I just finished rereading Brave New World for the first time since I first read it 15 or 16 years ago. At the time, along with Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was a huge influence on my thoughts about the world, the probable future, and what literature can do. Now, I feel differently about the work. I am still intrigued by Huxley’s premise and the world he describes. However, I am less enthralled by his execution. Where I once saw foreshadowing and prescience, I now see a lack of vision and presuppositions without obvious or clear reasons for them.
My understanding of the book is much better than it was back then. This is largely because I have read more, in particular Shakespeare, and now get more the references. But it goes beyond fiction. My understanding of Economics and Philosophy is much deeper such that I can call Huxley on what I think is BS as opposed to swallowing it like the young impressionable mind I was. At the same time, I admire his ability to incorporate certain philosophical perspectives into the work. It is likely authors like him who allowed me to recognize my interest in Philosophy in the first place.
One of my major complaints with Brave New World now is that I don’t understand the society he goes to such lengths to show us. Huxley spends the first few chapters detailing the mechanisms of population control, so he clearly thinks this is important. The opening scene is interesting and captivating. I applaud him in his ability to provide background information without using plot disrupting narration or exposition. I particularly like his ability to do so as a means to tangentially introduce us to his major characters. Still, I question its necessity. Huxley tires to provide a world where mankind has no wants, using whatever means necessary. In doing so, he had to first determine what factors make people happy, then he could create a society which caters to those factors. He uses what seems to be a Utilitarian type principle involving happiness, defined as the satisfaction of personal desires, maximization. He adds to this what he could from the Psychology of the day, particularly Pavlov, Konorski (though the dates may line up for his work), and Freud, in order to manufacture human beings that can be happy in a Modern industrialized society.
These beings, perhaps not really human, are genetically spliced, nurtured, and conditioned to love the lot they are given and in no way chosen. Happiness for even the highest caste is hedonistic, associated with sex, games, and artificial mood alterers. Dismissed and disallowed are those goods presented in competing Greek schools such as genuine friendship and study. The Kantian notion of respecting each others’ personhood is absolutely thrown out given the damage done to fetuses so that less capable adults can fulfill needed but undesirable roles in society. Rape also seems to be acceptable in the culture Huxley exposes us to, which would also go against the categorical imperative.
The reduction of happiness to these hedonistic terms makes sense from the perspective of creating a working social order. The means of satisfaction for such reduced standards are easier to produce than for more complex notions of happiness. There is a sense that some (e.g. Helmholtz and Mond) who are granted higher cognitive abilities find these more basic pursuits unsatisfactory. In addition to John’s objections to society’s standards (though his seem largely focused on the openness of sex as well as its emphasis), these characters’ comments serve as a reminder that there can be more to happiness than the fulfilling of base desires. Through Mond, it is hinted that intellectual pursuits can be treated as objects of happiness in the spirit of Aristotle’s 10th book of the Nicomachean Ethics. Helmholtz’s comments point towards a conception of happiness involved with the creation of beauty and works with meaning. He creates books, songs, and films, but recognizes their banality given the restrictions society has placed on them and his own mental capabilities. He desires to create something more meaningful even though his work is considered valuable and important by the world he lives in.
It is unclear what Huxley believes to the the highest good or the greatest conception of happiness, but I do not think it is important that Huxley answers that question. It is sufficient that he at least hints at these other possibilities. If anything, Johns’ emphasis on freedom in his breakdown at the hospital suggests a relativistic position from Huxley; that what is important is to be able to decide for one’s self what happiness is and what pursuits attain it. There may be some tension in placing such a position on Huxley given John’s simultaneous destruction of soma, which others are using to derive their happiness, while preaching about freedom, but I think that such tension is fairly easy to resolve. This is partly because I think it reasonable to believe that under such a conception of the good any option that undermines freedom, even when freely chosen, is illegitimate. Things such as soma do just that, and, if I am using the term correctly, lead to inauthentic being.
While I see what Huxley was pulling from while designing his society, I have a hard time figuring out the structure of it and why certain things are the way they are. Near the beginning of the book there is an explanation of conditioning children to consume, particularly transport and manufactured goods, but there is not a reason for why certain portions of the population need to consume, or possibly over-consume, such goods. Given the extent of the State’s ability to control the size and makeup of the population, why have such a large population in the first place? If it were possible to have a smaller population that does not produce as much of the goods associated with transit but also does not demand as much, either because the population is smaller or because people are now conditioned not to consume so much transit, would that not be better? What purpose is served by having a larger population that is largely placed in lower classes with potentially extraneous jobs? The answer is not clear, but Huxley seems to defend the population size. A little later, Mustapha Mond comments that there are a number of labor saving devices which he and the other controllers refuse to put in place as it would reduce the need for human laborers. Utilizing such devices would only increase the amount of leisure each person had, but they would not be any happier because of it. Here Mond is largely talking about the lower castes who do not have the mental capacity to find interesting and worthwhile tasks to fill their time. Instead they opt for greater doses of soma to escape their dull lives. One solution to this problem would be to manufacture fewer Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons, but Mond does not seem to consider this option, or if he does there must be a reason for his rejection of it. We the reader are left guessing as to what that reason is.
