Brave New World: Discussion Question for Chapters 5/6
This week, I'm throwing the ball back at you. I would like each of you to post your own discussion question. After everyone has posted, you should respond to a question created by another book club member.
What comparisons can you draw with regard to how people are distracted or discouraged from thinking as individuals in Brave New World and how this happens today?
Bernard Marx seems to represent an interesting duality. On one hand he is one who tests the limits of his society (even at the risk of deportation), and on the other hand he appears to be incredibly insecure and weak. Has Huxley succeeded (thus far) in making the character Bernard Marx believable? Why or why not?
"Has Huxley succeeded (thus far) in making the character Bernard Marx believable? Why or why not?"
-----------------------------------------------
I think that Bernard Marx is fairly believable character. Bernard does offer some extreme personality traits, but, taken in context, I think the composite is credible and compelling.
It is true that Bernard is typically a deferential person (He is not a real Alpha). But, he will, in certain circumstances, feel comfortable/secure in expounding his own convictions. During his date with Lenina, Bernard has a confident and sometimes patronizing attitude toward Lenina and her inability to question the system. He feels superior and is able to express his true feelings about how the system that they live in represses certain elements of human nature. He can do this because he is confident that Lenina will not judge him too harshly. He is in control, not the State.
On the other hand, Bernard is so conscious / obsessed with his social (and physical) eccentricity that he is utterly insecure in situations where large groups of people are around to judge his failure to conform to the norms of the State. For example, Bernard becomes extremely embarrassed when Lenina makes a pass at him in the elevator in front of his co-workers. A confident/rebelious Bernard would respond by openly questioning her decision to bring up that subject in the elevator.
I would add that Bernard is also less confident with his superiors. Lenina is his inferior so she is harmless as inferiors are generally considered harmless unless in groups.
I think this duality of Bernard's is perfect - he is just an average guy that doesn't fit in. If he was more confident and really had the courage of his convictions he would be a revolutionary and a hero and this would likely (maybe) change the direction and tone of the book. Additionally, if he were a hero or revolutionary, there would be no book because his society would have quashed him before he could wreak any havok.
I draw a truly disturbing parallel between this section and the real world in terms of thinking as individuals. I really hate to be cynical, but I think people are discouraged away from thinking as individuals. 'Happiness' has almost become an institution and MUST be attained, but nobody really knows what happiness really means or if its even meaningful muchless how to get there. Its just necessary and must be attained - so lets take drugs to get there!! As I was reading, I was alternating between thinking of my current life as a pharmacist and my former life as a raver - in both instances, people were taking drugs in order to solve their problems rather than finding a real solution and taking action. I think this is interesting because it shows the general population (in the pharmacy) and a more outcast population (in the rave) behaving in the way Huxley's characters have been trained to behave.
"A gramme is always better than a damn" shoud be the world's new slogan.
I completely agree with Meghin about Bernard having a decent balance as not to distract from the plot with his journey to being a revolutionary. However, I feel like his character would be a bit more emotionally unstable than he is. For how much he questions the system and no one else does at all except Watson, I think he would exhibit more angst and fits of rage because he feels so misunderstood. I enjoyed his display of lunacy when he chuckles, reaches over, grabs Lenina's breast, drops a gramme, and gets undressed.
Is he just accepting the promiscuous nature of society while laughing at it and getting an easy piece of the pie? Or is he conditioned to result back to soma and sex for ultimate comfort?
Either way, I think when someone is in a situation where they see beyond the reality that their peers see, it leads to more frustration than Bernard shows.
Moving on, in response to Meghin's comments about people taking drugs instead of solving their problems, comments about happiness, and everybody's ongoing comments about how this book relates to contemporary society...
First off, reality is what each individual sees based on his/her experiences. So some of the conclusions that have been drawn throughout this goings-on of this forum are biased based on the "reality" of the person who states the observation. However, many of these statements seem to be based off of what society is like today because of the state of modern television (i.e. TV being the basis for the observations of the sexual nature of modern society). Well, I watch less than an hour of TV a week so I really have no idea what "reality" is portrayed there. TV is a production and so is the radio, it is not reality. And on top of that, how do we know the level of promiscuity that existed at any given time in history. I took a Greek Civilization class in college and we studied a poem by a guy who was writing about banging a princess in the ass because it was not considered stealing her virginity. So I am not inclined to believe that our feelings of modern day lust are any stronger or inhumane than at any time before. Humans have animal instincts because, uh, we are animals.
Now, about happiness. Of course people want to be happy. I do not want to be miserable for the rest of my life. Not to get too personal here, but I get depressed for plenty-a-length-of-time but I don't want to eliminate that out of my life because it forces me to look for answers and it makes the highs of life seem high. However, I would not want to feel like that forever.
People want to accomplish goals, have a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood, and feel connected to the source (whether you call it God, Buddha, or Nature). Either way I think the meaning of life is flux. I heard a quote that said something along the lines of "as long as their is wildlife, I have faith in mankind". Basicallly, whenever calculated thought or stagnance takes over, life is gone. Now the characters in this book have been conditioned to genetically to respond a certain way. Sorry, but I do not believe this world is realistic UNTIL you start genetically engineering people. I believe in the human soul over the human mind.
The earth is getting to a point also where it feels like everything has been done or said. This has a huge impact on creativity, at least it has on me personally. It is pretty much near impossible to be an individual with 8 billion people on the earth and do what no one else has ever done, or think what no one else has ever thought....
