History Headscratchers / BraveNewWorld

* What about homosexuals? A society of frequent, non reproductive sex and no one even MENTIONS homosexuality? The Brave New World is trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy by sterilizing most women, yet [[NoHeterosexualSex Allowed promoting homosexuality]] or [[EveryoneIsBi Bisexual "conditioning"]] aren't considered? Why not actively promote homosexuality in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Huxley seems to be going for a society where sex is quick and commonplace, and [[Everyone Is Bi]] would fit nicely with this.

* What about homosexuals? A society of frequent, non reproductive sex and no one even MENTIONS homosexuality? The Brave New World is trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy by sterilizing most women, yet [[NoHeterosexualSex Allowed promoting homosexuality]] or [[EveryoneIsBi Bisexual conditioning]] aren't considered? Why not actively promote homosexuality in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Huxley seems to be going for a society where sex is quick and commonplace, and [[Everyone Is Bi]] would fit nicely with this.

* What about homosexuals? A society of frequent, non reproductive sex and no one even MENTIONS homosexuality? The Brave New World is trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy by sterilizing most women, yet [[No Heterosexual Sex Allowed]] or [[Everyone Is Bi]] aren't considered? Why not actively promote homosexuality in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Huxley seems to be going for a society where sex is quick and commonplace, and [[Everyone Is Bi]] would fit nicely with this.

*** The very interesting implication of this is that the World State ''needs'' those "deviant" Alphas like Helmholtz and Bernard, whose sense of individuality has developed to the point that they're capable of creation and invention, in order to research and develop the science and technology needed to keep civilization going. If that's so, the most advanced laboratories and research facilities in the world in this era are very likely located on those islands, staffed by the exiles - who also have living conditions (residences, food, recreation, etc.) fully as comfortable as anything they had had to leave behind. This is also useful for the World State in that it gives the exiles interesting and fulfilling work instead of having them sit around on the beaches all day bemoaning their lot. This would also help explain why Mond is so sympathetic, gentlemanly and downright kind to Helmholtz and Bernard when he sentences them to exile; quite apart from his own personal inclinations - he may be a dictator, but he's not the genocidal type - he recognizes the two as having developed into the most valuable resources available to the World State.

*** The very interesting implication of this is that the World State ''needs'' those "deviant" Alphas like Helmholtz and Bernard, whose sense of individuality has developed to the point that they're capable of creation and invention, in order to research and develop the science and technology needed to keep civilization going. If that's so, the most advanced laboratories and research facilities in the world in this era are very likely located on those islands, staffed by the exiles. This is also useful for the World State in that it gives the exiles interesting and fulfilling work instead of having them sit around on the beaches all day bemoaning their lot.

