utopia or dystopia?

[Oliver]

It seems to me that the society displayed in the book is rather hard to classify as one or the other. The majority of the people seem truly happy for the most part, however, those running it and those who are aware realize how whacked it seems. What are your thoughts?

[Terrence]

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 happy with their "gram a day". Of course we wouldn't want to be ignorant robots. But, i think sometimes I wish I could just forget all the hate, all the war and all the other bad things in life. Ignorance as they say is bliss.

[Meh]

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 high to realize it, though. But there would always be something missing. Something inside every poor, bred-to-be-dumb worker that would yell "I don't understand!"

[Foodpie]

Neither. It lies between and simply is. With the positives of hedonism and self indulgent freedom contrasting with the negative of discrimination and death the world of a Brave New World is neither hell nor heaven. It is simply a possible future that exists to be judged by it's merits and in light of the readers own personal positions.

[Meh]

It's interesting to me that you would say that hedonism and self-indulgence are positives. I would think that all of that would make people less happy, not more. Self-indulgence usually comes at someone else's cost. (Maybe not harmless things like chocolate cravings, but indulging our darker whims can be very destructive.) If everybody is self-indulgent this way, everybody's hurting each other all the time. How can there be happiness?

[Diana]

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 of the control and thus trying to free himself from it; both show how difficult (if not impossible) it is to break out of a totalitarian state. It is just the means of control between the two Dystopias that differ: in 1984 you have a dictatorial, violently oppressive government, much like the ex-Soviet Union, that control through explicit power, propaganda and a constant sense of need and crisis. In Brave New World, you have a passively oppressive government, much like the United States, that controls through hidden power, propaganda and a constant sense of fulfillment and calm. As far as happiness, in 1984, the Prols are happy in ignorance, as, actually, are most of the others; in Brave New World almost everyone is happy in ignorance. In neither, however, does that happiness equate with utopia, because in both it is just part of the Government's plan to keep people powerless. I think for both authors, a Utopia would have to be grounded in true democracy, civil liberties and individual freedom.

[Bryn]

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 people who critically think for themselves and evaluate their own societies. In both 1984 and Brave New World there are characters that don't fit in the social strictures of their communities. They think outside the box. In both worlds you see a highly controlled media brainwashing and controlling the masses. Have you spent any time in a typical high school classroom lately? Not all of them, but many are interested only in pleasure - mall, car, clothes, cell phones, ipods, and they have little to no idea what else is going on in the world. What I get from both these books is that there is nothing more dangerous that a society that allows itself to be apathetic in their pleasures and controlled by their media. They may be happy, but the only truely free characters in both those novels are unhappy - I think that is fairly significant in terms of what is really important in society.

[Meh]

I'm a high schooler, and I know exactly what you mean, Bryn. But what do you mean by that last statement? Significant in terms of what is important TO society? Like the iPods and such. I agree with you there. Society's wants and views are generally pointless and designed to create business. Take today's version of fashion/beauty, for instance. It's been created by advertising executives to support the cosmetics industry.

[Bryn]

I meant that the concept of happiness as it stands in the world today is very in the moment and based on physical and materialistic values like you said. If I'm thin/rich/beautiful/ then I'm happy. If I have a BMW then I am happy. In both those books you have characters who go against the norm and are consequently very unhappy. In their respective societies viewpoint, what those characters are doing is stupid, because they are not happy. My argument is that perhaps true happiness is a little bit of unhappiness. It's sort of a paradox. For instance, hard work isn't fun, but supporting yourself and accomplishing something valuable to yourself and the world is fulfilling - a type of happiness that isn't in the moment, but lasts a whole lot longer. You have to be a little unhappy to achieve a deeper happiness. What do you think?

[Diana]

Hey all--

First let me say that I find it enormously optimistic that as a high schooler, Meh, you see that all the products of happiness are our society's way of buying you off. In our Brave New World-ish society, consumer choice tends to be substituted for political choice and freedom is redefined as the freedom to buy and own whatever you want. In fact, patriotism has been redefined as the duty to buy and thus to keep the economy going (remember after 9/11 when Bush declared America Open for Business). I think neither author is arguing for a cult of unhappiness (in Brave New World, that's sort of what the savage represents, and in the end, he is no more empowered through his beating himself as anyone else is through their happiness). But I think for both authors, writing in the times of rising fascism and the failed promise of communism (BNW written in 1932 and 1984 written in 1949), the ideal society would dedicate itself to empowering individuals, politically, socially and economically, and would have the Government serving the people, rather than the people serving the state (or the market, which is a lot of what happens in the US).

