Brave New World
discussion
utopia or dystopia?
Dystopia. Society has to compromise too much for the benefits. Babies born with a pre-ordered set of characteristics, drug use for public pacification and stratified social classes from which a member can't promote one's self. Island was Huxley's utopia.
I'm late into this discussion so if noone answers me I'll just have to start a new one.First; I believe this is a depiction of a Dystopian society with a Utopian flavor. Explaination: in a nutshell, despite the use of soma and conditioning and gestational/genetic manipulation the populous was 'happy' and 'content' the very act of shaping people into what they were made them less than people. It made them inhuman.Though I'm sure some would argue that they were post-human.
Humanity must come to grips with its higher reality. I believe that we are parts of a greater superorganism with delusions of individualism. I agree with Teilhard De Chardin that evolution (both natural and technological)is leading towards an Omega Point in concious awarness and power over the inanimate universe of matter and energy in the distant future.
But first we have to put away childhood (no reference to Childhood's End, though that was a great story), ie, racism, classism, nationalism, hedonism, materialism, and all that dross. All People and places and things are Sacred (or they should be treated so to avoid all the exploitation/destruction/waste) and all things have part and place in the wheel of existence.
THAT's all I have to say about that.
Alfred wrote: "I'm late into this discussion so if noone answers me I'll just have to start a new one.First; I believe this is a depiction of a Dystopian society with a Utopian flavor. Explaination: in a nutshe..."
I'd say that's definitely another topic. The concept of overcoming individuality and evolving, etc. Just one question, this Omega point idea: Does it refer to a technological singularity, or some kind of development where human consciousness is able to merge? I've never heard of it before.
Hi, new here.To me, A Brave New Wold is absolutely a dystopic worldview. Humans are stripped of their humanity and are bred for functions, like a machine.
"Dystopian society with a Utopian flavor"There are no wars,stable society most of the people are satisfied but then again people are bred and given SOMA "to be satisfied" ,so they dont know any better, expect some individuals.
Soma, so prescient to the anti-depressants, the MAO Inhibitors...Give me a life with pain and pleasure, ups and downs rather than a blissed-out medium, bland and unoffensive existence.
''Give me a life with pain and pleasure, ups and downs...''That's what the Savage said in his conversation with the Manager in the penultimate chapter(I'm not sure are they called Manager and Savage in English because I read it Bosnian, but you'll get the point). That's also the part that can best relate to the topic.
But what I wanted to say is,
you probably have an average life, but ask any starving, poor, hendicapped person, any person living in a country where's a war going on, any person dying of an incurable illness what do they think is better.
To eliminate all that i don't think it's a too big compromise. Especially, since they aren't avare of the comprise. I repeat they're satisfied. Doesn't matter at what cost or how.
Someone also mentioned manipulation and that they are bred. We all are manipulated, bred with nurture and media, with the enviroment we live in. Just that in Brave New World is on much higher level, 100% effective and done before the people are born.
Hi Anya,I'm sure genetically engineered people with no free will (or sorely lacking) might not miss the freedoms they've never known, but how awful would it be to get a glimpse or have a nagging suspicion that the sterile, peaceful place they inhabit is a lie.
At any rate it's pretty obvious Huxley didn't think much of the setup. Authors generally don't have their protagonist hanging themselves if things are peachy.
I love this book.
Anya wrote: "''Give me a life with pain and pleasure, ups and downs...''
That's what the Savage said in his conversation with the Manager in the penultimate chapter(I'm not sure are they called Manager and Sava..."
But they won't. And they do know some things. They know the process of ''making'' people and some stuff about the previous world(our world).Savage is something like our average religous man. Of course that he hung himself. Not you,or I or any usual man could live there. They're bred for that kind of living.
Maybe we are capable for some extraordinary things, but we don't know it therefor we don't crave for it.
You seem like a satisfied person, but there's that 0.01% chance that this is a lie. We can't be sure of anything.
Love the book too; my favourite.
Anya wrote: "''Give me a life with pain and pleasure, ups and downs...''That's what the Savage said in his conversation with the Manager in the penultimate chapter(I'm not sure are they called Manager and Sava..."
In English they are John the Savage and Mustaffa Mond. You're welcome! ;)
Alfred wrote: "I'm late into this discussion so if noone answers me I'll just have to start a new one.First; I believe this is a depiction of a Dystopian society with a Utopian flavor. Explaination: in a nutshe..."
