1984 and Brave New World

[Vassoul]

I am new to this forum. While I read some literature in high school, college and law school have prevented much leisure time to allow any serious reading. I recently began listening to some books on tape to offset this lack of leisure time. The last two books I "read" were 1984 and Brave New World, back to back.

The people I talk to on a daily basis either have not read these books, or haven't read them in years. In both cases, they aren't really prepared or willing to talk about themes or details. The result is that I have had only limited opportunity to debrief myself on the ideas the authors presented and compare/contrast their views.

What did you think that the books were about? What are the similarities and differences between the themes?

Thanks.

-Vassoul

[Sitaram]

I am now age 55. I read Brave New World and 1984 early in high school. I enjoyed them immensely. How vividly I remember the New Year's eve when it actually turned 1984. In the 1960's, the date 1984 still seemed somewhat futuristic.

As an adolescent, when, in Brave New World, mention was made of the drug "soma" (a gram is better than a damn), I simply assumed that the word soma came from the Greek word for "body" (from which we get the word somatic). Only in middle age, when I became more familiar with writings from India, especially the Vedas, did I realize that soma was a reference to the mysterious beverage with unknown properties, worshiped in the ancient Sanskrit Vedas, as well as in the Zoroastrian Avestas (under the name Haoma).

Of course, one must take into consideration the origin of the title for "Brave New World", which comes, I believe, from Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, from a line spoken by Miranda (whose name means "wonder") where she says "Oh, Brave New World which has such people in it" and the reply she received was "It is new to THEE."

I shall post this now, since my time is rather limited and interrupted, but I shall add to this thread later.

++++++++++++++++

added 12/23/2004 at 5:45pm east coast time:

Actually, these two books, which one might call "eutopian" novels, are
wonderful to contrast.

The word "eutopia" comes from the Greek "eu" meaning "good" and
"topos" meaning "place"


Give the fact that both novels describe a kind of idealized state or
society, it would be beneficial to speak somewhat about different
notions of society and government over the ages. Many readers will
perhaps feel such an overview boring and extranneous, but I think it
is essential to lay some foundation for our discussion of our
understanding of monarchy, communism and capitalism and the history of
the world for the past several centuries.


Eutopias are the human attempt to devise a society and government and
culture which will provide a "good place" to live. We have come to
think of the word "eutopia" as denoting not simple a "good" but an
"ideal" society, and there is always a hint of the notion that such an
idea is unreachable.

Socrates said that all people seek the good. Even a Hitler acts with
the purpose of achieving what Hitler sees as good. We all desire good
and happiness but we all disagree upon what constitutes goodness and
happiness and we disagree on the correct method to achieve it.

Plato's Republic starts out as a discussion of the human soul, and
what constitutes a good happy, life. Plato then makes the suggestion
that a society of people is like a "soul written large", that a soul
is a microcosm of the state or society while the state is a macrocosm
of the soul.

I once searched the internet for a comparison of Locke and Hobbes and
found an excellent page with a chart showing the difference between
the two thinkers.

Hobbes states on the first page of his "Leviathan" that "if people
were angels there would be no need for government."

Hobbes sees human nature as basically corrupt, and therefore in need
of control by a monarch. Locke, by contrast, sees human nature as an
admixture of good and evil, and capable of self-government.

Hobbes argued that morality and justice did not exist in the state of
nature, and that they do not exit for sovereigns, who remain in the
state of nature with regard to their subjects and other sovereigns.

Locke argued that a basic awareness of justice is present even in the
state of nature, and that sovereigns, no less than their subjects, can be held
to a moral standard.


In Hobbes' conception of human nature, we are leads to an either/or:
either we enjoy freedom from society and its laws - resulting in
chaos; or we give up this freedom for an authoritarian
regime - and enjoy a social order established by force.

If Locke is right - if human beings are naturally rational. social,
and thus capable of self-rule - then we don't need an authoritarian
regime to save us from ourselves

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sitaram/message/1152

Locke sees human nature as both rational and desire-driven; both
social (altruistic, other-regarding) and self-interested.

