"Lord of the Flies" was inspired by the British 'public' schools system (so called because prior to its creation, the children of British aristocrats were taught by private tutors). It sounds like a real horrorshow:
> "Since these schools taught gentlemen not meant to sully their hands with work (perish the thought!), they never learned more practical subjects such as bookkeeping or land management. Those subjects consigned to schools that educated sons of men in trade."
> "Disciplinary measures were expected to be harsh, not only as a way to maintain order but to toughen up the boys so they could perfect that famous English stiff upper lip. Punishments were brutal, often resulting in blood being drawn during caning, belting, birching, and whipping."
> "Evenings and nights, the boys were left to fend for themselves often under the rule of an older boy put in charge. The boys formed a hierarchy that made the reign of terror look tame, as older boys preyed upon younger boys."
Apparently these public schools (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster, Rugby, Charterhouse and Shrewsbury) were intentionally designed to turn out sociopathic narcissists with a penchant for violence and cruelty - who were the kind of people that the system's architects thought were needed to run the British Empire.
Perhaps an American romance novelist is not the most reliable source of information about British public schools. William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies, did not attend a public school; he attended the non-residential co-educational state-funded grammar school at which his father was a teacher. The book was actually inspired by his years as a teacher and his direct experience of children's behavior.
There's this debate about Lord of the Flies - did it include a specific criticism of the British Empire and the peculiarities of the public school system that trained the leaders of the Empire, or was it a broad commentary on human nature in general?
I think it's clear why the British Empire's champions and defenders would push for the latter interpretation. However, the final scene in which the boys are rescued by a British naval officer does seem to point towards the former.
If you dislike that particular source I linked to, note that this view is not uncommon, for example this commentary:
> "Prior to publishing Lord of the Flies, Golding taught at an exclusive all-male boarding school attached to Salisbury Cathedral. I read that he was often distressed by the savage behavior of some of the students. I've yet to find where he ever taught working-class students, so his teaching universe concentrated in the British upper-middle classes."
> "There is well-documented historical disregard for human life in the British aristocracy in their pursuit of riches abroad, e.g., the massacre of unarmed civilians in Amritsar, India; the Boer atrocities; the Opium Wars and two centuries of profiteering from slavery. (The Nazis had to come along to make the Brits look good.) It's not at all inconceivable that some of Golding's pupils were descended from those who committed crimes against humanity."
> "The book's title calls attention to the nobility. Was Golding pointing an oblique finger at the British aristocacy? He was certainly in a unique position to do so."
I don't think it's like this now (probably far more posh), but the public schools were also famously old and decrepit as buildings. They were incredibly drafty, dank, and probably very dark. Orwell (if his account can be trusted) also described them as incredibly filthy. It was an era when the popular idea was that forcing kids to get through awful conditions made them "stronger and better leaders". As you described, it also made them into quite troubled adults. (This is not to mention to abuse both physical and sexual that also went on in the schools.)
> Of his contemporaries, Cecil Beaton wrote of the piece "It is hilariously funny, but it is exaggerated".[22] Connolly, on reviewing Stansky & Abraham's interpretation, wrote "I was at first enchanted as by anything which recalls one's youth but when I went to verify some references from my old reports and letters I was nearly sick... In the case of St Cyprian's and the Wilkes whom I had so blithely mocked I feel an emotional disturbance... The Wilkeses were true friends and I had caricatured their mannerisms (developed as a kind of ritual square-bashing for dealing with generations of boys) and read mercenary motives into much that was just enthusiasm."[32] Walter Christie and Henry Longhurst went further and wrote their own sympathetic accounts of the school in response to Orwell's and voiced their appreciation for the formidable Mrs Wilkes.[33][34] Robert Pearce, researching the papers of another former pupil,[35] made a comprehensive study from the perspective of the school, investigating school records and other pupils' accounts. While some features were universal features of prep school life, he concluded that Orwell's depiction bore little relation to reality and that Orwell's defamatory allegations were unsupportable.[15] Davison writes "If one is looking for a factual account for life at St Cyprian's, this is not the place to seek it."[36]
On Orwell's claimed state of misery, Jacintha Buddicom, who knew him well at the time, also raised a strong challenge. She wrote "I can guarantee that the 'I' of "Such, Such were the Joys" is quite unrecognisable as Eric as we knew him then", and "He was a philosophical boy, with varied interests and a sense of humour—which he was inclined to indulge when referring to St Cyprian's in the holidays."[23]
Is there any frank account on why this was considered important in the beginning? Once it starts I imagine the tendency to pass on abuse would keep it going regardless. Hazing does have rational roots in that people value things they struggle for more highly than things they are given. And lack of empathy can be a beneficial trait in a leader, both for the leader and the lead, as long as it isn't paired with cruelty and narcissism... Narcissists are inherently easy to manipulate, and make bad leaders because they don't often defer to experts when making decisions, even when they picked them. Cruelty is a poor substitute for rational detachment when being forced to make hard decisions.
"Apparently these public schools (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster, Rugby, Charterhouse and Shrewsbury) were intentionally designed to turn out sociopathic narcissists with a penchant for violence and cruelty"
My time at a public school (60s) was irredeemably vile, but this statement is utter bollocks. The cruelty was systemic & structural, but unconscious and well intended, "it'll make a man of you - as a 9 year old - to run 15 miles at 4am and be beaten if you're in the last 10". It was a failure of rationalism, evidence and common-sense rather than wickedness. That's not to say I wouldn't now beat my old masters unconcious if I bumped into them in a dark alley all these years later - but I wouldn't ascribe calculated wickedness to them, or a dark desire to further Empire.
> "Since these schools taught gentlemen not meant to sully their hands with work (perish the thought!), they never learned more practical subjects such as bookkeeping or land management. Those subjects consigned to schools that educated sons of men in trade."
> "Disciplinary measures were expected to be harsh, not only as a way to maintain order but to toughen up the boys so they could perfect that famous English stiff upper lip. Punishments were brutal, often resulting in blood being drawn during caning, belting, birching, and whipping."
> "Evenings and nights, the boys were left to fend for themselves often under the rule of an older boy put in charge. The boys formed a hierarchy that made the reign of terror look tame, as older boys preyed upon younger boys."
https://donnahatch.com/education-and-other-forms-of-child-to...
Apparently these public schools (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster, Rugby, Charterhouse and Shrewsbury) were intentionally designed to turn out sociopathic narcissists with a penchant for violence and cruelty - who were the kind of people that the system's architects thought were needed to run the British Empire.