Brave New Meanderings
In Brave New World,
Huxley presents a possible utopian/dystopian future in which humans are cloned
into different classes of people. These various classes are not only genetically conditioned to fulfil their
role within society – they are also psychologically
conditioned to feel that their position in society makes them happy. In short,
the people living in Brave New World
are kept constantly happy while consuming products.
I don’t want this blog post to be all preachy and conspiracy theory-ish. I want to just share some parallels between the society within Brave New World and our own. But that doesn’t mean my views are correct – I might be constructing meaning out of noise or giving too much significance to random patterns, claiming that there is an overall structure.
I was filled with dread while reading this book. It trickled
in off the page, through my eyes. It collected in pools in my brain before flowing
down to my gut. This book represents my gut feeling about society as it is at
the moment.
Just after I started reading the book, I put the following
post on my facebook page:
My friends seem to like the society in Brave New World! And actually, what’s not to like? Everyone, and I
mean everyone in this society is
happy. There is very little civil unrest, people do not celebrate the death of a politician (there aren’t even any politicians!), there are no wars nor is there a possibility of a war.
Life seems pretty good. Eternal happiness of the spotless mind.
Except I find something very disturbing in this idea. Sure
everybody is happy, but that doesn’t stop the fact that some are exploited for
the happiness of others. I’m reminded of a satirical cartoon which mocks
facebook.
I don’t want this blog post to be all preachy and conspiracy theory-ish. I want to just share some parallels between the society within Brave New World and our own. But that doesn’t mean my views are correct – I might be constructing meaning out of noise or giving too much significance to random patterns, claiming that there is an overall structure.
I have written about talent shows before and my friends know that I avoid these. My previous post focussed on how talent
shows look for talent in the wrong place. It is a pointless thing to say that
talent is “all in the voice.” Whoever told Morrissey, Dave Grohl or Noel Gallagher that they had a conventionally “nice” voice? By picking
talent based on voice alone, music is so horribly homogenised it has made all
pop music sound the same.
Talent shows are a large part of our cultural identity – #BGT,
#BritainsGotTalent and #TheVoiceUK are all trending on twitter as I write this.
“But people enjoy it, what’s the
problem?” The problem I have is that when people unquestioningly enjoy any art
form, the producers realise they no longer have to be original and get lazy with
what they make. I see this as the destruction of real creativity. There are
real musical artists out there. However, due to their experimental nature, these
musicians are not universally liked. This is bad news for record companies who
want the maximum listenership, so they mash ideas together, attempting to get ‘the
best of all’ but succeeding in removing the passion and ingenuity of the
artists who first dreamt up new sounds.
In other areas too, it seems we are provided with media of
inadequate creative content. Hollywood movies seem to be packed with special
effects but not much story, Oxford Street shops pull greater numbers of people
in than cultural hotspots such as art galleries or museums (which are mostly free by the way!). The following story
is anecdotal so can be ignored. On a recent trip to central London, I thought
I’d spy what was so great about M&Ms World near Leicester Square. It turns
out it is just a massive sweet shop, selling colourful, round sugar packets.
And it is always busy. The crowds stressed me out. Instead I travelled just
round the corner to the National
Portrait Gallery. Guess what? Peace and quiet! It was, by M&M standards,
empty. A cultural hotspot empty, while a garish, sweet shop was filled to
bursting!
I’m not saying that society already is like that in Brave New World – a key difference is
that we do still have culture, something which has been destroyed in Brave New World. However, it seems
people are happy eating throw away food before going to the cinema to see a
throw away film; while driving home they play throw away music. Maybe we should
start investing a bit more time and effort into both creating and consuming
entertainment. If we start to ignore certain cultural objects they will
disappear and will be gone forever. Either that or just ignore this post: throw
it away…
Comments
In the context of the book though, more "high brow" culture is removed because it would cause dissent and doesn't require large amounts of productivity to produce, Bernard and Mustapha argue about the merits of the masses knowing Shakespeare, for example.
In the contemporary case, however, i think you would have to be particularly paranoid that similar forces are on hand to produce the TV shows we know and "love".
Using Right To Reply as the black annon box in the facebook post, I would just like to point out that I don't think that Brave new world is the best way to run a society. I think it has a lot of appeal to people who would think of themselves as alpha double plusses because they would invariably feel like they've come out on top. I think it also appeals to scientists as well because the whole society seems methodical. I think they're missing the point though because as you see in Mustsapha's monologue at the end true scientific thought is also wiped out because of the societies fear of change.
In conclusion I guess it's good to just leave with a reported Huxley quote from a long time after the initial publication where he stated that he wasn't sure anymore if the book was intended a blueprint, an allegory or a warning.
I think I missed the point I was trying to make with the post. I was trying to argue the negatives as well as the positives for the society in Brave New World. I agree with you that the society in Brave New World appeals to those who believe they would be Alpha-Double-Pluses, but actually wouldn't it also appeal to Deltas and Epsilons? These people are conditioned to be happy with their position in society - without the will to climb the ladder, there is no unhappiness.
But is this unjust? We would argue "Yes" because we see open access as a good thing, but what if you have grown up never wanting to be "higher than your station"?
That said, I also agree that it is not the best way to run a society - it is unjust. I think I should go away and properly conclude what I think of all of this before writing another post :)