same way that honey comes from the activity of bees.

What years do you think Golding was referring to though? And what does he mean when he compares man and evil to bees and honey? It's a strange comparison.

What do you think he's driving at there? Pause the video again and see if you can work that out and when you're ready, hit play.

I really like that comparison of evil coming from the work of men in the same way that honey comes from the activity of bees.

This idea that we're doing it almost without truly realising that we're, it can so easily be turned against us.

We think that we are constructing these incredible structures and in fact, when we boil it down, it really is something far more threatening.

You may have said something though like Lucas has, that the period of years that Golding might be referring to could be the years spanning The Second World War and even the following Cold War.

He may be meaning approximately the years between 1939 and 1957.

You may have looked at that quote and said as Sofia did, "I think that when Golding uses the bee metaphor, he's suggesting that evil isn't as inherent in humans as certain behaviours are in animals." Can we think of an example from the war of many people going along with evil behaviour though? Think back to your knowledge of the Second World War.

Can we provide any specific examples of how people went along with evil behaviour? Once you've done that, hit play.

There are a range of examples that you could have gone for here.

So I know that my mind immediately jumped to the Holocaust and the fact that there were so many people complicit and knowledgeable about the the genocide of Jewish and ethnic minority people because it was simply something that had been decided for them and they did not question it fully enough in Nazi Germany.

The Holocaust is, therefore, an example of many people participating in an evil behaviour.

It's arguably reminiscent of the moment in the novel where all the boys participate in the killing of Simon.

Now, Lucas said, "I think that when Golding uses the bee metaphor, he's suggesting that evil is as natural to mankind as making honey is to bees." It's an interesting idea to consider, but I want you to have a look at Lucas's idea and decide which characters support the idea of evil being natural in the novel, and which characters do not support this idea of evil being natural in the novel.

Are there any characters who do not seem to have these evil traits? Pause the video now and have that discussion with your partners or if you're working alone, just jot down some ideas onto your notepad and when you're ready, hit play.

Some incredible ideas there, everyone.

So pleased with the way that we're thinking about this.

People making reference to Jack, thinking about Ralph, thinking about where Simon fits into all of this.

You might have said something like, "Jack and Roger portray evil most overtly and memorably, however, Ralph, Piggy and Samneric also portrayed the idea that man produces evil as they submit to their savage impulses and participate in the murder of Simon.

Arguably, Simon's character challenges the idea that man produces evil.

Simon's the only character who is inherently good and doesn't demonstrate evil traits." So we see here that there are characters who seem to break away from this mould who show that we are more, we are capable of more.

But crucially, that character Simon is put to death, is killed.

What do we think Golding is trying to get at with that? Let's pause though and quickly have a check for understanding.

I'd like you to have a look at this true or false.

We know that not all of the boys produce evil in the same way that bees produce honey.

I would like you though to justify this answer.

Is it because none of the boys exhibit evil behaviour, they exhibit immoral behaviour? Or is it B, because nearly all of the boys exhibit evil behaviour with the exception of Simon? Pause the video and select option A or B.

And when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic work, everyone.

As we were discussing earlier, it's because nearly all of the boys exhibit evil behaviour except for Simon who is able to resist it but is ultimately punished.

So we're now going to practise and I'm going to explore what do you think Golding's aim was in writing this novel by completing each of the seven sentences below.

So the three sentences you are going to have a look at are in writing the novel, Golding arguably wanted to explore.

In writing the novel, Golding arguably wanted to challenge.

And in writing the novel, Golding arguably wanted to understand.

I'd like you to finish each of those sentences below.

To do this, you may want to use the following words as part of your responses.

So innate, inherent, brutality, capacity and traits.

Three of these are keywords, so they are the words emboldened.

So it's really important that we use those as part of our response.

Pause the video now, have a go at completing those three sentences and when you're ready, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

Really focused, really developed and I was so pleased with so many of you including those keywords.

Let's go through.

So you may have said something like this.

"In writing the novel, Golding arguably wants to explore the importance of rules and laws in conditioning human behaviour, and what the impact of removing these restrictions from society might be." If you like anything from this slide, you should absolutely take it down in a different colour pen so that you have a note of it for later.

Or you may want to have a look at this sentence.

In writing the novel, Golding arguably wanted to challenge ideas about evil and where it comes from, perhaps dismantling the black and white belief that there are good people in the world and bad people and that these people are separate." And finally, you may have said something like, "In writing the novel, Golding arguably wants to undermine man's seemingly inherent capacity for evil and brutality, something Golding had witnessed to his utter dismay and revulsion during his time in the Royal Navy in World War II." Pause the video now.

Take any ideas that you really like from here and when you're ready, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

Some really committed and dedicated improvement there.

It's really gonna help us in the long run.

Well done.

Let's keep moving.

