Welcome to your venue to post anything and everything dedicated to your independent reading for Q2. Refer to the handouts for guidance. I hope you enjoy this assignment.
Alexandra Rinaldi December 26, 2012 Entry #3: Comparing Characters
Lenina and Bernard are complete opposites who show the reader two different ideas within their society. Lenina is totally brainwashed and has completely conformed to the World State civilization while Bernard is a social outcast who can be considered blasphemous and a threat to the system. Bernard constantly tries to open Lenina’s eyes to all the horrible aspects of their society. He explains his passionate desire to be independent to Lenina in chapter 6 when he poses the question “what would it be like if I could, if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning,”(p.91). Bernard expresses his radical thoughts that question the norms of society and Lenina is completely appalled. It is clear how loyal Lenina is to the government when she responds to Bernards radical opinions; “why don’t you take a soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You’d forget all about them,”(p.92). This is a perfect example of Lenina’s conformity. Bernard’s unorthodox behavior leads Lenina to turn to what she knows and feels comfortable with, in this case that would be soma. Both Lenina and the controllers of World State know that this drug is hypnotizing and raises a “quite impermeable wall between the actual universe and their minds,”(p.77). Lenina desperately tries “her best to stop the ears of her mind,”(p.93) because Lenina is so afraid of going outside the norms of society, that she could barely stand to even listen to Bernard’s ideas of individualism. Even when the two characters travel into the savage community, Lenina is so brainwashed by her society that she refuses to empathize with the people, she ends up being scared of this community. The people who have kept most of the old aspects of life such as monogamy and sexual reproduction, end up disturbing Lenina to the point where she is begging Bernard to take her home. The rituals of sacrafice being performed to practice their religions as well as the action of a mother breastfeeding her child leaves Lenina feeling completely disgusted and miserable. Bernard’s reaction was the opposite of Lenina’s, he was interested and also mentioned how he wondered if the two of them had missed out by not having parents after seeing the breastfeeding mother. The contrasting reactions of Lenina and Bernard exemplify the differences between a person who chooses to conform, and one who is a social outcast whose ideas go against what is standard within their society. Lenina cannot comprehend any outlooks on society that oppose the beliefs she has been taught at a young age, because she was raised this way. Bernard may also have been this way if his weak physical appearance had not left him unable to fit in. A character that is similar to Bernard is introduced in chapter 7. John is an outcast who has always dreamed of living in the World State. Bernard is a misfit member of the World State who has blamed his society for the reason he isn’t socially accepted. The more I read, I wonder if Lenina’s opinions will be swayed and if she will start to understand Bernard when he tries to explain how twisted their society is. I also wonder if Bernard and John will do something to revolt against their civilizations. Do you think if you were a member of the World State, you would conform like Lenina or realize all the negatives of society like Bernard?
Rosie, I think the question you pose at the end of the post is most compelling because I think it takes a great deal of self-knowing of character to honestly say if you would be affected by the World State. I think that if the people that we are today existed in the Brave New World society, we would be outcasts as Bernard is, or would fall under the hypnotic ways of the world around us. When there is a society of people that disagree, and are even disgusted by the ideas that you have, it is hard to stand up for your own moral code. I’d imagine that many of us would transform into characters like Benjamin from Animal Farm, for they would understand the wrongs that exist in the world, but would stay muted and keep their rebellious ideas to themselves. And that would be the majority of us. However, for the exceptional few, I believe some would try to de-brainwash people, and show them the way of life that they know, and try to end the tyrannical rule of the World State.
Rosie, i too along with Tristan love the question you pose at the end. I have constantly been lingering over this question throughout the novel and have come to realize that it's difficult to find a solid answer. If people now a days were brought up the same as the babies in the World state, it would be difficult for them to understand what is happening because of how they are brainwashed. Its hard to transition your thought that you have learned from a young age just because you have heard them so often that you automatically are attached to them. But if I was to imagine myself being apart of the World State, I would like to think that I would definitely stand along side Bernard and question society. But then I think of society today and the aspects of it that are worth questioning like equality and freedom, I start to realize that the people in our world are most likely going to be like Benjamin from Animal Farm. At times we think to our selves what is the point in trying to change things when they will always go back to the way they are. In the end I still can't seen to conclude an answer for that question you pose.
Rosie, the question you ask at the end is a difficult one. I feel that the only reason Bernard and John don’t conform to society is simply because they aren’t accepted. However, as soon as Bernard is accepted into the World State society, he doesn’t criticize it anymore. Because of this, I feel that Bernard and John’s hatred of the World State society stems from their desire to have the one thing they can’t have- conformity. Therefore, if I was a member of the World State, I would probably conform because I wouldn’t have any reason not to, since I would be conditioned to agree with the World State. However, if I were a social outcaste in the World State, I would realize the negative aspects of society.
Lauren Prisco December 27, 2012 Entry #3: Bernard and Napoleon During the Animal Farm unit, we responded to the quote: "If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy" by Jean Genet. Both Bernard Marx, from Brave New World, and Napoleon, from Animal Farm, represent this quote. Corruption causes Bernard and Napoleon to transform into the people they had once criticized.
Bernard is introduced as a self-conscious, lonely and unique character in Chapter 3. He is considered a heretic of the World State society because he spends time alone, doesn’t use soma often and isn’t happy all the time. Bernard also displays opposition towards the World State society when he critiques the objectification of women, like Lenina, and refuses to participate in Obstacle Golf. As Bernard explains his opinions to Lenina, she rejects them since they contradict the World State’s teachings. For example, Bernard explains that he wants to be “free – not enslaved by [his] conditioning” (91). In other words, Bernard believes that he will never be happy in the World State society because he is forced to conform rather than be independent.
After Bernard meets John and introduces him to the World State, he becomes extremely popular and powerful. As a result of his new reputation, Bernard undergoes a dramatic transformation in which he disposes of his previous values and conforms to the World State. Bernard no longer cares about self-control and independence. Whereas he used to criticize the subjugation of women, Bernard now boasts about all the women he has. Additionally, Bernard discards his friendship with Helmholtz because he no longer feels lonely. Bernard’s power causes him to change his values and he conforms to the World State society, which he had so adamantly opposed in the past.
