Dystopia or Utopia

Brave New World Page 215
But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

It is John’s declaration, “I don’t want comfort, I want God,” in which his preferred mode of agency is revealed to be ingrained in conflicts and solutions only available to humans conditioned in suffering. In order to illustrate his point and firmly establish his role as a pariah, John exclaims that he would favor a world predicated upon the incongruities of “God” and “freedom” or “goodness” and “sin” to that of a world of pragmatic utilitarianism offered by Mond. Thus, by adhering to an ethos of a fierce and, perhaps, primitive dialectic scheme, John enhances his assertion that people should have “the right to be unhappy” in order to live a life that would be more meaningful.

Interestingly, Mond’s assessment of humans suffering needlessly from “syphilis” and living in a “constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow” has little effect upon John. Instead, John, who is only referred to as” the Savage” after Linda’s death, is quite eager “to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind” and firmly denies the values of this “Brave New World” he now occupies. Yet, it is in Mond’s final indifferent shrug and “your welcome” in which the world of technology, “soma”, and uninhibited sexuality trump “the Savage’s” nihilistic individualism by simply allowing him the freedom to destroy himself with his own misguided ideas.

Is the society Mond oversees really a dystopia? If John’s perspective results in Petrarchan, love and suicide because of his own conditioning, is it worth pursuing?

Blindfolded

"But once you began admitting explanations in terms of purpose-well, you didn’t know what the result might be. It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes-make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being, but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge" (118).

In this particular section of Brave New World, Mustapa Mond grapples with the elusive concept of a world that it governed more by truth, no matter how cruel it may be, rather than material and artificial bliss. His decision to reject the publication of the paper, "A New Theory of Biology", symbolically demonstrates society's aversion to reality, as is demonstrated by the unabashed promotion of soma pill consumption. Oddly enough, Mond is particularly impressed by the paper, and he even comments, "It was a masterly piece of work" (118). Yet he is unwilling to grant its admission into society, consequently assuring and reinforcing the significance of material happiness, while simultaneously tightening the acetate silk cloth that has blinded that society for so long. Mond staunchly believes that truth cannot coexist with happiness because it will undermine the synthetic order of things in their consumption-focused society. It is interesting to note that in denying the publication of "A New theory of Biology", Mond, who blatantly admitted that the paper interested him, is ironically depriving himself of a certain happiness, which is, after all, his society's defined purpose of existence.

Is knowledge power? Or does a society immersed in ignorance function more efficiently than one in truth?

A Holiday From the Facts

And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger...to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past, you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow 2 or 3 half-gram tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now...Christianity without tears- that's what soma is. (pg. 213)

In this conversation with John, the Savage, Mustapha Mond reveals just how big of a role soma plays in the World State society because of the way that its citizens are conditioned to depend on it. Soma is there to “calm your anger” and settle all disputes or problems that may arise, and Mond even claims it can “make you patient.” Instead of being forced to choose a personal response to the events and interactions in their lives, the people of the World State only have to choose to pop back a little (or a lot of) soma and wait for its effects to take hold. The narcotic pleasure induced by soma replaces the spectrum of human emotion making the lives and personalities of these people almost standardized. Since everyone is taking the exact same drug in response to replace emotional responses, all individuality is lost.

Mond brags that soma removes the need for “great effort” or “moral training” in becoming “virtuous.” However, without the thousands of individual failures and successes along the way, this “virtue” means absolutely nothing. For the people of the World State, happiness is defined by the lack of discomfort, stress, or anxiety. This soma-induced happiness is merely a controlled preventative measure that protects the status quo and its few benefactors. It allows people like Mond to exercise their power and remain in authority without any real threat of opposition.

On the other hand, given the circumstances surrounding their conditioned, replicated lives, maybe the people deserve this narcotic emotional short-cut because it provides them with their only reprieve from uniform numbness of their society.

