Brave New World
discussion
utopia or dystopia?
A utopia is like a place of Nirvana. It has everything a society/ a people would need. A dystopia is a society that is corrupt beyond point of return. I would say that Brave New World is a dystopia.
I always figured that I was in the minority by even questioning the "dystopian" tag attached to this book.I think that it is quite euphoric. A handful of unhappy people is quite a better ratio than what we currently have. Certainly the process of creating that society would be monstrous to live through (the removal of all classic literature? *gasp*), but if you were born hundreds of years after all of that into a society in which you truly had a place, would that be so bad?
A job perfectly suited for you (as you were bred to perform it), sexual pleasure without any heartache, an upbringing that was the same as all others of your class, short work hours with long shifts of recreational time, and drugs to make you feel euphoric whenever you wanted... sounds quite pleasant to me. At the very least, it does NOT sound like a dystopia.
John wrote: "Hi, my name is John and I am a big fan of Utopia and Dystopia. I created Site based on this theme. If you are interested you can check it: Utopia and Dystopia"I've been peeking through your site. Nicely done... bookmarked so that I can dig through it some more later. ;)
Kylie wrote: "I always figured that I was in the minority by even questioning the "dystopian" tag attached to this book.I think that it is quite euphoric. A handful of unhappy people is quite a better ratio th..."
Well that's just it. It's only pleasant once all genuine emotion has been purged and all conditioning has taken root. It's a fools paradise where anyone who is capable of original thought or feeling is sent into exile. The means may be pleasant instead of brutal, but the purpose is still the same. To keep people docile and controlled by controlling all they see, hear and put into their bodies.
Matthew, I do understand that no one made the choice to live the way they live, which to some people screams dystopia."It's a fools paradise where anyone who is capable of original thought or feeling is sent into exile. The means may be pleasant instead of brutal, but the purpose is still the same. To keep people docile and controlled by controlling all they see, hear and put into their bodies."
A fool's paradise is still a paradise to the fool. If no one views the situation as "being controlled", it is not a problem for them. We view the situation from our perspective, in which we have all of the things that they do not have in the story. People feel sorry for those in the story because we know what they have lost. They don't know. They also are aware of the conditioning they underwent in their youths and do not view it in negative terms.
I do not view the story as dystopian because the masses are comfortable, content, and enjoy their lives in the society in which they live. The ideas are meant to horrify us... if the governments of the world decided tomorrow that the society in BNW was desirable and took steps to make it happen, I would be as distraught as everyone else-- because I was not born into that society. The transition would be far rougher than being brought into it when fully functioning.
I don't think that their society is entirely euphoric, but I do think that it has far too many euphoric qualities for me to think of it as a dystopia.
Kylie wrote: "Matthew, I do understand that no one made the choice to live the way they live, which to some people screams dystopia."It's a fools paradise where anyone who is capable of original thought or fee..."
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's only acceptable if you don't know, your ignorance shields you. The same logic applied to the world of Oceania. People only accepted the harsh conditions, brutality and hypocrisy through sheer ignorance. So really, the basic proposition is the same, only the means changed.
And the story was not meant to horrify, it was meant as a cautionary tale on what could very well become the reality based on what was already prevalent in the US during the 20's and early 30's when it was written. Leisure and enjoyment were seen as the means of taming a work force that was becoming increasingly difficult to deal with as a result of growing industrialization and urbanization. In BNW, it's the same. Pleasure ensures social control and stability, just in a more extreme form. That message has only become more relevant since that era, with the advent of mass advertising, the post-war dream, television, fast food, video games, the internet and cable on demand.
And therein lies the point. Dystopias are not defined by being simply horrific, they are by definition a place where comfort, stability and the promise of a "perfect society" conceals a lie. In the end, they function only by virtue of the fact that those living within them don't know any better.
"And the story was not meant to horrify, it was meant as a cautionary tale on what could very well become the reality based on what was already prevalent in the US during the 20's and early 30's when it was written."I do think that some of the ideas were meant to horrify the reader. The words mother and father becoming "dirty words" is a horrific idea to many people who believe that the family unit is all-important, for instance. That is not a cautionary idea... it is a detail meant to freak the audience out.
Your definition of dystopia is interesting. I tend to think of it as a bit differently-- a bit more like the standard definition actually:
"1: an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives" --Merriam-Webster
I think that it is questionable whether those in the story were truly dehumanized. Some would argue that they certainly were... I don't think that they were deprives of anything that makes a person "human".