In Animal Farm, Napoleon vows to improve the quality of life for the animals on the farm by overthrowing the oppressive humans. However, similar to Bernard, Napoleon’s attainment of power corrupts him. The pigs’ behavior mirrors that of the humans. Ultimately, Napoleon’s reign becomes a reflection of the humans’ reign in which he had destroyed.
Overall, Napoleon and Bernard prove to be hypocrites by adopting the behaviors they used to criticize. However, after John refuses to attend Bernard’s party and everyone’s true opinions on Bernard are revealed, will Bernard withdraw from the World State society? Or do you think that he will continue his new behavior? Also, does Bernard realize that his behavior is hypocritical?
The World State uses technology as a method to control society. As new scientific technologies emerge, they are adopted without examining the ethical consequences. Huxley uses Brave New World to predict the effects of scientific advances on society. Now, 80 years later, society faces the same problem- how to determine the morality of scientific technology.
An important scientific advancement in Brave New World is the Bokanovsky process, which allows the World State to create “scores” of identical twins. According to the Director, the Bokanovsky process provides “identity”, claiming, “you really know who you are” (7). This is ironic because by having a multitude of identical twins, one loses their sense of identity and individuality. Nevertheless, the World State citizens do not recognize this ethical consequence because they are conditioned not to.
Another ethical issue regarding the Bokanovsky process is the creation of humans for profit. The World State regards its citizens as commodities that can be used for the benefit of the World State and then disposed of when they are no longer useful. In Chapter 5, Lenina and Henry fly over a crematorium, and Henry states, “[it’s] fine to think we can go on being socially useful even after we’re dead” (73). This demonstrates how the World State exploits every aspect of its citizens’ lives for its own benefit.
Today, we have developed cloning technology, which is similar to the Bokanovsky process. However, unlike the World State, we recognize the ethical issues with cloning. Ultimately, our society displays self-control when it comes to scientific advances. Conversely, the World State adopts any new technology that benefits it the most, without considering the moral complications. In my opinion, Huxley’s prediction about the effects of scientific technologies on society is false because our society recognizes the consequences of new technology, whereas the World State does not. Do you think the Huxley’s prediction is correct? If so, how does our society use science in an unethical way?
Link on ethical issues of cloning: http://www.bioarts.com/team_ji.htm
Lauren the question you posed at the end of your blog was extremely interesting. I agree with the fact that Huxley's predictions were off for the most part and that our society usually recognizes the consequences of new technologies. However, although this is true, I think that some technologies are overused and end up harming our society. For instance, the factories that are depleting the ozone layer continue to exhaust harmful substances into the environment that affect our society and will strongly negatively impact the future of our society. So to an extent I believe that Huxley's predictions were true, but certainly exaggerated.
Alexandra Rinaldi December 29, 2012 Entry#4: Moral Differences and Maintaing Social Positions
The savage society in New Mexico is completely opposite of the World State in England, as are the people in each civilization. As I talked about in my other entry, Lenina is an example of a person who has completely conformed to what is expected of her within the World State society. John, from the savage civilization is similar to Lenina in the sense that they both habitually speak ideas they have been taught and memorized. Lenina frequently repeats hypnopaedic messages like “a gramme in time saves nine,” or “everyone belongs to everyone.” John on the other hand often quotes Shakespeare whose beliefs contrast completely with the ideas of the World State. Shakespearean literature offers insight into human nature, and it demonstrates passion and love, which is completely incomprehensible in the World State society. On page 144, John’s actions are very significant. While reciting Shakespeare he quotes, “who, even in pure and vestal modesty, still blush, as thinking their own kisses sin” as he looks at Lenina he recognizes her innocence and purity, which is an extremely rare action for a man in this society. World State is clearly patriarchal, Bernard defends this statement on page 150 when he boasts how “he had six girls last week,” As John watches Lenina under the influence of soma he thinks how “he had only to take hold of the zipper at her neck and give on long strong pull…” but he quickly retracts his hand and “was ashamed of himself,”(p.145). Clearly John’s views on sex are radically different from those of the men within the World State civilization. In chapter 11, John and Lenina see a film, which he strongly dislikes. He perceives it as superficial and immoral. The pornographic film involves an inappropriate relationship with a “gigantic negro” who kidnaps a beta blonde woman. John claims that “it was ignoble,” while Lenina “thought it was lovely.” This is yet another example of the sharp differences between the savage society and the World State. John was never conditioned to accept and understand this society, and now he’s living in it. His morals contrast sharply with those of the civilians who are conditioned.
Another idea that was brought about in chapter 10 is the power of social criticism. The Director denounces Bernard in front of a bunch of workers to prove a point. He uses public humiliation as a way to threaten people into following the rules. After making a spectacle of him, Bernard brings in Linda and John. Linda runs to the Director claiming that John is their son. Linda is referred to as a “terrifying monster of middle agedness,”(p.150), and the Director is completely mortified. Both the actions of Bernard and the Director portray the desperateness of people to gain or maintain a high social standing. Bernard attacked the Director and was able to reduce the Directors social status but save his own position as an Alpha.
This idea of social standing and power connects to Animal Farm. Napoleon was comparable to Bernard in this particular situation. Napoleon was willing to do anything, including executing his own kind, to maintain his high position in society. Similarly, Bernard took down the Director to keep from losing his prestige within the World State Society. When Snowball threatened Napoleon’s position, he chased him out of the farm and Snowball lost all legitimacy and respect. The Director attempted to pull Bernard from his high stature so in return Bernard ruined his reputation and caused him to lose all power.
In the first paragraph I mentioned the scene in chapter 11 and the film that Lenina and John watched together. Knowing that Huxley wrote this book in 1931, how do you think people reacted to the controversial subjects discussed in this book and more specifically in this scene?
Venesa Rugova December 29, 2012 Entry #3: Introduction of John
In chapter 7 of the novel, the reader is introduced to a new and important character: John. He is introduced at the reservation where he is rejected by the people because his mother Linda is an “outsider” from the World State. Along with being rejected by the people of the reservation, he is also rejected by the World State due to the fact that he was physically conceived rather than the other children in the World State. John becomes the central character of the novel because, rejected both by the “savage” Indian culture and the “civilized” World State culture, he is the ultimate outsider.