At first I thought the stress on consumption had something to do with capitalist pressures to keep sales up and increase profits. The State’s deifying of Henry Ford, a capitalist entrepreneur, reinforced this thought. But the more the structure of society was revealed, the more plain it became that the State ran a command economy, not a capitalist free market. This idea is backed by the fact that Bernardo’s last name is Marx and thus an obvious reference to communism. The Director also complements a girl, Polly Trotsky, for her name, another communist reference.
Realizing the economy of Huxley’s fictionalized society is State controlled makes an interesting irony apparent. The democratization of society and overthrow of the bourgeois by the proletariat is missing from the society, so it could not be communist in the Marxist sense. Instead there is an entrenchment of classes through the manufacturing of humans at different level of capabilities. What is perhaps most intriguing about this move is it is more in line with policies of Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini rather than those of the aforementioned Marx or Trotsky. By making his fictional State Totalitarian in the same light as Russia and Italy, Huxley is providing a fear inducing account of Totalitarianism before the Second World War. It also predates the rise of Hitler as Brave New World was first published in 1932. I am uncertain of what the general opinion of such states were at the time. Orwell’s more bleak presentation of Totalitarianism is presented after the war and is more frightening in its ability to take away its citizens’ freedom not through the manipulation of each person during development, but through psychological manipulation of adults who are capable of thinking for themselves.
Still, coming to understand the form of government and economy does little to help me discern why there is a need for so many people. The science used to engineer people seems too exact. The controllers theoretically should be able to tweak society to maximize stability like a cook turns a knob on a stove to attain the proper amount of heat.
At one point Mond states that implementing new inventions is subversive. Science can undermine stability. In so far as there are growing pains associated with change, I agree. But the ensuing instability is temporary as a new equilibrium points is reached. During the transition, there would be an increase in unemployment or leisure time, but that would dissipate as the older generation died and there were fewer of the next to fill the same positions. Besides, the effects of increased leisure time as mentioned in regards to a social experiment was increased soma use. Thus it seems that any issues that would arise from decreasing the population size would not be permanently destabilizing. There is no mention of riots or even any intimation that the general population would be aware enough of the changes and their impact to consider such a thing. In the short term there would be a spike in soma usage followed by a slow decline in its use as a new stable point was reached. To extend the cooking analogy I see this as similar to how a pan with boiling liquid in it when turned down from high to low will initially let off a heavy amount of steam but will calm down to a gentle bubbling. The pan ends up with less liquid in it, but the adjustment does not undermine the process or end goal.
Beyond the social order Huxley presents us with, I feel confused by John’s choices and what we are supposed to learn from them. Towards the end of the book, John discusses with Mustapha Mond the role of freedom in society. He agrees with Mond’s point that to champion freedom and some amount of chance is to allow for unhappiness and downright misery. In accepting this possibility I feel like John is set up to become an existential hero, a Nietzschean Übermensch, along the lines of Sartre’s Orestes in The Flies. That is someone who is able to bear the awful truths of life that others try to hide or deny yet still lead a meaningful and happy life. But this is not what Huxley delivers. Instead we catch a glimpse of John’s potential strength in his unconscious singing while working his garden, but it is stripped away by what Nietzsche considered a great sin for higher types who might be able to attain happiness--regret. John resents his own happiness and acts against it through self-flagellation. We, the readers, recognize this as the influence of John’s spiritual upbringing, in particular his familiarity with Christianity.
By using Christianity and its teachings of repentance, what is Huxley aiming at? Is John an oxymoron meant to represent the higher man and his ability to accept the harshness of reality and yet still forge a meaningful, happy life as well as the lower man’s legitimate claim to a less authentic being? Or is the exposure to Christianity meant to demonstrate the difficulty of escaping such ‘sickness’ for higher types? Perhaps I am thinking of the narrative too much through the lens of Nietzsche. Even still, I have a hard time understanding what John represents. How does his connection with spiritual teachings enhance his character or convey anything to the reader besides creating the motivation for his ultimate suicide? What is good about religion that John wants to preserve but cannot?
John’s choice, and ultimate failing, to live in solitude outside of society is also a mystery to me. He takes the lighthouse up as a residence specifically to be away from Modern society, but it is unclear why returning to the reservation is either not an option or one he does not choose. Presumably it is in order to carry out his penance for failing Linda. But why can’t he carry that out at the reservation? Why even stay in the British Isles? Mond apparently would not let him travel to one of the islands of apparent exile with Bernard or Helmholtz, though John wanted to (would he have been able to repent there?). Having been denied, John claims he wants to be alone, but he doesn't explain why. Is he too ashamed of what he has seen and done to return to the reservation? Or does he realize his inability to ever be accepted by the society he longed to be a full member of? What role does he see solitude playing in his new life?