Interesting! Actually, I am working on a thesis related to this subject. I've interpreted Brave New World as a utopia. This is because the book isn't about nature being distorted, it's only that humans have taken its place and functions. Nature would have created the same castes, and it would have made the same differences between people - from intellect to physical prowess and so on and so forth. But, I can see the point of someone arguing that it is neither! And that would be quite an interesting approach. To see it just as any other society, where egalitarianism is applicable only to a selected few.
Besides, even the savage suffers of the same 'affliction'. He is bound to interpret the world from the perspective of the books he had had access to. So, even he is entrapped by a cultural and social context as much as the others are.
Kylie wrote: ""And the story was not meant to horrify, it was meant as a cautionary tale on what could very well become the reality based on what was already prevalent in the US during the 20's and early 30's wh..."They were deprived of their ability to feel and think for themselves. Even if its through pleasure, that is still pretty dehumanizing. And that's the real aim of utopian engineering isn't it? They aim to change people for the better, but end up creating something frightening.
And I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea of banning the family being meant to horrify, though I see your point. Overall, I'd say it's part of the cautionary nature of the tale. Lose yourself, lose your ability to aspire beyond your station, lose your family and all traces of baggage that that entails, lose your sense of monogamy and entitlement, and embrace the whole. Then, you have a perfect society.
Angellicus wrote: "Interesting! Actually, I am working on a thesis related to this subject. I've interpreted Brave New World as a utopia. This is because the book isn't about nature being distorted, it's only that hu..."You're arguing that nature creates a class hierarchy all by itself? I'd question this greatly, and probably criticize as elitist (no offense!). I only say this because you've mentioned and essay and I want to get in on the commentary, if I may :)
Matthew wrote: "Angellicus wrote: "Interesting! Actually, I am working on a thesis related to this subject. I've interpreted Brave New World as a utopia. This is because the book isn't about nature being distorted..."Hi Matthew! You most certainly may partake in the discussion. I can see how one might jump towards the conclusion that nature might create a class hierarchy, and how that might lead towards an elitist interpretation,but, we should clarify some things beforehand.
There's a subtle difference between class hierarchy and castes.Through the latter, I understand a certain group of people that have certain natural predispositions, not necessarily a social, cultural construct - try thinking of the beginning of the book and how people were created. Some had a certain intelligence, some were more adjusted to a warm climate than the others and so on and so forth.
In my view, nature does the same. It equips certain people with certain genetic abilities. In the book, they create the same types of people nature would have created anyway. Whether taking that role is moral or not, it's a whole different discussion.
So, my interpretation is that as long as they don't do anything above what is natural, it's not distorted. Just think a bit of modern medicine and what it can do these days. Perhaps another example will lead you towards what I had in mind: wolf hierarchies. Believe it or not, a wolf cub can be an alpha male over an adult. For them, it is not about size or strength, but genetics.
And, obviously, I do not argue that nature creates a class hierarchy by itself, although we are political animals (Aristotle) If you were to think that, you would basically undermine any cultural, social, contextual influence of your life. It's morning and I haven't had my coffee yet. If anything is unclear or wrong, please, feel free! :)
Angellicus wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Angellicus wrote: "Interesting! Actually, I am working on a thesis related to this subject. I've interpreted Brave New World as a utopia. This is because the book isn't about nature..."Yes, I see your point. However, I would emphasize that there is a fundamental difference between what nature does and what societies do. Using BNW as an example, by creating castes, they were essentially taking the social experiment of class to the next level. They've ensured that no one member of any caste or class can aspire above their station because they are engineered to ensure that they have no abilities beyond what is needed for them to do their jobs.
And this is not something natural at all. One can make the case that nature creates different species for different tasks, but this is only true to a point. If anything, nature insists on endless variation and adaptation as a way of ensuring the survival of the ecosystem, but that is not the same thing as engineering species to fit into a niche. That happens gradually and over time and does not involve power by one over the others, just interdependency.
To use anthropological examples, in no type of human society that predates agriculture have their even been the kinds of class distinction that we see in more recent societies. It was only through the introduction of farming on a large scale and societies that embraced large numbers that such divisions took root and distinctions over wealth and standing began to be made.
But their basis was hardly genetic. It had more to do with force, the accumulation of wealth and inheritance. And of course, there was the added issue of making sure that people accepted this division as "natural", that those who had wealth and power did so because of some preordained gift or the will of the gods.
And this, as expected, has always been a source of conflict because hierarchies have always lent themselves to corruption, decay and abuse. Contrary to what every elite has insisted since the beginning of time, there is nothing inherently "natural" about these things. When the basis of power is wealth, and wealth can so easily change hands, and often does anyway just through natural change, then class becomes illusory and can easily change.