Hobbes sees human nature as atomistic, with self-interest only, and
desire-driven.

Locke defines freedom as liberty, a positive freedom, a freedom
through reason to determine one's own ends/goals and rules as means
of achieving these; as distinct from license, which is negative
freedom only.

Hobbes recognizes negative freedom only, a freedom from constraint,
freedom to fulfill one's desires, whatever they may be.

Locke sees human beings are naturally rational, capable of discerning
the natural laws and rights which lead to "peaceful coexistence" in
natural societies prior to the establishment of political institutions

Hobbes sees human nature only as individual self-interest, and freedom
only as fulfillment of individual desire, in competition, the war of
each against all, in which life is "nasty, brutish, and
short."

Locke envisions Democratic institutions justified as they emerge from
the "consent of the governed" -- i.e., they preserve human nature as
rational freedom, and they serve as the arena in which human beings,
defined as capable of self-rule can exercise that self-rule - and thus
remain human.


Hobbes prefers Authoritarian institutions justified as the absolute
power of the sovereign is needed to impose civil society on a human
nature otherwise necessarily driven to the war of each against all.


I suppose we might say that George Orwell's 1984 society is in a
rather obvious fashion Hobbesian society taken to the extreme, while

Huxley's "Brave New World" in a somewhat less obvious fashion, is a
Lockean/Jeffersonian world taken to an extreme (though I may well be
mistaken in this and invite others to rebuttal.)

I must really go back soon and re-read these two novels. Over the
weekend I shall read through the spark notes which are free and
usually excellent.

[trismegistus]

Good comparitive reads! Two dystopias at opposite ends of the spectrum. For me, Huxley ended up being more visionary than Orwell. Even with advances in technology, the world of 1984 is simply too hard to build and maintain. Orwell's vision of an autocratic state gone wild seemed valid when the USSR was at the height of its power and the West lived on perpetual guard against the spies of the Red Menace. Turns out that people will only take oppression for so long. Russia's soviet State collapsed, and even in China, where a very powerful central government still exists, the free market has been adopted by the government out of simple economic necessity. Where the free market exists, the free exchange of ideas is inevitable. Although it would be denied in Beijing, a proper socialist government (with all the associated freedoms) is China's destiny - unless it chooses to be a second rate nation like, say, North Korea.

Add to that the coordination necessary between the three Superstates in 1984 - a level of coordination and mutual trust that is effectively impossible in our world - and you have a wonderful cautionary tale, but little to really fear.

But Huxley realized that one can be made to love one's captivity rather than hate and fear it. If we brought Huxley back and showed him designer drugs he'd laugh. If we showed him how the mass media has channeled the West (particularly America) into the very consumer culture of Brave New World he'd frown. If we showed him the current state of genetic manipulation, he'd probably cry.

We're finding more and more means to distract ourselves and make ourselves happy, and when the central government can find the means to make, say, 90% of the people happy, that government wins. People will be pleased to give up art, philosophy, and the rest of it in the name of personal satisfaction and the achievement (not the pursuit) of happiness.

[Vassoul]

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

[tokyorose]

Hello
I am 16 a and in highschool we read Brave New World in September although not for my first time. The first time I read BNW I understood not the depth and meaning behind this dystopian novel. 2 months after reading BNW I chose to read 1984 in my own time. At first 1984 furiated me beyond belief, the tragedy in losing mind, thought, love and soul.. AH anyways I compared the two novels right away. Love to talk about this more thoroughly but I am in class.. if you liked BNW & 1984 read A Clockwork Orange.

[Vassoul]

Tokyorose, I look forward to the thoughts you may have on this topic. Interesting that you were most outraged by 1984. For me, BNW was the more thought provoking of the two.

Trismegistus capsulized my feelings on BNW by saying "[O]ne can be made to love one's captivity rather than hate and fear it." By molding the behavior of the population wielding the hammer of thought crime and the Ministry of Love, a certain level of transgression has been brought to bear by society. To me, by molding the behavior of the population by dominating their mind and behavior... that is the ultimate transgression against the person. What do you think?

