What
is a utopian society? The Encyclopedia
Britannica describes a utopia as “an ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist
under seemingly perfect conditions, (britannica.com).” If we lived under perfect conditions, people
would be happy, there would be no sadness, no hunger, no wars, and everyone would
have jobs. The world would be perfect. Conversely, a dystopia is defined as “a society
characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and
overcrowding, (dictionary.com).” Suzanne
Collin’s The Hunger Games is a
dystopian society. Moreover, most people
consider Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World
a dystopia. However, Huxley’s seemingly dystopian
society is actually a utopia for the people living in it.
One
reason why Brave New World is a
utopia is because the people are happy.
They have everything they will ever need right at their fingertips. No pleasure is denied them. However, it is human nature to become angry
every now in then. Therefore, if they
aren’t happy, they take soma. The people
love how they live, and they wouldn’t want to live any other way. One can see this when Lenina and Bernard go
to the Savage Reservation. Lenina refers
to the reservation as “queer” and says “I don’t like it” repeatedly throughout
the visit. The Savage Reservation
represents our society, which they find repulsive and messy. They don’t understand why someone would
choose to live in a place where there is unhappiness and disease, and they
consider the words “mother” and “father” curse words. For them, their society is perfect just the
way it is.
Another
reason why Lenina’s society is a utopia is because everyone has a job, knows
exactly what they are supposed to do, and are happy doing it. One of the biggest worries in our society is
what to do with our lives. Should we go
to this college? Should we major in this
career? Will we ever be able to find
jobs? In Brave New World, they are
created specifically for a particular role.
They always know what they are supposed to do. For example, the embryos destined to be
rocket engineers were kept in constant rotation “to improve their sense of
balance.” They begin to give people the
knowledge and skills necessary to do well in their particular careers from
their creation. They never worry about
finding their jobs, or if they have the skills to do the job. They are completely carefree.
One
of the main reasons why Brave New World
is considered a dystopian society is because of the brainwashing. It is morally wrong to brainwash people into
thinking a particular way. It takes away
their free will. However, our world today
is striving for world peace, a world without war or poverty or thefts or
crimes. Isn’t that our version of a utopia? Isn’t that Huxley’s society? Putting religion aside, would it even be
possible for us to create a utopia without brainwashing the people? It’s human nature to complain and be unhappy. Without conditioning, there would always be
people who would cause discord and violence.
Thus, I argue that the government in Brave
New World determined to condition people at an early age in order to
achieve perfection and happiness for the human race, to achieve a utopian
society. I’m not saying that I approve
of brainwashing. Unfortunately, in this
society, it seems to be a necessary evil.
Because of the conditioning, there seems to be no criminal
activities. There are no wars, no murders,
no rapes. People are genuinely
happy.
Utopia
means literally in Greek “no place.” We
obviously do not live in a utopia. Because
of this, our judgment is affected. We
insist that the society in Brave New
World is dystopian. However, the
folks in Brave New World are
happy. There is no overcrowding, they
aren’t miserable, and diseases have (for the most part) been eradicated. Once again, they are happy. They don’t see anything wrong with their
society. The ultimate question begging
to be asked is this: Is the society in Brave
New World really evil, or are we ourselves conditioned to think that?
"Dystopia."
Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dystopia?s=t>.
"Utopia
(ideal Community)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia
Britannica, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620755/utopia.>.
Rebecca, I really enjoyed reading your post. I like the point you made that everyone in the society is completely care free. In the next paragraph you claim that people are genuinely happy. Do you think they are really genuinely happy or do you think they are forced to be happy through their conditioning? Why would they need soma if they are genuinely happy? I think perhaps they are conditioned to believe that they should always be happy but they aren't genuinely happy. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteAmy, i think that if you ask them, they will probably tell you that they are. They dont know any better because they were conditioned since little, bring happy for them is just like breathing, they think that soma helps them out to not deal with unpleasant feelings and they also see conditioning as a good thing. Honetly, if you ask me i dont think they are genuinely happy because they don't have free will, they are not allow to explore and try or learn new things. happiness comes from enjoying little things, from having feelings towards someone and from realizing how well you have done after overcoming an obstacle. They dont go throught hard times, they dont have real relationships that fulfill them, so i dont think they really know what happiness is.