John’s upbringing contributes to his rejection by both the World State and the reservation. For one thing, due to his mother being an “outsider”, John is automatically rejected by the people on the reservation because of how much it differs from the World State. Also, his mother’s alcoholic abuse, constant sexual activity, and lack of knowledge in cooking, cleaning, etc. leads her to being despised by the people. On the reservation, John is automatically shunned due to his mother’s backround and history. As much as he wants to expose himself to the reservations culture, he will still never be welcomed by the people. This demonstrates how in any given society, one can be easily rejected no matter what they do to try to fit in, and that other factors, rather than just yourself, can lead to rejection and unacceptance.
On the contrary to the reservation, John is rejected by the World state because he does not fit in with the others due to the fact that he actually has a mother and father. Along with that, once John enters the World State and sees what goes on, he is mortified with the sight and therefore does not think like the others in the World State. John serves as a significant character who was not brought up in the World State society and therefore does not believe the morals or actions of the society. His upbringing and love for Shakespeare show that he is one that represents the past and history, which is something the the World State does not tolerate.
Another factor that contributes to Johns overall character is his love for Shakespeare. John’s extensive knowledge of Shakespeare’s work serve him in several important ways: it enables him to verbalize his own emotions and reactions, it provides him with the ability to criticize World State values, and it provides him with language that allows him to hold his own against others. Shakespeare provides an emotional escape for John just how the soma provides an emotional escape for Lenina. But like the soma, which only provides this sort of escape for a couple of hours, Shakespearean eyes sometimes blinds John to the reality of other characters and the world and does not allow him to see eye to eye to the people in the World State, which contributes to his rejection. The two show that escape is something that is not capable, especially in this society.
The introduction to John gives the World State a presence of the past. A past where the creation of a child was natural rather than manufactured; where knowledge can be embraced by all, and opinions where formed by an own individual. John’s character could jeopardize the World States planes in a way that it exposes the citizens to history and a different type of society. But, what I still question is, will John be able to last in a society where history is no longer considered, and being different and having unorthodox thoughts are not tolerant. Will he be able to survive such a controlling society?
Lia Golden December 29th, 2012 Entry #3: John and Shakespeare
When John is introduced when Bernard and Lenina visit the savage reservation, I notice how he is an absolute outsider. John is completely alone because both the Indians and the World State rebuff him from their society. Still, John escapes his loneliness through reading works of Shakespeare. I find this introduction of Shakespeare to the novel extremely fascinating. The plays of Shakespeare demonstrate human relations in their passionate and sometimes tragic forms, and also display the values of humanity. Therefore, with showing Shakespeare through the character of John, Huxley emphasizes the contrast between the human principles represented through the works of Shakespeare, and those of the World State.
With John’s immense knowledge and liking of Shakespeare, I soon realize that that it is through Shakespeare that John finds his own values on life. These standards conflict with those of the World State. This is evident in John’s relationship with Lenina, where the differing in ideals in love and lust are explored. John is in love with Lenina, and faces this desire for a monogamous relationship. In fact, in chapter 13, John proposes to her as a way to solidify this desire. He even justifies his proposal by quoting Shakespeare when he says, “It’s like that in Shakespeare too. ‘If thou dost break her virgin knot before all sanctimonious may with full and holy rite…’” (191). However, because of Lenina’s World State beliefs, she only has a desire to have sex with John, and becomes irritated with his idea of marriage. These conflicting views shown by the characters highlight the profound difference in values of humanity demonstrated through Shakespeare’s plays and of the World State.
In addition to how John and Lenina’s failed relationship represents the contrasting ideals of people through Shakespeare and the World, it also reminds me of Shakespeare’s actual play of Romeo and Juliet. When John first meets Lenina, he is completely infatuated with her, just as Romeo is with Juliet. In addition, just as the conflict between the Capulet’s and Montague’s prevent Romeo and Juliet from being together, the conflicting values between John and Lenina does the same. I’m beginning to wonder if Huxley intentionally represents John as a Romeo-like character to create a further difference between the ethics illustrated through Shakespeare’s works and those of the World State. What do you all think-a mere coincidence or an intentional action of Huxley?
A final thought I have about John is as he continues to encounter the World State society and their values; I wonder how he will face it. Will he hold his own ideals or ultimately compromise what he believes in?
Lia, I agree that Huxley uses Shakespeare to emphasize the differences between the societies of the World State and the Savages. One specific way he does this is by showing the difference between love and lust, as you said. However, I feel that this difference has a deeper meaning. Lenina’s lust represents instant gratification, since she desires sex without commitment. This idea is prevalent among many other aspects of World State society. For instance, soma is used to escape unpleasant emotions and instantly become happy. Meanwhile, the Savage society believes in commitment, which is portrayed through their monogamous relationships and devotion to religion. Overall, I feel Huxley uses Shakespeare to criticize the World State’s lack of commitment.
Lia Golden December 30, 2012 Entry #4: Free Will in Brave New World
While reading Brave New World, I have noticed how all of the characters do not have free will, despite their role in the story. Outside factors determine their fates, as they shape the characters’s ideals and views. It is interesting to explore how Huxley presents this lack of free will through the characters in the novel.
First, the World State eliminates free will as the government conditions their citizens to do certain tasks and want specific things. This is evident when Lenina realizes that she likes John, yet stops herself to thinking she only wants sex by saying “’Put your arms round me,’ she [commands]. ‘Hug me till you drug me, honey.’ She too has poetry at her command, knew words that sang and were spells and beat drums” (193-194). The culture of the World State drives Lenina’s actions. In addition, the citizens of the World State are given limited educations, so they lack the opportunity to know any other way of living their lives. This is seen in Chapter 7, when Linda, a citizen of the World State who was left behind on the Savage Reservation, complains about her life there: “’I mean, when a child asks you how a helicopter works or ho made the world-well, what are you to answer if you’re a Beta and have always worked in the fertilizing room’” (122). Linda doesn’t explore these questions because of her conditioning, and becomes frustrated when others pose these questions.
