Brave New World: Discussion Question for Chapters 3/4
In this section of the book, Huxley begins exploring the relationship between unbridled human impulse (human nature) and conformity to convention. How is this theme and the concept of repressed impulses addressed in the reading?
On the one hand, the Controller suggests that human impulse should be unrestrained:
“Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. But there were also husbands, wives, lovers. There were also monogamy and romance… …Family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channeling of impulse and energy... …’But every one belongs to every one else.” (p 39)
----------------------------------------------
“ ‘Think of water under pressure in a pipe.’ They thought of it. ‘I pierce it once,’ said the Controller. ‘What a jet!’… …He pierced it twenty times. There were twenty piddling little fountains… …Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but one single outlet. (p 40 -41)
----------------------------------------------
“Impulse arrested spills over, and the flood is feeling, the flood is passion, the flood is even madness: it depends on the current, the height and strength of the barrier. The unchecked stream flows smoothly down its appointed channels into a calm well-being.”(p 43)
-----------------------------------------------
“Has any of you been compelled to live through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfillment?” “Speak up,” said the D.H.C... “I once had to wait nearly four weeks before a girl I wanted would let me have her.” “And you felt a strong emotion in consequence?” “Horrible!” (p 45)
-----------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the Controller talks about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of liberty (unrestrained freedom / impulse):
“Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England. There was something called liberalism. Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject. Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.” (p 46)
----------------------------------------------
So the question remains:
Does the Controller believe that human impulse should be unrestrained? And, if so, under what circumstances?
The message that I took away is that it is okay to mindlessly fulfill your impulses when they have been created by society. But, when they are individual impulses (following your own intuition, style, life path, etc.), it would be dangerous to the individual and to society to leave them unfulfilled.
Sexuality. Everybody everywhere wants to have sex. That is human nature. But people also want to have sex with whom they choose, when they choose, and they also want stable loving relationships that support emotional health. These aspects are just as much human nature as sexuality is, though, for some reason they often fall into the realm of conformity and convention. Huxley does an interesting thing by removing emotion from sexuality – it is almost as though he removes free will (though it appears the opposite), and in so doing he shows that emotion is just as fundamental and impulsive as sex. The child who is bawling because he does not want to engage in erotic play is the perfect example: ‘“What’s the matter?” asked the Director. The nurse shrugged her shoulders. “Nothing much,” she answered. “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again today. He started yelling just now…”’ The child is crying because the little girl was making unwanted sexual advances at him. This is a good example, because everyone wants sex, right? But in reality, we would either call this rape, or sexual abuse, but instead everybody is perplexed by his unwillingness and he must be taken to be corrected. His impulse is to not engage in eroticism, but it must be squashed because it goes against convention. He has no free will. Incorporating Samson’s input, I would make the argument that the Controller is supersaturating with sex as a means of control – if you force people to have sex often with many partners, then attachments aren’t formed but more fierce desires also aren’t formed - there will be no fight or rebellion, there will be no angst or confusion, but also no love or joy. All emotion will be a baseline of contentment and that is how utopia is formed.
Interesting comments... I went into Wikipedia and found an interesting fact...all of the characters represent a famous person or family.... Check out this link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
That being said, I was looking for what I suspected....and found it.. Huxley uses a lot of Freudian thought in conjunction with Behaviorism....(John B. Watson in this case). Thus the sexuality allowed to manifest itself through many partners portrayed in "A Brave New World" is similar to some of Freud's thoughts when writing on his instinct theory...see Eros and Thanatos....Sexual Drive and Aggressive Drive....
The wonderful example of the Libidinal or Sexual Drive in Freud's instinct theory is the classic "pressure on pipes" or the "flood gate" imagery. It seems as though Huxley is (although with what purpose in mind the reader does not yet understand) stating that monogamy has led to neurosis in the past, so in this "brave new world" the elite have taken the pressure out of the sexual situation by systematically desensitizing the population to to the entire realm of sexuality.
On a perosnal level, I'm truly glad Huxley approaches promiscuity because the more I think about it, the more this looks like our current society...
