Brave New World
discussion
utopia or dystopia?
date
newest »
newest »
I agree with Meh. I think the human nature, which cannot be reprogrammed, is to find love. Even though they have been brainwashed even before birth, in my opinion nature will overcome nurture (of the lack there of). Attachment is an inate trait in all beings, so these poor folks would live lives unfulfilled, not knowing why, but with a deep yearning for something unattainable.
Dystopia i think, because of the brainwashed since birth, totalitarian goverment, dehumanized in many ways...
Personally I would say Brave New World is a utopia. But then I would argue that a utopia is a dystopia.
Really good discussion, I'm sorry I hadn't seen this one before. Excellent comparisons with our own current society and I love the high-school analogy.Personally, I think it all comes down to this: "One man's utopia is another man's dystopia."
It all depends from each side of the fence you're looking. We see this time and time again, idealization of a perfect society, or a perfect era, or way of living. But more often than not for the people actually experiencing that day to day life, there's nothing extraordinary about it.
There was an interesting discussion earlier about the use of drugs as a means of 'fake happiness'. Well, wouldn't an outsider looking in say that this is exactly what's happening in our own society right now? What a generation ago would have been called feeling sad, or going through a rough time, is now given a nice clinical diagnose alongside with a pack of happy pills. Sounds familiar?
And yes, I'm exaggerating. But that's the whole point of speculative sci-fi - push an issue to the limit to investigate the consequences. And in that sense both Brave New World and 1984 are extremely modern and pertinent to our own society right now. Great reads both of them :)
I feel Brave New World is more not a utopia than one. Controling classes structuring whose being born with genetic engineeting doesn't seem to Utopian.
I personally see it as a utopia. Though many others may disagree, I feel that it is an ideal world to live in. Sure the conditioning at the beginning is inhumane, harsh and crucial but think of what pays off in the end. You won't have the stress of making choices, everything is decided for you and you're happy with the decisions that has already been made. Society is also much more regulated and peaceful as the hierarchy is widely accepted by everyone which causes no discontent. If in the situation you have discontent, you can choose to live with the rest of the people who disagree with the government. With that, you can choose whether you want to live under the government or with another society completely ruling themselves.
A Brave New World is a dystopian. The novel itself is a dystopian because of the juxtaposition of the society and John. However, the society itself can be technically classified as a utopia because citizens are happy and equal. People consider it different things depending on their own personal views. (For example, the fact that nobody gets sick contributes to the utopia theory. The fact that citizens are brain washed and are not allowed to have personal emotional connections with others can contribute to the dystopian theory.)
I have read this book in my teens - and i am very far away from them, now.... - but from what i recolect, it is dystopia. Because, even with the ignorance of the workers, there is a manipulative government behind it, turning them in to puppets or better yet - zombies.I would compare it, to some extent to Wayward Pines
Daniela wrote: "A Brave New World is a dystopian. The novel itself is a dystopian because of the juxtaposition of the society and John. However, the society itself can be technically classified as a utopia because..."People are not equal in the World State, Daniela. They are conditioned from birth to be part of a rigid hierarchy that determines their entire existence. Alphas are equal to each other, but only because of the intensive eugenics program. Everyone else is beneath them and has no hope whatsoever of ever changing that or being able to challenge it.
Bryn wrote: "I agree with Diana and I wanted to add that in addition to deomocracy, civil liberties, and individual freedom, these authors would also argue for the freedom of the press and most importantly peop..."As a teacher who has chosen both novels for study this year with two of my classes, I fully agree with you. I am posing the question: Is it better to be happy or to be free? I would be interested in their responses once they have figured out the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Marius wrote: "Bryn wrote: "I agree with Diana and I wanted to add that in addition to deomocracy, civil liberties, and individual freedom, these authors would also argue for the freedom of the press and most imp..."Hey! Glad there's some action in this thread again. It's a great discussion, good to see we can breathe some new life into it. Do you have a link for that new thread?
Matthew wrote: "Marius wrote: "Bryn wrote: "I agree with Diana and I wanted to add that in addition to deomocracy, civil liberties, and individual freedom, these authors would also argue for the freedom of the pre..."No I don't - I just googled "BNW utopia or dystopia" and the thread came up.
I think it's a dystopia. In Brave New World we don't see people, but we see gears, replacements of a machine (the society). There isn't any individuality, there are bilions of automatons who live only to produce.Some people think that people of that society are happy, but I think it's a mistake. People in BNW are cheerful, but not happy. To be really happy it's important to know himself, a person could be really happy only knowing its desires and obtaining them. People of BNW are empty, they never have bad situations but they need soma to escape from sadness. They coldn't be truly unhappy and they couldn't be truly happy. They don't live, it's like they were zombies. If we want to call "utopia" the life in BNW, we should call "utopia" the life of a drug addict.
