Sunday, October 14, 2012

Phase 3, Prompt 1


Humanity as defined by The Webster Dictionary is “the quality or state of being humane.” The Webster Dictionary defines humane as “marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans and animals.” Based off of the definitions of humanity and humane, the savage reservation has more of these qualities than the London civilization. The savage reservation is not only more “human” than the London civilization it is also depicts what humanity strives for, evolution.
            To show how the savage reservation is more “human” than the London civilization, there are some more terms that need to be defined. Civilization is the first term that not only needs an actual definition defined but also how the savage reservation defines civilization and how the people of London define civilization. The Webster Dictionary defines a civilization as “the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of records is attained.” While there is not much information on the literacy of the savage reservation, we can infer that at some point everyone on the reservation could read. This is apparent when Pope brought John one of William Shakespeare’s books (Huxley 122). While not all of the savage reservation is literate now, if they had never been “civilized” William Shakespeare’s books would not have been there. Another point to make is that the savage reservation is “civilized” in a different sense. The members of the savage reservation all know stories and traditions passed down amongst generations. The people of London view civilization as everything is controlled and nothing can go wrong. During Bernard’s trip to the reservation, he reveals to the readers “a mother, and all this dirt, and gods, and old age, and disease… it is almost inconceivable” (Huxley 116). The people of London have everything controlled. There is no dirt impeding their cities, there are no mothers or fathers, and old age is a notion that none of the citizens understand.
The concepts of old age, mothers and fathers, and William Shakespeare are all considered uncivilized and “savage” to the London citizens. Another important term to define here is savage. The Webster Dictionary defines savage as “not domesticated or under human control.” This definition correlates to the London citizens’ definition of savage. An ironic point to make, however, is that while the savage reservation is not under human control, there is a fence surrounding the reservation and guards at the entrance. To Linda and the rest of the citizens of London, the idea of living in their own in pueblos, worshiping gods, bearing and raising children, and partaking in monogamous relationships is “savage.” Linda tells John “I looked at it, and it seemed to be full of nonsense. Uncivilized” (Huxley 123). Linda is referring to the William Shakespeare book that was given to John. Along with the above, the London citizens also view books as “savage.” To them, books are instruction manuals about how to do their jobs and every other text is nonsense (Huxley 123). It is also important to note how John views the London civilization when he gets there. John was raised on the savage reservation and follows the social norms present on the reservation. Upon arriving in London, John is appalled by the number of twins, death conditioning, and how everyone belongs to everyone else. To John, the London civilization is “savage”.  Huxley’s two civilizations in Brave New World are two extremes in which both view the other as “savage.”
As mentioned above, the two civilizations presented in Huxley’s novel view each other as “savage.” The question is which civilization is more “human” the savage reservation or London? In my opinion, the savage reservation is more “human” than the London civilization. The residents of the savage reservation live off the land, engage in monogamous relationships, and continue to bear and raise children all parts of the evolutionary process. The London civilization has removed all of the “unnecessary” tasks associated with living. For example, “ninety six human beings grow where only one grew before. Progress” (Huxley 17). The London civilization has removed evolution and in its place has produced clones that function based off instruction manuals and soma. Being “human” does not include manipulating embryos for the worse and removing evolution.  When it comes to the question above, I still believe the savage reservation is more “human” because evolution has not been altered.

“Civilization.” Def. 1. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.

“Humane.” Def. 1. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.

"Humanity." Def. 1. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World And Brave New World Revisited. New York:
HarperCollins, 2004. Print.

“Savage.” Def. 1a. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.


6 comments:

  1. Kelly, I really enjoyed reading your post! I loved what you said about the only books that the London civilization has are instruction manuals. It got me to thinking that the London civilization doesn't really have a culture. They let everyone do their own thing, but no one is allowed to write down new things. Helmholtz got in trouble for trying to actually write stuff.

    That being said, I guess you could argue that they do have a loose interpretation of religion. Henry Ford is their diety. It makes me wonder, do you think that they believe in Heaven or Hell? Or do they believe in an afterlife?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really like the point you bring up Rebecca about there possibly being a loose interpretation of religion. I have never thought about the World State having any sort of religion until now. I do agree with you that the London citizens view Henry Ford as a deity. They use expressions such as “Our Ford” (Huxley 57) and they have “Ford’s Day celebrations, and Community Sings, and Solidarity Services” (Huxley 58). It is clear that the London citizens view Henry Ford as a god figure however; I do not believe they view him in the way the people of our society view religion and the gods associated with the different religions. I do not believe the London citizens believe in an afterlife. The citizens are conditioned to believe that death is good and that it is necessary. While John was at the Park Lane Hospital for the Dying, a group of twins arrived for death conditioning. While there, the head nurse gave the children chocolate éclairs (Huxley 187). Along with the chocolate éclairs, the children were encouraged to play hunt the zipper. It is clear that the London citizens associate death with chocolate éclairs and play time. Beyond those things, I do not believe the citizens have ever considered what is beyond death.

    What do y’all think? This is just my interpretation of the questions Rebecca asked, it would be really interesting to see what everyone else believes on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree Kelly. I don't believe they ever think about what is next when they think about death. They just think about happy times and good food. Also, the book never mentions any of the London people talking about religion or anyone even wondering about it. If fact, hardly anyone in London has books. The only person we know that has books is Mustapha Mond. Therefore, we know that no one in London has a Bible of any sort which automatically proves that there is not much chance for religion. The people of London only have knowledge of their specific job and they don't question anything because they don't care to know anything else. Since none of their jobs involve religion and no one cares to know anything about it, it is safe to say that there is no religion and therefore they do not believe in Heaven or Hell. They've probably never even heard of or understand the concept of Heaven and Hell. They do look up to Henry Ford but like Kelly said, I don't think it is in the same way we view gods today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love this discussion; I think that one of the many reasons why they don't have a religion is because they don't have any type of faith. It feels to me, that everyone in the world state doesn’t have anything to hope for. it is like, when Linda was dying John as the nurse "is there any hope"(199) this is because of the love he feel for her. I am pretty sure that because the people in world trade don't have any sense of intimate relationships, like having a family or a husband, they don't get sad at seeing someone dying; they don’t have any hope to put into any situation, because they are never in situations when they have to control over. We on the other side, as humans, we have hope and faith, and everything we cannot explain; we attribute it to a supernatural force, in this case a God. The citizens of World state or the other hand, they have everything explained, they don’t question why death happens, or why people get sick and suffer, they don’t have feelings and when they do they take soma to suppress them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is an interesting discussion. Its interesting how like rebecca said Huxley removes culture and people like Hemlholtz get in trouble for trying to introduce it to this society but Huxley keeps some sort of religion in the World State. Isnt Culture also apart of Religion? I think the reason Huxley kept some type of religion is for this society is it brings the people together straying away from loneliness. why do yall think Huxley kept Religion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oscar, I like the question you bring up. I like how Huxley included a chapter where Bernard was engaging in the "religious" ceremonies. I find this somewhat ironic since Karl Marx viewed religion as "opiate for the masses" and lower classes that kept them oppressed and prevented them from revolting (the more they suffered on Earth the greater their reward in heaven). Maybe he incorporated this feeling Marx had towards religion to express how civilization had empty voids they still needed filled and to show that they still needed a power over them (civilization has false happiness). Why do you guys think Huxley chose to make Bernard's last name Marx and not another character?

    ReplyDelete