And with the information overload of the internets and media in general, I think people are finding it hard to decipher who they are inside themselves because they cannot digest these huge Thanksgiving style meals of words and feelings and propagandas, so they are relating to simple instincts like sex or food. But if you feed people a serving size of ideas they can deal with, I am confident you will see that their minds are creative. My personal opinion is that we need to rid the world of electricity for humans to survive.
Also, about the pill popping, I do not know anyone who relies on medications. However, back to the TV being the "One-Eyed-God", I do see commercials for pharmaceuticals when I watch TV (so does that mean its a real problem? I also see commercials for Hungry Hungry Hippo) My oldest brother is a pharmacist so I hear plenty of stories about that business. But there are plenty of people that do not rely on drugs. Everyone has a vice, however. Humans are not that far above the animal kingdom in my opinion to start with so this whole business about us falling from grace into Huxley-hood is kind of silly to me. We win wars and rape, we lie cheat and steal, we adulter, kill, and we have done these things since the first two unicellular organisms said hello.
In response to Samson, the most obvious deterrent of individual thought is the sleep teaching mantras. We see people respond to puzzling ideas with a programmed statement that best fits the bill, even if it doesn't fit well. Today, catch phrases are very much ingrained into society. From song lyrics to people quoting movie dialogue. I cannot count how many times I have heard "fo shizzle my nizzle" instead of... anyway, enough said. I think this shows that in Huxley's world people are afraid of confrontation just as people are today which leads to many thoughts not being explored because people do not want to be disruptive of the smooth flow of predictability in order to prevent sudden "system crashes".
I think I incorrectly was bashing republicans earlier in this blog when I meant to be bashing the techniques of strictly the Bush admin. The whole "You're with us or against us" mantra which was an obvious bullshit propaganda to use the "terrorists" as a Jacobs Ladder sounds like it could have been from this book.
But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought. It seems as though all impulses have already been erased, which is by no means true today. We know that consumption is a part of it but it is not clearly developed what people are doing with their leisure time. There are music bars, so could there not be people who enjoy the music without soma, or people that are trying to further understand the music, etc? We do now know what ideas are being suppressed in their minds. We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse. I personally do not find a gravitating character in the book. Maybe that's the point, but I do not think the book is well developed in many ways. Although, I did find Lenina's comments about liking Bernard after he told her that they went to bed like infants rather hilarious.
Mr Schapiro sayz, "We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse" - I think this would only be portrayed if soma were considered a problem (an addiction), but instead soma is like water. You take it everywhere because its essential. Its more like soma is helping to wipe out any impulses.
I have a nice box kite. Its hard to keep off the ground though. Maybe it needs some soma.
"But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought. It seems as though all impulses have already been erased, which is by no means true today."
I think iPhones are pretty much like soma. Whenever you have alone time or even if you are out with friends, you start fidgeting with this gadget and you really never internalize your immediate surroundings. People are on iPods or having text and there is a disconnect between human and environment.
I would like to add on to Samson's earlier question... They are distracted through the actualization of societal-friendly impulses,,,,e.g. soma, sexual contact (for after all this may hurt the individual, but society will rarely falter because of who you have sex with).
You guys all seem to hit on the head...I just think of some other things that distract...(other than TV or drugs as previously mentioned) What about porn? That is soma....gambling? soma....sports? soma. Shopping? soma....
As for discouraging thought... Agreeing with Mr. Schapiro here....I don't see enough evidence for this yet, although foreshadowing tells us that this may come to a head...
And as for the question of Bernard being believable...perhaps we asked this question too early? (My bad).
"But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought."
rolliefngr777 said:
As for discouraging thought... Agreeing with Mr. Schapiro here....I don't see enough evidence for this yet, although foreshadowing tells us that this may come to a head...
-----------------------------------------
I feel like the stigma associated with independent thought has not only been implied, but explicitly stated on several occasions:
"And do remember that a gramme is better than a damn" (p54)
[Foster and the Assistant Predestinator heckling Marx. This pre-conditioned mantra encourages individuals in Brave New World not to give a damn. The message is pretty clear do not spend too much time thinking about things--about yourself, about society, or about how things could be--], just take your soma and accept the status quo produced by the State.]
"Work, play–at sixty our powers and tastes are what they were at seventeen. Old men in the bad old days used to renounce, retire, take to religion, spend their time reading, thinking–thinking!...
...Now–such is progress–the old men work, the old men copulate, the old men have no time, no leisure from pleasure, not a moment to sit down and think–or if ever by some unlucky chance such a crevice of time should yawn in the solid substance of their distractions, there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon; returning whence they find themselves on the other side of the crevice, safe on the solid ground of daily labour and distraction, scampering from feely to feely, from girl to pneumatic girl, from Electromagnetic Golf course to …" (p 55)
[The Controller talking to the students visiting the Hatchery]
"That which had made Helmholtz so uncomfortably aware of being himself and all alone was too much ability. What the two men shared was the knowledge that they were individuals. But whereas the physically defective Bernard had suffered all his life from the consciousness of being separate, it was only quite recently that, grown aware of his mental excess, Helmholtz Watson had also become aware of his difference from the people who surrounded him." (p 67)
[Huxley introduces us to Watson's character]
"I'd rather be myself," he said. "Myself and nasty. Not somebody else, however jolly..."A gramme is always better than a damn," she concluded with dignity, and drank the sundae herself."(p 90)
[Marx talking to Lenina on their date at the Semi-Demi-Finals of the Women's Heavyweight Wrestling Championship.]