It was a challenge, a command

"Now they trumpeted a call to arms. "O Brave new world!" Miranda was proclaining the possibility of loveliness, the possibility of transforming even the nightmare into something fine and noble. "O brave new world!" It was a challenge, a command." Pg. 190

After his mother's death, John finds himself in a crowd of Bokanovsky twins awaiting their daily soma distribution. In his disgust, John finds himself revisiting Miranda's speech for a third time. However, this time the words take on a different meaning for him. In his distress, John begins to see Miranda's words not as sarcasm, but as a hope for the "possibility of loveliness, the possibility of transforming even the nightmare into something fine and noble". For the first time, John sees the events around him as something that he has the power to change. This is also the first time in the novel that Huxley gives his audience the command to change the world around them before it becomes too late. Unfortunately though, John's attempt to transform his nightmare backfires and eventually leads to his demise. This suggests that while Huxley is communicating that change is necessary, it may not be possible if things continue in the direction they are headed. The contrasting ideas presented in this section illustrate the dissonant views that Christopher Hitchens mentions about Huxley's writing in the forward. Is Huxley communicating a call to arms or warning against the dangers of standing up against adversity?

Oversimplification

Page 215, Brave New World:

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right then,” said the Savage defiantly. “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

---

When I read this, I immediately thought of a quote from one of my favorite books, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: “You cannot protect yourself from sadness without protecting yourself from happiness.” I think it’s quite fitting, because the society here has given up individuality, science, religion, and art for the sake of comfort. After all, ignorance is bliss, Mustapha Mond implies. Could it really be that simple?

If you read this quote specifically, it certainly looks like there’s incompatibility between happiness and truth. The happiest people tend to be in the lower castes, which begs the correlation between the two. Mustapha Mond himself is one of the most informed people in the world, but at the loss of his own happiness (or so he claims). And due to the way this passage is worded, it seems as though the Savage must choose directly between his own happiness and God/poetry/danger/freedom/goodness.

However, I don’t think Huxley would agree that it’s that simple (though there IS some relation). For example, on page 217, Huxley creates a sort of paradox by saying: “In spite of their sadness --because of it even; for their sadness was the symptom of their love for one another--the three young men were happy.” Happiness can clearly exist with knowledge--in this case, the acquired knowledge of how disturbing and at times necessary their society is. Happiness itself is a paradox.

Discussion: Do you agree? Is ignorance bliss? Or is that too much of a simplification?

New World vs. Shakespeare

"But why is it prohibited?" asked the Savage. In the excitement of meting a man who had read Shakespeare he had momentarily forgotten everything else. The Controller shrugged his shoulders. "Because it's old; that's the chief reason. We haven't any use for old things here." - P. 197

John, whose worldview is based on his knowledge of Shakespeares plays questions why Shakespeare is forbidden in the World State. Mond, however, is unable to give him an adequate answer. Mond says beautiful things such as literature tend to last; and the World State needs citizens who want new things. John, a consumate outsider, disagrees and believes in the intrinsic value of things rather than 'newness' such as helicopters. This passage marks another of many occasions where the World State attempts to maintain 'stability' and promote 'happiness'. According to Mond, stories written by Shakespeare don't appeal to passions and experiences that exist in the World State. Therefore, any foreign influences could result in instability.

Could living in a society where we're oblivious to certains be good? Bad?

Revelations

“The Savage stood looking on. ‘O brave new World, O brave new World…’ In his mind the singing words seemed to change their tone. They had mocked him through his misery and remorse, mocked him with how hideous a note of cynical derision! Fiendishly laughing, they had insisted on the low squalor, the nauseous ugliness of the nightmare… ‘Stop!’ called the Savage in a loud and ringing voice. ‘Stop!’ He pushed his way to the table; the Deltas stared at him with astonishment… ‘Lend me your ears’… ‘Don’t take that horrible stuff. It’s poison, it’s poison.’” (210-211)

John, the Savage, has an epiphany concerning the system of the World State. Among many other things, he clearly manifests his disgust at the way citizens deal with illness and death (after experiencing it first-hand with his m—’s) and will not take any more of it. He desperately urges those at the Park Lane Hospital for the Dying not to take the dose of soma that a “jaunty young Alpha” is about to distribute. As Helmholtz and Bernard rush into the hospital, they even find him asking (almost rhetorically): “But do you like being slaves?... Do you like being babies? Yes, babies. Mewling and puking…”

I think John’s long-forgotten image of the World State (from when he was back at the Reservation) backfired in an ugly way. All he had were Linda’s fabulous anecdotes and stories about the “Other Place,” which he took to heart and transformed into a chimera. Of course, the reader knows from the moment John arrives at the World State, that it will be soon before it becomes clear to him that this notion of the ‘perfect world’ is mainly a utopia. With Linda passing away and Bernard using him for his own benefits, will John be able to endure his stay at the World State? Will he succumb to this opposite-pole culture to which he is repelled by so much?