After an initial period of repentance, John busies himself with making his new home self-sustaining. He seems to be moving on, but he won’t let himself forget. He forces himself to remember then repunish. His continued self-imposed punishments eventually bring him attention and force him to deal with the very people and issues he was trying to run away from. This result could have been avoided had he not stayed so close to where he wanted to leave. Was there no where else in the world that offered a pre-built habitat, a resource rich surrounding, and solitude? I doubt it, but it seems possible. Huxley does not provide us with enough information to know for certain. I feel like this is a failing of his. He should provide us more insight as to why John chose where to live.
In the end John is unable to cope with his own actions and the pressures that others place upon him. Yet, Huxley still does not explain the psychological struggles John confronts or how mob mentality is able to coerce John to act against his natural inclinations. Compare Lenina’s attempted seduction with the penultimate scene. In the former, John turns the situation around and admonishes Lenina for her forwardness and promiscuity. But in the later scene, one which Hollywood surely appreciates for its mixing and substitution of sex and violence, John at first rebukes Lenina again, but quickly turns his anger on himself. Things fade to black shortly there after, but we are able to infer that the situation turned towards sex and soma with John taking part. Given John’s displacement of rage on himself in the second scene, it it clear that something has changed with respect to where John thinks blame or admonishment is deserved. But is it meant to show John’s struggle with his own feelings towards Lenina? Does it imply regret for hurting the woman he is still attracted to despite his distaste for her life-style? Or does he link his feelings for Lenina with the death of his mother?
Even without such questions answered, the actions of the crowd and their effects on John baffle me. The members of the crowd chant for the self-inflicted violence and are pleased to see John pick up the whip against Lenina and himself. They soon take up similar actions against themselves due to “. . . that desire for unanimity and atonement, which conditioning had so ineradicably implanted in them . . .” I do not find this action sufficiently set up by Huxley. Of all the conditioning and group activities portrayed in the book, nothing alludes to such a strong desire to follow another’s lead akin to this scene. Instead Huxley provides us with an opposite. When John is at the hospital throwing out soma and shouting about freedom, none of the gathered crowd imitates him. Instead they complain about his actions and demand he stop. In both instances John is acting out in a way that seems contrary to the general populous’s trained behavior, yet in one instance the hive seeks assistance in getting him to stop and in the other they mimic his behavior.
The only thing I recall from the book that may explain the mass violence is what Mond briefly refers to as Violent Passion Surrogate. However, we are not given any details of this program other than it involves chemicals or hormones that are not soma. Thus it is unclear why the spectators reacted in the manner they did. Even less clear is how the violence slips into soma and sex or how the crowds move from aggression to sex causes John to do the same. It seems uncharacteristic of John to do so, and Huxley does not provide us with the necessary insight into the internal struggle John must have been going through to make it believable or even comprehensible by the reader.. What we are left with is a John filled with regret for an action we do not understand why he did in the first place.
The lack of understanding of John’s motivations in these later scenes makes it difficult to understand his role in the work and what the audience is supposed to take away from him. For most of the book John is the foil to the “perfect” Society. He dislikes the parts of civilization that the reader also has a distaste for. John’s way of life on the reservation, while antiquated and a little simplistic for most readers, presents elements that readers are able to identify with. As such we begin to identify with John. I am not certain we are supposed to though. Ultimately his choices lead him to suicide. Is that what God and poetry and freedom lead to? Self-denial and self-flagellation? If that is what spirituality and art have to offer, then Huxley has provided us with a nihilistic nightmare. Understanding the end in this manner is to see life as pointless. It would suggest we cannot escape the dehumanizing effects of society and its use of science, but also that we cannot lead a meaningful life without it. Society and our place in it provides a purpose. Religion offers one as well, but also bestows guilt and regret that undermine our happiness and ability to imagine a fulfilling life. To continue to identify with John through the ending would be to accept life as meaningless. Perhaps that is Huxley’s intention, but I strongly disagree with that position.
Ultimately, I see Brave New World as portraying science in the same vein as Mary Shelley in Frankenstein. The difference being that Huxley takes the mad science and places it into the hands of the State rather than a misguided individual. The takeaway is that science is a tool. Not all of its potential applications are good. Just as a piece of hardware can be used to inflict pain or death upon another, science can be used to negatively affect people. By focusing on the State’s use and misuse of science, Huxley may be suggesting it is society that decides whether a particular scientific application is beneficial or harmful. We the readers are likely disturbed by the manufacturing of humans just as the inhabitants of Brave New World are by the notion of live births and pregnancy. In presenting this possible future, Huxley is warning us away from using science for such applications. However, by failing to provide a protagonist that can lead a meaningful alternative lifestyle Huxley leaves us in the dark as to what moral ground we should stand on in deciding what scientific applications are of value and which should be dismissed. 