Next, the people of the Savage Reservation lack free will as they are shaped by outside factors through their own cultural traditions. Unlike the World State, these Indians practice religion and embrace family. This is apparent when the Indians hold a ceremony to marry a boy and girl: “Then Kiakime’s father stepped forward, and holding up a feathered prayer stick, made a long prayer, then threw the stick after the corn meal” (135). With an extensive ceremony to establish two people together, it forces the members of this Savage community to value marriage, which undoubtedly alters their life path.
Last, as stated in my previous blog entry, John is a complete outsider from the Indians and the World State. One might assume that his loneliness would allow John to possess free will. Yet, John’s liking of Shakespeare’s works shapes his values, which drive his own decisions in life. John additionally does not have free will as the themes from the Shakespearean works affect his beliefs. For example, also shown in the previous entry, when John wants to marry Lenina, he rationalizes his actions with quoting Shakespeare.
The way that the characters of Brave New World are subjects to fate makes me question my own life. Do I gear my life in the direction I want it, or is it determined by surrounding factors? This might be a stretch, yet I found an interesting article on free will by Sam Harris, a writer and neuroscientist. I don’t necessarily believe everything he says, although his views are fascinating to read and think about. What do you all think about his opinions on free will?
Lia, I find the point that you make very valid, and revealing of an important theme that Huxley makes about society. He makes it clear that no one has free will and he makes that clear by showing two, completely opposite societies, containing people that share this way of life in which they do not make individual decisions. What it brings us to question in our lives is if we, as high school students, have individual ideas. Now girls, you will know what I mean when I speak in regard to your “personal blogs”, but really, how personal are they. For the most part, you hunt through the blogs of other girls and find pictures and quotes of “things that are YOU” (yes, Mrs. Rosenhaft, this is what blogs have evolved to, it’s evil). Really, what is you? What do you represent? It makes me ponder a “chicken or the egg” theory because if you follow the idea back from person to person to its original creator, there would be someone that had to have been influenced to have this idea. Now, what makes an idea your own? Is it the fact that you accept it? If so, aren’t you accepting and rejecting things that you have been raised to believe or not to believe. A wise man (Mr. Mathews) once told our class about a friend of his that raised his children under a bad religion. He didn’t specify which, but he said the reasoning was so that the children could have something to push off of, to create a basis for their own ideas. I though that that was the most interesting style of parenting that I had ever heard. Imagine going off to college and your parents sit you down to tell you that Christianity (just an example) was just a little test, and that you should move away from those beliefs. Exaggerated, of course, but still getting closer to what individuality and free will really is. Now, another bit of wisdom that was shared by Mr. Mathews was the idea that a concept may become yours once you have analyzed it and gone over its true value to you and if it is ethically valid. I believe that there is a point where you have to begin to say that “this idea is yours”, otherwise people could argue that no real ideas have been though of for hundreds of years, which is obviously false because the complex machinery that you are using to view this post was not an idea thought of hundreds of years ago. Maybe I’m being too hard on people and their ability to have their own thoughts. There is a large possibility that the thoughts that I am thinking about peoples ability to have thoughts of their own, is a thought of Mr. Mathews, whose thought may be of another man’s who bestowed that wisdom onto him. Or maybe the thought is mine because of how I have analyzed and questioned its legitimacy. It is food for thought.
Tristen, I like how you compared this idea of free will to our society today. I do not have a “personal blog,” yet it is extremely compelling to think of how much media shapes our ideas. In an age of technology, it seems that everyone communicates via texting, video chatting, etc. Actions are completely different than they would be from ten years ago, and these actions alter our relationships with people as they are based on social media. Still, I don’t think it is necessarily bad to conform to our society, yet I think people need to realize how much outside forces influence their lives-and others. If you haven’t read the Sam Harris article that I linked above, you should. He describes a horrid crime, yet says that so many things have shaped the criminals lives that it is almost inevitable for them to do this. If people can understand this idea, it will help to solve and prevent crimes, and overall, will make our society a better place.
Venesa Rugova December 30, 2012 Entry #4: Perspective
Through chapters 7-12, different perspectives arise, especially the perspectives of the World State and the Reservation. These two contrast from one another in numerous ways and due to this, the people don’t see eye to eye and don’t intend to. Both societies, like any other in the world today, have grown to their own ways of like and do not desire to adapt to the others life styles.
From the first introduction to the Reservation, it can be easily seen that the reservation is very different from the World State. Once at the Reservation, Lenina and Bernard are shocked to see its aged and ill residents; no one in the World State has visible signs of aging. Unlike the World State, the people on the Reservation are not brought up like the way they are in the World State. The Reservation is much more filthy and foul and with people who are unhygienic, while the World State is more manufactured to be clean and sustained. The reservation could be considered very uncivilized while the World state is rather civilized, stable and more like a society.
Both life styles can lead to different perspectives on life due to their opinions that have been formed throughout their life. For instance, Lenina is a character that is adapted to the controlling like style of the state. Once in the reservations she is disgusted with the sighting. In the novel, she states, “But cleanliness is next to fordliness” (110). In this case she is stating that being clean is in a sense being holy. Her life in the state has lead to her adapting that thought which is what leads her to criticizing the reservation. She also goes on to becoming confused with the aging of the people. Once she sees a wrinkled old indian, she does not understand why he looks he way he does. Bernard assures her that the man is just of old age but this still bewilders her because the director is old but he looks nothing like the indian man. Due to the fact that the State preserves the people from disease and old age, people like Lenina aren’t exposed to the natural cycle of aging.
On the other hand, there are characters like John who are are shocked by the actions of the World state. Due to the fact that he was raised on the reservation, John is unaware of the production of life in the state. The sight of dozens of identical twins in a factory sickens John. Before entering the state, John was thrilled to visit this mysterious “other world” and re-sights the phrase, “O brave new world that has such people in it” (139). The mood on the phrase shifts from being excited to being mortified. Because John was conceived, he is not able understand the process of creating children in the State. His life differs completely with the World State even though that’s where his mother was originally from. Because John was raised in the reservation, his surroundings have developed his thoughts and opinions and therefore have lead him to feeling discomforted with the State.