I'm one of those who would argue that they are post-human:)
Anya wrote: "''Give me a life with pain and pleasure, ups and downs...''
That's what the Savage said in his conversation with the Manager in the penultimate chapter(I'm not sure are they called Manager and Sava..."
I think the author intended it to be a shocking dystopia, however imo social changes after it was written have made many such "shocking" elements ambiguous, so I would not call BNW a straight dystopia like 1984 or Handmaid's Tale. And I agree with Anya that BNW is at least much less awful than our current one.
Xdyj wrote: "I think the author intended it to be a shocking dystopia, however imo social changes after it was written have made many such "shocking" elements ambiguous, so I would not call BNW a straight dysto..."Absolutely, the aim of BNW was to satirize American culture which, in the 1920's, was built on the idea of manufacturing consent through consumption and narcotizing. One might say it's a habit that hasn't been lost ;)
When you say our current one, do you mean the world as we know it today?
Matthew wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "I think the author intended it to be a shocking dystopia, however imo social changes after it was written have made many such "shocking" elements ambiguous, so I would not call BNW a s..."Yes. And I agree with Anya in that I think changing ourselves fundamentally as in BNW is an acceptable compromise if we can do away with crimes, wars, terrorism, genocides and most of the hatred and cruelty in our world, while I don't agree with her in that I think the author wanted to argue that the old religious, moralistic, technologically and socially backward societies are better than BNW, and I would call BNW an "ambiguous utopia" at best for the class division.
Xdyj wrote: "Yes. And I agree with Anya in that I think changing ourselves fundamentally as in BNW is an acceptable compromise if we can do away with crimes, wars, terrorism, genocides and most of the hatred and cruelty in our world, while I don't agree with her in that I think the author wanted to argue that the old religious, moralistic... "That's precisely what Mond argued in the book, that altering humans was an acceptable outcome to removing the unpleasantness of the world. Only one problem, they ceased being human. Those who retained their humanity, those like John and Bernard Marx are forced to leave because they don't fit in. Individual opinions aside, I don't think that's the kind of life anyone could stand for long.
And yes, the dichotomy between the world of the reservations and the civilized world was not meant to make one look better than the other. It was to show how one world was characterized by a sort of mad freedom, the other stifling control. The idea being that as individuals, we must find our own means of survival between the two.
Being stable and satisfied don't necessarily meet the standards for an average society let alone utopia. On the other hand relentless progress and working toward a common goal in a society, say, free of pharmacological coercion might qualify.
I think that you are all missing 3 important points.1. The world of the book is not one built by cruel and distant overseers or magnates, but by fellow members of the machine. In addition, while paying homage to Henry Ford and industrialization, it is described as one produced by popular action.
2. While it is true that individuals are functionally mass produced, the entire purpose of the story is that the human element is always a variable. That is why you have two A++ who are so different.
3. Finally, SOMA, encouraged consumption, casual sex and sensory entertainment are only intended by current custodians of the global system to be a sort buffer, not a control system. This is very plainly explained when the central four are offered passage to the isolated community of engineered not deprived of technology, a choice they give to everyone who has penetrated the walls of the system enough.
Finally, there is a fundamental issue raised in the works title, that in my experience most people miss.
The line quoted from the Tempest:
O wonder!
How many godly creatures are there! How beauteous mankind! O brave new world!
That has such people in it!
Miranda, act V scene I, the Tempest
The people of london are such people. But in the book the distinct nature of their humanity from John is not a product of imagination or naivete, it is because they really are a different species from him in almost every meaningful way. And in the end they are just as different from us. They are a civilization of tank bred monozygotic or polyzygotic twins, where your pay scale determines your subspecies. Utopian or dystopian is mossing the larger point, that failure to adapt to and accept the inevitable and utterly human progression of technological advancement will turn you into a living fossil.
Foodpie wrote: "I think that you are all missing 3 important points.1. The world of the book is not one built by cruel and distant overseers or magnates, but by fellow members of the machine. In addition, while..."
I don't see how anyone's missing the point. The question is a central one that has been debated by generations of scholars. Huxley's critique was centered on American culture of the early 20th century and the advancements that had come with the both the industrial revolution, the growth of pharmacology, and the growing fields of mass psychology and sociology.