In short, I think they are doing something unnatural in this book, but it's not necessarily "wrong". Morally, perhaps, but practical in that it deals with the ongoing problem of class conflict, especially in a society as fluid as the US. Which was the point that Huxley was trying to make, if I'm not mistaken. All that genetic engineering was really just a metaphor for everything involved in getting the working poor to accept their position and become happy consumers.
Interesting discussion.I tend to think of BNW as a "dark utopia." It's one of my favorite books and, though I enjoy 1984, I find Huxley's take on things more disturbingly possible.
Also, in 1984, it is clearly an unacceptable repressive state. You can't make a compelling argument for the status quo in that world.
BNW is more thematically and morally complex, IMO. It raises many substantive issues about personal freedom and the collective good.
I'm surprised no one's commented on the classical tragedy aspect of BNW, where a character's humanity is revealed by actions taken when all choices are negative.
Tadd wrote: "I'm surprised no one's commented on the classical tragedy aspect of BNW, where a character's humanity is revealed by actions taken when all choices are negative."I'm pretty sure someone did in here. I seem to recall someone mentioning how John commits suicide because he's unable to resolve the conflict between the "savage world" and "civilization", neither of which will accept him.
I think it was with that misanthropist guy who kept saying humanity was too dumb to survive and we were all hypocrites for calling this a dystopia...
Matt wrote: "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.
L..."
I just noticed this. In addition to this guys extremely opinionated and condemning stance, he's even way off on his statistics. 100 million Americans live in poverty? Where did that stat come from? It's 46 million as of 2011, and that's up 2 million since the early millennium.
But looks like this thread has run its course. Too bad too, it was cool!
This book, along with Zamyatin's We is a an anti-utopian novel i think. Both books mock the very notion of a benignly coercive method of societal perfection. I think this was what Orwell didn't understand- 1984 is supposed to be a reply to the deficiencies of these two books, but it's distinctly a dystopian novel- "look how bad things could get if the most dangerous elements in our society grow unchecked"
Jonathan wrote: "This book, along with Zamyatin's We is a an anti-utopian novel i think. Both books mock the very notion of a benignly coercive method of societal perfection. I think this was what Orwell didn't und..."Where did you hear that, and by that I mean that this was a critical reply? I know that Orwell was inspired by We and had correspondence with Huxley, but I never heard of him taking a critical stance against either of them.
I can't remember where but i remember reading that Orwell thought BNW was missing the 'sense of sadism' of power (which of course seems highly deliberate, making it an odd criticism). And the decision to write a novel very near in the future, using the communist form of government, was a direct reaction to the very distant future in a capitalist system. The replies to WE are pretty clear- it contains the line "freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=5", most obviously, which is itself a reference to dostoyevsky's the Idiot(a novel where the phrase 'double-thought' is used, but not in an Orwellian sense). We, in reacting to the 'scientific' basis of Marxist -Lenism mocks sterile rationality as the instrument of the state, Orwell contends it (rationality, and factual records) is your only defence from that state. I think he did actually like both novels, but felt they'd missed the mark somewhat.
Dystopia although there are those who say there is no difference.
Jonathan wrote: "I can't remember where but i remember reading that Orwell thought BNW was missing the 'sense of sadism' of power (which of course seems highly deliberate, making it an odd criticism). And the decis..."Interesting. I know that Huxley replied to Orwell in a letter where he addressed the whole motivation for the Party by saying:
"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."
The author's intent may be relevant, and one can hardly think that Huxley meant this as a utopia.
I think that it can be both in different aspects.Although liberty and freedom has been taken away from the people, a high level of security has been obtained. It is more a lax ruling opposed to 1984. People are allowed to satiate their human desires for sex. And depressive emotions are controlled by "a gram a day". People are integrated into society, every person is given a role, there is no unemployment or poverty. However is the exchange of critical thinking and freedom to choose your fate, for security worth it? Some people would see this society as a utopia, and others a dystopia, each according to his or her needs and wants.
Personally, in my opinion, I can't decide. Do I want to be a brainless happy person who relies on highs my entire life? And have the authorities and government pre-plan and execute my life like a story board? For the security in society? Do I want individualism or collectivism? It's hard for me to say.
I love this book because it really makes you think. If one were to take it at its surface level then perhaps they would merely see a utopia, but if you really examine, you can see it for what it truly is: a nightmarish dystopia!
It's quite interesting how in Brave New World the society is the pressure party while in 1984 it's the government.