One thing that this novel has so far reminded me, is that a persons upbringing and environment can construct their perspective on life. For Lenina and John, because both of have been raised in two very contrasting societies, this leads both to having unsettling feelings about each others societies. In chapter 7, Lenina states, “But how can they live like this” (109). This sentence grabbed my attention because it’s ironic in a way that Lenina may think that for the reservation, but on the other hand the people on the reservation think the same for the world state. I personally have always thought to myself of how the people in the World State could live in such a controlling and absurd society. I have questioned their society because it differed from the society we live in today. Ones environment can create a persons perspective the same way it creates a persons opinions. Even in the world today, when some people go to third-world countries, they are baffled with how different the life styles are. Although perspective can be created by ones environment, it can also be altered with a persons experiences. In the novel and even in the world, by brainwashing a persons mind, you alter their perspective on things and therefore their opinions won’t change unless they allow themselves to truly understand the world around them. The phrase, “Put yourself in the other persons shoes,” has a full effect on perspective. But as i think about it, the one question that still lingers within me is, do we truly have control over our perspective for life or does our society have full control of it?
Oliver Stein Entry #3 Like the World State Lenina and the placid inhabitants of the World enjoy life without thinking about what they are doing, or if it is right. Bernard is constantly worrying about what is going on and what the consequences will be, while those around him beg him to be happy. The best example in BNW is in Lenina and Bernard’s date, ~ pages 88-90, when Lenina says: “A gramme is always better than a damn.” She is indoctrinating him back into the philosophies, and it takes deliberation and will on Bernard’s part to avoid them. What is missed then is that if Bernard gave in, he’d be happy. Why else would it be so hard to fight their propaganda?
With that in mind, think about another boogeyman—Peer Pressure. It drives people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, and to choices they wouldn’t otherwise. Choices like smoking, drinking, and bullying. Choices like blind faith, mob mentalities, and hatred. In practice, that view is both correct, and a perfect example of sampling bias. Peer Pressure drives people to try new things, expand their horizons, and forgive others. Peer pressure drives people to be happy, to strive for greatness, and to care for other people. Now that’s biased too, but that’s my point. Trying to bring moral judgments on life in the World State is fruitless because we are without their conditioning. For that reason, I would hate to live in the World State, and if I lived there, I would love it.
So think about it this way: From our perspective, life in the World State is cruelly restrictive, and if they could think like we could, it would be a blessing. From their perspective, we just haven’t reached the point, technologically or culturally, to be happy and successful without fretting over everything. So we are at an impasse; you can’t argue philosophy without a point A to agree on, as the logic required needs to have things that both sides can take as a given. Maybe a pros/cons table could work, but even that fails when you need to weigh them. A metaphor to describe them could be this: We, modern Western culture, are adults and the members of the World State are young children. Adults are far more capable of philosophical and technological complexity, and have everything that goes with such abilities. Children can believe in Santa Claus and run in the yard all day. Clearly the adults are more able to deal with problems, but the World State has solved all the problems that we have today, so they don’t have to deal with that.
With that in mind, who wouldn't want to be a kid? Just because they need their parents to drive them doesn't mean they aren't free.
Soma plays a major role in the way the government is able to mask the freedom of thought of the people. People mask their sorrows by taking soma holidays, to not have to face the realities of the world. Along with the brainwashing, the soma drug allows for the government to take away the free will of the people, but in a way that it like the people giving their government the ability to take advantage of them. The World State keeps feeding the public this drug so that with all of the time the people are under this drug induced state, the government has the freedom to do whatever it wants, as if giving candy to a child in order to keep it quiet.
This form of brainwashing makes me thing of an elite group of corrupt officers called the Dai Li, in a show called Avatar the Last Airbender. During a 100 year war, the Dai Li is able to keep the entire city of Ba Sing Se and even its king from knowing about the dangers lurking just beyond the walls of the city that are thought of to be impenetrable. The Dai Li keeps a close watch on new visitors and brainwashes anyone who dares to disturb the false peace being kept. What really reminded me of the form of brainwashing in Brave New World, was the way the Dai Li brainwashed a group of similar looking women, all called Joo Dee. These Joo Dee's have the job of ensuring everyone that everything is fine and that no harm can come upon them while in the walls of Ba Sing Se. This brainwashed group of women are perfectly happy, and speak in lines fed to them by the Dai Li, as do the castes of people in Brave New World. Both forms of brainwashing provide an ignorant bliss for these victims as they have no worries as the government is thinking for them. But when faced with a flaw in their perfect world, they immerse themselves in numbing soma pills, or a "trip to Lake Laogi" (the headquarters of the Dai Li where they are further brainwashed). But people like Bernard would rather face his pain and struggles, than numb himself with drugs. These people don't allow themselves to be silenced by temporary pleasures while the world just passes them by.
Both Linda and Lenina drown themselves with soma to avoid having to face their problems. They refuse to face their confusion in their love lives or confusion in identity and take more and more of this drug, not realizing that once their dream like state ends, their problems still remain. What happens when they can't get enough of this drug, when it's not enough to mask their pain? What will they be forced to turn to? You can't run from your problems and avoid them forever. At some point all of the pain you kept bottled up and pushing aside will eventually come crashing back down. The tranquility and bliss of not having to think or worry is only temporary and can only keep you so detached from reality for so long.