He took all that to the extreme to paint a picture of the future in BNW, but it resembled his fears nevertheless of a world where people are deprived of their freedom by subtle means. Even if it was done in the most benign way possible, ultimately the goal was the same as that of the Party in 1984.
Consider this section from the letter Huxley wrote to Orwell after 1984 was released:
"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World."
Another thing, your point that it was a collective effort and not the result of a few isn't quite accurate. Remember, there are only ten World Controllers in this age, and only they seem to be particularly aware of the real purpose and aim of what their system is all about. The rest are limited to what they need to know for the sake of their tasks, and of course routine conditioning.
Matthew's Huxley quote nails it. It seems pretty obvious to me that media programs us to be the way we are, at least to some extent. Advertising stimulates a lot of unnecessary acquisitions, but it makes us feel wanting if we don't have what they're selling, particularly if the catches on and the item is purchased by many. How many of us NEED an ipad? That's just a small example of the conditioning.I suppose folks with no access to tv, cable or the internet still can get a radio. Those radio waves are persistent.
(Sorry if this goes a bit off-topic, or topic-tangential)
Pat wrote: "Matthew's Huxley quote nails it. It seems pretty obvious to me that media programs us to be the way we are, at least to some extent. Advertising stimulates a lot of unnecessary acquisitions, but ..."Thanks Pat. And not only advertising, but Fordism was essential to this story for the single reason that that man was pivotal to the invention of consumer culture. Thats another thing I wanted to mention, Foodpie. Ford's role in the book went way beyond the fact that he introduced the assembly line, it was his central role in creating the concept of "shorter hours, bigger wages", which was a no-bullshit attempt to pacify the workforce into accepting the new industrial ethic.
In the early 1900's, industrialists understood that bringing in the assembly line was a good way to produce more goods and pay workers lower wages (aka. lower overhead costs) but that only created the problem of who was going to buy the goods. In order to truly expand production AND consumption, they need to create new consumers. The only way to do that was to raise the wages of the workers to the point where they could afford the goods they were making. It also had the added benefit of pacifying a workforce which had been unruly for decades and wasn't responding to crackdowns, deportations, and arrests.
Naturally, mass advertising was intrinsic to this new understanding. Ford, like other industrialists, began to turn to professional advertisers and hired psychologists so that they might understand exactly what made the common person tick and what would appeal to them. In essence, mass psychology became a tool of industry, much like it did to the state around the same time. Whereas captains of industry relied on the latest research to sell their goods, communists, fascists, and everyone in between used it to motivate people to work, enlist, and accept various programs.
This is why he is central to the story. The very idea of pacification through leisure comes in part from him. Huxley simply took it to its logical extreme, where literally everything is designed to narcotize and condition people into accepting social norms.
HI All, I didn't read all comments, just a few of them but What I think is (and sorry for my bad english, is not my native language hehe) ignorant people can't be truly happy, real happiness comes when you are aware of your reality and still be happy. I'm not sure if my words reflect my opinion, I can explain better in spanish :)
Roberto wrote: "HI All, I didn't read all comments, just a few of them but What I think is (and sorry for my bad english, is not my native language hehe) ignorant people can't be truly happy, real happiness comes ..."No, that's very clear. And I agree, people who are kept in the dark or hidden from the reality of their world are neither free nor in control. Good point!
I think people on Brave new world aren't happy, they are in conformity with their lives, happiness and conformity are 2 different things.
For me Huxley was describing a dystopian world where utopian ideals become so commonplace that it becomes a dystopia. I think that is the beauty of it - give everyone what they want and sooner or later they will become bored and want something else, the grass is always greener to coin a phrase (as it would certainly seem in the Savage Reservation). It resonates with me because Huxley's world depicts the contradictory nature of principles like Utopia and Heaven - unattainable ideals that fail in their very definition because of the human condition - or to put it another way 'one man's heaven is another man's hell.'
I think is an utopia. Because the people there is happy.the freedom is not really important to be happy.
For instance ask you a question. Are you happy?
If you say yes what do you do if I tell that you in fact are a prisoner in a virtual world like in the matrix.
-------------------------
In that scenario you believe that you are happy but your are not happy because you are not free???
"Brave New World" is a dystopia in which Huxley describes his vision of the future in which science and technology causes the government to intervene in all aspects of life, thus becoming totalitarian. Individuality is stripped, society becomes industrialized, and individuals are " conditioned" from birth to accept moral depravity. In the words of the late Huxley regarding today's society " Technological progress has merely provided us with a more efficient means for going backwards."
