From A Clockwork Orange to Digital Non-Dialogue: Are We Losing Connection?

Kubrick’s Vision Gave Us A Look into Future Dystopia

Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange remains one of the most chilling portrayals of a future where society is both highly controlled and simultaneously chaotic. The film, while rooted in the socio-political context of the late 60s and early 70s, anticipated the look, feel, and discontent that would become more prevalent in the 1980s. Through the lens of Alex, a violent youth who is both a product and victim of this dystopia, Kubrick reflected societal fears of state control, individual freedom, and alienation.

Fast forward to today, — and while the dystopian horrors Kubrick envisioned haven’t materialized in the exact same way, parallels in communication and governance in Western Europe are emerging. The freedoms and liberties we enjoy, particularly in places like Germany, have created an abundance of choices, but ironically, they are breeding a form of disengagement. In the digital space, particularly with how governments and institutions communicate, there’s an eerie silence in terms of the response – one that bears resemblance to the controlled, top-down communications of Kubrick’s world.

The Illusion of Choice in the Digital Age

In A Clockwork Orange, Alex is stripped of his agency by the state, conditioned to follow predetermined paths. In today’s world, we enjoy vast freedom of expression, choice, and the ability to interact with institutions through digital platforms. Yet, despite these freedoms, there seems to be a collective disengagement.

Government institutions are investing heavily in social media presences, yet the engagement from the public is minimal. Instead of fostering real dialogue, many of these communications feel like echoes from the past – akin to the 1980s press release style: “We inform, you listen,” plus a little bit of non-political, non-critical fun here and there. There’s little interaction, little debate, and what’s most concerning, little acknowledgment that this strategy is failing to connect.

Communicating Without Seeking Real Feedback

A significant parallel with Kubrick’s world is the way these institutions operate in their own bubbles, seemingly unaware of or uninterested in the public's disengagement. It's on the institutions' terms primarily.

In the area of social media communication, there's a noticeable trend where institutions appoint leaders in key communication roles who have the full trust of top-level management.

This relationship between leadership and social media leads to a quiet circumvention of standard controls. Hiring practices for these roles often fall outside the usual scrutiny, and the individuals in charge—whether due to loyalty or lack of expertise—tend to hire those who have their trust but follow outdated communication strategies.

Many of these leaders do not fully grasp the evolving nature of platforms in 2024 or understand the nuances that are essential to building engagement on modern platforms. As a result, their strategies reflect an out-of-touch perspective, reinforcing the top-down, one-way communication model of previous decades.

This problem is compounded by entrenched stereotypes held by these leaders and their trusted communications sidekicks, particularly when it comes to younger audiences. There is a tendency to reduce social media to platforms like TikTok, believing that young people are only interested in short, entertaining content with little substance, and that their attention spans have diminished.

In reality, this stereotype fails to capture the complexity of digital engagement. It's not that attention spans are shrinking, but rather that audiences now have access to an abundance of interesting and relevant content. Strategies that rely on shallow entertainment are unlikely to bridge the gap to serious messages. This creates a persistent failure in communication, where attempts to connect with younger generations are built on flawed assumptions and strategies with unbridgeable gaps.

When YouTube comments are turned off by government agencies, there’s no public discussion or explanation. It’s as though the decision is made behind closed doors, following bureaucratic logic rather than any real-world considerations of what social media is supposed to facilitate – interaction, transparency, and connection.

This move back to one-directional communication is troubling. It signals a shift away from the very purpose of digital platforms – fostering open discussion. Worse, because there is so much noise distractions in the digital sphere — to which governrnment now even contribute — that the public seems to barely notice or care. The lack of outcry or even discussion about these communication choices mirrors the apathy seen in dystopian settings, where people are overwhelmed by the noise of daily life and miss the gradual erosion of genuine discourse.

Kubrick’s Warning Is Still on

Kubrick warned of a world where control is subtly asserted, not through overt oppression, but by managing the choices available and controlling the conversation. In today's context, we’re witnessing something similar. Governments and large institutions communicate through official channels that, while open to all, are rarely used for meaningful exchange. They become echo chambers – self-referential and self-sustaining, as much of the interactions come from other institutions or individuals closely tied to the bureaucratic system.