"I really hate to be cynical, but I think people are discouraged away from thinking as individuals. 'Happiness' has almost become an institution and MUST be attained, but nobody really knows WHAT HAPPINESS REALLY MEANS OR IF ITS EVEN MEANINGFUL MUCHLESS HOW TO GET THERE." (Caps mine)
My thoughts exactly. In BNW, individuals are not suppose to question their own happiness or the social order. Luckily for them, this contingency has been largely avoided as a result of thorough conditioning. However, we have already seen several examples in the book where characters begin to question the status quo. In each instance, almost without exception, the characters quickly revert to their pre-conditioned mantras (Among other examples, see Lenina's conversation with Foster about the Slough Crematorium). In BNW, happiness is produced not created.
Like Meghin, I feel that the institutions in our society encourage us not to critically examine "WHAT HAPPINESS REALLY MEANS OR IF ITS EVEN MEANINGFUL MUCHLESS HOW TO GET THERE."
"I completely agree with Meghin about Bernard having a decent balance as not to distract from the plot with his journey to being a revolutionary. However, I feel like his character would be a bit more emotionally unstable than he is. For how much he questions the system and no one else does at all except Watson, I think he would exhibit more angst and fits of rage because he feels so misunderstood."
-----------------------------------
Developing Marx as revolutionary that boldly follows his instincts and convictions would be one possible character trajectory. But, as Meghin noted, this would completely change the tone of the book. Marx is not secure. He is not bold. He is extremely insecure. His insecurity and faux-revolutionary behavior is a consequence of his physical and behavioral short comings -- everyone thinks that Marx had too much alcohol added to his blood surrogate, not because he is a real revolutionary.
In response to Mr. Schapiro's comments about reality:
A person's reality cannot be completely separated from the culture/society they live in unless they are clinically insane. Media like TV, radio, and books are all created from within the cultural ether. So, in a sense, they are elements of reality -- whether someone chooses to acknowledge (or agree with) the content is a different matter. Human beings cannot exist without social/cultural norms, whatever they may be.
Furthermore, we know that culture and social norms change over time because we have historical evidence. As far as recent history is concerned, we have books, newspaper articles, movies, and advertisements that clearly illustrate how society's attitudes towards sex have changed over time.
"And with the information overload of the internets and media in general, I think people are finding it hard to decipher who they are inside themselves because they cannot digest these huge Thanksgiving style meals of words and feelings and propagandas, so they are relating to simple instincts like sex or food. But if you feed people a serving size of ideas they can deal with, I am confident you will see that their minds are creative."
----------------------------
I'm not saying that people are incapable of individual thought, but that our societal institutions -- and those in BNW -- do not encourage individual thought. In each instance, people are conditioned -- through different means -- to avoid individual thought. This is not only a result of too much information, but also the fact that "ending is better than mending." (AKA: Capitalism)
"...It seems as though all impulses have already been erased [in BNW], which is by no means true today. We know that consumption is a part of it but it is not clearly developed what people are doing with their leisure time. There are music bars, so could there not be people who enjoy the music without soma, or people that are trying to further understand the music, etc? We do now know what ideas are being suppressed in their minds. We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse."
---------------------------------
Individuals in BNW take soma before they do anything. Every leisure activity is always "taken" as a sensory overload ("the feelies," the concert at Westminster Abbey, etc.).
Impulses are not erased today, but one could argue that they are manufactured.
Samson said "I feel like the stigma associated with independent thought has not only been implied, but explicitly stated on several occasions:"
I do concede that this point has definitely been relayed. Perhaps I'm just not sure that either Huxley, or the character Bernard Marx (especially with a name that is so loaded with imagery) is really selling the reader...I think this may be more of a literary aesthetic critique...but Huxley and/or Marx has not sold me. Is anyone else feel this way? I like the story, but I'm not sure about the character....
Maybe we haven't read enough?
Which brings me to my next point...Mr. Schapiro you say that Marx is not a real revolutionary....
What makes a true revolutionary? I'm curious what others think. I have read about Che Guevera and it seems as if Castro, Che, and the Cuban revolution was full of idealism. I see Bernard as also being extremely full of idealism. He also has, as the Cuban revolutionaries had, a cause. What seperates him from them, at least from my perspective, is action.
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Che had a large influence, was a controversial figure in worldwide media, and was a guerrilla. Well, I would think you would need followers to revolt therefore making a revolution. If I thought thoughts that no one had thought before me but I did not express those ideas to anyone, well I would just be brainstorming. I would think to be a revolutionary you would see the counterculture or some smaller sect of thought and bring it to the forefront of the masses mind, either with war tactics or peaceful tactics (John Lennon).
I agree with Johnson about the characterizations being a bit weak so far.
Oh, and Che stood for universal justice (mainly anti-capitalism) as he saw how the US fruit companies were basically enslaving his fellow man in central Central and South America.
When your only allegiance is to justice that usually helps the revolution, as long as the followers believe in you.
I'm baffled by the unwillingness to concede the fact that independent thought is discouraged in BNW. It is clearly implied in the mantra "a gramme is better than a damn." And, the Controller explicitly expresses incredulity when explaining how old men used to retire, take to religion, and think--THINK! (He is basically saying: "Can you believe that in the "bad old days" old people were allowed to sit idly and think?)