Sinuhe wrote: "I think is an utopia. Because the people there is happy.the freedom is not really important to be happy.
For instance ask you a question. Are you happy?
If you say yes what do you do if I tell ..."
Well, I think the difference is, in matrix people don't know they are living in a virtual world, so they have the freewill ilusion and they live in a copy of what the real wolrd use to be, at least on their minds,but in BNW people don't know about freewill so from their point of view they live well but in fact they don't know what happiness means.
In fact in BNW they also has the freewill illusion. they can do everything that they want. But first they teach them what they want. They are not forcing the people to do things.More or less like the tv train us what we want.
Dalai Lama can say the same about us. They don't know what happiness means.
But I belive that I am happy.
But reading the definition of dystopia it talks about a idealistic society but the the ideals of everyone are very different.
Is like the people that believe in the common sense.
For me there is no common sense.
You sound extremely self-contained and hypocritical in these reviews. I guess you all have relatively "normal" lives where you encounter little problems from time to time in your everyday life.
Let me tell you something about the world: 100.000.000 americans live beneath the poverty line now. Will true emotions get them jobs?
In Mexico, gangs of (teenaged) drug-dealers kill each other and bystanders in the war about drugs. Will Shakespeare's works end the killings?
In 2005, there were 8 major wars and a variety of other conflicts under way, most of which are still current. Will free will end them anytime soon?
The world's recources are won't last much longer, still the world's population keeps growing. Climate change is causing natural disasters all over the world, tens of thousands die from it. Will democracy oppose these threats (efficiently)?
Even if we turn away from the global issues and take a look at what kind of shape our great society is in despite culture:
Life is more then ever a big competition: Who's got the best car? Who's got the best i-stuff? Who's got the best clothes? Who's got the best connections? Who's got the best parents? Who's got the best skin color? Who's got the best genes?
If you fail to excell in any of these categories, you're labelled a "loser". Your self-esteem decreases, and like vultures the others start kicking and tearing apart what little is left of you. (Not true? Check any High School in the world!)
The beautiful people with the good lifes might enjoy reading Shakespeare at this point.
The less fortunates, the losers, get depressed; they become outsiders, stay friendless and partnerless. Some kill themselves, because they can't stand it anymore. Others spend their whole lifes in misery, having the telly show them the good things they never had.
If you're an immigrant, you might get beaten up and even killed because you're different. If you're "lucky", you find a job where you earn 50 cents a day, always fearing deportation. If you suffer from an unbearable disease, your life can be over before it begins.
So, that's today's life for an enormous part of the world. Great, isn't it?
BNW is a utopia, in my opinion. I admit, the people are stupid, and they're drug addicts. They're sex-crazy and incapable of real human emotion. They're conditioned and manipulated to be this way.
They're manipulated to be different from us, they're better people. They don't feel blue, angry, jealous, scared or pessimistic. They don't kill, they don't insult, they don't steal. They're just happy, even is "happy" in this case only means "Just that euphoric, drugged state".
Besides, anybody is free to leave the World State, you can live on the Falklands and apparently everywhere outside the borders, so what's the problem?
Given the alternative of suffering pysically and emotionally, I'd rather go without culture and live in Huxley's world.
Anybody who argues differently is simply ignorant and selfish, like "Let them slaughter and rape each other as long as I can read Othello!".
Well I think if you call people who thinks different from you "ignorant and selfish" the real selfish is you, you think we don't have serious problems on our lives just because we can connect to internet and share an opinion? I'm mexican, last week a police was killed in front of the university, you don't know anything about the lives of the people posting here. The key to solve world problems is not a dictatorial goverment and mind controlled humans, we need education, not only from schools, we need parents teach their children respect for others, respect for nature, etc. So, if you want a better world please, first respect other people's opinions.
Kate wrote: ""Brave New World" is a dystopia in which Huxley describes his vision of the future in which science and technology causes the government to intervene in all aspects of life, thus becoming totalitar..."I think its incorrect to say that science caused the government to do anything in this fictional world or the real because, technology ultimately is moral-less. It is the depravity of Man that causes evil to be done with technology. For example; gunpowder once was used only for fireworks. But eventually fireworks became explosives, then guns, TNT, and on till today.