[Patrick]

Diana,

I'm with you. I believe that Brave New World illustrates a less threatening form of power, cosmetically speaking. In a way, the society in Brave New World is much scarier than that in 1984 because it's completely drugged up and numb to "Big Brother." Brave New World was a huge influence on my novel, The Device, by the way. I consider 1984 and Brave New World brother and sister works of fiction.

[Zulfiya]

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 ..."

Diana, I was really impressed by your neat, convincing and thoroughly explained answer.
I tend to concur with you mostly, but I also think that this question has a double answer. Characters of the BNW tend to live in blissful ignorance, unaware of pleasures and challenges they would have in a true democratic society. Their government was definitely less oppressive than the heinous one of 1984. True, they were brainwashed and deprived of reading pleasures, but they did not know what they did not have.
For the reader, though, it is obvious that they world they live in is a dystopian world, and they are still manipulated, and they are not decision makers, but rather the well-nourished sheep.
My point is you can not give a definite answer to this question: it is a bifocal question, when you take into account the needs and knowledge of characters and of readers.
I discussed this questions with my husband, and he proposed the term 'neutopia' to show that this world can be viewed and interpreted differently. It is a tongue-in-cheek neologism, but serves the purpose to express a certain level of ambiguity when you tackle this issue.

[uh8myzen]

I personally I would put the book squarely in the dystopian line.

I don't think it matters how the characters themselves perceive the society in question because in literary terms, they are the device which is meant to signal to the reader the dystopian nature of the society. As such, in my opinion anyway, Huxley was using their ignorance and the self awareness of the few to conjure Socrates' Cave analogy.

But if we are to consider the characters perceptions, I would argue that their programmed ignorance renders them unable to discern the nature of their society. It would be neither utopian or dystopian since they are unable apply any critical thinking to the world around them... To them, it just is.

Anyway, that's my ten cents. Interesting question.

[Zulfiya]

uh8myzen wrote: "I personally I would put the book squarely in the dystopian line.

I don't think it matters how the characters themselves perceive the society in question because in literary terms, they are the ..."
Point taken, uh8myzen
But in literary terms some characters are the embodiments of author's dreams or expectations, so sometimes what we interpret as a signal can only be a cathartic experience for a writer. But this is way beyond the topic of this discussion. Though One thing we tend to agree - it is a five-star book and I truly enjoyed it. It is surprising how close it is to the Zamyatin's We. I read three or four other novels by Huxley, but was truly impressed only by this one. Others are good, but they don't deliver the message with the same feeling of precision and pain.

[uh8myzen]

Zulfiya wrote: "I read three or four other novels by Huxley, but was truly impressed only by this one"

Very true... have you read The Doors of Perception. Its not a novel, but it is a really interesting exploration of the mind and spirit. Besides Brave New World, its my favourite Huxley.

[Zulfiya]

uh8myzen wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "I read three or four other novels by Huxley, but was truly impressed only by this one"

Very true... have you read The Doors of Perception. Its not a novel, but it i..."

Unfortunately, I have not. The only thing I know about it that it contains some written accounts of his substance experience (I guess, this is a politically correct term nowadays:-))
It is always a moot point to read about those indulgences.I believe we have to accept it is a necessary evil for some writers to explore the potentials of mind and imagination and then pour it into their books.

[Eric]

Whether you identify BNW as a utopia or dystopia is entirely based on how much you value the concept of free will. If you see it as a construct with virtually no meaning in a society driven by markets, macro-economics, statistics and mass-catastrophes, you might view the world depicted in BNW as a utopian antidote, ingeniously designed to avoid conflict and keep everyone happy and employed. If, conversely, you view free will and the possibility for individual achievement as indispensable to happiness, BNW is a dystopia.

[Emre]

I think the society in BNW is in itself an utopia BUT:

1. what happens when some misfortune falls on you? (death of a loved one, for example? can you "drug" your way out of your loss?)
2. how sustainable is it? can it go on forever?
3. what about other societies? war? what if a group of people hungrier than yours descend upon you? can you leave your protection to mindless drones? (remember, they will be up against the enemies' smartest and strongest!)

I know these questions are not exactly in line with the book, but these are my thoughts on whether BNW is a utopia. It may be a utophia as long as it is a VERY closed society (similar to the Netherlands maybe ;))

[Eric]

Answering your first point: misfortune and loss are universal and there is no 100% palliative for it. Even when someone is said to die without pain, we cannot be sure what they are feeling in the moment of deadly impact. However, soma, morphine, and other drugs can greatly mitigate suffering. This we know. Pharmacology is already used extensively to treat physical and mental disorders.