Paula said: "The author's intent may be relevant, and one can hardly think that Huxley meant this as a utopia."Beware of author's Intentions. Brave New World is a great piece, superbly written. Without it, I'm sure 1984 would never have been conceived, nor a host of other books. Regarding the Utopia/Dystopia debate, Huxley was trying to create someone else's ideal world, Our Ford's. Much later, he wrote another ideal world novel, though one in which he creates a Utopia from his own heart. This novel is called "Island", and sadly it is a complete dog of a book. No disrespect to the canine community intended, Island is a deadly boring talking-heads affair and I do not recommend it to anyone. Pop into a local library or bookshop, if you have any in your town, and just flick through a few of the pages. It's an example of how a great novelist can come up with cack. A dog's breakfast if ever there was. A bleached toid. I suspect he wrote it on one of his somma hols.
Dystopia develops by observation. Utopia needs intervention. Most important of all, dystopias are cool. Just opposite of the happy endings. Nobody wants to read them. That is the tragedy.
Utopia for the big shots, dystopia for the rest. Like in the past. Like currently. Like always.
I think neither. I remember reading that Huxley confessed in an interview that he stands for neither of the worlds clashing in the book. He would go for some mean inbetween. Which is perfectly right because this shall be the balance itself. Which makes me actually think that, since the world balance and harmony are virtually unobtainable, the storyline of the BNW may finally turn out to be the reality itself.
Dystopia. I mean the main character in the book is totally unhappy and searches for alternative lifestyles. To me it's pretty obvious but I understand what the rest of you are saying. That makes sense too but I just think dystopia is the better answer here.
Terrence wrote: "It's funny to think but I would say the society is a Utopia. The masses don't know any better because they are born and bred not to know. It's hard for us to accept but, these people are truly happ..."Yes, end the suffering, just don't be human, who cares?
Remember that in order for a Utopia to exist, there cannot be change. That's why El Dorado, in the book Candide, was hidden or hard to reach. The society in Brave New World is a Utopia to the creators because they walled it up to prevent change. However, it seems that Utopias tend to repress human nature and human rights because they confine people in multiple ways. Humans can't be perfect, so why should a government say that they should be? Furthermore, why is that government the authority on what is perfect? How would they know? They are imperfect humans themselves!
I think BNW is clearly a dystopia because it wipes out everything that makes life meaningful: freedom, art, science, philosophy, a real sense of discovery etc. Plus they're deliberately creating "semi-morons". Yuck!I read somewhere that the novel is based on Nietzsche's idea of the Last Man. The Last Man is a dead end of human cultural evolution. The Last Man has no creative chaos in him. He avoids conflict. He drinks a little, but not too much - one must watch one's health. One big herd with no master. Anyone who feels different checks himself into a mental institution.
I believe that our society is becoming like BNW. I wrote about it on my blog. Please check it out and leave a comment:
http://www.kurtkeefner.com/2012/08/br...
"Anti-utopia" is the description I'd go with. Did anyone else read the quote at the start of the book (it wasn't just in my edition, right?) attacking people's dreams of utopia?The key to BNW is that it brings up ethical questions. I don't think anyone would debate that 1984 is an ethically horrifying society. BNW makes you ask what's more important: freedom, passion, individualism or happiness, peace, stability? Or rather, how do we balance these values? Is there meaning beyond human happiness? Is it better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig?
Cate wrote: "I'm on the dystopia side. One of the defining factors of dystopia is it starts out resembling utopia in so many ways--but there's an ugly underbelly where the writer reveals the price(s) paid to re..."Welcome to GR, Cate. I have to agree with you. I think it was Ray Bradbury who said, "The job of science fiction isn't to predict the future. It's to prevent the future."
What do you think about the ones that develope a self conscience and start questioning this society? What are your opinion about send them to an island where all the thinkers are?When i finished reading this book i get confused with if i would like to live in some society like this or not.
I think it is the illusion of a Utopian society. Just like Lenina says when she doesn't understand Bernard: "I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy now" The people are conditioned to be happy, and to see things like e.g. a family as 'laughable' - Helmholtz reaction to Romeo and Juliet.
Dystopia. No one is truly happy, they have no true sadness. you cannot have one without the other.
they are conditioned to only want certain things, they don't have the capacity for free thought. the fact they are limited in that way of creativity or idealism is dystopia, and yet they aren't actively suppressed enough to call is dystopia like in 1984 of Fahrenheit 541. i think I'd call this a more robust and controlled dystopia system. I'll agree with Kobe, without the power of original thought you can't be free, and thus aren't really happy, just ignorent
The world of Brave New World is neither Utopian or dystopian. Brave New World and other books about Utopian societies are usually government controlled. These people have been brain washed into their beliefs of what is correct for humanity. Government plays a big role in books like brave New World, The Giver, And anthem, so in that case it would be considered a Utopian society. they don't know the different from right and wrong because they have no other option. They've been dumb down, to avoid problems. They have been made by labs, given drugs to control emotions. Once you strip a person from all his right of being human, he has nothing to fend himself with.However to our modern society these worlds are dystopian because they are not perfect. We haven't left our positions of "self" so we have a more open view. But if we see other nations who don't have as much freedom as we do, it's the same case. They believe their government is good, and just making sure everything runs with order.
