Distopia or Utopia?

[Benkay]

Is is really a distopia? Everyone is happy, even the workers. The few suffer, but they are even given their choice of where to go, what to do, how to live their lives, is that a distopia? Don't confuse a society that you don't want to live in, or one that is drastically different from yours, with a society that is perfectly comfortable. And really, is there any 'quiet desperation' about A. Huxley's Brave New World? Of course not. It's a utopia.

[antirem]

The question is, is it living. What if we were to give everyone (cept a few care keepers) frontal lobe lobotomy.. Your now in bliss! Or what of soma. What would it be like if you were constant high your entire life. You would forever be in this blissful high.. but is that living. Neither of the societys are that appealing in the book (i wanna say his revisited edition has a 3rd... havnt read it tho) but i think that we need to find some middle ground. It seemed as if the savage was seeking that throughout the book. (been a while since i read it) the other characters went off to slave labor camps. They wanted to feel the burden of work and wanted to goto somewhere cold cause it was harsher.

If your life was always this bliss you would know neither joy or pain. Since you cant have one without the other. You cannot experience joy without comparing that state to another, worse state. I dont think that is living.

[sparkofinsanity]

I agree with antirem. How can the novel be an utopia? Without feelings, without thought, without any substanial human touch, are you still human? We must understand that without feelings, we are nothing more than just animals, who breed and eat and rule by instinct. Like the 'people' in BNW, they are living in a world of superficial happiness, who have sexual relationships without love, to do anything and everything just to satisfy their pleasures. Is that true happiness?

BNW is clearly a distopia. In fact, I do believe that an utopia is the start of a distopia. Is it not?

[olivia s]

This makes me laugh, because this is a moral stance Trek takes time and time again. Odd reference? I rewatching the original series. Still, it's funny how in the present day we tend to question Kirk/Huxley's wisdom in destroying the computer. Do we really need accomplishment so much, all of us, or do we only want to have good vibes, and never feel sad, anxious or physically uncomfortable? Taking a look at myself, no matter how dissatified I am with the present state of things, I still spend the majority of my time daydreaming and philosophizing, which basically amounts to... doing nothing. While doing away with the metaphoric Man might be appealing - that's exactly the trouble - it's an appealing device but not objectively very useful. I think Huxley is asking a question which addresses our basic insecurities, that being, 'what will you do in your life that will ever be important?', and then misdirecting the anger.

[Mrs. Dalloway]

Well, I think it could not be a utopia... Imagine a world like that! It's not a perfect or ideal world! It's not a society that you would wish or desire. So, because of this it cannot be a utopia. A place without literature or any kind of art, without love (not sex but love), without any consideration of feelings, is not a utopia because it's not ideal. No one should wish it!

Everyone is happy because they were "born" in that society and they don't know anything different. I think the idea or goal of the novel / author is to say to us that our world is going to be like "brave new world" if science or human ambitions continue like this. You know, continuing thinking of money, progression without not taking care of feelings. I think it's a really pesimistic way of think but maybe it's true. Don't you think that in the future our world will be a "Brave New World"?

[Revelation]

There are many things that are interesting about this utopia/dystopia argument. The major problem with the book, however, is how in the savage/controller confrontation, the controller keeps mentioning how much we have to sacrifice for "actual happiness". In reality, it's the redefinition of happiness as "satisfaction" that enables him to say such a thing. Brave new world is simply a place where people are satisfied. I think most people agree that "happiness" is something that transcends pure "satisfaction". And the word "utopia" is based on a place where it is necessary that "happiness" AND "satisfaction" both exist. Hence, by definition, we need to consider this place a non-utopia in that true "happiness" as we define it is not allowed to exist; only "satisfaction", and given that "satisfaction" is not sufficient (only necessary) for a utopia, then it must be a non-utopia. In that actual "happiness" is not allowed to exist, then, this is the definition of a dystopia (whether satisfaction exists or not). So yes, it is a non-utopia, and further, a dystopia, despite the fact that humanity is satisfied, so to speak.

-R

[rein]

i dont think bnw is a dystopia. people are satisfied. id like to point out that happiness is a hormonal level - good levels of seratonin which leads to the feeling of 'happiness'.
im interested in what ppl think happiness is in relation to satisfaction and contentment. you can be satisfied but not content.

is the presence of misery or sadness crucial to living? im guessing this is meant as 'living' in human form as ants 'live'.

is the presenced of sadness crucial to recognise happiness?

all i can say is i wouldnt complain if i lived in that world. i guess the question is whether we had the choice available to be able to complain when they were so drugged up.

[gwfhegel]

Revelation is on the mark: think about the differences among satisfaction, pleasure, and happiness.

And, to take a different angle, go back to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, where mankind must choose between happiness (satisfaction) and freedom.

Either approach turns BNW into a dystopia, even if (especially because) one where our immediate needs are satisfied.....

[blank_frackis]

It's not as simple as that though, is it? The savage world is just as dystopian (or it would be if it didn't mirror our own society) as the brave new world. In the savage's world you're neither satisfied nor are you happy. The novel is decidedly ambiguous because many of the elements Huxley writes about he wants to satire - that everything is geered towards consumption, is supposed to satire American society for instance - whilst many of the other elements Huxley himself advocated in the 1930's. For example, it doesn't take an extensive knowledge of his personal views to know where soma comes from and that he viewed drugs such as mescaline (and soma essentially comes across as mescaline removed of its side effects) as not only desirable, but a fundamental requirement of a healthy society. He's also known to have advocated eugenics as a means to achieve social stability, though admittedly he takes the eugenic solution to extremes in the novel.

It seems obvious to me that his creation is as much a utopia as it is a dystopia. You can search for some grand meaning behind the ambiguity, but to be perfectly honest I don't think there is one and we'd be better served just to enjoy the story as it is.

[Jantex]

Utopia and Antiutopia are one and the same thing, it only depends on the point of view! :idea:

[dramasnot6]

Brave New World, I believe, presents a dystopia within a utopia in the construction of the native american settlement. Theirs is a dystopic world,where as those who live the way the protagonist does consider their world to be utopia.

[quoththeraven98]

Is is really a distopia? Everyone is happy, even the workers. The few suffer, but they are even given their choice of where to go, what to do, how to live their lives, is that a distopia? Don't confuse a society that you don't want to live in, or one that is drastically different from yours, with a society that is perfectly comfortable. And really, is there any 'quiet desperation' about A. Huxley's Brave New World? Of course not. It's a utopia.

Yes, but what of the so called "savages" are they happy, healthy, given the choice of where to go or what to do? No they are repressed. And why? Because they are diffrent, they think for themselves wich makes them a threat. Truly, I agree that one cannot call it a distopia simply because it is a world that i would not want to live in. But, I cannot agree that it is a utopia just because the repressors are happy.

[Oli]

It is a dystopia; the people have no thoughts, no morals, no sense of love or friendship, everything is synthetic and false. They believe soma and the feelies make them happy when in actual fact it is false. The people have no freedom - born into slavery or stupidity or prejudice. No one is unique. Everything is useful and efficient - never beautiful. It's a truely horrifying world and in some ways worse than 1984