Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, depicts the clash of two very different societies (the
civilized and the savages) and leaves the readers wondering which society is
more “human.” Because of my personal
definition of civilization and because of the characteristics of the culture, I
believe the savages are more human.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines civilization to be “a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically: the stage
of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is
attained” Merriam-Webster). It goes on
to define it as a “refinement of thought, manners, or taste” and “a situation
of urban comfort” (Merriam-Webster). I
believe the latter two are closer to how the people of London would define
civilization. The London society is all
about comfort refinement and comfort.
Refinement is achieved through all the conditioning. Even while the babies are still embryos, they
are being conditioned and refined. For
some of the babies, “by the time they were decanted, the embryos had a horror
of cold. They were predestined to emigrate
to the tropics, to be miners and acetate silk spinners and steel workers” (16). In the Infant Nurseries, the nurses offer the
babies flowers and books but then set off a violent explosion so that they will
“’be safe from books and botany all their lives’” (22). People of all ages and classes are
conditioned to believe certain ideas and most importantly, are conditioned to
be content with their job and their life. They are refined in their thoughts
and tastes. Also, the people of the London
society are “addicted” to soma. Soma
provides the people comfort from the smallest pains and a “vacation” from the
troubles of life. London is a paradise
of urban comfort.
On the other end of the spectrum (in the
Londoner’s views) are the savages. The
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines savage as “not domesticated of under human
control” and “lacking of restraint normal to civilized human beings” (Merriam-Webster).
It is interesting that the definition uses
the word civilized which was just discussed.
The definition of savage could be different for every culture depending
on how they define civilization. To the London
society, the people of the reservation are considered to be savages because
there is disease and childbirth and religion.
As Lenina notes while visiting the reservation, the people of the
reservation were “naked from throat to navel” and “their faces inhuman with daubing
of scarlet, black, and ochre” (109). She
noted the dirtiness of the land and the sadness of the old aged people (111). Lenina was quite appalled at the way the
people live and I think nearly everyone else from London would have the same reaction. The culture on the reservation is nothing
like that of London. It is not normal to
them. Therefore, the people of the
reservation are considered to be savages.
So which society is more “human”? Well, the Stanford
Humanities Center defines the humanities to be “the study of the myriad ways in
which people, from every period of history and from every corner of the globe,
process and document the human experience” and states that “knowledge of these
records of human experience gives us the opportunity to feel a sense of
connection to those who have come before us, as well as to our contemporaries”
(What…Humanities). Based on that definition and explanation, I
believe that the savages are more human.
Of course, my definition of civilization is closer to the savage’s than
the Londoner’s so I may be a little biased.
However, I think the most important statement in that definition is “a sense
of connection” because that is what life is all about. It is human nature to connect with others and
I feel like the people of the reservation have much better connections to each
other than the London people. I guess
this is mainly because they actually have families! A family is literally the
most connected a group of people can get.
I think the people of London are more of a group of robots than a group
of humans.
Works Cited
"civilization." Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
"savage." Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
I'm not sure why the last work cited is all caps. It wont stay normal when I publish it.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I really enjoyed reading your post and your interpretation of which civilization is more “human.” I agree with you that the savage reservation is more “human” than the London civilization. You mention that one of the main reasons you believe the savage reservation is more “human” is because they have families. In what ways does this make the savage reservation more “human?” You do not provide any examples that help support your argument that the savage reservation is the more “human” civilization than the London civilization. All the examples you provide in your post are on the London civilization and are never connected back to the savage reservation and how their civilization is more “human.”
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I really like that your works cited is in all caps. It shows attitude! Haha! But on to more serious matters.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I really loved what you had to say about the differences in the civilizations. Do you think that it's possible that the London civilization could be more savage than the reservation?
Kelly, I think that the savage reservation is more "human" due to their having families because it shows that they actually have human emotions. I loved what Amy said when she said that "the people of London are more of a group of robots." They can't feel love; it's conditioned out of them. One of the most basic emotions that we feel as humans are love and hate. London can't feel that, they have no one to love. The people in the savage reservation know what it's like to love in be loved because of family. Family (if we have a normal, healthy one) is generally where we first feel love. Therefore, I believe that the love of families makes the people on the savage reservation more human.
Thank you Rebecca! I mentioned "a sense of connection" in my post and the love of a family is exactly what I meant by that. To answer your question, I think the London civilization is definitely more savage than the reservation even though they could never realize it themselves. As I mentioned in the blog, savage means "not domesticated or under human control" and I don't think the London civilization is really under human control. Rather they are under robot control. Even though humans are, in reality, controlling everything, these humans are actually robots. Therefore they are not under human control and are complete savages.
ReplyDeleteMustapha Mond, one of these London savages, says that "Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled" (235). There is a lot of irony in this sentence. Do you think Huxley is trying to warn the world with this statement? Do you think he is warning us that if we do not keep science chained that we may also become savages?
ReplyDeleteAmy, I agree that there is irony in Mustapha Mond’s statement. I believe that Huxley is trying to warn the world of its future. The World State has made so many advancements in scientific research that it is possible to create hundreds of humans from a single ovary. Advancements such as this can destroy evolution and leave only sterile citizens that are all twins of each other. These types of advancements I believe are what Huxley is warning the world about. While scientific advancements are huge accomplishments, Mustapha Mond makes a valid point that science is dangerous. Without the proper control of science, I believe that society could become savage just as you mention Amy.
DeleteAmy, I see the irony in Mustapha Mond's statement as well. He feels that science is dangerous but yet the advancements in science is what made World State possible. I feel that he said this because everyone in civilization is "happy" with where they are and if further advancements are made more changes would occur. They keep science hidden because society would change as a result and they would risk creating a "dystopian" society. But this is just my interpretation what do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteI also think that Huxley is trying to give the reader the message that technology and science are beneficial to society, and make life easier for individuals; but a limit must be place on how science is used and if too many advancements are made people will begin to rely solely on science and technology.
ReplyDeleteLydia, I definitely agree with what you said about more advancements in science could cause changes. I think that the World State advanced until they reached a certain point. They don't want to go any further. Also, I don't think they CAN go any further. To create advancements in science, people have to be allowed to think and come up with new solutions. One of the main problems in the World State is that people can't think. They are told exactly what to think, what to feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree Rebecca, I think science is the ability to make an idea and test this idea in order to expand on it. In order to do this they have to be able to come up with an unsolved question that they can test. The individuals ofthe World State are not allowed to question any part of the society. Honestly, I don't even know if some of the citizens know how to question an idea because they are conditioned that it is not allowed. What do you all think?
ReplyDelete