Halle Vernon December 31, 2012 Entry #4- Comparing Characters- John, Helmholtz and Bernard
John is growing up with many conflicting sourcing of information. He has the myths and legends of the old men of the pueblo, the science his mother is unable to explain, and the things he reads. Due to this, he is one of the most diverse characters in the novel. He knows of primitive sacrifices and rituals, he has heard of embryos and fertilization, and he is fascinated with the words of Shakespeare. Despite their extremely different backgrounds, I feel that John and Helmholtz would get along incredibly well. Both are seeking for greater truths, and neither feels as though they belong. I thought Bernard would have strived for change when he returned, but “in so far as it recognized him as important, the order of things was good.” (157) The fact that Bernard’s desire for change was caused only by his own loneliness and not for a moral desire for righteousness means that his thoughts of revolution were short lived. He may have humiliated the director, but for what cause? Bernard had the opportunity to take a stand against the system he was always so cynical of, and instead he used it to gain popularity. His social growth is temporary and situational, for people only have interest in him for as long as he has John and Linda. No good can come of this, and I worry that he’ll be exiled. These few chapters really showed the importance of having interest in things beyond oneself and the trivial parts of life. Helmholtz is searching for deeper meaning and importance in his life, and John has a fascination with words and the power they have. In the Savage Reservation, they have myths, rituals and beliefs to supply answers keep their world in order. The majority of Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons do not understand their world, and have been trained to not care through years of hypnopaedia. The leaders fear intellect because “The greater a man’s talents, the greater his power to lead astray.” (148) People are lead away from knowing anything that isn’t necessary for them to do their job. Linda not knowing what chemicals are, despite her job in the fertilization room shows just how ignorant people are universally in this brave new world. As a child, John was always asking questions, and he’d turn to his mother. “Linda never seemed to know. The old men of the pueblo had much more definite answers.” (130) This is how myths end up influencing him so much, despite his mother’s knowledge that they are futile, she cannot supply him with explanations, and without being brainwashed in his sleep, his development is dependent on a wider array of sources. People like John and Helmholtz have a deeper meaning in their lie because they care about more in their life than others do. It is easy to be insignificant if you make no attempt to understand anything around you. The diversity of John’s influences are what cause him to be such an interesting character- and in the eyes of many high ranking men, a threat to stability. Even though at the moment he is regarded at a primitive sort of pet, a writer like Helmholtz would love to spread news about his life on the savage reservation. John has a way with words himself and would make for a powerful speaker. Do you think they’ll have a chance to cause change, or will they be exiled for threatening the order of things?
Oliver Stein Entry 4 A Cunning Savage Though I have been playing devils’ advocate for a while now, the ironies that spring up from John’s interactions with the inhabitants of the world state are brilliantly written. The first one that struck me was John’s upbringing among the people of the reservations. John is a clever, classically educated (Well he quotes Shakespeare, which is close.) man living among illiterate quasi-Indians, while his only connection to “Civilization” doesn’t know anything outside her factory-line job. That it would take fleeing such a technologically super-modern society to read the classics, but the only people who still have them are illiterate, is a Catch-22 worthy of the name. Lenina and the World State’s reactions to the old men and women of the Reservation are also noteworthy. As Lenina says, they look terrible, especially compared to the nearly eternal youth of the members of the World State (On a slight, but rather terrifying tangent, Bernard says on Pg 111 that people are kept looking young until age 60, then “Crack- the end!” This, along with the frequent mentions by people like the Director that death is natural and no big deal makes me think there is a system of Euthanasia in the World State.) The irony of that is that we are made to infer that the savage is still perfectly clever, “His eyes still extraordinarily bright.” (Pg 111) While even the Alphas of the World State are superficial and nearly immune to thinking for themselves, though they still look young. Lastly, Bernard is hypocritical to an absurd degree. He wants to develop a real relationship with Lenina, he won’t take Soma, and looks down on the other members of the World State for being so shallow. That is, before he brings John to the World State and receives universal acclaim. As he says to Helmholtz, he “Had six girls last week,” (Pg 156), and on the next page it’s even more explicit: He likes it because he’s at the top, even though he still doesn’t like the World State. What is ironic is that had he acted like the other members of the World State and prescribed to their mottos and Soma, he would be accepted all the same, and just as happy. However, he instead makes things difficult for himself, and then happily accepts everything about the World State when they give him the light of day, which he could have had if he wasn’t different.
Alexandra Rinaldi
ReplyDeleteDecember 26, 2012
Entry #3: Comparing Characters
Lenina and Bernard are complete opposites who show the reader two different ideas within their society. Lenina is totally brainwashed and has completely conformed to the World State civilization while Bernard is a social outcast who can be considered blasphemous and a threat to the system.
Bernard constantly tries to open Lenina’s eyes to all the horrible aspects of their society. He explains his passionate desire to be independent to Lenina in chapter 6 when he poses the question “what would it be like if I could, if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning,”(p.91). Bernard expresses his radical thoughts that question the norms of society and Lenina is completely appalled. It is clear how loyal Lenina is to the government when she responds to Bernards radical opinions; “why don’t you take a soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You’d forget all about them,”(p.92). This is a perfect example of Lenina’s conformity. Bernard’s unorthodox behavior leads Lenina to turn to what she knows and feels comfortable with, in this case that would be soma. Both Lenina and the controllers of World State know that this drug is hypnotizing and raises a “quite impermeable wall between the actual universe and their minds,”(p.77). Lenina desperately tries “her best to stop the ears of her mind,”(p.93) because Lenina is so afraid of going outside the norms of society, that she could barely stand to even listen to Bernard’s ideas of individualism.
Even when the two characters travel into the savage community, Lenina is so brainwashed by her society that she refuses to empathize with the people, she ends up being scared of this community. The people who have kept most of the old aspects of life such as monogamy and sexual reproduction, end up disturbing Lenina to the point where she is begging Bernard to take her home. The rituals of sacrafice being performed to practice their religions as well as the action of a mother breastfeeding her child leaves Lenina feeling completely disgusted and miserable.
Bernard’s reaction was the opposite of Lenina’s, he was interested and also mentioned how he wondered if the two of them had missed out by not having parents after seeing the breastfeeding mother. The contrasting reactions of Lenina and Bernard exemplify the differences between a person who chooses to conform, and one who is a social outcast whose ideas go against what is standard within their society. Lenina cannot comprehend any outlooks on society that oppose the beliefs she has been taught at a young age, because she was raised this way. Bernard may also have been this way if his weak physical appearance had not left him unable to fit in.
A character that is similar to Bernard is introduced in chapter 7. John is an outcast who has always dreamed of living in the World State. Bernard is a misfit member of the World State who has blamed his society for the reason he isn’t socially accepted. The more I read, I wonder if Lenina’s opinions will be swayed and if she will start to understand Bernard when he tries to explain how twisted their society is. I also wonder if Bernard and John will do something to revolt against their civilizations. Do you think if you were a member of the World State, you would conform like Lenina or realize all the negatives of society like Bernard?