So, in the sphere of this cautionary yarn/probability called 'A brave new world' Huxley expounds upon this same concept.
When you quote, "Technological progress has merely provided us with a more efficient means for going backwards." I have to agree with you. When technology doesn't serve everyone's best interests and not only that of the Few (and that includes all of non-human nature), 'backwardness happens'.
Roberto wrote: "Well I think if you call people who thinks different from you "ignorant and selfish" the real selfish is you, you think we don't have serious problems on our lives just because we can connect to in..."Well said, Roberto. And I second his comment. And to Matt I'll see you one more...
though you are certainly entitled to your opinions, I have to say that its a bit disturbing to hear someone agree with a dystopian vision of the future. But I think you may have the right emotions placed slightly off focus, Matt. Yes, people suffer all the time. (Hell, I'm one of them!) but, that doesn't mean that immersion in a fake reality is a solution, let alone desireable! Think about the lesson of the Matrix! Ignorance is bliss but, reality is freedom! Are you saying that you'd rather be a battery for a machine mind and pain free instead of plain old free?
Try this dystopia/utopian tale on for size. This is a trilogy by John C. Wright.
,
, and
. I invite anyone to read these. I may start a new discussion if enough people do.
This is a great discussion.My thoughts are: Brave contrasts with 1984 in that in 1984 the characters live in constant fear and doublethink. In Brave, they exist in a hollow, drug-induced, apathetic bliss.
Also, I think dystopia and utopia are defined by the intention of the governing/controlling body- are they trying to control the populace? Repress a part of them? Or just make them happy? Create a perfect world by controlling breeding and disease?
Roberto wrote: "Well I think if you call people who thinks different from you "ignorant and selfish" the real selfish is you, you think we don't have serious problems on our lives just because we can connect to in..."I'm sorry if you feel offended. Still, you should be the first person to agree. Education (for freedom) doesn't mean anything if you're hungry, and millions ARE hungry.
In order to create a better world, better people must be created, and I believe that Huxley had a very good approach how to do that.
I personally love reading, and Shakespeare sure is one of my favourites, but if I had to give up on his works in order to create an ENTIRELY PEACEFUL WORLD with no crime or suffering, I wouldn't hesitate a minute to do so.
I used to be a correspondent for a TV-network, but I had to give up on it, because I couldn't stand it anymore to be confronted with death, violence and destructive forces all day long. There's not many things I havent seen, and if I had the chance to stop it all at once, I would.
In Brave New World, it said that there was a fix number of 2 bn people living in the World State. Out of these, 3 people are unhappy. (Bernard, Hemholtz and John) Now, that means, that 1.999.999.997 people are happy, and still, they are pretentious enough to complain, or even want to change the society. The same goes for people who would rather preserve the misery of today in order to maintain their private joy of reading. Sometimes, the individual must be ignored for that sake of the whole.
Alfred wrote: "Think about the lesson of the Matrix! Ignorance is bliss but, reality is freedom! Are you saying that you'd rather be a battery for a machine mind and pain free instead of plain old free? ..."
If that would mean, that I was free of all sorrows, danger, pain, hunger and negative feeling in general, yes, I guess, I would like to be like that.
As for the Matrix: In this story, the people were used for generating energy or something like that, so at least they had a (minor) reason to escape.
But in Brave New World, the World Controllers are actually very altruistic people, and all they do happens only for the good of the people. At least, I couldn't see anything they gained personally from it.
The real utopy will be one world where the people respect other people, a world where people knows about free will and they use their freedom without damaging other's life, with out damaging nature, using wisely natural resources, that's a utopy. I think you can be truly happy when you have free will and you know your reality and still feel happy.
Roberto wrote: "The real utopy will be one world where the people respect other people, a world where people knows about free will and they use their freedom without damaging other's life, with out damaging nature..."Jejeje yes this an example of utopy
Matt wrote: "Roberto wrote: "... because I couldn't stand it anymore to be confronted with death, violence and destructive forces all day long. There's not many things I havent seen, and if I had the chance to stop it all at once, I would. ..."Agreed.
Roberto wrote: "The real utopy will be one world where the people respect other people, a world where people knows about free will and they use their freedom without damaging other's life, with out damaging nature..."
Sure, I'm not sure if this is ever going to happen though. Though neither is BNW imo. As to dystopias, we are more likely heading towards a mixture of 1984 & Handmaid's tale, with a few elements of BNW as decoration somewhere I guess.