So I want you to think here, which do you think was Golding's primary aim or why do you think that's the case? Pause the video, have a look at these three statements and your own, your improved ones, and see which do you think is Golding's primary aim for the text having read through it.

Having had these discussions, what do you think he's trying to achieve? When you've had that discussion, you need to be able to explain why.

You can talk to the person next to you or jot down some ideas for yourselves.

And when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting choices there.

I heard a couple of people really going for that idea that he's exploring the importance of rules and laws because he really tries to show the dangers of someone like Ralph failing to really be truly democratic, truly equal in the way that he treats Piggy at the very start.

And then someone like Jack who's able to manipulate and create a de facto dictatorship for himself.

I was also really pleased to hear that so many of you were discussing that idea that he's trying to understand man's seemingly inherent capacity for evil and brutality, which I think is so critical, bearing in mind his own context.

We're now gonna consider this idea through the framework of nature versus nurture.

When we're thinking about this, we need to understand what does the phrase human nature really mean and what does it mean to nurture something? So if we're thinking about that, we need to understand the phrase human nature refers to any behaviour or instinct that is inherent, something that we are born with and therefore, might struggle to control.

Nurturing something means taking care of it, it means raising it, feeding it, protecting it from harm.

If there's anything that you want from the slide, just pause it now and just make sure to get it as a note because these are really important concepts for us to understand as we go through this next part of the lesson.

Once you've done that, hit play.

Fantastic.

So the nature versus nurture debate is an age-old psychological and philosophical debate about human behaviour.

It questions how much of a person's characteristics or traits are inherited from their nature or learned through the way that they have been nurtured.

So from their upbringing and environment.

It's a debate that dates back centuries.

There have been many experiments that test the impact of a person's genetics and their upbringing on their personality, character, and decision making.

But why do you think scientists were particularly interested in this debate following the World Wars? What would be so important for them to understand that? Why would it have been such a crucial question then? Pause the video now, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas there from a lot of you thinking about actually the historical context and what people wanted to get to, this idea of the root of evil maybe.

Society was horrified by the brutality they witnessed during the war, perpetrated by seemingly ordinary people.

Scientists and artists therefore wanted to understand how seemingly ordinary people could be driven to persecuting others and committing these terrible crimes that seem to be against their very nature.

But do you think Golding thought that these crimes were against people's nature? Why do you think that? And why not? Think about how he has constructed the text and even his own experiences.

Does he seem so surprised about this turn in people's nature? Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Some excellent ideas there from a lot of you, really starting to grapple with this really complex concept of nature versus nurture.

So arguably, Golding felt that evil was, at least to some extent, a natural impulse or trait of human beings.

He stated that evil came from the work of men in the same way that honey comes from the activity of bees.

This suggests that he may have felt that evil is in the human being's very nature, rather being something that we learn.

However, do we think that Ralph and Piggy would've murdered someone if they hadn't been on the island? Would they naturally have killed someone? What might this tell us about Golding's perspective on nature versus nurture? Is it as black and white as it seems here? Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas here.

I personally don't believe that Ralph or Piggy, and I have even some doubts about Jack, being able to kill without having been placed in that situation.

They're under immense pressure and that loss of a societal structure is something that really affects them.

They wouldn't naturally be able to kill them, in my opinion, but that still leaves the question: what does this reveal about Golding's perspective on nature versus nurture? Well, some of our Oak pupils shared their ideas.

Lucas said, "I don't think Ralph and Piggy would've ever killed someone had they not been in that situation.

I think Ralph and Piggy might exemplify the idea that our behaviour is due to the environments we inhabit." Whilst Laura looked at it and said, well, "If we take the word evil and swap it indeed for the word sin or misdeed, then I think we are all capable of doing misdeeds.

Ralph and Piggy might not have killed people, but I bet they would have emotionally hurt people in their lives, showing our natural inclination to hurt others." Now, we're gonna have a quick check for understanding here.

I want you to match nurture, the words nurture and nature with one of the two definitions.

So two definitions are the idea that human characteristics and traits are genetically inherited and instinctive.

And the idea that human characteristics and behaviour is a result or a reflection of the environment a person finds themselves in or that upbringing.

Pause the video now, match up those concepts to the correct definition and when you're ready, hit play.

Really confident work there, everyone.

So we know that nurture is the idea that human characteristics and behaviour is a reflection of a person's environment and their upbringing, whilst nature is the idea that human characteristics and traits are genetically inherited and instinctive.

So we now need to think about why do we think Golding uses the children for his characters? Why do you use children instead of using adults to explore the idea of nature versus nurture? Pause the video again and have that discussion.

Why children? Because it's a really particular choice he makes here, rather than having adults at the centre of his text.

When you've had that discussion, hit play.

A really interesting range of ideas there.

I really like the fact that people are starting to think about the idea of childhood innocence and what maybe is expected of children, or even the fact that children don't necessarily have the same relationships to societal laws and rules.