Think about it...in the sixties (and before) everyone was yelling "Free Love" and sex doesn't matter....they might as well have yelled "Everyone belongs to everyone else." They thought they were being progressive....and were actually becoming more primitive. Instead it seems as though it is in fact progressive to foster and facilitate a stable relationship and firm attachment...as our forefathers and mothers tried to teach us....
Furthermore in the background info. posted by the forum manager I believe it says that Huxley was disgusted by the promiscuity in America. Wonder what he would think of society now? Would he puke? Or would he pop some soma and go looking for some lovely lady lumps...
I found the use of the Huxley's italicized word HER in the following passage interesting. ------------------
And home was as squalid psychically as physically. Psychically, it was a rabbit hole, a midden, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotion. What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group! Maniacally, the mother brooded over her children (HER children).. brooded over them like a cat over its kittens; but a cat that could talk, a cat that could say, "My baby, my baby," over and over again.
------------------------------------- Speaking of Johnson's analysis of Freud this passage seems very Frommian, (Eric Fromm was a critic of Freud's work but not until years after Brave New World.) Nonetheless, this passage vibrates with the possessiveness that love generates beginning with the earliest stages of child development. HER children, as if she owns the child. Fromm philosophized on the wording of phrases such as MY wife, My child, I HAVE a wife, I HAVE a child and how these phrases are a microcosm of the western world's obsession with possession and property.
The characters have no mother, no father, no brother, no sister, no spouses (although we do see tendencies of monogamy in Lenina), and no love. So is this giving the characters a feeling of isolation, is it "cleansing" them of these attachments and promoting a more clearer vision of "oneness", or should we just assume that no one ever ever has a thought of this with the help of soma? Is Huxley suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to fulfilling our truest visions of personal freedom? Samson made comment on living a hedonistic life style, but often we steer clear of this because of what we think the people we love will think of us. However, if we did not have a father to be disappointed in us, guilt would not be such a cloud over us while we decide our paths.
I personally appreciate the comments of rolliefngr777 because I have been making connections with current society. I think I would also add that it seems like Huxley has created a perfect communist society. This resounds a little bit more when I look at how so many names are Russian names.
I don't think that Huxley is suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to truest freedom, because the characters in this book have zero real freedom - they can make no decisions for themselves ostensibly because they have ideal lives of sexual freedom. That could be an argument for Huxley suggesting that there is only true freedom if there is something to make a decision against.
Mr. Schapiro, I'm not sure Huxley is "suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to fufilling our truest visions of personal freedom." Instead, (although we aren't sure at this point) the way I've read the text thus far leads me to believe he is leading the reader towards the opposite...
And adding to Meghins comment about the communistic society...I just heard a quote... and I think it was from Thomas Huxley...although I couldn't find it when I looked. It went something like... As the former Soviet Union moves closer towards Capitalism, the United States will move towards Communism. Thinking about this quote with consideration of Huxley's text...It seems as if this book would inevitably (at least to me) start in a Democracy. The book seems to hint at the "illusion of choice and free will" although they, at the same time, know that they are being brainwashed. History means nothing, not because they can't learn it (or at least up to this point we don't know otherwise) its that they choose not to.... Furthermore, it could be a dictatorship, a socialist nation, democracy or oligarchy...because no one asks....no one knows the difference because they fall calmly in the niche they have been conditioned for. Nothing more. They could call what they are living in a democracy but through clever conditioning they could be truly be living in a dictatorship (Contoller?)...
Thus the sexuality allowed to manifest itself through many partners portrayed in "A Brave New World" is similar to some of Freud's thoughts when writing on his instinct theory...see Eros and Thanatos....Sexual Drive and Aggressive Drive....
The wonderful example of the Libidinal or Sexual Drive in Freud's instinct theory is the classic "pressure on pipes" or the "flood gate" imagery. It seems as though Huxley is (although with what purpose in mind the reader does not yet understand) stating that monogamy has led to neurosis in the past, so in this "brave new world" the elite have taken the pressure out of the sexual situation by systematically desensitizing the population to to the entire realm of sexuality.