P.S. - I'm sorry for my poor English. :-)
Marius wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Marius wrote: "Bryn wrote: "I agree with Diana and I wanted to add that in addition to deomocracy, civil liberties, and individual freedom, these authors would also argue for the fr..."I meant the question "Is it better to be happy or to be free?" Is that a question you directed to your class, or did you start a thread here at GR for it? I am assuming its the former now, but I thought you meant you started a discussion thread when I asked.
Francesco wrote: "I think it's a dystopia. In Brave New World we don't see people, but we see gears, replacements of a machine (the society). There isn't any individuality, there are bilions of automatons who live o..."No problem, Francesco. You're English is actually a lot better than what a lot of people regularly post these days ;) And that was quite insightful too.
Matthew wrote: "Francesco wrote: "I think it's a dystopia. In Brave New World we don't see people, but we see gears, replacements of a machine (the society). There isn't any individuality, there are bilions of aut..."Thanks, Mattew! :-)
The world of BNW is populated by seemingly contented humans, but what are the implications from an evolutionary perspective? If a society can be described as a utopia, then it is perfect - and would not change. Huxley paints a picture of a world where the criteria for being perfect is based on the satisfied cravings of its inhabitants. So has evolution stopped, and humanity crystallized into a form which could last for eternity? I doubt it. BNW proposes a society based on physical gratification, devoid of spirituality. Their decadence would lead them to devolution, and the eventual fall of their social structure. Even if the human spirit is contained and imprisoned from birth, we are more than just physical entities, and will always search for something more meaningful.
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 becoming aware o..." I wholeheartedly agree with you Diana. I think you hit it right on the nail!
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 becoming aware o..." Great insight!!!
I think for the readers, it can be considered a dystopia. I certainty wouldn't want to live in Huxley's vision.
I think the scarier question is "fantasy or reality"? All I could think whilst reading this book is that the only true fantasy element is the science. Aside from that, Huxley's world is basically the one we're in now. Consumers kept happy and consuming, and different 'castes' unable to understand one another on the whole. It's effectively social commentary.
Reading this book also felt eerily on-point in our current day and age. If the book had been written now it wouldn't just be great - it would be topical. It made me wonder whether our time and Huxley's were simply more similar than we might at first think, or whether Huxley accurately predicted the future we were moving towards.
Either way, masterful writing.
Meh wrote: "But what is "truly happy?" Just that euphoric, drugged state? I think that all those ignorant workers would have some doubts about how empty their lives are. Most of the time they'd probably be too..."In the real world, we are constantly watching all sorts of people do different jobs, express themselves creatively in different way, we collide with people from all kinds of backgrounds, influences etc. The life we live in is a mess (and a good thing too). So we are influenced by things and develop in a messy way - we feel envy, we dream bigger etc.
This society, by comparison, is clinical and engineered. The same 'corrupting' elements don't exist. Great care is taken over how people develop. They are kept segregated - brainwashed. They know no different. Therefore, the people within it haven't learnt that they can desire something else. They haven't been taught dissatisfaction.
From our perspective, this seems cruel because we are reading it through our lens. Because it would be cruel to us. But it isn't cruel to them - they are in a different reality. Their lives are defined by different rules. It's like trying to read our universe against another with entirely different physics. It can't be done.
Much like 1984, BNW can be used as a warning or a how-to manual. Depends on your point of view.
I think it is more like a dystopian utopia. While it is supposed to feel like a Utopia for those in the city, when the Savage is taken to the city, he simply highlights just how dystopic society really is. All you have to do is take a few grammes of Soma to get away.
I would say neither considering Huxley argued that human complacency, triviality of culture/values, and conditioning people to submit to pleasures is the future society we are headed for. Look at the U.S. today; we sacrifice our privacy for smartphones and laptops (you know full well your location, personal information, and embarrassing searches on Google are stored and tracked by big data. It'll only be used against us in the future). We eat chemically infused foods made in warehouses and lie to ourselves looking at the cow on the farm on the milk carton illustration. The slogans of radically politically aligned and unstable individuals pour over the news highlights to program fear fear fear until people are tired of all of it and just sit and watch TV, they don't want to think or fight anymore, they just want to be moderately entertained in their mediocre lives. Or if they get unsatisfied they choose their vice: alcohol, drugs, self-destruction.