Sustainability can never be a serious issue, since the life of the organism is limited, and the earth is also vulnerable to extreme changes, from within and from intergallactic accidents, such as meteors, comets, etc. In an economic calendar that goes from quarter to quarter how can sustainability be a concern?

Thirdly, you are right about the possibility of attack by a less-advanced, hungrier group of marrauders. But BNW posits a global society, a "cold social structure" (anhropolgically speaking, static)in which the only possible attacks are from within.

All of this said, it is highly speculative. The babies in BNW are gestated exogenously, in bottles! It's a very big "what if?" Mostly for fun, I think.

[Emre]

Eric wrote: "Answering your first point: misfortune and loss are universal and there is no 100% palliative for it. Even when someone is said to die without pain, we cannot be sure what they are feeling in the m..."

The discussion in this post somehow reminded me of "Notes from the Underground" by Dostoyevski. In a part of that book, he mentioned how people wouldn't want to live as parts of a machine and do stupid or destructive things just to prove that they are not part of the system, or "just for the spite of it".

Also, I remember C.S. Lewis' great article, Men Without Chests. He said that any advance in technology is not "man over nature" but actually "man over man". If we somehow apply this to BNW, Lewis would claim that the rulers of such a society would be corrupt by so much power that they would go corrupt, or crazy in the end.

Maybe I'm strecthing the ideas too far, I don't know. Please comment if your read these works.

Also, ERIC; I meant economic sustainability. I think you mean something on a global/geographical scale?

[Eric]

There is no such thing as too much discussion. If what I said reminded you of Dostoyevsky, that is great. Economic sustainability is certainly a possible issue, but economics does not even appear in news broadcasts, much less novels. People rarely consider economics entertaining.

[Library Lady 📚]

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, with everyone happy. And by nature, I think people feel unhappiness. Otherwise, they have nothing to judge happiness against. True, with soma they are all drugged into being happily ignorant, but I very much doubt Huxley was trying to tell us that is a good and utopian state. Rather he was pointing out that even if people are drugged into believing they live in a perfect society, we can see that it's not. And even then, we see the people who are not happy...

[Matthew]

I'd have to go with dystopia on this one. A society that thrives through conditioning and drugs on the one hand and sacrifices its best and brightest to maintain stability on the other is not a utopia. It's stable yes, but ultimately humanity is being killed all the same, just with kindness. In some ways, this is far more horrific than a brutal dictatorship that relies on fear and violence, mainly because it can actually get away with it!

[Matthew]

Oh, and does anyone recall the quote at the beginning? It basically said (in French) that a key aspect of Utopianism the fact the human beings would be willing to sacrifice their freedom in exchange for equality. In this case, it was for stability and predictability.

[Alyssa]

I think its a dystopia if no one has free will.

[P.A.]

I agree that it's dystopia. While we're on the Brave New World discussion, has anyone noticed the paralells between the book and the movie Demolition man with Arnold Swarzzeneger. I saw the movie and thought it was a blatant rip-off of the book, and I've never seen any credits go to the book. Even the main characters name Lenina Huxley, kind of points to the book Brave New World.

[Matthew]

P.A. Hells yeah I noticed! Wesley Snipes even came out and said it. That's when I lost interest... When did Sandra Bullock point it out?

[P.A.]

Matthew wrote: "P.A. Hells yeah I noticed! Wesley Snipes even came out and said it. That's when I lost interest... When did Sandra Bullock point it out?"

That's right, I forgot Wesley Snipes makes a comment that it's a 'Brave New World'. Sandra Bullock doesn't say anything but her character's name is Lenina Huxley. Lenina Crowne is a main character in BNW and Huxley is the author. I've always thought that the writers were alluding to the fact that they got their inspiration from the book.But I've never seem them actually credit the book.

[Matthew]

Oh shit, that's right! You should watch "Equilibrium" if you like rip-offs! I do reviews of such movies, come on by!

[Matthew]

Sorry for sidetracking things folks, you were saying?

[Heather]

I read this book in high school for my English class. I hated it. I think if I was living in a world like this one I would say it's not a utopia. Simple fact we can't have a perfect world. Perfection doesn't exist and it never will. The good thing about this book though is that I A'ced it. I think I was one of the only few who did Ace it.