The digital presence of these institutions, particularly on platforms like YouTube, can feel like a performance – broadcasting information without expecting or properly encouraging a response. This mimics the dystopian narrative Kubrick anticipated, where the state manages and manipulates the flow of information without engaging in true dialogue with its citizens.

The Complacency of Institutions Is Palpable

One of the greatest dangers facing democracies today isn’t necessarily the strength of authoritarian or fascist forces, but the complacency of the institutions (the peolple working there!) that fail to see their own role in creating an environment where such ideas can thrive.

After the atrocities of fascism, there is a tendency to compartmentalize this dark period in history, seeing it as something confined to specific countries or eras—Germany, Italy, or Russia. This overlooks a fundamental truth: fascism was not about the failings of a particular nationality, but a universal warning about what humans are capable of when institutions become self-absorbed and blind to their own dysfunction.

Fascism, or any authoritarian ideology, often rises in environments where people feel powerless, overwhelmed by institutional noise, and unable to find legitimate pathways for change. It’s not always the strength of these forces that fuels their growth, but the inertia and noise generated by institutions focused more on maintaining their internal status and power than on true reform or communication. These institutions often create an atmosphere of dystopian frustration, where citizens feel disconnected from the very systems meant to represent them. When the deck feels permanently stacked, and when those in power—often unaware of their own privilege—continue to tell citizens how things work without inviting genuine dialogue, the seeds of division are sown.

In this sense, the battle against authoritarianism is not simply about protecting against external threats. It is equally about confronting the internal complacency within institutions. Sporadically bouts of actionism like "we have to do something for the youth" are more a proof of dangers at hand than they tackle the issue.

Leaders often fail to recognize that their position of privilege is intertwined with the system, perpetuating a cycle that feels immovable and untouchable to the average citizen. The more institutions hide behind laws, rules, and noise, the more likely dystopian discontent will fester, leaving societies vulnerable to the forces they claim to stand against.

A Call for Transparency and Real Engagement

The pressing question is: How do we break free from this cycle of disengagement and one-way communication? Governments and public institutions need to reconsider their approaches to social media. Rather than retreating into a controlled, press-release mode of communication with dysfunctional strategies, they need to lean into the potential of these platforms to create genuine conversation.

There’s an opportunity to address the reasons for shutting off comments function, for example. Explain the decision, bring the public into the fold, and create transparency. Otherwise, the silence becomes deafening, and the public becomes further alienated – a dangerous path, as Kubrick foresaw.

Democracy itself is only ever a step away from succumbing to authoritarian forces, waiting in the wings to exploit this disengagement. The fight for engagement must be proactive, not defensive. Institutions cannot afford to merely sit in their metaphorical trenches, comfortable and secure. Instead, they must take an aggressive stance, not just in countering anti-democratic forces, but also in confronting their own stereotypes and outdated communication methods and assumptions.

The prevailing stereotypes about youth and social media need to be aggressively challenged. Generalizations about attention spans, disinterest, and the triviality of platforms like TikTok only perpetuate institutional stagnation. These outdated views are not only inaccurate, but they serve to reinforce a leadership structure that seeks to maintain the status quo, keeping those in power entrenched while alienating the very audiences they need to engage.

Stop Adding to the Noise

One of the most critical points to remember is that by engaging in ineffective, outdated communication strategies, institutions are not just failing to fulfill their role—they are actively doing harm. They are contributing to the very noise that they need to rise above.

By adding to this cacophony, they are making it easier for the very forces they oppose to gain traction. When the public is bombarded with irrelevant or ineffective communication, meaningful discourse is drowned out. The more noise there is, the harder it becomes to hear anything worthwhile—and this is precisely the kind of environment in which anti-democratic forces can thrive.

Reflect and Change

Just as A Clockwork Orange made audiences reflect on the future of society and the individual’s place within it, today’s government and institutional communication strategies should provoke thought on the future of public engagement. Are we heading toward a digital age where freedom exists, but no one is truly free to engage? Where choices are abundant, but the meaningful ones are quietly taken away as a matter of technological-operational choices?

To avoid the dystopian fate Kubrick envisioned, we should demand more from our public institutions in how they communicate. Transparency, dialogue, and genuine interaction should be the standards, not exceptions. And to achieve that, we need to challenge not just external threats to democracy, but also the internal biases and stereotypes that hold institutions back. And on a practical level, they need more staff who is capable beyond the level of technically operating social media outreach.