The U.S. is the currently ranked highest in terms of antidepressant consumption. While this is no soma, the only thing antidepressants promote is dead on complacency. This is the level of soma we have now and drugs, alcohol, self destruction are also all somas. Right now, they make you plastered. You don't care, you're cold and apathetic, and your motor skills don't work that well. What it does give you is the fighting ability to put on your mask when you need it. To smile and wave while feeling like shit inside. But genuine truth and stability? for the majority it doesn't do much.
But what about the future? as Brave New World is set in. Imagine some junkie today on their final vein to experiment with finds the magic recipe for the perfect soma, one that will be mass marketed in the future and won't only promote complacency, but complete submission to pleasure. Claims of 'cured depression' will be flashed on the news pharmaceuticals unaware that they've only thickened the mask these poor individuals wear.
Soon it's not only pushed on the depressed, but to those who just feel down every now and then. Then it becomes a household product, one parents tell their kids to take every time they are hurt by reality so the parents don't have to deal with their kids. Soon parents realize they should just stop having kids, and there we have the very first page of Brave New World, pumping our embryos from a lab's tube and letting the government condition children from birth. And when it gets hard for the children, or the parents feel something's wrong, they take a soma holiday. “...reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of taking pretty frequent holidays....”. Until people are able to face reality for what it is, without lying to themselves about their habits, without complying to society when they know it isn't right, and without the mask we wear in our desperate search for approval from authority, this is the direction we will head. It's the direction we have passively chosen already, is it not?And since we haven't gotten over these issues yet today as a society, we should probably ask ourselves if we're living in a dystopia or utopia right now. The majority would say neither, and for one point I agree with the majority.
Facing reality is only possible if you can discern what reality is.Who's world do you live in?
This question raises another question: what would humanity rather have: the truth, or happiness?
Who's versions of either?
E.D. wrote: "Who's versions of either?"Start with your own. Does this book fit your definition of either?
Matthew wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Who's versions of either?"Start with your own. Does this book fit your definition of either?"
Neither.
As I wrote above, the story can be seen as a warning or guide depending on your point of view. My personal biases don't effect that.
It really depends on what you define as a utopia or dystopia. Both authors use the contrast between the happy ignorant characters, whose ideal values are fullfilled, and the conscient ones, who realize there are higher values and aspirations than the ones society has allowed them. If you think of a utopia in the sense of a socially and economically perfect, yet unattainable place, in which you dream of living - which I believe to be the most accepted definition - then this is clearly a dystopia, since, given our ability to judge that society in comparison to ours, we will clearly deem it dystopian. However, if you define a utopia as a place of complete happiness and fullfillment, you could argue this is a near-utopia given nearly everyone is completely happy. Of course, here "completely happy" is not what it would be on such a different paradigm as ours, but that doesn't mean the people in BNW don't feel as happy as they believe they can be. In short, analyzing it from our point of view - which, after all is what the authors intend for readers to do - this is a dystopia in the sense that everyone is being lied into a utopia.
Sex, drugs, and mind-numbing entertainment 24/7 are currently available. Bread and Circus. Nothing new.Some people like shiny objects.
Some people take advantage of that.
i think the similarity between this and 1984 is that both book mirror forms of government control, however they are separate in how they indoctrinate people. 1984 is through fear, the government tries to control and manipulate people into behaving a certain through being fearful of the unknown (room 101) however brave new world is still government control but through the message of everything is wonderful all the time and nothing has to change because everything is great. two opposites but both forms of indoctrinated ideology i think
One might argue that, rather than having some neutral, outside view from which we can see that the conditioned people of Brave New World have a more limited view, we have been conditioned to want attainment of goals over happiness, also. Obviously by things like consumerism and scarcity, and the hierarchy of class (which is quite interesting to examine, since the World State uses those same principles of consumerism and class in conditioning the opposite), but also by what we're taught to value through our parables and stories, by qualities we collectively consider admirable, by experiences with need growing up, et cetera.
Matt wrote: "The world of BNW is populated by seemingly contented humans, but what are the implications from an evolutionary perspective? If a society can be described as a utopia, then it is perfect - and woul..."I realize this is an older post, but wanted to comment on it anyway--evolutionary fitness is about being well-adapted to your environment. The humans of Brave New World seem, overall, quite well-adapted to their environment as it stands. Devolution is really only a metaphorical thing.
It is interesting to consider the principle on an individual basis, though, given how reproduction has been taken under completely artificial control, as with selective breeding. I imagine if Huxley had been able to write this later, we'd see more about genetic engineering and using mutations in DNA as well.