* What's so horrible about this society? It's certainly not perfect, but dystopian? Really? Everyone seems happy, and if you aren't then you get to spend all your time with similar people on an island of your choice.
** Oh man, I thought it was just me. I read this and was like "I think I'm doing this wrong, this book has some excellent ideas..." We may be defective going by the rest of these comments.
** The idea is that it is horrible because no-one is allowed to be individuals. There is a loss of True Art (and writers hate loss of True Art), and you are unable to feel any trials and thus grow from them. Plus it is kinda implied that those islands are kinda like the 'showers' in those 'camps' if you know what I mean...
** Everyone's life is based around sex. They do that as [[{{Squick}} young children]]. They replaced [[PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad God with Ford.]] Technology is used to repress. People are injected with [[ScienceMarchesOn alcohol to stunt growth]], and the entire society revolves around [[HappinessInSlavery essentially pre-conditioned slaves.]] And society's [[BreadAndCircuses entertainment]] consists of [[DrugsAreBad Soma]] and [[SexIsEvil sex.]] Finally, people are bred to revolve around materialism, and [[CrapsackWorld it's a dictatorship.]] Basically, it's only great if you are an Alpha or Beta, and [[CompletelyMissingThePoint you're as superficial]] [[DracoInLeatherPants as the people in the story]]. And, need I remind you, everyone was happy in TheGiver too, and that is a ''definite'' {{Dystopia}}.
*** People are stuck in predetermined castes, the idea of free thought is pretty much gone, and the idea of morality appears to have kicked the bucket as well. And the worst part? The people did it to themselves.
**** It's easy to miss, but, according to a line of dialogue in the story, '''rape''' is apparently both legal and socially acceptable, as, since "Everyone belongs to everyone else", it means that you are the common sexual property of all society, and have no right to say no (at least for any length of time). If you persist, it's perfectly okay to force you.
***** I wonder if the society would even understand the concept of rape. If everyone believes that they belong to everyone else, than the idea that you might resist another's advances must be completely alien.
***** I wondered about this while reading the book too! But at the same time, it certainly seems like people are allowed to reject others without any retribution. (I'd find a quote but I'm too lazy... egh...) They've just been conditioned to be willing to do it. Although I'm personally confused about the scene with Lenina (was she sexually harassing/trying to rape John? Or was John attacking her and calling her a whore and such unjustifiably? Though I'm personally leaning toward the former, I guess...)
**** People LIKE the society in Brave New World. They like having soma and free love, and there are no real responsibilities.
***** And so did the people in Airstrip One like the society, and Big Brother, in [[Literature/NineteenEightyFour 1984]], or else. Just because a society ''likes'' their world doesn't mean it's ''right''. Not to mention, no free will and a caste system.
***** They like those things because they were programmed to; had everyone not been influenced by hypnopaedic conditioning, they wouldn't be content in the superficial lives they lead. If you are essentially brainwashed into liking something, do you REALLY like it?
** Just because you or I wouldn't want to live there and we find their cultural norms disturbing doesn't make it immoral. If the general population is sincerely happy and getting everything they value, than there's no problem. It's up for interpretation, though, whether the people there are truly happy. If they're all walking around smiling with repressed malaise, than the word 'dystopia' becomes more accurate.
*** I think the key point is not that people are "getting everything they value", but that they value those things because they were trained to do so from early age. And of course, there's that whole part where they actively manipulate fetuses to make them stupider on purpose. Not cool.
*** And they're only "sincerely happy" because every time something bad happens to them, or they even think about something bad, they mainline Soma.
*** Yes, just because we may find the society of ''Brave New World'' base does not make it so, just as we cannot (rightfully) admonish foreigners for their culture--however strange it may be. But the society of ''Brave New World'' is not foreign civilization. It is comprised of our progeny. It is the future of us. And it flies in the face of everything we value. We may be happy as adult infants; when we don't have to think, to feel, to grow up, why wouldn't we be happy? But, as a thinking, feeling, contemplating, ''maturing'' human being, do you want this? Do you want this for yourself? for your fellows? Do you want to be forever an infant? Do you want to be forever a slave to instant gratification? to conformity? to your conditioning--to your government? Do ''you'' want to live in this brave new world? ''Brave New World'' does not have all the trappings of a traditional dystopia. Instead, it has the makings of an undesirable society, of a society that represses human nature, of a society incompatible with our notion of humanity, of a society we are already slipping into. ''That'', my friends, is why it is (classified as) a dystopia.
** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopian stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems, " tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as all CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. A Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals and morals that he holds as absolute.
** In ''Brave New World,'' Aldous Huxley essentially takes utopia to its logical and paradoxically dystopian conclusion. I believe one scene in the book can best illustrate why Huxley's perfectly stable society is horrible. Consider the scene wherein Lenina Crowne and Henry Foster, when on their diversion near the beginning of the book, helicopter past the "Slough Crematorium." Henry Foster, as an Alpha, maintains some autonomy, some thoughtfulness, in spite of the constant sleep teachings of his childhood. Demonstrating his intact intellect, he laments that the switchback that rocked their helicopter and gave the oblivious Lenina quite a thrill "was some human being finally and definitely disappearing." This final and definite disappearance also embodies a different kind of death introduced in this scene; it characterizes an instance from Lenina's childhood that the Beta recalls as the casual couple cruises past the crematorium. Lenina suddenly remembers "an occasion when, as a little girl at school, she had woken up... and become aware, for the first time, of the whispering (hypnopaedic teachings) that had haunted all her sleeps... [She] remembered her first shock of fear and surprise; her speculations through half a wakeful hour; and then, under the influence of those endless repetitions, the gradual soothing of her mind, the soothing, the smoothing, the stealthy creeping of sleep..." This soothing marks the death of her awareness, of her individuality, of her autonomy. That thinking little girl in Lenina's memory lapsed into oblivion; that soft, nurturing hypnopaedic voice eroded her, erased her, replaced her with a cookie-cutter automaton, with a domesticated animal, with a Beta. Following his melancholy reflection, Henry assumes a "resolutely cheerful voice," and concludes, "whoever he (the cremated corpse) may have been, he was happy when he was alive. Everybody's happy now." The narrator then remarks that the two heard those words--"everybody's happy now"--"repeated a hundred and fifty times every night for twelve years." Lenina is happy in the way a domesticated animal is happy--her needs and base desires are met and, as a result, the brainless animal does not experience sad emotions. Henry is happy because he ''tries'' to act like a domesticated animal, ignoring his humanness and the grief that it brings.