[Chris]

Glad to see this thread. I am sure Huxley meant for us to be horrified by the society he describes. Certainly we see it as shallow and are appalled when we recognize that those rich emotions we attribute to our own culture are completely lacking here. However, as pointed out from the start, everyone here is happy. There are a lot of miserable people in our society. Violence and crime abound. These are absent from BNW, and it is in this contrast that the novel is most effective.

I always heard of this being read side by side with 1984 in HS, and continue to disagree with the notion. The two books are very different, with BNW perhaps not being a dystopian novel at all.

[Matthew]

Chris wrote: "...However, as pointed out from the start, everyone here is happy."

Not everybody, John the Savage isn't, Bernard Marx isn't, and neither is Helmholtz Watson. John isn't because he wasn't born into that world and will never fit in. The other two aren't happy because their intelligence and desire for a realer existence makes them undesirable. They are forced to go into exile, John by choice, the other two by law. And that is the point of this novel, if I'm not mistaken. This "utopia" is only perfect if you accept that its necessary for the sake of control, as Mond explained towards the end.

Sure crime and violence are absent, but at the same time, happiness comes only in the form of gratification. People are essentially mindless, knowing only what they are raised to believe and relying on drugs to quash any and all legitimate emotions (such as anger, fear, jealousy). This is fine, so long as you don't have any moral or intellectual qualms about that. But those who do, aka. anyone deeper and smarter than the average person, is therefore forced to go into exile, and the World State loses its best and brightest this way.

This is why this novel is best when paired with 84. One talks about a failed utopia which controls its people trough horror and brain washing, the other through pleasure and conditioning. It's part of the historic debate "which came true?"

[Chris]

I recall it being a bit more complex than just two ways to control people. It has been a rather long time since I've read either books though I recall certain parts vividly--so I'll need to reread it to have any sort of intelligent debate with you on this matter.

What I'd argue here though is that 1984 and BNW are not analogs of another just using different means. 1984 is a typical exploitation of the masses for the profit of a few; BNW is quite different as it attempts to craft a society where everyone is happy.

This brings up a lot of interesting questions: Is there more than one kind of happiness? legitimate happiness and delusional happiness? Is the happiness the prisoner finds at the end of Woman in the Dunes to be written off as purely delusional? And if we can say that, how are we any more in the authority to judge which kind of happiness is genuine and which is not? Can one culture judge any other culture with any real authority?

Regardless, I'll need to re-read this before I say more.

[Phillip]

Soma definitely distopian. A logical progression of Plato's Republic. Soma today isn't necessary. We have prescription drugs, sports, and TV - who needs Soma.

As Huxley argued at Berkely, just look at society, he won the debate between Huxlian pleasure and Orwellian Big Brother. We are all sedated.

Good question.

[Daniel]

Since both utopia and dystopia are matters of personal viewpoint (after all the perfect, or wholly wicked, society for each reader is different), then BNW is in my opinion neither. Some aspects of it will seem dystopian to some readers (Soma as a form of brainwash, lack of decision power, conductism as a for of upbringing), but in other aspects it's a utopia, no crime, no want, no hunger, satisfaction with your station in life and no craving for promotions, therefore no undue worries about things beyond your control.

I think that trying to categorize this book (unlike 1984) detracts from it as a whole, I think this is more in line with what Ursula LeGuinn wrote in her introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness, this is a thought experiment, a fabciful way of projecting the society in which Huxley lived and that he faced every day, the rigidly stratified British life of the early 20th century, the common use of narcotics and other drugs such as cocaine to treat anxiety and other mental illnesses and "undesirable" states of mind and character, the conductist theories of Carl Jung, et al. and so many others.

I think the question is really not about wether this is a dystopia or a utopia, but rather about how much do we want our society to resemble that of the BNW, and what are we willing to sacrifice for it, our intellectual and personal freedom in exchange for wellbeing and a sense of contentment, if not true happiness, or our happiness and peace of mind for a chance to be analytical and able to question and criticize? did we give into the consumer driven society that Huxley depicts or are we still capable of averting a fate such as that of Bernar Marx, or even worse that of John the savage?

[Majdz]

You can't have "Happiness" enforced upon you, you have to choose it. Since in BNW the people had no choice it is definitely dystopian! I wrote a more extensive review about this on my blog: http://mzwrites.blogspot.com/2011/09/...

[Matthew]

Majdulzahra wrote: "I wrote a more extensive review about this on my blog: http://..."