Makes you wonder, having separated reproduction and a need for fitness from the everyday actions of people, how that might eventually change human interactions given enough time.
To bring about a new idea, I would say that you can't necessarily classify anything as a Utopia because perfection doesn't exist. What is ideal to you is not the same for me. This difference in ideals is precisely what causes conflict, specifically in politics. There is a constant desire to reach perfection but for that to ever happen we wouldn't exist. What is perfection to you? If you are from a country where you are not given freedom of speech, then to change that might be ideal for you; if you are wealthy and focus primarily on yourself, then that may be the ideal for you. See, Utopia cannot exist because even perfection in its purest form will have flaws.
The fact that you would ask such question shows how accurately Aldous Huxley has predicted the future. It is indeed a utopia for capitalism and excessive consumer culture.
E.D. Yes, but the OP is asking people are asking for opinions. Your personal biases are what is being sought for the sake of discussion.
@Abhay: "perfection in its purest form", lovely choice of words! And quite right. One of the overriding themes of utopian literature is how such a society is not possible in the real world. Thomas More's original work, Utopia, was full or ironic statements to that effect. And much the same is true of dystopian literature, which posits that all attempts at creating a "perfect society" resulted in nightmarish futures where human nature was being forcibly altered or suppressed in the name of order, conformity and the benefit of the ruling class.
Matthew wrote: "E.D. Yes, but the OP is asking people are asking for opinions. Your personal biases are what is being sought for the sake of discussion."I would, for the sake of discussion, try to clarify my point. Both the social demand for order and embrace of chaos are represented in BNW and 1984. Whichever way I, or any reader, trend in regard to those poles personally has no effect on their author's biases in writing them. Utopia or dystopia?
Depends.
Defining order and chaos, from a social perspective, seems pertinent. To me. Who punishes, who gets punished, and why or why not. Simple questions with no simple answer.
Depends.
E.D. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "E.D. Yes, but the OP is asking people are asking for opinions. Your personal biases are what is being sought for the sake of discussion."I would, for the sake of discussion, try t..."
Except that in 1984, we are treated to a vision of the future where the rulers openly admit that their only purpose is power, the dominating of human beings, and complete control over reality and perception. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not that world is a utopia or dystopia.
BNW on the other hand is far more subtle and ambiguous in its outlook. Its rulers and its people are organized to ensure stability and conformity above all else, and they do so with a combination of breeding, conditions, pleasure and leisure. Hence why we're debating what type of vision of the future this is.
I would consider it a dystopia. Just because you were born in a shitty society and you don’t know anything else doesn’t make it any less terrible. They just don’t know how terrible it is because of lack of experience. Also, I’d tou read his other work Island, you’ll see that he has a vision for a very different kind of world. A much better one.
Matthew wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "E.D. Yes, but the OP is asking people are asking for opinions. Your personal biases are what is being sought for the sake of discussion."I would, for the sake of disc..."
I see your point, but would put forward the example of Greater Germania as counterpoint. Any supporters of National Socialism would have seen its implementation as a utopian achievement, and the Nazis were fairly clear regarding their concepts of power and social control. In the fictional Oceania, all struggle to implement the utopia of Big Brother's inevitable victory. In both instances, true believers saw themselves on the path to creating the perfect society. One rooted in Order.
Historical records and an author's narrative show both to be dystopian in nature to a discerning reader. Unless his or her bias leans towards Order. They might lament one's defeat, and celebrate the others continuing (fictional) struggle.
I do agree with you that BNW is a study in subtleties. There is no historical precedent that offers comparison. It does, however, proffer a utopian path rooted in Order. At least for those who occupy the top positions, and those who accept their lesser slots. Again, the author's narrative points to a dystopian society. Depending on the reader's bias, there are some ideas with potential. If Order is paramount to your vision of a perfected society, that is.
So...
Depends.
E.D. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "E.D. Yes, but the OP is asking people are asking for opinions. Your personal biases are what is being sought for the sake of discussion."I would, for ..."
Also a good point. One might say that the difference between utopia and dystopia is whether or not you are the one being persecuted. It was easy for many Germans to turn a blind eye on what their state was doing because it didn't affect them. And aside from Winston and Julia, there doesn't appear to be anyone who is aware of just how horrible their existence is.
And of course, one of the main things about BNW is that all people are bred from birth to be accepting of their position in society. The Deltas and Epsilons are basically too simple to realize that they are being cheated, whereas Alphas and Betas enjoy being on top and the pleasures that come from a life of leisure. But yes, for anyone looking for a meaningful life or something more than play, its kind of hellish.