[crisaor]

Why not make people ignore their cage rather than making them love it? It is, of course, less eficient, but much more easier to carry out, and thus, more plausible, specially in these says. You have to be inside a cage before you start loving it IMO. As long as people are distracted by things such as patriotism, fame, success, religion, morals, etc., and fail to see things for what they are, things can easily take a bleak path, if they haven't already.

[trismegistus]

Why not make people ignore their cage rather than making them love it? ... as long as people are distracted by things such as patriotism, fame, success, religion, morals, etc., and fail to see things for what they are, things can easily take a bleak path, if they haven't already.

The last of those things are nominal distractions at best. They can even be very damaging to a government like those of BNW and 1984. Religion and morals demand that we examine ourselves and our conduct; this is exactly what a government should STOP people from doing if it's to really run their lives. Life should be reduced from thinking to feeling. This is the problem with patriotism, too. If we're to celebrate ourselves as a people, we can only do so by comparing ourselves to another people. That's what patriotism/nationalism are. Ultimately patriotism is an analytical act because it demands the patriot say: "You have this but we have that. Therefore we are better. Go team!" In this respect patriotism is a dead end. No thinking! Sensation only is what we want!

With fame and success you've really nailed it, but Huxley has those in his world. Those are the "feelies." In the feelie you become the star of the film. You are the center of that little universe. (In a sense their entire lives are run this way. If they have a desire it's gratified almost instantly. Everyone is, as Bernard Marx says, infantile. Each citizen is the warm center of his own existence, and everything is arranged to insure that he never need think beyond his own self.)

I really think that you're in agreement with Huxley, crisaor. When people love their cage, ignoring it is exactly what they do. Better yet, they choose to no longer see it as a cage. THAT'S efficiency because although we might try to distract people from the outside (with all those things you mention), it is inevitable that at times they simply cannot be distracted. Something else external will intrude. It's far better to have them ELECT to not see. Making them blind is more effective them making them look in a different direction.

Winston Smith was right. The proles are the hope. The government of Big Brother tried distraction through pop entertainment, the Two-Minute Hate, the common enemy, cheap booze, etc. Ultimately the proles would rise. All we need do is look at Soviet Russia and Soviet China to see this.

[crisaor]

The last of those things are nominal distractions at best. They can even be very damaging to a government like those of BNW and 1984. Religion and morals demand that we examine ourselves and our conduct; this is exactly what a government should STOP people from doing if it's to really run their lives. Life should be reduced from thinking to feeling. This is the problem with patriotism, too. If we're to celebrate ourselves as a people, we can only do so by comparing ourselves to another people. That's what patriotism/nationalism are. Ultimately patriotism is an analytical act because it demands the patriot say: "You have this but we have that. Therefore we are better. Go team!" In this respect patriotism is a dead end. No thinking! Sensation only is what we want!

Trismegistus, I'd like to know the religious and patriotic people you know, because the ones I know are nothing alike. Moral is not used as self-examination, you should know it. A guy shows up on TV and he says that he's moral, that he's a religious person, and people believe it, no matter what his actual actions are; there is no stop and examination. Patriotism doesn't consist in comparing to others, because chances are, you'll probably lose in several categories. It consists in proclaiming that you're better, that you're superior, simply because you are yourself, there's no need for evidence, and it is preferrable that there isn't any. It's a series of lies you feed yourself or that you're fed, to put it bluntly.

I really think that you're in agreement with Huxley, crisaor. When people love their cage, ignoring it is exactly what they do. Better yet, they choose to no longer see it as a cage. THAT'S efficiency because although we might try to distract people from the outside (with all those things you mention), it is inevitable that at times they simply cannot be distracted. Something else external will intrude. It's far better to have them ELECT to not see. Making them blind is more effective them making them look in a different direction.

