Analysis and themes
The novel describes Interzone's four political parties: the Liquefactionists want to physically dissolve and absorb other people, the Senders want to control other people's minds via telepathy, and the Divisionists want to endlessly replicate themselves. These parties each represent threats to individualism, and are opposed by the fourth party, the Factualists, to which Lee belongs. The novel is especially critical of the Senders, describing them as "the Human Virus", interested in control solely for its own sake, and the root cause of "poverty, hatred, war, police-criminals, bureaucracy, [and] insanity". The novel showcases the struggle between authoritarian, bureaucratic control, epitomized by Dr. Benway, and individual freedom, represented by the Factualist Party. AJ and Lee, both Factualists, fight back against these systems of control with violence and absurd humor. However, Burroughs undermines these characters' heroism: AJ and Lee work for Islam Inc., which has unclear goals of its own, AJ may be a double agent, and Lee is himself controlled by addiction.
Robin Lydenberg observes that all three non-Factionalist parties represent homogenization and opposition to individual expression. Likewise, Dr. Benway and other scientists attempt to "improve" humanity, but show contempt for the diversity and complexity of human life. The novel describes its characters in behaviorist terms, emphasizing stimuli and responses rather than emotions and internal states. The novel depicts humans as mechanical beings, creating what Edward Foster describes as a "Pavlovian nightmare". In particular, Dr Benway uses behavioral conditioning for evil ends, inverting the utopian ideals described by B. F. Skinner in his book Walden Two. Edward Foster sees the Factualists as representing older libertarian values from the Wild west. In contrast, Benway turns drugs and sex into tools of regulation and control, rather than freedom and liberation. Ron Loewinsohn identifies the political parties as representing different methods of international control: Liquefactionists as fascism, Divisionists as colonialism, and Senders as the soft power and cultural influence of the United States. He notes that the Factualists, who infiltrate and undermine the other parties, mirror Burroughs' understanding of how apomorphine works to relieve opioid addiction. He also notes that this undercover infiltration often leads to the Factualists acting similarly to their opposition, such as AJ and Hassan both staging sadomasochistic parties, but with crucial differences: Hassan's cruelty is real, while AJ's is simulated. Meanwhile, Freeland, the novel's stand-in for Scandinavia, is described as a "police state without police"; its citizens have become so neurotic that they obsessively monitor themselves.
Interzone is also marked by a violent struggle between Nationalists and Imperialists, reflecting the political situation Burroughs observed in Tangiers. The novel does not align itself with either side. One of the book's most political routines mocks the Nationalist Party Leader, describing him as a "gangster in drag" who cares only about his own position, not the residents of Interzone. However, the Capitalists who oppose him are equally unconcerned with Interzone's residents, whom they see as merely targets to exploit. This skepticism of both sides reflects Burroughs' own ambivalence towards Moroccan nationalism. Within Interzone, the racial and national hierarchies of colonialism are superseded by unrestricted capitalism. Hassan, who owns multiple passports and is racially ambiguous, hosts a "rumpus room" in which bodies and sex are commodities and white boys are sexually dominated by boys of other races.
The novel's routines emphasize addiction, especially to heroin, which can be read as a metaphor for broader social problems and obsessions. David Ayers interprets heroin as Burroughs' "paradigm" for understanding systems of control. However, Frank McConnell argues that Naked Lunch is straightforwardly about heroin addiction in itself, and should not be read as symbolic. Lydenberg argues that Burroughs' parenthetical asides challenge the reader's instinct to "evade" the darkness of the book by treating its disturbing elements as symbols or allegories, and instead show that Burroughs insists on a literal reading. Frederick Whiting emphasizes that the novel's drug motif should be seen as a metonym for social and economic issues, not a metaphor.
The novel has been described as "an essentially nihilistic work" and "consistently hostile, contemptuous, forcefully hateful [...] without joy." Robin Lydenberg suggests that the novel advocates "a violent rejection and undermining of the entire dual system of morality."
Barry Miles interprets the recurring hanging scenes as critiquing sexual exploitation, racist lynchings, and capital punishment in general. Burroughs himself considered his novel a Swiftian argument against the death penalty.
