Examining Classical Conditioning in A Clockwork Orange:
Realizing its potential for good and bad
Cory Latour
St. Lawrence University

Psychology blossomed as a relevant field of study in the 19th century, as emerging social constructs like individualism and romanticism encouraged scholars to evolve the study of human behavior (Carlson, Miller, Heth, Donahoe, & Martin, 2010). At the beginning of the 20th century, one question provoked notable research: how can learning be studied? Learning is defined as an enduring shift in behavior or knowledge due to experience, and Ivan Pavlov and Edward Thorndike both designed experiments that measured how these long-lasting changes occurred; the pair’s research introduced the idea of conditioning into the field of psychology (Carlson et al., 2010). Pavlov and Thorndike differed in experimental methods, but their research ultimately concluded that one achieves learning through conditioning, which is a construct that modifies behavior through the operant and classical procedures (Carlson et al., 2010). Thorndikes’s investigation exemplifies operant conditioning, while Pavlov’s study highlights classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is a type of learning where responses are the result of consequences (Carlson et al., 2010). One example of the experiment placed a cat in a box where a latch was the only means to get out; whenever the cat successfully pulled the latch (the response), Thorndike rewarded it with food (eliciting stimulus). Through numerous observations Thorndike demonstrated that operant conditioning is achieved with a response preceding an eliciting stimulus (Carlson et al., 2010). A broader example to understand the operant procedure would be a mother rewarding her son for cleaning his room with a new toy; the boy associates the response of cleaning his room with the eliciting stimulus of the new toy, which ultimately makes it more likely for the him to clean his room in the future. Operant conditioning is one way of measuring learning, while classical conditioning is the second procedure of conditioning. The classical procedure uses a neutral stimulus, in Pavlov’s case: a ticking metronome, preceding an eliciting stimulus, the food, with the result being a learned response, salivating for the food at the sound of the ticking (Carlson et al., 2010). The dog eventually learns to associate the food with the ticking sound, so the experiment proves that the dog is conditioned to the sound of ticking, because it salivates without the presence of food. A strong example of this construct is highlighted in the book: a child sees a balloon filling up with air until it eventually pops, which elicits the reaction of cringing. When the same child sees a balloon filling with air in the future, he or she will cringe before the balloon explodes (Carlson et al., 2010). This response preceding the actual event demonstrates the idea that classical conditioning produces learning through environmental experience. The subject learning is not actively aware of the association between stimuli that is taking place. Classical conditioning is most important in analyzing Stanley Kubrick’s film, A Clockwork Orange, as the movie’s protagonist, Alex, undergoes a controversial therapy based off of classical conditioning to fix all of his vices. Before examining the construct of classical conditioning within the movie, one must be familiar with the general plot of the film. Alex narrates on past events in his life set in a dystopian Britain plagued by crime, government ineffectiveness, and social despair. Alex and his gang of “droogies” commit horrendous acts like assault and rape. The characters lack consciences and sympathy, an idea that is supported by Alex’s simplification of rape as the old “in-and-out.” Alex eventually upsets his mates, as he asserts his mental and physical dominance in being the gang leader. The group betrays Alex at the scene of a crime, and he is sentenced to forty years in prison for murder. Kubrick portrays Alex’s stay in prison in an institutionalized manner, as he is stripped of his name on the first day and assigned a number. This scene highlights the mask of order and obedience that Alex must wear through his stay in prison. Alex fakes the model behaviors of a prisoner, as he even participates in bible studies, although he reminds the audience of his confined wickedness in stating his favorite parts of the studies are the sex and violence. Alex is finally given an opportunity to escape by undergoing an experimental treatment, the fictional Ludovico Method, which supposedly cures criminals. Alex is given nausea-inducing drugs preceding his exposure to films depicting acts of violence and sexual assault playing to the music of Beethoven. After multiple treatments, doctors consider Alex to be cured, and he is released back into society as a “model citizen.” Alex regains his freedom, but his treatment does not right the wrongs of his past. His parents reject him, and his former enemies torture him with acts of violence and the use of classical music. The violence and the music elicit the nausea and sickness learned by the protagonist, which finally leads to his attempted suicide. The movie ends with Alex’s recovery in the hospital, which sparks debate over the ethics of his therapy. In an effort to gain political favor, the Minister of the Interior visits Alex to gain his support in exchange for future governmental aid. Kubrick concludes his controversial film showing Alex’s thoughts of reverting back to his old ways and one final voiceover stating, “and I was cured all right.” Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s novel A Clockwork Orange is nothing short of fantastic in revealing the false idealism of the processes driving the study of behavior in the 1900’s. The director highlights the negative repercussions of using classical conditioning as a tool to solve social problems that exist from the immeasurability and free-will of human life. Kubrick accurately portrays the history of immoral classical conditioning tactics like aversion therapy, although the actual treatment Alex undergoes is not scientifically sound. The movie ultimately leaves the viewer with a sturdy yet unchallenged message: it is impossible for any good to come out of the use of classical conditioning to improve or cure social disorders. One must examine and acknowledge the accuracies in the central psychological message before analyzing its counterargument. Psychology is a relatively young form of science, and its ideologies are the result of processes of trial and error. Similarly, treatment therapies to human behavior disorders arose from classical conditioning, and they were fueled by the support of idealistic learning goals in the late 20th century (Carlson et al., 2010). Aversion therapy was one of these derivatives, and it was the idea of inducing a negative reaction to an unattractive behavior by the means of an averting stimulus (Carlson et al., 2010). Therefore, the nausea-inducing drug Alex takes in the film is the aversion stimulus that will cure his chaotic personality. The fictional treatment in the film is an allusion to classical conditioning, founded by Pavlov, and other historical aversion therapies.