Brave New World Pg. 201

"The optimum population," said Mustapha Mond, "is modelled on the iceberg - eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above."

"And they're happy below the water line?"

"Happier than above it. Happier than your friend here, for example." He pointed.

"In spite of that awful work?"

"Awful? They don't find it so. On the contrary, they like it."

John, more commonly known as "The Savage", questions Mustapha Mond on the state of this new world's people, primarily on the state of happiness exhibited by their citizens. Here, Mond describes how the society is split between Alphas and the others to maintain the order needed for stability. What's interesting, however, is that Mond will forever proclaim that happiness is the key to their stability, yet the definition of that emotion is unclear. For the eight-ninths of the population "below the water line", happiness simply equates with ignorance of any other thought or feeling. But for those above the line, their happiness is less secure. In fact, for those who can't drug themselves enough with Soma in order to obtain that ignorant state needed for what Mond deems as happiness, they are simply sent away to accomplish whatever they need in order to obtain some contentedness without influencing society in any way.

Human strife is generally characterized by the need to find happiness in a world that seems to work against us. (All of literature, it seems, revolves around this strife.) But in a society that genetically engineers its citizens to be emotionless or unable to handle emotion, completely avoiding struggles, can we actually say these people are happy? How could someone know what happiness is without knowing or understanding other emotions?

Brave New World- pg. 205

“That was when science first began to be controlled- after the Nine Years War. People were ready to hav e even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. We’ve gone on controlling ever since. It hasn’t been very good for truth, of course. But it’s been very good for happiness. One can’t have something for nothing. Happiness has got to be paid for.”

The dialogue between John and Mustapha Mond serves to illustrate the discordances between truth and happiness. Throughout the debate in chapters 16 and 17, Mond contends that society must sacrifice art, science, religion, beauty, and truth in order to achieve a state of stability, and ultimately happiness. However, John the Savage is unable to comprehend a life devoid of these things and fails to see how one is better off living in a state of self-induced delusion. While Mond does not discount the merit of these things, he insists upon the idea that society must pay for happiness by denying themselves of these pleasures in order to maintain stability, which according to him is what people want, especially after the Nine Years War. Because Helmoltz finds too much interest in beauty he must be sent to an island where he can freely indulge in it, since beauty is incompatible with the happiness and stability of this civilization. Mond even admits to his own indulgence in science and truth, which he had to sacrifice in order to serve the happiness of others. This idea of truth and happiness as inharmonious values seems to be a recurrent theme throughout the novel. The world state is comprised of deluded individuals who are conditioned to avoid the unpleasantness of life. They are relieved of the burdens that things such as personal relationships, passion, and grief impose, and any slight inclination of discomfort that manages to emerge can be alleviated by the effects of soma. By neglecting the truth about the world around them and being denied the opportunity to uncover it, these people are able to live in a world of oblivion and happiness.

Would it actually be more desirable to live in a society in which truth and happiness do not coexist? Are we forced to draw a line between the two, or is it possible to achieve happiness while being informed of the world around us?

Brave new world

Here is my post!

pg 161

"The Savage frequently goes to see her and appears to be much attracted to her- an interesting example of the way in which early conditioning can be made to modify and even run counter to matural impulses (in this cade, the impulse to recoil from unpleasant objects)

Bernard's account of the Savage's relationship with his mother is an observation of societal condition differences between the people. He blatantly says here that the boy should regard his mother no more than an unpleasant object, and goes as far to say that the boy has been conditioned to love his mother, although it is a natural, innate connection for humans. The murder of all emotions in this society, particularly spurred by soma and conditioning, severs familial ties and more importantly, creates a shallow level of existence between all beings, diminishing people as no more than objects to scrutinize and use if appealing. The Savage is immediately revolted by the society and customs and through his actions and feelings we see that he is not, in fact, savage, but on the contrary, exponentially more civilized and keenly aware of the "civilized" population's inferior emotional and intellectual capabilities.