Rosie, I think the question you pose at the end of the post is most compelling because I think it takes a great deal of self-knowing of character to honestly say if you would be affected by the World State. I think that if the people that we are today existed in the Brave New World society, we would be outcasts as Bernard is, or would fall under the hypnotic ways of the world around us. When there is a society of people that disagree, and are even disgusted by the ideas that you have, it is hard to stand up for your own moral code. I’d imagine that many of us would transform into characters like Benjamin from Animal Farm, for they would understand the wrongs that exist in the world, but would stay muted and keep their rebellious ideas to themselves. And that would be the majority of us. However, for the exceptional few, I believe some would try to de-brainwash people, and show them the way of life that they know, and try to end the tyrannical rule of the World State.
DeleteRosie, i too along with Tristan love the question you pose at the end. I have constantly been lingering over this question throughout the novel and have come to realize that it's difficult to find a solid answer. If people now a days were brought up the same as the babies in the World state, it would be difficult for them to understand what is happening because of how they are brainwashed. Its hard to transition your thought that you have learned from a young age just because you have heard them so often that you automatically are attached to them. But if I was to imagine myself being apart of the World State, I would like to think that I would definitely stand along side Bernard and question society. But then I think of society today and the aspects of it that are worth questioning like equality and freedom, I start to realize that the people in our world are most likely going to be like Benjamin from Animal Farm. At times we think to our selves what is the point in trying to change things when they will always go back to the way they are. In the end I still can't seen to conclude an answer for that question you pose.
DeleteRosie, the question you ask at the end is a difficult one. I feel that the only reason Bernard and John don’t conform to society is simply because they aren’t accepted. However, as soon as Bernard is accepted into the World State society, he doesn’t criticize it anymore. Because of this, I feel that Bernard and John’s hatred of the World State society stems from their desire to have the one thing they can’t have- conformity. Therefore, if I was a member of the World State, I would probably conform because I wouldn’t have any reason not to, since I would be conditioned to agree with the World State. However, if I were a social outcaste in the World State, I would realize the negative aspects of society.
DeleteLauren Prisco
ReplyDeleteDecember 27, 2012
Entry #3: Bernard and Napoleon
During the Animal Farm unit, we responded to the quote: "If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy" by Jean Genet. Both Bernard Marx, from Brave New World, and Napoleon, from Animal Farm, represent this quote. Corruption causes Bernard and Napoleon to transform into the people they had once criticized.
Bernard is introduced as a self-conscious, lonely and unique character in Chapter 3. He is considered a heretic of the World State society because he spends time alone, doesn’t use soma often and isn’t happy all the time. Bernard also displays opposition towards the World State society when he critiques the objectification of women, like Lenina, and refuses to participate in Obstacle Golf. As Bernard explains his opinions to Lenina, she rejects them since they contradict the World State’s teachings. For example, Bernard explains that he wants to be “free – not enslaved by [his] conditioning” (91). In other words, Bernard believes that he will never be happy in the World State society because he is forced to conform rather than be independent.
After Bernard meets John and introduces him to the World State, he becomes extremely popular and powerful. As a result of his new reputation, Bernard undergoes a dramatic transformation in which he disposes of his previous values and conforms to the World State. Bernard no longer cares about self-control and independence. Whereas he used to criticize the subjugation of women, Bernard now boasts about all the women he has. Additionally, Bernard discards his friendship with Helmholtz because he no longer feels lonely. Bernard’s power causes him to change his values and he conforms to the World State society, which he had so adamantly opposed in the past.
In Animal Farm, Napoleon vows to improve the quality of life for the animals on the farm by overthrowing the oppressive humans. However, similar to Bernard, Napoleon’s attainment of power corrupts him. The pigs’ behavior mirrors that of the humans. Ultimately, Napoleon’s reign becomes a reflection of the humans’ reign in which he had destroyed.
Overall, Napoleon and Bernard prove to be hypocrites by adopting the behaviors they used to criticize. However, after John refuses to attend Bernard’s party and everyone’s true opinions on Bernard are revealed, will Bernard withdraw from the World State society? Or do you think that he will continue his new behavior? Also, does Bernard realize that his behavior is hypocritical?
Lauren Prisco
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2012
Entry #4: Technology and Ethics
The World State uses technology as a method to control society. As new scientific technologies emerge, they are adopted without examining the ethical consequences. Huxley uses Brave New World to predict the effects of scientific advances on society. Now, 80 years later, society faces the same problem- how to determine the morality of scientific technology.
An important scientific advancement in Brave New World is the Bokanovsky process, which allows the World State to create “scores” of identical twins. According to the Director, the Bokanovsky process provides “identity”, claiming, “you really know who you are” (7). This is ironic because by having a multitude of identical twins, one loses their sense of identity and individuality. Nevertheless, the World State citizens do not recognize this ethical consequence because they are conditioned not to.
Another ethical issue regarding the Bokanovsky process is the creation of humans for profit. The World State regards its citizens as commodities that can be used for the benefit of the World State and then disposed of when they are no longer useful. In Chapter 5, Lenina and Henry fly over a crematorium, and Henry states, “[it’s] fine to think we can go on being socially useful even after we’re dead” (73). This demonstrates how the World State exploits every aspect of its citizens’ lives for its own benefit.
Today, we have developed cloning technology, which is similar to the Bokanovsky process. However, unlike the World State, we recognize the ethical issues with cloning. Ultimately, our society displays self-control when it comes to scientific advances. Conversely, the World State adopts any new technology that benefits it the most, without considering the moral complications. In my opinion, Huxley’s prediction about the effects of scientific technologies on society is false because our society recognizes the consequences of new technology, whereas the World State does not. Do you think the Huxley’s prediction is correct? If so, how does our society use science in an unethical way?
Link on ethical issues of cloning: http://www.bioarts.com/team_ji.htm
Lauren the question you posed at the end of your blog was extremely interesting. I agree with the fact that Huxley's predictions were off for the most part and that our society usually recognizes the consequences of new technologies. However, although this is true, I think that some technologies are overused and end up harming our society. For instance, the factories that are depleting the ozone layer continue to exhaust harmful substances into the environment that affect our society and will strongly negatively impact the future of our society. So to an extent I believe that Huxley's predictions were true, but certainly exaggerated.