That I do. I really like Huxley, and I liked BNW far more than 1984. But I don't exactly agree with this. Most of the people DIDN'T ELECT to not see the cage. The majority was conditioned from the very beginning, and simply refrained to do what the rest of the world did. There was no conscious behaviour in this (that would have been the moment in which the current state of things in BNW was first implemented). Only the Savage and the Controller are really aware of the implications of the world's situation. Not even Marx is fully free of the conditioning.

Winston Smith was right. The proles are the hope. The government of Big Brother tried distraction through pop entertainment, the Two-Minute Hate, the common enemy, cheap booze, etc. Ultimately the proles would rise. All we need do is look at Soviet Russia and Soviet China to see this.

I see your point. But those are very rough examples. The soviet Russia was never a coherent state throughout its existance. Granted, there was a prole uprising, yes, but after a while, things changed in order to remain the same, if you get my meaning. I can hardly see a difference between Stalin and the zares, except maybe the amount of sheer terror. A similar thing could be applied to China, with and without Mao. Also, what about the rest of the countries in which it would be logical to expect an uprising but it doesn't/didn't happen? If I were to say, these are the vast majority, but the system manages to perpetuate by mutating slightly. The feeling I got after reading 1984 is that the proles would never revolt if it depended on themselves ("Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.") O'Brien never had any problems with the proles, it was the rebellious party members like Winston who presented any kind of resistance. IMHO, in today's world, seeing something like the Bolchevik revolution is utopian, in the literary sense of the term.

[trismegistus]

Moral is not used as self-examination, you should know it. A guy shows up on TV and he says that he's moral, that he's a religious person, and people believe it, no matter what his actual actions are; there is no stop and examination.

No I disagree with that sharply. History is ripe with televangelist types who have crusaded on marality only to later be disgraced when the true nature of their actions is revealed. Don't get me wrong, anyone can choose to reduce moralism to simple preaching, but then of course you're not talking about morality any more; you're talking about propaganda. This is also why I was careful to say they CAN be damaging to a government. It's not a lock that it will damage a government, but there are better ways of fixing people into modes of behavior.

Patriotism doesn't consist in comparing to others, because chances are, you'll probably lose in several categories. It consists in proclaiming that you're better, that you're superior, simply because you are yourself, there's no need for evidence, and it is preferrable that there isn't any. Patriotism doesn't consist in comparing to others, because chances are, you'll probably lose in several categories.

Again we disagree. Look at the Right's campaign this past Fall. Over and over again they justified their war against Islam by saying Islamic fundamentalists "hate us for our freedoms and our lifestyle." Bush delievered this exact line over and over in his speeches. That is nothing BUT comparing ourselves to the Other, and claiming that we're better through the comparison. The West justified its imperialism by stating that it was bring the "blessings" of civilization.

Patriotism can not exist without an external power to measure yourself against. The government of Big Brother understands this which is why there's ALWAYS a war on, and what you say about comparing yourself to others is true, and it's exactly why patriotism is a poor second choice to other methods of coercion/persuasion.

Most of the people DIDN'T ELECT to not see the cage. The majority was conditioned from the very beginning, and simply refrained to do what the rest of the world did. There was no conscious behaviour in this (that would have been the moment in which the current state of things in BNW was first implemented).

When given a choice they always choose personal gratification. Many have the chance to see the world in a different way. Marx, John, and Watson all try to show people that there's something more than infantilism. (Presumably others in the past who have been banished to places like Iceland have done the same.)Now if you wish to argue that the masses are conditioned such that they can choose nothing BUT gratification of the senses I won't argue that, but that's blindness not distraction, and that's my point. It's far better to blind people to the cage than to distract them from looking at it with glittery things like "patriotism" and "religion."

The soviet Russia was never a coherent state throughout its existance. Granted, there was a prole uprising, yes, but after a while, things changed in order to remain the same, if you get my meaning. I can hardly see a difference between Stalin and the zares, except maybe the amount of sheer terror.