It's true that personal/family institutions are not always compatible with the psychological needs of the individual. That is why I thought that the pressure on the pipes metaphor was paradoxical. He used Freudian theory to explain how conventions of family life led to neurosis. It is interesting, however, to note the Controller's logic. He explains that this "neurosis" is created by DIVIDING one's attention among family members and COMPETING desires (Huxley may be saying that as a result of this no desire is truly fulfilled), but, in Brave New World the only goal is to stabilize and perpetuate the status quo of the State. As Meghin had mentioned, many desires/impulses (like emotion intimacy) go unfilled in Brave New World (whether the characters realize it or not). So, which one is the wild jet: the convention of family or the "narrowly channeled" focus on the state?
Freud doesn't just talk about sex though. He talks about the repression of desires in general and its consequences. Repression of any sort could lead to the "wild jet", right?
I think that the use of "MY" is used to indicate a narrow focus of desire as opposed to "every one belongs to everyone else"
Also:
Mr. Schapiro said:
"Samson made comment on living a hedonistic life style, but often we steer clear of this because of what we think the people we love will think of us. However, if we did not have a father to be disappointed in us, guilt would not be such a cloud over us while we decide our paths."
Yes. But, the Brave New World has substituted the guilt of family with the guilt produced from an individual's failure to conform to social norms (i.e. Bernard Marx)
Yes Freud does believe other things can be repressed....but at the time of writing he was only able to find two instinctual drives that of Eros and that of Thanatos (the libidinal and destructive drive)....Thanatos was/is highly debated among psychoanalysts but he could not account for the destructive nature or desire to return to no stimulation whatsoever which he aptly called the "Nirvana Principle." He did, however write that there may be countless other instincts, but at the time of publication he was unable to locate find any but these two....
-I'm curious if anyone else has ideas about possible instincts....it seems like it would be easy at first...but if you look at things...it seems as if Eros and Thanatos may be the duality that we are dealing with? They are intricately fused by the way...Freud calls sex "petite mort" or "the little death."
I guess my point was that, even though Huxley seems to be toying with the idea that the masses could be placated by creating a society where they could fulfill their every sexual desire, other impulses (needs) are repressed or unfulfilled.
On the one hand, the Controller suggests that human impulse should be unrestrained:
ReplyDelete“Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. But there were also husbands, wives, lovers. There were also monogamy and romance…
…Family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channeling of impulse and energy...
…’But every one belongs to every one else.” (p 39)
----------------------------------------------
“ ‘Think of water under pressure in a pipe.’ They thought of it. ‘I pierce it once,’ said the Controller. ‘What a jet!’…
…He pierced it twenty times. There were twenty piddling little fountains…
…Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but one single outlet. (p 40 -41)
----------------------------------------------
“Impulse arrested spills over, and the flood is feeling, the flood is passion, the flood is even madness: it depends on the current, the height and strength of the barrier. The unchecked stream flows smoothly down its appointed channels into a calm well-being.”(p 43)
-----------------------------------------------
“Has any of you been compelled to live through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfillment?”
“Speak up,” said the D.H.C...
“I once had to wait nearly four weeks before a girl I wanted would let me have her.”
“And you felt a strong emotion in consequence?”
“Horrible!” (p 45)
-----------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the Controller talks about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of liberty (unrestrained freedom / impulse):
“Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England. There was something called liberalism. Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject. Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.” (p 46)
----------------------------------------------
So the question remains:
Does the Controller believe that human impulse should be unrestrained? And, if so, under what circumstances?
The message that I took away is that it is okay to mindlessly fulfill your impulses when they have been created by society. But, when they are individual impulses (following your own intuition, style, life path, etc.), it would be dangerous to the individual and to society to leave them unfulfilled.
Sexuality. Everybody everywhere wants to have sex. That is human nature. But people also want to have sex with whom they choose, when they choose, and they also want stable loving relationships that support emotional health. These aspects are just as much human nature as sexuality is, though, for some reason they often fall into the realm of conformity and convention.
ReplyDeleteHuxley does an interesting thing by removing emotion from sexuality – it is almost as though he removes free will (though it appears the opposite), and in so doing he shows that emotion is just as fundamental and impulsive as sex. The child who is bawling because he does not want to engage in erotic play is the perfect example:
‘“What’s the matter?” asked the Director.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. “Nothing much,” she answered. “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again today. He started yelling just now…”’
The child is crying because the little girl was making unwanted sexual advances at him. This is a good example, because everyone wants sex, right? But in reality, we would either call this rape, or sexual abuse, but instead everybody is perplexed by his unwillingness and he must be taken to be corrected. His impulse is to not engage in eroticism, but it must be squashed because it goes against convention. He has no free will.