Matt wrote: "Roberto wrote: "Well I think if you call people who thinks different from you "ignorant and selfish" the real selfish is you, you think we don't have serious problems on our lives just because we c..."I think you're missing the point of the book here. The entire premise Huxley advanced was the fact that problems, such as the ones you mentioned (aka. overpopulation, hunger, etc) are threats to freedom because they result in extreme measures being taken in the name of stability. His aim was to show that a truly enlightened leader would take the benign route rather than the brutal one, but the result is still the same.
Creating a "new man" is always the basis of utopian engineering, but the end result is always a world in which humans cease being human. The only way people think they are happy is by having no frame of reference to compare it to, otherwise known as false consciousness. And those who actively question or seek answers outside of what they are told are silenced one way or another. Does it really matter if the means are benign or brutal if the goal is repression in the end?
In no way was Huxley saying that what went on in BNW was a solution to the problems of the world today. He made that expressly clear in Brave New World Revisited, in which he outlined exactly what the threats to freedom were and how they need to addressed. He was saying, in essence, if that we don't deal with the problems facing our civilization that threaten freedom, we will end up in a BNW situation. And from that, there' no turning back.
Xdyj Creating a "new man" is always the basis of utopian engineering, but the end result is always a world in which humans cease being human. The only way people think they are happy is by having no frame of reference to compare it to, otherwise known as false consciousness. And those who actively question or seek answers outside of what they are told are silenced one way or another. Does it really matter if the means are benign or brutal if the goal is repression in the end?..."
So, where exactely is the repression in Huxley's book? Anybody who is dissatisfied with the system can leave. But if you take the example of Bernard who goes bananas when he's told that he might have to go aswell, you see that even a person who isn't completely happy prefers it to the outside.
Xdyj
In no way was Huxley saying that what went on in BNW was a solution to the problems of the world today. He made that expressly clear in Brave New World Revisited, in which he outlined exactly what the threats to freedom were and how they need to addressed. He was saying, in essence, if that we don't deal with the problems facing our civilization that threaten freedom, we will end up in a BNW situation. And from that, there' no turning back."
As a matter of fact, all the problems we have today don't exist in the Brave New World. John gets sick because of the ABSENCE of problems, actually.
As for freedom... what's that? Can you eat it? Can you sleep on it? Does it pay your mortgage, your car or the newspaper subscription?
the moment you're born, you're unfree. Your parent's education conditions you, not unlike the electric shocks, just softer. Your origin includes you in and excludes you from certain social groups and jobs, just like the alpha, beta or delata caste does in BNW.
We have freedom of speech, but does anybody listen?
Freedom and free choice are an illusion anyway, so why can't we anhiliate the bad coices and the wrong decision that only destroy lifes and the earth anyway?
Matt wrote: "Xdyj Creating a "new man" is always the basis of utopian engineering, but the end result is always a world in which humans cease being human. The only way people think they are happy is by having ..."
Examples of repression? Well, you said those who don't like it can go, but in truth, they are sent. Case in point, Bernard and Helmholtz are both sent away for the reason that they don't fit in because they have the audacity to question things. The rest is accomplished through propaganda and conditioning that occurs even before birth. Just because its not over and violent doesn't mean its nonexistent.
As per your comment about better people earlier, the people of Brave New World are hardly better. In fact, they are just as you described teenagers as being in high school today - i.e. shallow, judgmental and the like. Bernard is judged for being short for an alpha and his discontent is dismissed as sour grapes and a mark of his inferiority. John is seen as a novelty and entertainment, but gets no respect or consideration as a human being. This is what is considered natural in the World State, all people are seen as mere sexual release for others.
The only reason they don't suffer from the problems you mentioned in the World State is because they are incapable, just as they are incapable of free through, a sense of identity and genuine emotion. Everything to them comes down to enjoyment and leisure, but its only purpose is to numb them to the point that they become helpless and ineffectual.
I get what you're saying, you're saying that it's worth it. But like I said, you're really missing the point here. Huxley was showing the danger of that kind thinking: that the only choice people have is between freedom and chaos on the one hand and order and repression on the other. There are solutions to our problems other than drugging and conditioning ourselves into mindless servitude.