As for the revolutionary aspect of Marx's character, I agree with Mr. Schapiro's comments. You are not truly a revolutionary until you take some kind of action (usually in the form of leading some kind of resistance movement). Maybe Huxley settled on the name for Marx as an ironic point or maybe he is saying that Marx was an idealist and that his philosophy never truly manifested.
I agree that the characterization in this novel is not very compelling. But, I would say that, almost 80 years later, the parallels / comparisons that can be made between the BNW created by Huxley and our current society are still pretty striking.
I don't think an individual necessarily has to take action in order to be a revolutionary - I think they just need to have independent thought and have the courage of their convictions. If they want to be a famous revolutionary, then clearly they need to do something that will lead to getting their hands cut off. Bernard has some subversive feelings about what is going on, but he doesn't have any structured ideas about anything. He feels hostile about the programming that is done to individuals, but we haven't explicitly been told why, nor has Bernard expressed that he would like that programming to stop. That lack of the desire of the cessation of programming is probably mostly what keeps Bernard from being a revolutionary - he himself isn't capable of enough independent thought to lead to a desire for change.
That being said - the fact that people are being programmed at all should be all the evidence we need to recognize that independent thought is discouraged in BNW.
I agree with Meghin's assessment of Bernard's character. But, I still feel that a person can not be labeled a revolutionary unless they do something (expound a revolutionary political treatise, create a new style or genre of music, or lay the foundation for an overthrowing of the existing socio-political system). Otherwise...if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
As I think about Che and John Lennon (and I would have to really stretch to lump them together) I can see aspects of Bernard Marx. I think they were all naive and idealistic. Che for instance, was a mere college kid on the road looking for a place to actualize his late adolescent idealism and later he went to the Congo trying to make his revolution someone elses. I think in many cases idealism and arrogance are prerequisites. Now what if Bernard acts in the coming chapters? Is he not on the same path as Che or Lennon?
Then you have revolutionaries like Ghandi. This is a radical overthrow of existing societies that start with the regulation of the individual's impulses. Meaning....it was much more than throwing away soma and talking shit about the existing world....To me someone like Ghandi is a revolutionary to the nth degree. He went from being a lawyer to a peasant and by doing so helped get Britain out of India....granted this can be argued, but there is absolutely no doubt that he was powerful.
I do agree that individual thought is discouraged, completely. You ask us to compare Huxley's methods to today's. Today we have media to present a false reality for looks, bravado, sexuality, political views, etc which for people who do not think for themselves (a majority) they can easily adopt these manufactured thoughts instead of individual thoughts. And being born into a social class is definitely similar to caste system in the book. The exception being that in real life escaping your social class is many times unlikely, but in Huxley's world it is impossible.
My only point that I was raising in that realm of discussion is that I would like to see more metacognitive observations (i.e. Huxley as an omniscient narrator).
I do not know how we started talking about revolutionaries, but Samson said it perfect.
"Otherwise...if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Civil disobedience is a revolution only if it is witnessed and followed by others with a purpose. (Gandhi revolutionary to the nth degree: completely agreed.)
Also, Kurt Cobain was revolutionary and I would not juxtapose him to Gandhi either. Coca cola/Dr pepper revolutionized beverages, Ford revolutionized automotives, etc. Point being there needs to be an army to "fight" the revolution.
"Today we have media to present a false reality for looks, bravado, sexuality, political views, etc which for people who do not think for themselves (a majority) they can easily adopt these manufactured thoughts instead of individual thoughts."
This is exactly what was running through my mind as I read these chapters. Huxley thought that the manufacturing of consent and the stabilization of society would be accomplished through the surreptitious conditioning of individuals at a young age and the perpetuation of these tendencies through the use of a soma. Today, the conditioning happens as Mr.Schapiro has described. And, returning to Mr. Schapiro's early comments, reality is the ether in which we live. The social conformity that is achieved in BNW could be, and is, accomplished today through the use of media and propaganda that establish a baseline of thought that, to a large extent, can not be deviated from. So, in many ways, our system is more efficient than Huxley's BNW.
I also thought that the comparison between religion and the solidarity meetings was interesting. Aside from the obvious allusion to the taking of the sacrament, the comparison also addresses social thought. Whereas, Christianity reinforces the ideas of one man, one woman. The solidarity meetings reinforce the idea that everyone belongs to everyone else. In both cases, religion is used to perpetuate social norms.
Whereas, Christianity reinforces the ideas of one man, one woman. The solidarity meetings reinforce the idea that everyone belongs to everyone else. In both cases, religion is used to perpetuate social norms.
----Do you think this "collective religion" is the same thing as the Humanistic movement? I tend to believe that this is where things were going...with its zenith occuring in the 1960s?
I'm familiar with humanism, but not the humanistic movement. Maybe you could build on your thought a little bit to help explain.
From the short introduction of the topic that I read on wiki, I'm not sure that this is where Huxley was going. I think the primary motive of Huxley's BNW was to create a capitalist society, peace and social stability were residual effects of a society of thoughtless consumers.
What comparisons can you draw with regard to how people are distracted or discouraged from thinking as individuals in Brave New World and how this happens today?
ReplyDeleteBernard Marx seems to represent an interesting duality. On one hand he is one who tests the limits of his society (even at the risk of deportation), and on the other hand he appears to be incredibly insecure and weak. Has Huxley succeeded (thus far) in making the character Bernard Marx believable? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleterolliefngr777 said:
ReplyDelete"Has Huxley succeeded (thus far) in making the character Bernard Marx believable? Why or why not?"