Incorporating Samson’s input, I would make the argument that the Controller is supersaturating with sex as a means of control – if you force people to have sex often with many partners, then attachments aren’t formed but more fierce desires also aren’t formed - there will be no fight or rebellion, there will be no angst or confusion, but also no love or joy. All emotion will be a baseline of contentment and that is how utopia is formed.
Interesting comments...
ReplyDeleteI went into Wikipedia and found an interesting fact...all of the characters represent a famous person or family....
Check out this link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
That being said, I was looking for what I suspected....and found it.. Huxley uses a lot of Freudian thought in conjunction with Behaviorism....(John B. Watson in this case). Thus the sexuality allowed to manifest itself through many partners portrayed in "A Brave New World" is similar to some of Freud's thoughts when writing on his instinct theory...see Eros and Thanatos....Sexual Drive and Aggressive Drive....
The wonderful example of the Libidinal or Sexual Drive in Freud's instinct theory is the classic "pressure on pipes" or the "flood gate" imagery. It seems as though Huxley is (although with what purpose in mind the reader does not yet understand) stating that monogamy has led to neurosis in the past, so in this "brave new world" the elite have taken the pressure out of the sexual situation by systematically desensitizing the population to to the entire realm of sexuality.
On a perosnal level, I'm truly glad Huxley approaches promiscuity because the more I think about it, the more this looks like our current society...
Think about it...in the sixties (and before) everyone was yelling "Free Love" and sex doesn't matter....they might as well have yelled "Everyone belongs to everyone else." They thought they were being progressive....and were actually becoming more primitive. Instead it seems as though it is in fact progressive to foster and facilitate a stable relationship and firm attachment...as our forefathers and mothers tried to teach us....
Furthermore in the background info. posted by the forum manager I believe it says that Huxley was disgusted by the promiscuity in America. Wonder what he would think of society now? Would he puke? Or would he pop some soma and go looking for some lovely lady lumps...
I found the use of the Huxley's italicized word HER in the following passage interesting.
ReplyDelete------------------
And home was as squalid psychically as physically. Psychically, it was a rabbit hole, a midden, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotion. What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group! Maniacally, the mother brooded over her children (HER children).. brooded over them like a cat over its kittens; but a cat that could talk, a cat that could say, "My baby, my baby," over and over again.
-------------------------------------
Speaking of Johnson's analysis of Freud this passage seems very Frommian, (Eric Fromm was a critic of Freud's work but not until years after Brave New World.) Nonetheless, this passage vibrates with the possessiveness that love generates beginning with the earliest stages of child development. HER children, as if she owns the child. Fromm philosophized on the wording of phrases such as MY wife, My child, I HAVE a wife, I HAVE a child and how these phrases are a microcosm of the western world's obsession with possession and property.
The characters have no mother, no father, no brother, no sister, no spouses (although we do see tendencies of monogamy in Lenina), and no love. So is this giving the characters a feeling of isolation, is it "cleansing" them of these attachments and promoting a more clearer vision of "oneness", or should we just assume that no one ever ever has a thought of this with the help of soma? Is Huxley suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to fulfilling our truest visions of personal freedom? Samson made comment on living a hedonistic life style, but often we steer clear of this because of what we think the people we love will think of us. However, if we did not have a father to be disappointed in us, guilt would not be such a cloud over us while we decide our paths.
I personally appreciate the comments of rolliefngr777 because I have been making connections with current society.
ReplyDeleteI think I would also add that it seems like Huxley has created a perfect communist society. This resounds a little bit more when I look at how so many names are Russian names.
I don't think that Huxley is suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to truest freedom, because the characters in this book have zero real freedom - they can make no decisions for themselves ostensibly because they have ideal lives of sexual freedom. That could be an argument for Huxley suggesting that there is only true freedom if there is something to make a decision against.
In reply to Mr. Schapiro and Meghin...