And really, have you experienced any of the problems of violence, hunger and anarchy for yourself? Where is all this moral outrage and judgement coming from? You talk about freedom as if it's meaningless, but it seems to me that's because you've always enjoyed it. It's only people who have the luxury of taking something for granted that can pretend it doesn't matter. I.e. those who say money is evil obviously have plenty of it.
I'm guessing we've lost our resident misanthropist, so how about we get back to the debate here? Is this book an example of utopia or dystopia?Matt, despite his obvious cynicism about the human condition, did raise one point which I think is valid. Are we really free? And by we I mean those of us who live in the industrialized, democratic world.
Is our freedom something we would be willing to give away if it means we could live in blissful ignorance? Is a narcotized, predictable, conditioned existence a fair trade-off for no crime, war, hunger or suffering?
Matthew wrote: And really, have you experienced any of the problems of violence, hunger and anarchy for yourself? Where is all this moral outrage and judgement coming from? You talk about freedom as if it's meaningless, but it seems to me that's because you've always enjoyed it.I didn't exactely grow up in your all-american suburb with lawns and family dogs, but still, of course you're right, I'm better off then many people in Africa and Asia. But does that fact rob me of the ability to feel empathy for those who are REALLY suffering?
Matthew wrote:
I get what you're saying, you're saying that it's worth it. But like I said, you're really missing the point here. Huxley was showing the danger of that kind thinking: that the only choice people have is between freedom and chaos on the one hand and order and repression on the other. There are solutions to our problems other than drugging and conditioning ourselves into mindless servitude.
Sure there is one. The 1984-approach, order through violence. But is that really that much better...?
I know what you really mean, you believe that the people will come to their senses and enjoy their lifes together. But this is not gonna happen, because by nature we're too low and too stupid for that.
We don't notice it, but we still live by the rule Survival of the fittest. And what you call "Free choice" is merely an action inspired by our drives and instincts, as well as by some applied propaganda.
We're gonna see the 3rd World War pretty soon I guess, and hopefully after it we'll decide for Huxley's future instead of Orwell's or Atwood's.
Lena wrote: "I don't think Huxley ever meant for the readers to view his society as utopian. In fact, I think he's pointing out that utopian society cannot exist by very definition. A utopian society is perfect..."Exactly! All ideologies strive towards a utopia, and most dystopias are descriptions of "fulfilled" ideologies. In BNW, it is the Fordist capitalist utopia that shows itself as a dystopia, in 1984 it is Communism. The thing that makes BNW the more—in my opinion—"scary" work of fiction, is that it chooses as its subject the current ideological paradigm of our society and shows us its dark side.…
In other words, the described society of BNW might tell us more about the world we live in than the one in 1984, but both describe the dystopian effect of a fulfilled utopia.
The most interesting parts of 1984 for me were the political philosophy contained in The Book! As Matthew points out above, Orwell states that totalitarianism emerges on the brink of equality, and vice versa. This ensures a see-saw between near-utopias that in The Book is described as an oppressive power game, but still kept the world from becoming the dystopian society described in 1984, where the pendulum is being held at its apex.
Another book that also uses the device of the outsider to describe the road to dystopia to some degree is of course LeGuin's The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia. The subtitle illustrates my view perfectly: Every utopia is ambiguous…
Well, this ended up longer than I planned :P Hope you found it more that an empty rant!
Matt wrote: "I know what you really mean, you believe that the people will come to their senses and enjoy their lifes together. But this is not gonna happen, because by nature we're too low and too stupid for that."I'm not that pessimistic, but I do think we really need to change ourselves somehow significantly sometime in the future so that we can stop killing ourselves for the most stupid reason.
And I also like The Dispossessed. Another relevant book might be Nancy Kress' Beggars trilogy.
My problem with BNW is that it is neither cat nor fish. Both qualities of utopia and its opposite co-exist in a single social structure. This is where I strongly believe 1984 is the superior novel, not only in the writing, but in concept. It is truly a distopia, not a wishy-washy hedonistic one beguiling to the masses.
Matt wrote: "Matthew wrote: And really, have you experienced any of the problems of violence, hunger and anarchy for yourself? Where is all this moral outrage and judgement coming from? You talk about freedom a..."That's not what I'm saying, I'm simply taking issue with your misanthropic approach. And there is a difference between feeling empathy and speaking for those who do suffer. As a student of mine once pointed out, "talk of suffering ought to be reserved to those who've actually suffered." The reason he said this was because that on a count of his background, people kept asking him about issues relating to injustice and First Nations culture. But the fact of the matter was, he didn't know. He had not witnessed these things for himself, nor was he too familiar with traditional Nuchanulth culture, so he didn't think it fair that he be the one to answer whenever the subject came up.
