com 520 - small group communication

Structuration Theory Analysis of Group Function in Lord of the Flies

“We did everything just like grown-ups would have; why didn’t it work?” (Milloy, 1990).   

      Groups are as unique as the individuals who construct them.  Applying structuration theory to the group in the film, Lord of the Flies (Milloy, 1990), helps us better understand the group and its use of rules and roles that led to the separation of the group.  According to Poole (1996), “A major interest of research into structuration is how members initiate, maintain, and change rules and resources (p. 51).  By looking at how the rules for the group in the film were initiated, maintained, and changed during the course of the film, it becomes clear that the dissent and eventual separation of the group was virtually inevitable.

      Because of the group’s military school background, it is assumed that there were strict rules (set by adults) initiated before the plane crash that stranded the group.  Although the rules were initiated at different times depending on when each boy started at the school,   each was at least familiar with those rules.  Poole asserts, “The group copies its own versions of some rules and resources and develops others on its own” (p. 51).  This group did just that – adjusted the rules with which they were familiar from military school and initiated new rules for the purpose of the task of surviving on the island.  Leadership roles among the students were followed and these roles were established in the film by several younger students referring to older students as “sir” and following orders from those in leadership positions after first arriving on the island (Milloy, 1990).  Rules and roles in groups are continuously shifting, however, and this group was no exception.

      The rules became norms for the group and when placed in a situation in which adult leadership was absent (or severely injured as was the case of the pilot in the film), the group maintained those rules for a short time.  Ralph spoke up and told the group that they needed rules that everyone needed to follow if they were going to survive and subsequently won the election for leadership among the group (Milloy, 1990).  Rules are only as strong as the people who enforce them, though.  It makes sense that many of the established rules were maintained right after the crash when many of the boys were scared and looked to the student leaders among them for guidance and emotional strength.  That said, it also makes sense that after an adjustment period, some of the boys rebelled against the set rules in favor of more “freedom” from adult rules.

      The rules of the group began to change during the struggle for power between Ralph and Jack.  According to Poole, “Rules are propositions that indicate how something ought to be done or what is good or bad”  (p. 49).  Ralph and Jack had very different ideas of how things should be done and perceptions of what was good and bad (Ralph’s idea was to maintain the rules initiated by adults and Jack’s idea was abandoning those rules and replacing them with his own), which was the main cause of dissent among the group.  The boys became hungry and Jack promised to provide anyone who wanted to leave Ralph’s group the resources to eat (Milloy, 1990).  He used the promise of his resourcefulness to find food to shift the balance of power as he recruited more and more of the boys to his side. 

      There are many possible reasons that the group eventually split, but one explanation using structuration theory is that the set rules were initiated by adults and initially maintained by peers.  Several of the boys saw their new-found freedom away from the set rules as an escape from the confinement of those rules and rebelled, meanwhile changing the rules to a set that better fit their idea of freedom from standard authority.  Jack discovered that he could use resources that Ralph did not have as a way to coerce other boys into joining his group and following his new rules.

References

Milloy, R. (Producer), & Hook, H. (Director).  (1990).  Lord of the flies [Motion picture].  United States:  Columbia Pictures.

Poole, M.S. (1996).  Group communication and the structuring process.  In R.Y. Hirokawa, R.S. Cathcart, L.A. Samovar, & L.D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication (48-56).  New York, New York: Oxford University Press.