ReplyDeleteMr. Schapiro, I'm not sure Huxley is "suggesting that the ties to family is an obstacle to fufilling our truest visions of personal freedom." Instead, (although we aren't sure at this point) the way I've read the text thus far leads me to believe he is leading the reader towards the opposite...
And adding to Meghins comment about the communistic society...I just heard a quote... and I think it was from Thomas Huxley...although I couldn't find it when I looked.
It went something like...
As the former Soviet Union moves closer towards Capitalism, the United States will move towards Communism. Thinking about this quote with consideration of Huxley's text...It seems as if this book would inevitably (at least to me) start in a Democracy. The book seems to hint at the "illusion of choice and free will" although they, at the same time, know that they are being brainwashed. History means nothing, not because they can't learn it (or at least up to this point we don't know otherwise) its that they choose not to....
Furthermore, it could be a dictatorship, a socialist nation, democracy or oligarchy...because no one asks....no one knows the difference because they fall calmly in the niche they have been conditioned for. Nothing more. They could call what they are living in a democracy but through clever conditioning they could be truly be living in a dictatorship (Contoller?)...
Mr. Schapiro...can you explain?
ReplyDeleteJohnson said:
ReplyDeleteThus the sexuality allowed to manifest itself
through many partners portrayed in "A Brave New
World" is similar to some of Freud's thoughts
when writing on his instinct theory...see Eros
and Thanatos....Sexual Drive and Aggressive
Drive....
The wonderful example of the Libidinal or
Sexual Drive in Freud's instinct theory is the
classic "pressure on pipes" or the "flood gate"
imagery. It seems as though Huxley is (although
with what purpose in mind the reader does not
yet understand) stating that monogamy has led
to neurosis in the past, so in this "brave new
world" the elite have taken the pressure out of
the sexual situation by systematically
desensitizing the population to to the entire
realm of sexuality.
It's true that personal/family institutions are
not always compatible with the psychological needs of the individual. That is why I
thought that the pressure on the pipes metaphor
was paradoxical. He used Freudian theory to
explain how conventions of family life led to
neurosis. It is interesting, however, to note
the Controller's logic. He explains that this
"neurosis" is created by DIVIDING one's
attention among family members and COMPETING
desires (Huxley may be saying that as a result
of this no desire is truly fulfilled), but, in
Brave New World the only goal is to stabilize
and perpetuate the status quo of the State. As
Meghin had mentioned, many desires/impulses
(like emotion intimacy) go unfilled in Brave
New World (whether the characters realize it or
not). So, which one is the wild jet: the
convention of family or the "narrowly
channeled" focus on the state?
Freud doesn't just talk about sex though. He
talks about the repression of desires in general and its consequences. Repression of any
sort could lead to the "wild jet", right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment to Mr. Schapiro:
I think that the use of "MY" is used to indicate a narrow focus of desire as opposed
to "every one belongs to everyone else"
Also:
Mr. Schapiro said:
"Samson made comment on living a hedonistic
life style, but often we steer clear of this
because of what we think the people we love
will think of us. However, if we did not have
a father to be disappointed in us, guilt would
not be such a cloud over us while we decide our
paths."
Yes. But, the Brave New World has substituted
the guilt of family with the guilt produced
from an individual's failure to conform to
social norms (i.e. Bernard Marx)
Quick reply to Samson:
ReplyDeleteYes Freud does believe other things can be repressed....but at the time of writing he was only able to find two instinctual drives that of Eros and that of Thanatos (the libidinal and destructive drive)....Thanatos was/is highly debated among psychoanalysts but he could not account for the destructive nature or desire to return to no stimulation whatsoever which he aptly called the "Nirvana Principle." He did, however write that there may be countless other instincts, but at the time of publication he was unable to locate find any but these two....
-I'm curious if anyone else has ideas about possible instincts....it seems like it would be easy at first...but if you look at things...it seems as if Eros and Thanatos may be the duality that we are dealing with?
They are intricately fused by the way...Freud calls sex "petite mort" or "the little death."
I guess my point was that, even though Huxley seems to be toying with the idea that the masses could be placated by creating a society where they could fulfill their every sexual desire, other impulses (needs) are repressed or unfulfilled.
ReplyDelete