* Why is this book often compared to [[Literature/NineteenEightyFour 1984]]? It's disproportionate: Brave New World is a Utopian wet dream compared to ''that''.
** Because both books are well-known examples of dystopias (or at least, ''Brave New World'' was ''meant'' as a dystopia...read the first question on this page and its answers, they explore that idea more thoroughly than this question warrants). Also, it could be that most people [[SmallReferencePools can't list too many dystopic novels off the top of their head]] (usually getting no further than ''Literature/NineteenEightyFour'', ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'', and ''{{Fahrenheit 451}}'', so...yeah.)
** It also makes for a handy alpha and omega with the political themes of ''Literature/NineteenEightyFour''. Oceania's ruling party, as represented by O'Brien, is motivated by petty sadism and controls its people through fear. The controllers of ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'', as represented by Mustapha Mond, are motivated by genuinely good intentions and control their people through happiness. Put together, they show how two entirely opposite philosophies and goals can each give rise to its own brand of dystopia.
** Also observe their attitudes toward sex. One form of tyranny (demonstrated in Literature/NineteenEightyFour and TheGiver) attempts to suppress human sexuality entirely, to destroy the concept of a biological family and/or a loving marriage, replacing it with a fidelity only to the collective. The other form of tyranny, demonstrated in Literature/BraveNewWorld, attempts to control the people by rendering sexuality frivolous. People numb their emotions because they are emotionally stunted, and they can never form a real connection with their lovers. Each man and woman is interchangeable in their minds. In both cases, the two most powerful drives, religion and sexuality, are either co-opted into the tyrant's agenda or destroyed. The tyrant doesn't want any motivations competing with serving the tyranny.
** George Orwell (then Eric Blair) was once Huxley's student and didn't like ''Brave New World'' very much (at least not as much as ''{{We}}'') because he thought a society that revolves around happiness and luxury would not be sustainable. Huxley, alternatively, while he liked ''[[Literature/NineteenEightyFour 1984]]'', thought the BreadAndCircuses approach would actually be a more efficient way to keep citizens in line rather than the BigBrotherIsWatching approach. How can fans of either (or both) resist joining in?

***** I wondered about this while reading the book too! But at the same time, it certainly seems like people are allowed to reject others without any retribution. (I'd find a quote but I'm too lazy... egh...) They've just been conditioned to be willing to do it. Although I'm personally confused about the scene with Lenina (was she sexually harassing/trying to rape John? Or was John attacking her and calling her a whore and such unjustifiably? Though I'm personally leaning toward the former, I guess...)

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopian stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as all CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. A Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals and morals that he holds as absolute.

** Its possible most of them are not actually super-intelligent, they just believe they are.