Pat Gehrke (2001), a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirms the premise that Alex’s experimental treatment is a reference to Pavlovian conditioning, as Alex becomes ill without the presence of drugs just as Pavlov’s dogs salivated without the presence of food. This comparison introduces the historical validity of the film. Gehrke (2001) highlights prison experiments in Florida and California conducted in the 1970’s that were approved by officials hoping to use science as a way of combatting the, “war on crime” (p. 280). Leaders combatted the questioned immoralities in the state prisons saying the treatments were effective and voluntary (Gehrke, 2001). Gehrke (2001) further verifies the accuracy of the movie’s pessimistic view of the construct with an example of a man that wished to remedy his homosexuality through science; in undergoing therapy, the man lost the ability to have any type of sexual relationship. The author’s article ultimately affirms the accurate downfalls of classical conditioning in the, “hundreds of aversion therapy studies,” between 1965 and 1975 (Gehrke, 2001, p. 283).
While Kubrick’s film is a historically accurate documentation of classical conditioning, the actual therapy in the film is not scientifically sound. Bobby Newman (1991), a professor of psychology, argues that Alex’s conditioning would only last in a controlled environment like a prison or the treatment hospital. Alex’s release into society is a nuisance variable in his conditioning, as he would gradually desensitize to violence (Newman, 1991). The society portrayed in the film was too fragmented and chaotic for the protagonist to not gradually experience a process of desensitization (Newman, 1991). Newman (1991) concludes that the message was not to present an empirically accurate treatment, rather acknowledge the impossibilities and immorality in endeavors to remedy people that society sees as deviants.
Society can learn several lessons about classical conditioning by watching Kubrick’s masterpiece. The movie demonstrates a powerful idea about social compliancy: people should not accept something as being right because the government and science say it is. Kubrick’s film teaches about the negative repercussions of classical conditioning procedures with the idea that human identity and authenticity should never be intervened with, even when they are expressed in the most terrible ways.
The lesson Alex teaches is powerful, however, people must also realize that classical conditioning can have positive effects and lead to improvement. Simon Chu (2008), a professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire, ran an olfactory experiment using young teens considered to be underachievers. He ran a baseline test without the presence of odors, and then introduced odors to two groups in the next testing session (Chu, 2008). The experimenters told the group of kids in the presence of an odor that the second test was for a higher age group, but they manipulated successful test results in the group’s favor (Chu, 2008). Chu (2008) lastly reveals the improved scores of the odor group from the third administration of the original baseline test in the presence of that same odor. Chu’s (2008) experiment supports the counterargument that classical conditioning actually exists on a spectrum of good and bad, as the subjects’ motivation and scores improved in the presence of the odor. This study shows that the opportunity for improvement exists alongside the chance of abuse in classical conditioning for behavior modification.
Theodore Dalrymple (2006), a former prison psychiatrist, is a useful resource in concluding the ideas expressed in this analysis of the portrayal of classical conditioning in A Clockwork Orange, as he asks, “Do people grow into free will from a state of automatism…And if violence is only a passing phase, why should the youth of one age be more violent than the youth of another?” (p. 8). Dalrymple (2006) juxtaposes the movie’s pessimistic ending of the construct with the novel’s idealistic conclusion of it, which is Alex relinquishing his violent ways for a family through his own free will.
A response to his question is that authentic identity derives from human automatism, but we should not stop encouraging studies that improve personality disorders because of their potential for abuse. The historical abuses are the reason human and animal experimenting ethics currently exist, and everyone should have a chance for happiness, whether it is scientifically induced or autonomic. We must recognize that we have progressed morally in the fragile study of human behavior, and any preconceived fear should not exist.

References
Carlson, N.R., Miller, H. Heth, C.D., Donahoe, J.W., & Martin, G.N. (2010). Psychology: The science of behavior (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Chu, S. (2008) Olfactory conditioning of positive performance in humans. Chemical

Senses, 33(1), 65-71. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjm063

Dalrymple, T. (2006) A prophetic and violent masterpiece. City Journal, (Winter), 1-8, 10/31/2013. Retrieved from http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=1939

Gehrke, P. (2001) Deviant subjects in foucault and A clockwork orange: congruent critiques of criminological constructions of subjectivity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(3), 270-284, doi:10.1080/07393180128088

Kubrick, S., Litvinoff, S., Raab, M. L., Williams, B. (Producer), & Kubrick S. (Director). (1971). A clockwork orange [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros.

Newman, B. (1991) A Clockwork Orange: Burgess and behavioral interventions. Behavior and Social Issues, (Fall/Winter), 1(2), 61-70