I'm not sure what you mean in saying that Soviet Russia was never a coherent state. That aside though, when I speak of a prole uprising, I'm not referring to the revolution that removed one autocracy (Czarism) and replaced it with another (Stalinism). I'm talking about Russia's current movement away from autocracy and into a free market and democracy.

A similar thing could be applied to China, with and without Mao.

You see the same move toward the free market in China. As I've said elsewhere, China's destiny is as a socialist state. It's already moving that way, and unless it wishes to be a permanent second-rate nation by turning a significant portion of its GNP towards internal security, it has no choice but to eventually accept greater voice from its citizenry.

This is the choice that all States must accept, and it's where Orwell missed the boat. The resources and energy involved in maintaining a system of security as tight as that in 1984 are such that a superstate could not exist as such. North Korea is probably the most tightly locked-down nation in the world at this point, but they are a second rate power in everything except military might. (And even there they are nowhere close to the superpower status of the US or China.) And if you're always choosing guns over butter because you must in order to monitor and suppress your own populace, it's inevitable that you will eventually run short of butter, thus fomenting the very insurrection you were working so hard to prevent.

The only way the three governments of 1984 work in controlling the world as tightly as they do, is that they all function identically, and there's a tacit agreement between them to maintain the status quo. Without that level of cooperation, things fall apart, and that level of cooperation will never exist outside of fiction.

Also, what about the rest of the countries in which it would be logical to expect an uprising but it doesn't/didn't happen?

I'd say two things:
1. Where are these countries now? What current examples are you offering?
2. Are any of them first-rate powers? How many of them are even second-world powers? This is the guns-and-butter problem.

The feeling I got after reading 1984 is that the proles would never revolt if it depended on themselves ("Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.") O'Brien never had any problems with the proles, it was the rebellious party members like Winston who presented any kind of resistance.

Oh I agree there. This is why I say that Huxley's understanding of the world, and especially of human nature, is better than Orwell's. Orwell believed the proles would never rise. Current history in the very countries on which he modeled his world is showing that he was wrong.

[crisaor]

No I disagree with that sharply. History is ripe with televangelist types who have crusaded on marality only to later be disgraced when the true nature of their actions is revealed. Don't get me wrong, anyone can choose to reduce moralism to simple preaching, but then of course you're not talking about morality any more; you're talking about propaganda.

Yes, some of them were disgraced, but some were not. And even at some point, even the first ones succedeed. When one of this fellas appears, nobody does a background check on him, they just assume he's telling the truth. Also, I was thinking more politically, as in the last elections, but I don't want to go in much detail for obvious reasons.

Again we disagree. Look at the Right's campaign this past Fall. Over and over again they justified their war against Islam by saying Islamic fundamentalists "hate us for our freedoms and our lifestyle." Bush delievered this exact line over and over in his speeches. That is nothing BUT comparing ourselves to the Other, and claiming that we're better through the comparison. The West justified its imperialism by stating that it was bring the "blessings" of civilization.

Ah, but where's the proof that "we" are the civilised ones and "they" are the savages, the enemies? no one stops to think about this, because if they did, they'd realise it's wrong. The comparison is only for verbal justification, it never takes actual place in the mind.

Patriotism can not exist without an external power to measure yourself against. The government of Big Brother understands this which is why there's ALWAYS a war on, and what you say about comparing yourself to others is true, and it's exactly why patriotism is a poor second choice to other methods of coercion/persuasion.

I wish I could agree. Unluckily, I've seen the patriotic flag issued too many times for my liking, so I can't say it's right.

When given a choice they always choose personal gratification. Many have the chance to see the world in a different way. Now if you wish to argue that the masses are conditioned such that they can choose nothing BUT gratification of the senses I won't argue that, but that's blindness not distraction, and that's my point. It's far better to blind people to the cage than to distract them from looking at it with glittery things like "patriotism" and "religion."

I agree with this, but I don't consider them to be opposite things. In fact, one condition could be easily derived from the other, which is why I'm reluctant to what you think are "poor second choices of coertion". I see them far too much to give them little credit. Where could be the starting point for massive and effective coertion/manipulation if not in these "glittery things"?

