Published in 1932, some 17 years prior to the release of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World presented British writer Aldous Huxley's disturbing vision of the future of England.
Relax: we are not going to read the novel; however, we are going to discuss its depiction of the future.
Let our man Sparky Sweets get us up to speed:
Interestingly enough, Huxley was briefly Orwell's French teacher. Perhaps this prompted George to send him a copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Huxley, impressed by the novel yet eager for a discussion, sent the following letter to George:
Wrightwood. Cal.
21 October, 1949
Dear Mr. Orwell,
It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals ~ the ultimate revolution?
The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution ~ the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology ~ are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.
The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful.
My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.
Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government.
Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud's inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism.
This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.
The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war ~ in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.
Thank you once again for the book.
Yours sincerely,
Aldous Huxley
- Whose view of the future is more accurate?
Wow. So essentially, these two men had totally opposite views on similar points? That's incredibly fascinating, especially as Mr. Huxley had taught Mr. Orwell (well, French) for a time.
ReplyDeleteBased on your post alone, Mr. Clark, I have to disagree on his view of the future. "The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency" - while it does take less effort to give people too much, convincing them that they have everything that they could ever want in order to control them (especially through hypnosis), Mr. Huxley even admits that it is a "wasteful" method to govern the people. It would be too taxing in resources to allow his way for the future to occur forever. As for child conditioning, I think both methods - Mr. Huxley's and Mr. Orwell's - would end up with similar results. One is just more immediate than the other, but that doesn't mean it is more efficient; you have to keep up the illusion forever just as much as you would in Mr. Orwell's vision.
However, just as much as I disagree with Mr. Huxley, I would also disagree with Mr. Orwell's vision for the future, too. It's interesting; while it saves resources, it does take more effort in forcing people to bend to their will (through pain and force). But whereas Brave New World gave too much, 1984 grants too little; people will want more from life, just as Winston did. people will grow ever more curious.
The problem that I have with both views is that they are both too extreme. While both of the ways that are presented to control others are effective, as the stories show, it's blatantly clear that one gives too much and one takes away too much. There are people who will never be satisfied with either way - the Winstons and Bernards/Johns of the world. They will want the freedom and liberty to do as they like. While one might argue that Bernard/John and Winston ultimately loses their battle against nonconformity, I would argue that it was because people like them were too little in number in the setting that they are in. The main characters of both novels are clearly going against something that is much bigger than they are. In the real world, I think there would be many more Winstons and Johns/Bernards fighting for what they believe in, just as they are being pushed back by the Party/Big Brothers of the world (as well as their supporters, like Brian, or Parson's kids). No, if there would ever be a future similar to either novel, it would have to be a mix of both.
The quote "Everything in moderation" comes to mind, which I think represents the problem with both authors' ideologies seen in their respective novels. Neither view of the future is moderate; one is too excessive, and one is too little. It's like giving a child some chips, candy, soda, etc. You wouldn't want him/her to have too much, but you do want him/her to have some.
Delete