ReplyDeleteTati, I agree with you that if the citizens of London were asked if they were happy they would tell you that they are. I also agree with both you and Amy that the citizens of London are not genuinely happy. Anyone who differs from the society, such as Bernard and Helmholtz, are sent off to an island. Both Bernard and Helmholtz were not happy and expressed their emotions in ways considered inappropriate by the society. Happiness is expected, not conditioned, in the society and the citizens know that if they are not happy and are not “following” the rules of society they will be punished just as Bernard and Helmholtz. You mention in your response that the citizens do not go through hardships and do not have real relationships. I disagree; a good example is Lenina and the hardship of the “relationship” with John. Towards the end of the novel, Lenina and Henry Foster go to see John along with the other citizens. “Her [Lenina] blue eyes seemed to grow larger, brighter; and suddenly two tears rolled down her cheeks” (Huxley 229). If the citizens did not have relationships and hardships, how is it that Lenina is crying for John?
ReplyDeleteKelly, although I see where you are coming from, I honestly don’t think she had a relationship with John, it seems to me she just wanted to have sex and that is it, she freaked out when he asked her about marriage. I think if she would have any feelings for John she would have stayed with him when she found him. For me those tears, seemed more like she was sorry, also could had been she just didn’t like to see him hitting himself with the whip just how she didn’t like it the first time she saw it on the Savage Reservation. She would have probably taken some soma if she could, to make herself stop crying, the people from London don't like dealing with feelings like that. But your interpretation could be right too, I just don’t like Lenina character very much.
DeleteKelly, I really like what you said about Lenina and John. You have to remember that John is not from that culture. I think that maybe Lenina feels sadness and love (to an extent) for John because of who he is. John isn't conditioned, so he can feel, and even though Lenina has been conditioned, I think that maybe John's ability to feel sadness and real love has rubbed off on Lenina. One thing about conditioning is that it can be reversed. John reversed Helmholtz's thinking. Even though Helmholtz was already beginning to think differently, he was helped to completely break out by John's ideas. When I first read the novel, I kept thinking that there was going to be a rebellion, and John and Helmholtz would lead it. Do you think that rebellion is still possible?
ReplyDeleteRebecca, I think that there could always be a chance for a rebellion. It seems that there will always be the minimal few who do feel differently than the society, in this case Helmholtz and John. At the beginning of the novel I would have included Bernard in this list but if he had the chance to be a part of the community he willingly would so I feel he doesn’t belong in the same category as Helmoltz and John. Anyway, if individuals keep developing feelings different from the society, like the ones sent to Ireland, there is always a chance that a rebellion may occur. Also, you never know if Lenina or any other character might have a change of heart and choose to not subdue their feelings with soma but actually try to make a change. There are endless possibilities for what could happen.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking of this same concept for the people sent to Ireland. I don't think all of them would completely agree so could they even be a division within the outcasts that may cause a rebellion?
Brandi, that's excellent! I hadn't thought about there being friction between the people sent to Iceland. But that would make sense. It's much harder to rebel if you are fighting amongst yourself. That could potentially be why they haven't rebelled yet. Although, I think it could be possible for them to decide to unite under a common enemy, like the government, and rebel. I find myself hoping that this happens shortly after Helmoltz arrives in Iceland. But, that might be wishful thinking on my part!
DeleteRebecca, I like your comparison of our society today to the one in the Savage Reservation.
DeleteBrandi, I agree the possiblities are endless on what the outcome could be from not only because of Linda showing emotion when she saw John but also as a result of Helmholtz going to Iceland. Do you guys think the end of the story was closed or open-ended? I feel like it's somewhat open-ended because Huxley viewed "The Brave New World" as what could happen to modern society. I think he intended to make it this way to let society decide their fate either the world would choose to be like Helmholtz or brainwashed like Lenina and others in "civilization."
Lydia, I agree with you that the story was open-ended. Huxley leaves it up to the readers to decide for themselves what happens after John hangs himself. I believe that the society will have to make a decision about how to process why John hung himself. If the society can actually view John as a person rather than a savage, there is hope that the society can change. However if the society is unable to view John as a person, I agree with you that they will continue to be brainwashed. I also think Huxley leaves his novel as open-ended since he does not know how society will be in the future. In a way, Huxley’s novel almost seems like a warning to future societies about what can happen with too much development and control.
DeleteIn my opinion I think that society is a utopia but hey that's just me, heh heh. Back on topic, this was a very interesting read but can we really say its a dystopia? We see it like that but the people in that world don't. They are born into certain castes and that caste is all they know their whole lives so they wouldn't know that someone has it better then them and therefore won't complain. I do agree with you though that Hunger Games is definitely a dystopian world because the people playing know its wrong and even the people who organize it know its wrong but yet they still do it for fun so they can live in their own utopia world till the games are over.
ReplyDelete