Also. I think he recognized that it's hypocritical of people to get angry about the suffering of others. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that's people who've had to work hard and endure for what the rest of take for granted do not share our cynicism. They simply don't have the luxury of being nihilistic or saying freedoms an illusion and all that. So no matter sympathetic we may be, we will never appreciate their point of view, and should not try to speak for them like we know.
Oh, and for the record, there's even more choices than Orwells. It's not a question of 1984 or BNW, and nothing else in between. We have a huge range of options available to use for change, most of which have their advocates and are being put into action one way or another. Saying that the only way humanity can be "bettered" is through either brutal conditioning or mindless pleasure just demonstrates the misanthropy of your position.
Frankly, you should cheer up. Aside from climate change, there is no credible scenario for the "End of the World". WWIII ain't gonna happen, barring some severe change in global geopolitics, for the same reason it hasn't happened already. No one is that stupid. To boot, we no longer live in a world where two superpowers are in a constant state of tension and aiming nukes at each other. The neo-liberal economic revolution failed, so did the neoconservative attempts to make the US unassailable. We live in an age where the opportunity for change is better than it's ever been. The only hindrance to that is being gloomy and thinking change is pointless.
Geoffrey wrote: "My problem with BNW is that it is neither cat nor fish. Both qualities of utopia and its opposite co-exist in a single social structure. This is where I strongly believe 1984 is the superior novel,..."I also prefer the writing of 1984 but I think BNW is perceived by its author as well as most readers in both 1930s and today as straight dystopia. And I don't think science fiction need to be set in utopia or dystopia to be good, actually utopia/dystopia settings in less skilled hands tend to be boring.
Matthew: I agree. Though I do think being disturbed by the sufferings of others is not hypocratical but in some sense our moral duty, because those who are suffering often can not speak for themselves (if they're dead) or can not speak loud enough (if they're minorities or don't have enough economic/political resource e.g. the right to vote), and social reforms are more likely to succeed when those pushing for changes have more allies. On the other hand I do think maybe there is no need to be overly cynical.
For me, what makes Brave New World more of a universal story than 1984 is the idea that Huxley shows a dystopia disguised as an eutopia. Huxley's world of shallow, sterile pleasure is infinitely more terrifying than Orwell's world of overt, unrelenting ugliness.
Anya wrote: "Utopia.It's a stable society. No wars, no diseases. People are satisfied. Isn't that what we want?
And what they don't know, they don't miss."
I have to completely agree. Utopia. Dystopia would feature more ravaging issues and problematic situations.
Xdyj wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "My problem with BNW is that it is neither cat nor fish. Both qualities of utopia and its opposite co-exist in a single social structure. This is where I strongly believe 1984 is th..."I would agree with you too. Sympathizing with one's fellow human beings, especially ones who have it harder, is a very good thing. But it's another thing entirely to appropriate others experiences for our own purposes. Many people think its their duty as privileged people to speak for the dispossessed, but all too often it conceals the fact that they seem to think that the dispossessed don't know what's best for themselves.
In fact, its that very drive that's created so many of the world's problems today. Saying "we need to civilize these people" was the basis of imperialism and the age of colonization, and as a historian I can tell you with some confidence that modern day attempts to "build democracy" and spread development are much the same. It's a thinly veiled form of bigotry, assuming that we know best because we've got it better.
I mean, there's sympathy and then there's elitism, and the line gets blurred all the time by entirely well-meaning people. Saying we should be concerned for the suffering of others is definitely the former, but calling people hypocrites and saying they should agree with you if they've suffered is the latter. No offense intended to Matt there, but it's almost always those who have it easy who will say life sucks and think themselves more enlightened for it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Phoenix Exultant (other topics)
The Golden Transcendence (other topics)
The Golden Age (other topics)
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia (other topics)The Phoenix Exultant (other topics)
The Golden Transcendence (other topics)
The Golden Age (other topics)
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination (other topics)
More...
It's a stable society. No wars, no diseases. People are satisfied. Isn't that what we want?
And what they don't know, they don't miss.