-----------------------------------------------
I think that Bernard Marx is fairly believable character. Bernard does offer some extreme personality traits, but, taken in context, I think the composite is credible and compelling.
It is true that Bernard is typically a deferential person (He is not a real Alpha). But, he will, in certain circumstances, feel comfortable/secure in expounding his own convictions. During his date with Lenina, Bernard has a confident and sometimes patronizing attitude toward Lenina and her inability to question the system. He feels superior and is able to express his true feelings about how the system that they live in represses certain elements of human nature. He can do this because he is confident that Lenina will not judge him too harshly. He is in control, not the State.
On the other hand, Bernard is so conscious / obsessed with his social (and physical) eccentricity that he is utterly insecure in situations where large groups of people are around to judge his failure to conform to the norms of the State. For example, Bernard becomes extremely embarrassed when Lenina makes a pass at him in the elevator in front of his co-workers. A confident/rebelious Bernard would respond by openly questioning her decision to bring up that subject in the elevator.
I would add that Bernard is also less confident with his superiors. Lenina is his inferior so she is harmless as inferiors are generally considered harmless unless in groups.
ReplyDeleteI think this duality of Bernard's is perfect - he is just an average guy that doesn't fit in. If he was more confident and really had the courage of his convictions he would be a revolutionary and a hero and this would likely (maybe) change the direction and tone of the book. Additionally, if he were a hero or revolutionary, there would be no book because his society would have quashed him before he could wreak any havok.
As for the Samson question...
ReplyDeleteI draw a truly disturbing parallel between this section and the real world in terms of thinking as individuals. I really hate to be cynical, but I think people are discouraged away from thinking as individuals. 'Happiness' has almost become an institution and MUST be attained, but nobody really knows what happiness really means or if its even meaningful muchless how to get there. Its just necessary and must be attained - so lets take drugs to get there!!
As I was reading, I was alternating between thinking of my current life as a pharmacist and my former life as a raver - in both instances, people were taking drugs in order to solve their problems rather than finding a real solution and taking action. I think this is interesting because it shows the general population (in the pharmacy) and a more outcast population (in the rave) behaving in the way Huxley's characters have been trained to behave.
"A gramme is always better than a damn" shoud be the world's new slogan.
How does the seance that Bernard attends relate to modern christianity?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Meghin about Bernard having a decent balance as not to distract from the plot with his journey to being a revolutionary. However, I feel like his character would be a bit more emotionally unstable than he is. For how much he questions the system and no one else does at all except Watson, I think he would exhibit more angst and fits of rage because he feels so misunderstood. I enjoyed his display of lunacy when he chuckles, reaches over, grabs Lenina's breast, drops a gramme, and gets undressed.
ReplyDeleteIs he just accepting the promiscuous nature of society while laughing at it and getting an easy piece of the pie? Or is he conditioned to result back to soma and sex for ultimate comfort?
Either way, I think when someone is in a situation where they see beyond the reality that their peers see, it leads to more frustration than Bernard shows.
Moving on, in response to Meghin's comments about people taking drugs instead of solving their problems, comments about happiness, and everybody's ongoing comments about how this book relates to contemporary society...
First off, reality is what each individual sees based on his/her experiences. So some of the conclusions that have been drawn throughout this goings-on of this forum are biased based on the "reality" of the person who states the observation. However, many of these statements seem to be based off of what society is like today because of the state of modern television (i.e. TV being the basis for the observations of the sexual nature of modern society). Well, I watch less than an hour of TV a week so I really have no idea what "reality" is portrayed there. TV is a production and so is the radio, it is not reality. And on top of that, how do we know the level of promiscuity that existed at any given time in history. I took a Greek Civilization class in college and we studied a poem by a guy who was writing about banging a princess in the ass because it was not considered stealing her virginity. So I am not inclined to believe that our feelings of modern day lust are any stronger or inhumane than at any time before. Humans have animal instincts because, uh, we are animals.
Now, about happiness. Of course people want to be happy. I do not want to be miserable for the rest of my life. Not to get too personal here, but I get depressed for plenty-a-length-of-time but I don't want to eliminate that out of my life because it forces me to look for answers and it makes the highs of life seem high. However, I would not want to feel like that forever.
People want to accomplish goals, have a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood, and feel connected to the source (whether you call it God, Buddha, or Nature). Either way I think the meaning of life is flux. I heard a quote that said something along the lines of "as long as their is wildlife, I have faith in mankind". Basicallly, whenever calculated thought or stagnance takes over, life is gone. Now the characters in this book have been conditioned to genetically to respond a certain way. Sorry, but I do not believe this world is realistic UNTIL you start genetically engineering people. I believe in the human soul over the human mind.
The earth is getting to a point also where it feels like everything has been done or said. This has a huge impact on creativity, at least it has on me personally. It is pretty much near impossible to be an individual with 8 billion people on the earth and do what no one else has ever done, or think what no one else has ever thought....
And with the information overload of the internets and media in general, I think people are finding it hard to decipher who they are inside themselves because they cannot digest these huge Thanksgiving style meals of words and feelings and propagandas, so they are relating to simple instincts like sex or food. But if you feed people a serving size of ideas they can deal with, I am confident you will see that their minds are creative. My personal opinion is that we need to rid the world of electricity for humans to survive.