It could be any of those reasons or the reasons below.

The fact that the children are considered innocent, that they're often the most accepting of rules as they may not have learned to question authority yet, and the fact that they are also sometimes the most dismissive of rules, that they don't feel societal pressures yet.

And also, Golding was a teacher.

Perhaps he saw something or recognised harmful or dictatorial traits in some of his own students.

Golding shows us children of two different ages.

We have the 12-year-old boys, the older boys, and the little ones who we assume are anywhere between four and six years old.

But do we think that the children would've been the same if the boy, sorry, the story would've been the same if the children were 17 years old or if they were six years old? Why? Why not? Pause the video, have that discussion.

Why have it just before they turn teenagers or just when they are so, so young? Why do we have that disparity? Why do we have that age difference? And when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting discussions there.

Some people are starting to get into the idea of the power dynamics if they were all of the same age.

Maybe there would've been more of an understanding of a society, maybe there would've been a greater sense of that equality rather than a sort of two-tier system.

But do you think that the story would've been the same if the characters were all female? Why is it important that they were all boys, rather than a mix of genders? Consider how that changes the text.

Does it change the text? When you've had that discussion and maybe taken some notes, hit play.

Some really thoughtful responses there.

And I think it's worth saying that actually, there is maybe a stereotype around the way that male and female behaviours are different.

But we also know that actually, if you have ever experienced a all boys or an all girls environment, there are very similar traits between them.

So maybe it wouldn't have been as different as we maybe think or perhaps there would've been a more caring, nurturing environment in an all girls system potentially.

Finally, I wanted to discuss if there was one adult on the island, how would things be different? What would've happened then? That is another situation for us to consider.

Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic work there, everyone.

We're really having to wrestle with actually why Golding structures the text and even includes these characters rather than any others within this novel.

And I actually think that question of why there's not even an adult is really interesting.

It suggests that the boys are alone and they're having to fend for themselves.

Even 12-year-olds, they become the men of society, don't they? And that could be a really interesting problem.

So we're gonna practise our understanding of nature versus nurture by using our previous conversations to discuss whether Golding provides us with an answer to the age-old question: is it nature or nurture that is responsible for human behaviour? To do this, I want you to use examples from the text to justify your opinion, and I want you to use the ABC phrases to help you respond to others' ideas effectively and elevate your discussion.

Just a reminder about our agree, build, challenge phrases.

They include, I agree because, or I share the same viewpoint because.

And then to build, we say expanding on this, I would add that or another aspect to consider would be.

And then to challenge, we would say, I see it differently because or it's worth questioning whether.

You may want to do this in pairs or you may want to do this as a wider class.

If you're working alone, it may be worth answering the question for yourself and then trying to challenge your idea or trying to build on it using those sentence starters.

But pause the video now, have that discussion, have that independent thought practise and when you're ready, hit play.

So interesting to see so many of you really dive into the really hard conversations here and really trying to wrestle with the wider ideas of Golding's work.

I'm so, so impressed.

It's a real privilege to work with you all.

So we have Lucas's idea.

Lucas argues, well, "I don't think Golding provides us with a concrete answer.

I think he shows us that human beings are very complex and there is no one single reason for their behaviour.

As seen with Ralph and Piggy, the right situation or circumstance can facilitate evil or sinful behaviour, whilst Jack seemed to exhibit evil or sinister character traits from the very beginning of the novel, seen through his poor treatment of his choir, I think that Golding ultimately concludes that we all have the capacity or the impulses to behave sinfully, but it takes the right circumstances for brutality to emerge." What I like about this response from Lucas is the fact that he's really able to use those key terms, but then also the fact, such as brutality and traits.

But then he's also able to link his ideas to a really specific element of the text.

He's able to use plot evidence as part of his response.

Just go back through your work and make sure that you've got plot evidence to support your ideas.

And when you've done that, hit play.

Fantastic work there, everyone.

Well done for adding and developing your work, maybe even using Lucas's to develop your work a little bit further.

Let's move onto our summary.

So our summary for Golding's message about human behaviour.

We know that Golding aims to provide an incisive insight into human behaviour, and he was horrified by the brutality he witnessed during the war, perpetrated by seemingly ordinary people.

He used children for his exploration of human behaviour, arguably because they are considered innocent and impressionable but he suggests that all humans have an innate savageness in their nature, which is suppressed by societal expectations.

Golding therefore ultimately concludes that we all have the capacity or the impulses to behave simply, but it takes the right circumstances for brutality to emerge.

Hopefully you've really been able to wrestle with this question of nature and nurture and really enjoyed this wider discussion.

This is what literature is all about.

I've really enjoyed being part of it with you today, and I'm so grateful you've joined our lesson.

I've been so impressed with the way you've grappled with these really complex ideas.

Have a lovely day and hope to speak to you very soon.

Bye for now.