Brainwashing and behaviorism
An extremist philosophy of freedom

Eyes held open by specula, a teenage boy cries out in anguish. Nominally a protagonist of A Clockwork Orange, Alex DeLarge is subject to aversive conditioning. The scene itself is hard to watch (available here), despite what Alex did to receive this punishment. 

Previously the movie documented his assaults and murders, all of which Alex enjoys. When he is captured by police after being betrayed by his gang, he is treated by being given an emetic and forced to watch violent images. The conditioning works – when he is later beaten by his old gang, he is physically unable to fight back.

A Clockwork Orange was adapted from a book by Anthony Burgess. He wrote it, at least in part, as a reaction against behaviorism. 

In fact, he had a specific antipathy towards one B.F. Skinner.

...

It’s easy to mock “the Ludovico technique,” as described by Burgess, in the current year. Behavior modification – applying a strong aversive or reinforcer indiscriminately as a consequence to a behavior – is relatively powerful, but it won’t make a person incapable of “violence.” 

But the novella was published in 1962, a timeframe where people were intensely optimistic about the power and promise of behavior modification. Perhaps the most famous mainstream application of aversive conditioning is disulfiram, a drug that causes an unpleasant reaction to alcohol. 

As J.G. Holland notes, punishments are viewed as reasonable treatments for socially unacceptable problems – even though it’s clear that they don’t work. That is, we suggest a punishment for the alcoholic, but not when we want to help a child pass a spelling test. Of note: disulfiram has not cured alcoholism.

At the same time, if you know anything about Skinner, you might be wondering how he is involved in this. Skinner himself quite specifically was against all forms of aversive control. In fact, in Walden Two, Skinner writes that a strong punishment won’t have a long-term effect on human behavior. It’s right there, in his most popular work.

Skinner didn’t advocate for aversive conditioning. To some authors, he did something far more dire: he suggested that they were not solely responsible for their writing.

...

It is well-known that Skinner wrote the book Beyond Freedom and Dignity, a title that he later admitted was provocative. Many anti-Skinnerians cite this work as the one that soured them, and it starts with the title: you’re not free.

But Beyond Freedom and Dignity was published in 1971, 9 years after A Clockwork Orange was published, and the same year the film was released. Unexpectedly, the problematic title was Science and Human Behavior.

In a comprehensive and surprisingly fair account, the Anthony Burgess Foundation notes that Burgess was influenced by Huxley’s take on Skinner in Brave New World Revisited. This is not entirely accurate.

Huxley’s comments on Skinner are basically expected: Skinner attributes too much to the environment. That’s about it! Where did all the other stuff come from?

Huxley has several other sections composed of somewhat crackpot speculation about fringe science of the time: “brainwashing,” mind control using drugs, propaganda, “subconscious” advertising, “subconscious” learning, hypnosis, etc. In some cases, Huxley has a reasonable take; for example, he concludes that there is no scientific evidence that a person can learn during sleep (which is true). In others, he concludes that, for example, brainwashing is real.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Skinner. Reading the chapters in sequence does, however, give an impression that science in the 50s (including Skinner’s work) was focused on hypnosis and mind control. To an extent, it was, but only in the sense that all of those studies found nothing in particular.

...

Brainwashing isn’t real. 

The initial fear of brainwashing arose during communist revolutions in Russia, China, and Vietnam. Prisoners of war were sometimes paraded in front of cameras, seemingly embracing the communist system. How could anyone embrace communism, the thinking went, without having their brain completely reprogrammed?!

The threat of punishment was often the culprit. American POWs were not permanently “brainwashed” – they engaged in avoidance. For example, American POWs in North Korea wore traditional clothing, signed false confessions, and even voiced support for the communist regime. Here is an infamous picture of them:

A picture of men flipping off the camera is a visual reminder: they did the bare minimum to avoid torture. Of approximately 3,000 POWs in North Korea, it is reported that at most 11 remained committed to their new communist ideology – a rather poor record for brainwashing.

Cults have a similar reputation for “brainwashing” – because who would join a cult? Perhaps a person who finds positive reinforcement in an in-group, and later is also threatened with punishment. This is not actually very complicated. Again, if cults actually had more power, they would exercise it.

...

Reading Huxley, with all his concerns over mind control via science, there is one threat that seems to stand out: “Over-organization” (see page 10). This…is as dangerous as literal brainwashing?

Huxley’s argument appears to be that humans are so unique and different that to force any conformity – through hierarchy, or through engineering systems, is wrong. 

Taken to the logical extreme, what if we could engineer a system, or rewards and punishments, in such a way that we eliminate murder?

...

The Ludovico technique couldn’t work in real life. But in the novel, and in the film, it works. A “murderer” no longer is capable of violence. The man still has the same desires, but the behavior becomes impossible.

Burgess and Huxley appear to argue that this is bad, actually. They don’t say so explicitly. But the tenor of the argument is such.

Returning to the excellent Burgess Foundation essay, the author discusses another work by Burgess that appears to critique Skinner, in a debate between characters where one character is a stand-in for Skinner. The anti-Skinner character has this to say about freedom:

Man was always violent and always sinful and always will be. He won’t change, not unless he becomes something else.

Man is only free if that includes freedom to be violent.

...

In a 1991 article in Behavior and Social Issues, author Bobby Newman addresses A Clockwork Orange from the perspective of a behaviorist. It’s true that Burgess fundamentally misunderstands Skinner, and also that he misunderstands aversive control and countercontrol. For example, Burgess appears to accept prison as a punishment for murder.

But of course the disagreement is not logical. Newman misunderstands Burgess. Burgess appears to say (in behavioral terms): there should be no antecedent control, only punishment (Burgess criticizes reinforcement as coercive). Alex’s punishment is problematic because it functions as an antecedent to later crimes, rather than a strict postcedent. 

An extremist philosophy of freedom posits that there should be no a priori restrictions on individual citizens. Consequences can be appropriate, and may be imposed by the state.

Through the British Burgess lens, a certain American strain of freedom emerges. Masks and vaccines (antecedents) are not acceptable, but treatment for infection (consequences) is acceptable. Restrictions on guns are not acceptable, but the death penalty is acceptable. 

...

In predicting near-future political scandal in America, apply the preceding logic, wherein the antecedent is rejected in favor of consequences:

• Restrictions on processed food → GLP-1 agonists

• Limitations to consumerism → tariffs 

• City planning → highway expansion

• Citizens carrying paperwork → deportations 

• PBIS (teaching social skills) → youth incarceration

• Socialized healthcare → funding emergency rooms in rural areas

Add your own fun extremist freedom reactions in the comments!