Like many companies, PocketBook uses cookie technology to enhance your user experience, for analytics and marketing purposes that are to show you relevant offers, tailored the best to your interests while running this website and third parties websites. PocketBook respects your privacy rights, thus we kindly ask you to take a moment to enjoy Managing Cookie Preferences Please take a note that strictly necessary cookies are always enabled. If you are happy with the use of all cookie files, just click Ok in this pop-up. To learn more about cookie technology, its benefits and how Pocketbook use it, please go to our Cookie Notice
You can change your cookie settings at any time, using your cookie settings. You can use this page through your account. For more information about cookies and how we use them, please see our cookie notice.
Essay from the year 2006 in the subject Psychology - Clinic and Health Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, grade: A, San Diego State University, 0 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece from 1971 dealt with deep philosophical questions without giving any answers. The observer has no easy way to identify himself with any characters or the pictured society as a full load. The movie is reflecting the dilemma that the only way to increase moral is to decrease freedom. In Kubrick’s movie the dualistic society consists only of perpetrators and victims. The roles are fixed but the persons are interchangable. Therefore there is nobody who could be able to be responsible to handle the power to decrease freedom. On the other hand there are deviant personalities that abuse their freedom to violate the law. Psychologic methods introduced in the movie cannot improve the moral of the society because they can only change a former perpetrator to a victim if the world is dichotom between “anvil and hammer”. Who then should condition the conditioners? The movie reflects the zeitgeist of the early seventies when people began to doubt that the utopia of B.F. Skinners “Walden Two” could be realized or should be wished. The ortodox behaviouristic paradigm that a human being is only a reflection of his/her learning history tottered dramatically in this time. Behaviouristic methods used by mighty officials of a sick society cannot heal criminal indiviuals and are no panacea. All they can do is take their freedom of choice. Kubrick was no psychologist and in his oeuvre he borrowed the stylistic tool of disassociation and threrfore he probably used no
behavioural textbook showing the methods and he gives more a general idea about it. For example the cable system around Alex’ forehead is more a metaphor of Jesus’ crown of thorns than a necessary device in the treatment.