Also, about the pill popping, I do not know anyone who relies on medications. However, back to the TV being the "One-Eyed-God", I do see commercials for pharmaceuticals when I watch TV (so does that mean its a real problem? I also see commercials for Hungry Hungry Hippo) My oldest brother is a pharmacist so I hear plenty of stories about that business. But there are plenty of people that do not rely on drugs. Everyone has a vice, however. Humans are not that far above the animal kingdom in my opinion to start with so this whole business about us falling from grace into Huxley-hood is kind of silly to me. We win wars and rape, we lie cheat and steal, we adulter, kill, and we have done these things since the first two unicellular organisms said hello.
In response to Samson, the most obvious deterrent of individual thought is the sleep teaching mantras. We see people respond to puzzling ideas with a programmed statement that best fits the bill, even if it doesn't fit well. Today, catch phrases are very much ingrained into society. From song lyrics to people quoting movie dialogue. I cannot count how many times I have heard "fo shizzle my nizzle" instead of... anyway, enough said. I think this shows that in Huxley's world people are afraid of confrontation just as people are today which leads to many thoughts not being explored because people do not want to be disruptive of the smooth flow of predictability in order to prevent sudden "system crashes".
ReplyDeleteI think I incorrectly was bashing republicans earlier in this blog when I meant to be bashing the techniques of strictly the Bush admin. The whole "You're with us or against us" mantra which was an obvious bullshit propaganda to use the "terrorists" as a Jacobs Ladder sounds like it could have been from this book.
But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought. It seems as though all impulses have already been erased, which is by no means true today. We know that consumption is a part of it but it is not clearly developed what people are doing with their leisure time. There are music bars, so could there not be people who enjoy the music without soma, or people that are trying to further understand the music, etc? We do now know what ideas are being suppressed in their minds. We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse. I personally do not find a gravitating character in the book. Maybe that's the point, but I do not think the book is well developed in many ways. Although, I did find Lenina's comments about liking Bernard after he told her that they went to bed like infants rather hilarious.
Mr Schapiro sayz, "We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse" - I think this would only be portrayed if soma were considered a problem (an addiction), but instead soma is like water. You take it everywhere because its essential. Its more like soma is helping to wipe out any impulses.
ReplyDeleteI have a nice box kite. Its hard to keep off the ground though. Maybe it needs some soma.
Meghin, I agree. That's why I said
ReplyDelete"But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought. It seems as though all impulses have already been erased, which is by no means true today."
I think iPhones are pretty much like soma. Whenever you have alone time or even if you are out with friends, you start fidgeting with this gadget and you really never internalize your immediate surroundings. People are on iPods or having text and there is a disconnect between human and environment.
I would like to add on to Samson's earlier question...
ReplyDeleteThey are distracted through the actualization of societal-friendly impulses,,,,e.g. soma, sexual contact (for after all this may hurt the individual, but society will rarely falter because of who you have sex with).
You guys all seem to hit on the head...I just think of some other things that distract...(other than TV or drugs as previously mentioned)
What about porn? That is soma....gambling? soma....sports? soma.
Shopping? soma....
As for discouraging thought... Agreeing with Mr. Schapiro here....I don't see enough evidence for this yet, although foreshadowing tells us that this may come to a head...
And as for the question of Bernard being believable...perhaps we asked this question too early? (My bad).
"But I do not think there is really enough evidence in the book to judge the discouraging of individual thought."
ReplyDeleterolliefngr777 said:
As for discouraging thought... Agreeing with Mr. Schapiro here....I don't see enough evidence for this yet, although foreshadowing tells us that this may come to a head...
-----------------------------------------
I feel like the stigma associated with independent thought has not only been implied, but explicitly stated on several occasions:
"And do remember that a gramme is better than a damn" (p54)
[Foster and the Assistant Predestinator heckling Marx. This pre-conditioned mantra encourages individuals in Brave New World not to give a damn. The message is pretty clear do not spend too much time thinking about things--about yourself, about society, or about how things could be--], just take your soma and accept the status quo produced by the State.]
"Work, play–at sixty our powers and tastes are what they were at seventeen. Old men in the bad old days used to renounce, retire, take to religion, spend their time reading, thinking–thinking!...
...Now–such is progress–the old men work, the old men copulate, the old men have no time, no leisure from pleasure, not a moment to sit down and think–or if ever by some unlucky chance such a crevice of time should yawn in the solid substance of their distractions, there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon; returning whence they find themselves on the other side of the crevice, safe on the solid ground of daily labour and distraction, scampering from feely to feely, from girl to pneumatic girl, from Electromagnetic Golf course to …" (p 55)
[The Controller talking to the students visiting the Hatchery]
"That which had made Helmholtz so uncomfortably aware of being himself and all alone was too much ability. What the two men shared was the knowledge that they were individuals. But whereas the physically defective Bernard had suffered all his life from the consciousness of being separate, it was only quite recently that, grown aware of his mental excess, Helmholtz Watson had also become aware of his difference from the people who surrounded him." (p 67)
[Huxley introduces us to Watson's character]
"I'd rather be myself," he said. "Myself and nasty. Not somebody else, however jolly..."A gramme is always better than a damn," she concluded with dignity, and drank the sundae herself."(p 90)
[Marx talking to Lenina on their date at the Semi-Demi-Finals of the Women's Heavyweight Wrestling Championship.]