Me too! Though I tended to focus on the differences and similarities between BNW and 1984, and which came true. The debate goes on!
http://storiesbywilliams.wordpress.co...

[Majdz]

Matthew wrote: Me too! Though I tended to focus on the differences and similarities between BNW and 1984, and which came tru..."
I'm checking it out, thank you

[Cate]

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 rebuild the "perfect" society. (See also: Faranheit 451, Handmaid's Tale, 1984, etc.) The genre generally serves as a warning of what the future could be like if we allow current society to play out as it stands now. All in all, it's one of my favorite genres.

[Matthew]

Majdulzahra wrote: I'm checking it out, thank you"

And thank YOU! I'll be sure to leave a comment!

[Emre]

Remove the destruction of historical monuments and classes of the people you would have utopia .

[Matthew]

Emre wrote: "Remove the destruction of historical monuments and classes of the people you would have utopia ."

Now that is a tall order! On the one hand, stop destroying monuments. Easy enough, though how you classify "monuments" is a somewhat sticky issue. The other thing, removing classes of people, is much, much harder! But that's been the challenge hasn't it?

Think that's something for the 1984 debate too, since Orwell mentioned in that book that it was when people were on the cusp of realizing true equality - or at the point where it was a real possibility - that the totalitarian philosophies of the 20th century truly emerged.

[Meghan]

Let me start by saying this is my absolute favorite book OF ALL TIME! I read it in high school and have read it so many times since that I have lost track. The issue of utopia vs. dystopia is something that I have considered and really thought about over the year. This is what I have come up with.

I think it is all about how you want your future to look like. To some The Brave New World depicts a Utopian society because for the most part everyone is happy being told what they can do and can't do and how to live their lives. The love the idea of a world where drugs flow freely and you are encouraged to sleep with as many people as possible.

Others see the world through John's eyes, where choice is what makes life great. You are forced to deal with your pain and issues without chemical help and this process makes you a better and deeper person. Our feelings of pain and love and happiness are what make us human beings. If you take that away with drugs and sex then what are we?

I tend to look at this world as a dystopia. If our feelings are what make us human, then turning them off makes us something darker and more unhappy. The more we distance ourselves from what we feel the more unhappy we truly are. We then crave the things that turn our feelings off and lose our humanity in the process. The Brave New World is about choice and how you want to spend your life. I think the meaning and view of the utopian or dystopian world is purely subjective the the person who is reading.

[John]

Interesting points, Meghan. Another book that explores some of your ideas is the granddaddy of SF: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. One of the times the traveler visits in the far future involves a species split along the socio/economic divide. The delicate leisure class frolics in the sunshine while the dirty working class labors below ground. I wonder which is more "human".
Give it a try ;-)

I look at Brave New World from the perspective of human history. How did we become the dominate species? What role did creative innovation play? How important is "hunger" to innovation? How important is freedom to creativity? I see BNW as a stagnant world that could easily collapse. The primitives in the wilderness stand a much better chance of long term survival.

[Matthew]

John: Morlocks and Eloi, huh? And its true, Meghan, the book does say it all. The Eloi are a pretty, Edenic culture but they live in blissful ignorance. The Morlocks are ugly, beaten, downtrodden and do all the work that keeps the society above them functioning. They exact revenge once in awhile by kidnapping and eating members of the Eloi, but are otherwise unable to alter their circumstances.

And that's the extent of the books commentary. No proposed solutions, just this basic description, something as old as time itself.

I'd like to take this opportunity to invite people to a 1984 forum. They're all good, but this is one I started and have recruited a few people into:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...

[John]

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

[Angie]

My thoughts are that it is a dystopia disguised as an utopia.

People are happy, everybody gets what they "want" and nothing is "banned" or "prohibited".

Since they are in the tube probe, they are conditioned and manipulated so they like and hate what they have to and according to their group and society.

Society members are very conditioned before they born that even if someone wants to make them change it will be a lost cause.

[Jukka]

Margaret Atwood has a whole chapter in her new book In Other Worlds specifically about BNW and it's qualities as utopian or dystopian fiction. There is much else in this book of interest too.

In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination

The chapter is also here if you're interested:
Everybody is happy now

[Matthew]

Jukka wrote: "Margaret Atwood has a whole chapter in her new book In Other Worlds specifically about BNW and it's qualities as utopian or dystopian fiction. There is much else in this book of interest too.

[b..."

She also wrote a very compelling and insightful intro to the last edition of Brave New World Revisited. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but the woman does know her satire!