I'm not sure what you mean in saying that Soviet Russia was never a coherent state. That aside though, when I speak of a prole uprising, I'm not referring to the revolution that removed one autocracy (Czarism) and replaced it with another (Stalinism). I'm talking about Russia's current movement away from autocracy and into a free market and democracy.

I meant that it wasn't an actual government with a planned strategy. They just went along making changes during the way. For example, the NEP period could hardy be compared to the War Communism, for instance (I apologise if these terms seem odd, but that's what we call them here, I'd gladly clarify if you need me to). I misunderstood your point, but even in that scenario, I don't think it would be appropriate to call it a prole uprising. It was practically "forced" to people, as in: 'The old regime is over, now go out and play'. And people did just that. Not everyone is thankful that the old regime is over, mostly those that are left out of the actual one.

You see the same move toward the free market in China. As I've said elsewhere, China's destiny is as a socialist state. It's already moving that way, and unless it wishes to be a permanent second-rate nation by turning a significant portion of its GNP towards internal security, it has no choice but to eventually accept greater voice from its citizenry.

This is wishful thinking. I don't see that transition as clearly as you do, there's just no signs. Claiming that there isn't any other choice but to care for the people isn't going to make it happen.

This is the choice that all States must accept, and it's where Orwell missed the boat. The resources and energy involved in maintaining a system of security as tight as that in 1984 are such that a superstate could not exist as such. North Korea is probably the most tightly locked-down nation in the world at this point, but they are a second rate power in everything except military might. (And even there they are nowhere close to the superpower status of the US or China.) And if you're always choosing guns over butter because you must in order to monitor and suppress your own populace, it's inevitable that you will eventually run short of butter, thus fomenting the very insurrection you were working so hard to prevent.

I would say that the US is it, not North Korea. Of course, they don't run out butter because they use their guns to get it (*ahem*). And there can be no insurrection if the people aren't conscious, which I believe they aren't.

I'd say two things:
1. Where are these countries now? What current examples are you offering?
2. Are any of them first-rate powers? How many of them are even second-world powers? This is the guns-and-butter problem.

Take any country that has been spoiled by neoliberalism. Clearly, there's plenty of motives for a uprising (this would be Marx's old advise that capitalism itself creates the conditions to destroy it): unemployment, hunger, lack of health care, lack of security, etc. But still, nothing happens. Take a look at Latin America, for instance. And it's not like they're spending their money in arms or anything. People just aren't aware in the full sense of the term, just like in BNW or 1984.

[Taliesin]

I'm talking about Russia's current movement away from autocracy and into a free market and democracy.

Is this irony or sarcasm or something? You mean the current movement towards democracy and away from autocracy? Õumaigaad.
Like, current? Do We understand you correctly that the current Putin-regime.., khm sorry, happily blooming democracy, is moving towards democracy? Away from authocracy? (and by that you don't mean that away towards totalitarism)

Do you really mean it?

EDIT:Sorry, got carried away a bit. Well there's always the PM

[Logos]

A friendly Mod reminder here that current politics are not supposed to be discussed on these forums.

[vincentchn]

i read the novel too,it's masterpiece.for me, i live in 1984.i experience 1984.which any of you can,t believe that

[imthefoolonthehill]

thanks for the reminder Logos, it was well deserved.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...549840173&rd=1

some bottled oxygen for those long-winded conversations... you can talk longer with these and not even have to stop and breathe...

hey... why don't you guys take up some foreign languages? you might as well be talking in korean and french and russian all at the same time for the amount you listen to each other.

1984 and brave new world are both marvelous books that deserve in depth analyses and discussion. However, cheap shots and mindless arguing (while exceedingly fun for those of you with nothing better to do) are not cordial or acceptable behaviour.

It all depends upon the spirit in which the subject is being argued, and politics and the state of the pressent world are two subjects that are rarely discussed in the spirit that is desired at this web page. Don't like it? Go get a blog and cry yourself a river.