Meghin said:
ReplyDelete"I really hate to be cynical, but I think people are discouraged away from thinking as individuals. 'Happiness' has almost become an institution and MUST be attained, but nobody really knows WHAT HAPPINESS REALLY MEANS OR IF ITS EVEN MEANINGFUL MUCHLESS HOW TO GET THERE." (Caps mine)
My thoughts exactly. In BNW, individuals are not suppose to question their own happiness or the social order. Luckily for them, this contingency has been largely avoided as a result of thorough conditioning. However, we have already seen several examples in the book where characters begin to question the status quo. In each instance, almost without exception, the characters quickly revert to their pre-conditioned mantras (Among other examples, see Lenina's conversation with Foster about the Slough Crematorium). In BNW, happiness is produced not created.
Like Meghin, I feel that the institutions in our society encourage us not to critically examine "WHAT HAPPINESS REALLY MEANS OR IF ITS EVEN MEANINGFUL MUCHLESS HOW TO GET THERE."
By the way, for those of you who do not speak Spanish:
ReplyDeleteMalpais = Bad Country
Mr. Schapiro said:
ReplyDelete"I completely agree with Meghin about Bernard having a decent balance as not to distract from the plot with his journey to being a revolutionary. However, I feel like his character would be a bit more emotionally unstable than he is. For how much he questions the system and no one else does at all except Watson, I think he would exhibit more angst and fits of rage because he feels so misunderstood."
-----------------------------------
Developing Marx as revolutionary that boldly follows his instincts and convictions would be one possible character trajectory. But, as Meghin noted, this would completely change the tone of the book. Marx is not secure. He is not bold. He is extremely insecure. His insecurity and faux-revolutionary behavior is a consequence of his physical and behavioral short comings -- everyone thinks that Marx had too much alcohol added to his blood surrogate, not because he is a real revolutionary.
In response to Mr. Schapiro's comments about reality:
ReplyDeleteA person's reality cannot be completely separated from the culture/society they live in unless they are clinically insane. Media like TV, radio, and books are all created from within the cultural ether. So, in a sense, they are elements of reality -- whether someone chooses to acknowledge (or agree with) the content is a different matter. Human beings cannot exist without social/cultural norms, whatever they may be.
Furthermore, we know that culture and social norms change over time because we have historical evidence. As far as recent history is concerned, we have books, newspaper articles, movies, and advertisements that clearly illustrate how society's attitudes towards sex have changed over time.
Mr. Schapiro said:
ReplyDelete"And with the information overload of the internets and media in general, I think people are finding it hard to decipher who they are inside themselves because they cannot digest these huge Thanksgiving style meals of words and feelings and propagandas, so they are relating to simple instincts like sex or food. But if you feed people a serving size of ideas they can deal with, I am confident you will see that their minds are creative."
----------------------------
I'm not saying that people are incapable of individual thought, but that our societal institutions -- and those in BNW -- do not encourage individual thought. In each instance, people are conditioned -- through different means -- to avoid individual thought. This is not only a result of too much information, but also the fact that "ending is better than mending." (AKA: Capitalism)
Mr. Schapiro said:
ReplyDelete"...It seems as though all impulses have already been erased [in BNW], which is by no means true today. We know that consumption is a part of it but it is not clearly developed what people are doing with their leisure time. There are music bars, so could there not be people who enjoy the music without soma, or people that are trying to further understand the music, etc? We do now know what ideas are being suppressed in their minds. We are not hearing about someone who wants to, say, go fly a kite, but would rather take soma. That way we would know that the desire for soma (contentment) is truly taking over the impulse."
---------------------------------
Individuals in BNW take soma before they do anything. Every leisure activity is always "taken" as a sensory overload ("the feelies," the concert at Westminster Abbey, etc.).
Impulses are not erased today, but one could argue that they are manufactured.
Samson said "I feel like the stigma associated with independent thought has not only been implied, but explicitly stated on several occasions:"
ReplyDeleteI do concede that this point has definitely been relayed. Perhaps I'm just not sure that either Huxley, or the character Bernard Marx (especially with a name that is so loaded with imagery) is really selling the reader...I think this may be more of a literary aesthetic critique...but Huxley and/or Marx has not sold me. Is anyone else feel this way? I like the story, but I'm not sure about the character....
Maybe we haven't read enough?
Which brings me to my next point...Mr. Schapiro you say that Marx is not a real revolutionary....
What makes a true revolutionary?
I'm curious what others think. I have read about Che Guevera and it seems as if Castro, Che, and the Cuban revolution was full of idealism. I see Bernard as also being extremely full of idealism. He also has, as the Cuban revolutionaries had, a cause. What seperates him from them, at least from my perspective, is action.
What does everyone else think?
Revolution -
ReplyDelete1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Che had a large influence, was a controversial figure in worldwide media, and was a guerrilla. Well, I would think you would need followers to revolt therefore making a revolution. If I thought thoughts that no one had thought before me but I did not express those ideas to anyone, well I would just be brainstorming. I would think to be a revolutionary you would see the counterculture or some smaller sect of thought and bring it to the forefront of the masses mind, either with war tactics or peaceful tactics (John Lennon).
I agree with Johnson about the characterizations being a bit weak so far.
Oh, and Che stood for universal justice (mainly anti-capitalism) as he saw how the US fruit companies were basically enslaving his fellow man in central Central and South America.
ReplyDeleteWhen your only allegiance is to justice that usually helps the revolution, as long as the followers believe in you.