I have been struggling with this question for many months after finishing the book. After much thought, I concluded that BNW is more like a utopia. Here are my top two reasons (sorry if I repeat someone else, I have't read all the posts):
1. Unlike in 1984, the citizens in BNW are not oppressed by the system against their human nature; on the contrary, they are designed and conditioned to desire a life which is compatible with the system. Hence, in my opinion, the argument that the citizens of BNW are satisfied with their lives only because they don't know any better may be a hasty conclusion based on the assumption that they think like us, which is untrue (at least for most of them). Their cognitive functions, social behavior, and worldviews are artificially manufactured, so it may as well be true that hedonism and conformism is what they most genuinely desire in life, in which case it strongly supports the case for utopia.
2. In any real society, the majority of the individuals will naturally be dissatisfied with their place within social hierarchies. I've heard Jordan Peterson give a great example which demonstrates this clearly: the Gini coefficient is a statistical tool which measures wealth distribution (basically inequality) within a society and it is the most accurate predictor of the prevalence of violence within the society. For clarification, the violence is correlated with the relative differences in wealth between the top and the bottom and has no correlation with the amount of total wealth, meaning millionaires will still be dissatisfied if they are around trillionaires. In BNW, this theme is especially apparent in Bernard's dissatisfaction with his own small stature, and it is these "flaws" in this character that we most identify with as human beings. The World State addresses this issue directly by dividing citizens into perfectly insulated classes in each of which everyone is born quite equal. Therefore, the relative differences disappear, creating a more harmonious society.
Huxley ingeniously solved these two colossal "problems" simultaneously, creating an efficiently functioning society with happy citizens. To be clear, I'm not condoning the ideas of extreme eugenics and social stratification. In fact, I deeply treasure suffering and ambition, and I consider these as some of the foundational cornerstones of my life. What I'm trying to do instead is analyzing the hypothetical as seriously as possible. Huxley's imaginary world is frightening precisely because it is so close to a utopia.
1. Unlike in 1984, the citizens in BNW are not oppressed by the system against their human nature; on the contrary, they are designed and conditioned to desire a life which is compatible with the system. Hence, in my opinion, the argument that the citizens of BNW are satisfied with their lives only because they don't know any better may be a hasty conclusion based on the assumption that they think like us, which is untrue (at least for most of them). Their cognitive functions, social behavior, and worldviews are artificially manufactured, so it may as well be true that hedonism and conformism is what they most genuinely desire in life, in which case it strongly supports the case for utopia.
2. In any real society, the majority of the individuals will naturally be dissatisfied with their place within social hierarchies. I've heard Jordan Peterson give a great example which demonstrates this clearly: the Gini coefficient is a statistical tool which measures wealth distribution (basically inequality) within a society and it is the most accurate predictor of the prevalence of violence within the society. For clarification, the violence is correlated with the relative differences in wealth between the top and the bottom and has no correlation with the amount of total wealth, meaning millionaires will still be dissatisfied if they are around trillionaires. In BNW, this theme is especially apparent in Bernard's dissatisfaction with his own small stature, and it is these "flaws" in this character that we most identify with as human beings. The World State addresses this issue directly by dividing citizens into perfectly insulated classes in each of which everyone is born quite equal. Therefore, the relative differences disappear, creating a more harmonious society.
Huxley ingeniously solved these two colossal "problems" simultaneously, creating an efficiently functioning society with happy citizens. To be clear, I'm not condoning the ideas of extreme eugenics and social stratification. In fact, I deeply treasure suffering and ambition, and I consider these as some of the foundational cornerstones of my life. What I'm trying to do instead is analyzing the hypothetical as seriously as possible. Huxley's imaginary world is frightening precisely because it is so close to a utopia.
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...
I also agree with Bryn, because in Brave New World all characters, who are not free, are happy, while e.g. John and Bernard are unhappy.
The characters are suppressed by ten abolute world controllers. Life is predetermined and so people have no chance to take decisions freely. In Brave New World the presentation of the world develops from a utopian view to a dystopian on which underlines the focus on the negative aspects.
Summing up, deciding whether Brave New World can be considered as utopia or dystopia, the book raises the question whether one understands the human being as a device which has to function or as a free individual only bound to his free will. It ist even a question of respect for human emotions and interaction. Based on the last fact one can evaluate Brave New World as criticism of the rising fascism in the first half of the 20th century.