Brave New World- page 93

"Adults intellectually and during working hours," he went on. "Infants where feeling and desire are concerned." (93)

These two sentences fundamentally summarize how this society is run. The society controls everyone from their conditioning with Malthusian drills, hypnaedic verses, soma, and many more methods all the way down to their genetic make-up. They do not think. Instead, their thoughts are filled with the hypnaedic phrases such as "Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today," which, as Bernard points out, had "Two hundred repetitions, twice a week from fourteen to sixteen and a half."
Through the society's control of people's genetic make-up and conditioning, they love their class, their work, and ultimately they are "happy" with their lives. However, Bernard compares people to infants when people are not doing anything than their predestined work. At all other times, they do not feel, because "the community reels," according to Lenina and the hypnaedic phrases. They do not have passion. Instead, they do not actually think about things and just act on their impulses that have been conditioned into them...just like infants.

A False Pursuit of Happiness

"'Don't you wish to be free, Lenina?' 'I don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays'" (p.90)

Searching for passion, Bernard gets as close to exploring freedom as he possibly can at this point in the novel. He wishes to have a connection with Lenina that she can't comprehend. Attempts at isolation remain faulty as Lenina fails to understand why simple conversation sans sex can be fun and fulfilling. At this moment, Bernard is stimulated with curiosities of his surroundings, without the aid of soma, and pushes Lenina to search for more. I think this moment is important because it is the first time anyone has expressed an interest in contesting his/her state of being and the forces of society. Bernard is obviously divided from the masses by his physical attributes, that of which Lenina calls attention to and finds interesting, and finally, he realizes his ability to think independently. By asking Lenina if she wishes to be free, Bernard forces Lenina to question her own being, whether she realizes it or not. It's interesting that Bernard is still able to formulate and respond to these curiosities after the years of brainwashing and oppression, and that he finds a false sense of happiness that is taught to his society.

No matter what is manually taught or scientifically controlled in human beings, will there always be an urge to gain free will in mankind? Is there ever a chance for us to gain happiness if the pursuit is denied to us?

Drinking the Kool-Aid

“Ford, we are twelve; oh, make us one,
Like drops within the Social River;
Oh, make us now together run
As swiftly as thy shining Flivver.”

P. 82

This was the first among several hymns that were sung during the Solidarity Service Bernard attends. As the participants recite the silly rhymes, they sound more like machines waiting to be assembled on a Model-T Ford than humans. This is an example of a way the World State ruses its members to conform to its societal rules; it seems almost hypnotic at times. They work themselves into a delirious exultation as though they have chosen to be there; however, at times, they seem to feel the need to release some ‘human’ emotions. Emotions the World State hasn’t conditioned them to ignore.

Why can’t Bernard and other Alphas who attend these Solidarity sessions realize the truth beneath its purpose? Why doesn’t the operation of the World State as a whole spook the Alphas as being odd since they’re smartest?

Individuality is Fleeting

"'And I had six girls last week,' he confided to Helmholtz Watson. 'One on Monday, two on Tuesday, two more on Friday, and one on Saturday. And if I'd had the time or the inclination, there were at least a dozen more who were only too anxious..."
-pg 145


This passage effectively shows the development of Bernard's character thus far in the novel. Something that he once believed so strongly in (not treating women like a piece of meat) is exactly what he is displaying at this passage of the novel. Even though it is important to recognize Bernard's shift merely for plot purposes, I believe that Huxley creates this shift in Bernard to further highlight an idea intertwined throughout the novel: that individuality is fleeting. We saw the individuality of the world (well, most of it, save the 'Savage Land') go to pieces as the new system came into play. We saw the individuality of mankind go to pieces as Bokanovsky's Process pumped out twin set after twin set. We saw the individuality of the mind go to pieces as conditioning came into effect. However, the loss of Bernard's individuality wasn't something that was expected. Huxley gave us hope with Bernard, strategically formulating his character to go against all that we as readers were against in the system. We felt sympathy for the consistently misunderstood Bernard for his smallness, his loneliness, and his pitiful infatuation with the ever-so-pnueumatic Leninia. However, the strength of the reader's bond with Bernard is the perfect environment to bring attention to the underlying argument that no matter how individual someone or something is, individuality is a precariously perched characteristic. 


The loss of Bernard's individuality also meant the loss of hope that Bernard was going to create change in the system. As readers, do you think he will regain his individuality? If not, then if there is a change, who do you predict will be its creator, and to what extent will the system change?