I'm baffled by the unwillingness to concede the fact that independent thought is discouraged in BNW. It is clearly implied in the mantra "a gramme is better than a damn." And, the Controller explicitly expresses incredulity when explaining how old men used to retire, take to religion, and think--THINK! (He is basically saying: "Can you believe that in the "bad old days" old people were allowed to sit idly and think?)
ReplyDeleteAs for the revolutionary aspect of Marx's character, I agree with Mr. Schapiro's comments. You are not truly a revolutionary until you take some kind of action (usually in the form of leading some kind of resistance movement). Maybe Huxley settled on the name for Marx as an ironic point or maybe he is saying that Marx was an idealist and that his philosophy never truly manifested.
I agree that the characterization in this novel is not very compelling. But, I would say that, almost 80 years later, the parallels / comparisons that can be made between the BNW created by Huxley and our current society are still pretty striking.
I don't think an individual necessarily has to take action in order to be a revolutionary - I think they just need to have independent thought and have the courage of their convictions. If they want to be a famous revolutionary, then clearly they need to do something that will lead to getting their hands cut off.
ReplyDeleteBernard has some subversive feelings about what is going on, but he doesn't have any structured ideas about anything. He feels hostile about the programming that is done to individuals, but we haven't explicitly been told why, nor has Bernard expressed that he would like that programming to stop. That lack of the desire of the cessation of programming is probably mostly what keeps Bernard from being a revolutionary - he himself isn't capable of enough independent thought to lead to a desire for change.
That being said - the fact that people are being programmed at all should be all the evidence we need to recognize that independent thought is discouraged in BNW.
(Che did have his hands cut off, didn't he??)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meghin's assessment of Bernard's character. But, I still feel that a person can not be labeled a revolutionary unless they do something (expound a revolutionary political treatise, create a new style or genre of music, or lay the foundation for an overthrowing of the existing socio-political system). Otherwise...if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
ReplyDeleteAs I think about Che and John Lennon (and I would have to really stretch to lump them together) I can see aspects of Bernard Marx. I think they were all naive and idealistic. Che for instance, was a mere college kid on the road looking for a place to actualize his late adolescent idealism and later he went to the Congo trying to make his revolution someone elses. I think in many cases idealism and arrogance are prerequisites. Now what if Bernard acts in the coming chapters? Is he not on the same path as Che or Lennon?
ReplyDeleteThen you have revolutionaries like Ghandi. This is a radical overthrow of existing societies that start with the regulation of the individual's impulses. Meaning....it was much more than throwing away soma and talking shit about the existing world....To me someone like Ghandi is a revolutionary to the nth degree. He went from being a lawyer to a peasant and by doing so helped get Britain out of India....granted this can be argued, but there is absolutely no doubt that he was powerful.
Samson,
ReplyDeleteI do agree that individual thought is discouraged, completely. You ask us to compare Huxley's methods to today's. Today we have media to present a false reality for looks, bravado, sexuality, political views, etc which for people who do not think for themselves (a majority) they can easily adopt these manufactured thoughts instead of individual thoughts. And being born into a social class is definitely similar to caste system in the book. The exception being that in real life escaping your social class is many times unlikely, but in Huxley's world it is impossible.
My only point that I was raising in that realm of discussion is that I would like to see more metacognitive observations (i.e. Huxley as an omniscient narrator).
I do not know how we started talking about revolutionaries, but Samson said it perfect.
"Otherwise...if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Civil disobedience is a revolution only if it is witnessed and followed by others with a purpose. (Gandhi revolutionary to the nth degree: completely agreed.)
Also, Kurt Cobain was revolutionary and I would not juxtapose him to Gandhi either. Coca cola/Dr pepper revolutionized beverages, Ford revolutionized automotives, etc. Point being there needs to be an army to "fight" the revolution.
Mr. Schapiro said:
ReplyDelete"Today we have media to present a false reality for looks, bravado, sexuality, political views, etc which for people who do not think for themselves (a majority) they can easily adopt these manufactured thoughts instead of individual thoughts."
This is exactly what was running through my mind as I read these chapters. Huxley thought that the manufacturing of consent and the stabilization of society would be accomplished through the surreptitious conditioning of individuals at a young age and the perpetuation of these tendencies through the use of a soma. Today, the conditioning happens as Mr.Schapiro has described. And, returning to Mr. Schapiro's early comments, reality is the ether in which we live. The social conformity that is achieved in BNW could be, and is, accomplished today through the use of media and propaganda that establish a baseline of thought that, to a large extent, can not be deviated from. So, in many ways, our system is more efficient than Huxley's BNW.
I also thought that the comparison between religion and the solidarity meetings was interesting. Aside from the obvious allusion to the taking of the sacrament, the comparison also addresses social thought. Whereas, Christianity reinforces the ideas of one man, one woman. The solidarity meetings reinforce the idea that everyone belongs to everyone else. In both cases, religion is used to perpetuate social norms.
Whereas, Christianity reinforces the ideas of one man, one woman. The solidarity meetings reinforce the idea that everyone belongs to everyone else. In both cases, religion is used to perpetuate social norms.
ReplyDelete----Do you think this "collective religion" is the same thing as the Humanistic movement? I tend to believe that this is where things were going...with its zenith occuring in the 1960s?
I'm familiar with humanism, but not the humanistic movement. Maybe you could build on your thought a little bit to help explain.
ReplyDeleteFrom the short introduction of the topic that I read on wiki, I'm not sure that this is where Huxley was going. I think the primary motive of Huxley's BNW was to create a capitalist society, peace and social stability were residual effects of a society of thoughtless consumers.