That's the cover up, it's order. The government in Utopian societies, and modern societies are scared by those who contradict or don't follow upon their laws because they defeat their purpose of order. Their telling all their citizens they do what they do because they want to keep order, yet when someone comes along they label it as wrong and hide it. No one wants to loose their power.
Power still belongs to someone in a Utopian society, the same as our modern day societies just in a stricter method. Therefore BNW is dystopian. No one is in power of themselves.
When power no longer belongs to someone who brainwashes their citizens, then we will see progression of Utopian societies.
Abby wrote: "The world of Brave New World is neither Utopian or dystopian. Brave New World and other books about Utopian societies are usually government controlled. These people have been brain washed into the..."Totally agree with your point :)
Abby wrote: "The world of Brave New World is neither Utopian or dystopian. Brave New World and other books about Utopian societies are usually government controlled. These people have been brain washed into the..."That is actually a defining element of dystopia, which is information control and the control of perceptions to ensure that people are docile. By denying them knowledge of history, the outside world, or contact with foreign people, they deny them a frame of reference.
Or in the case of BNW, by ensuring they see life in their world as naturally superior to all others. And conditioning them from birth to think this way, they ensure that they don't try to alter things.
People don't need to know they are being oppressed for it to be a dystopia. If anything, it makes all the more dystopian for those living in such a society. Since they don't know they are being oppressed, they are all the more likely to remain that way.
I'm now going to read Margaret Atwood's book now, because the question on whether BNW is utopian or dystopian is a very good question. In some ways what Huxley predicted is true, that we (society) will come to love our enslavement and not realize or be able to distinguish what gives us pain, or that what we love will come to destroy us. Following that line of thought, one could almost call it a dystopian world. Huxley even says the same himself in BNW Revisited, that the ideas he prophecized were happening sooner than he thought they would. (Environmental, politcal and so forth)
But as to the acutal question, I think this novel leans more towards dystopian, even if the people love their 'soma' and the government knows what their doing is sketchy. It differs from true Dystopian fiction such as Orwell's 1984, but this novel can be in either category.
Once, I watched a documentary about dystopian books and it was said that there are two different kinds: truly dystopian stories and false utopias. Brave new world was the most clear example, according to this documentary, of what a false utopia is like: characters believing that the world they live in is perfect, while readers think the opposite way.
I would say its a dystopia, since a utopia points toward a perfect or near perfect society. Dystopia means a fundamental flaw and there is definitely a fundamental flaw in the society that is in "Brave New World".
Holly wrote: "Diana wrote: "I've always thought of Brave New World as a Dystopia paired with 1984. Both are about governments that have completely taken away personal liberty and freedom; both show one person b..."Well, they do have one choice. In BNW, they can choose exile if they cannot adjust themselves to the "norms" of the World State. No exit is possible in 1984, except through death. And of course, the Party will make sure that any dissenting voice will be crushed and forced to submit beforehand.
This is probably as close as we're going to get to a utopia (I don't think I've read enough literature to judge, but this is a personal opinion). But I'm not saying that this "utopia" is where I want to be, it is simply a situation where utilitarianism is optimized. The decantation and manipulation of embryo environment is simply a deliberate version of contemporary society. People are not presented with equal or fair chances, and it really is sad to watch. However the clones in BNW are content being where they are. Ignorance is bliss.
The relation to 1984 is simple. BNW is based off of a fascist government system whereas 1984 is a communist society. They're extreme versions of both, yet utopian visions in their respective ideologies.
Annie:BNW is based off of a fascist government system whereas 1984 is a communist society. They're extreme versions of both, yet utopian visions in their respective ideologies. 1984 is not a utopian vision of communism. It describes how communism devolves into totalitarianism. Do you actually think that communist dictators used depictions of an intrusive, coercive government, a government that controls the press and rewrites history to hide mistakes, as a utopia? Orwell wrote 1984 in order to dissuade people from communism. He didn't write it to persuade. And he'd use a utopian vision to persuade.
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have generalized like that. My apologies =).
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...
While I personally take the side of the Controller against that of the Savage, that's only because the former is better, not because it's an incredible utopia.