DeleteAlexandra Rinaldi
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2012
Entry#4: Moral Differences and Maintaing Social Positions
The savage society in New Mexico is completely opposite of the World State in England, as are the people in each civilization. As I talked about in my other entry, Lenina is an example of a person who has completely conformed to what is expected of her within the World State society. John, from the savage civilization is similar to Lenina in the sense that they both habitually speak ideas they have been taught and memorized. Lenina frequently repeats hypnopaedic messages like “a gramme in time saves nine,” or “everyone belongs to everyone.” John on the other hand often quotes Shakespeare whose beliefs contrast completely with the ideas of the World State. Shakespearean literature offers insight into human nature, and it demonstrates passion and love, which is completely incomprehensible in the World State society. On page 144, John’s actions are very significant. While reciting Shakespeare he quotes, “who, even in pure and vestal modesty, still blush, as thinking their own kisses sin” as he looks at Lenina he recognizes her innocence and purity, which is an extremely rare action for a man in this society. World State is clearly patriarchal, Bernard defends this statement on page 150 when he boasts how “he had six girls last week,” As John watches Lenina under the influence of soma he thinks how “he had only to take hold of the zipper at her neck and give on long strong pull…” but he quickly retracts his hand and “was ashamed of himself,”(p.145). Clearly John’s views on sex are radically different from those of the men within the World State civilization. In chapter 11, John and Lenina see a film, which he strongly dislikes. He perceives it as superficial and immoral. The pornographic film involves an inappropriate relationship with a “gigantic negro” who kidnaps a beta blonde woman. John claims that “it was ignoble,” while Lenina “thought it was lovely.” This is yet another example of the sharp differences between the savage society and the World State. John was never conditioned to accept and understand this society, and now he’s living in it. His morals contrast sharply with those of the civilians who are conditioned.
Another idea that was brought about in chapter 10 is the power of social criticism. The Director denounces Bernard in front of a bunch of workers to prove a point. He uses public humiliation as a way to threaten people into following the rules. After making a spectacle of him, Bernard brings in Linda and John. Linda runs to the Director claiming that John is their son. Linda is referred to as a “terrifying monster of middle agedness,”(p.150), and the Director is completely mortified. Both the actions of Bernard and the Director portray the desperateness of people to gain or maintain a high social standing. Bernard attacked the Director and was able to reduce the Directors social status but save his own position as an Alpha.
This idea of social standing and power connects to Animal Farm. Napoleon was comparable to Bernard in this particular situation. Napoleon was willing to do anything, including executing his own kind, to maintain his high position in society. Similarly, Bernard took down the Director to keep from losing his prestige within the World State Society. When Snowball threatened Napoleon’s position, he chased him out of the farm and Snowball lost all legitimacy and respect. The Director attempted to pull Bernard from his high stature so in return Bernard ruined his reputation and caused him to lose all power.
In the first paragraph I mentioned the scene in chapter 11 and the film that Lenina and John watched together. Knowing that Huxley wrote this book in 1931, how do you think people reacted to the controversial subjects discussed in this book and more specifically in this scene?
Venesa Rugova
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2012
Entry #3: Introduction of John
In chapter 7 of the novel, the reader is introduced to a new and important character: John. He is introduced at the reservation where he is rejected by the people because his mother Linda is an “outsider” from the World State. Along with being rejected by the people of the reservation, he is also rejected by the World State due to the fact that he was physically conceived rather than the other children in the World State. John becomes the central character of the novel because, rejected both by the “savage” Indian culture and the “civilized” World State culture, he is the ultimate outsider.
John’s upbringing contributes to his rejection by both the World State and the reservation. For one thing, due to his mother being an “outsider”, John is automatically rejected by the people on the reservation because of how much it differs from the World State. Also, his mother’s alcoholic abuse, constant sexual activity, and lack of knowledge in cooking, cleaning, etc. leads her to being despised by the people. On the reservation, John is automatically shunned due to his mother’s backround and history. As much as he wants to expose himself to the reservations culture, he will still never be welcomed by the people. This demonstrates how in any given society, one can be easily rejected no matter what they do to try to fit in, and that other factors, rather than just yourself, can lead to rejection and unacceptance.
On the contrary to the reservation, John is rejected by the World state because he does not fit in with the others due to the fact that he actually has a mother and father. Along with that, once John enters the World State and sees what goes on, he is mortified with the sight and therefore does not think like the others in the World State. John serves as a significant character who was not brought up in the World State society and therefore does not believe the morals or actions of the society. His upbringing and love for Shakespeare show that he is one that represents the past and history, which is something the the World State does not tolerate.
Another factor that contributes to Johns overall character is his love for Shakespeare. John’s extensive knowledge of Shakespeare’s work serve him in several important ways: it enables him to verbalize his own emotions and reactions, it provides him with the ability to criticize World State values, and it provides him with language that allows him to hold his own against others. Shakespeare provides an emotional escape for John just how the soma provides an emotional escape for Lenina. But like the soma, which only provides this sort of escape for a couple of hours, Shakespearean eyes sometimes blinds John to the reality of other characters and the world and does not allow him to see eye to eye to the people in the World State, which contributes to his rejection. The two show that escape is something that is not capable, especially in this society.
The introduction to John gives the World State a presence of the past. A past where the creation of a child was natural rather than manufactured; where knowledge can be embraced by all, and opinions where formed by an own individual. John’s character could jeopardize the World States planes in a way that it exposes the citizens to history and a different type of society. But, what I still question is, will John be able to last in a society where history is no longer considered, and being different and having unorthodox thoughts are not tolerant. Will he be able to survive such a controlling society?
Lia Golden
ReplyDeleteDecember 29th, 2012
Entry #3: John and Shakespeare
When John is introduced when Bernard and Lenina visit the savage reservation, I notice how he is an absolute outsider. John is completely alone because both the Indians and the World State rebuff him from their society. Still, John escapes his loneliness through reading works of Shakespeare. I find this introduction of Shakespeare to the novel extremely fascinating. The plays of Shakespeare demonstrate human relations in their passionate and sometimes tragic forms, and also display the values of humanity. Therefore, with showing Shakespeare through the character of John, Huxley emphasizes the contrast between the human principles represented through the works of Shakespeare, and those of the World State.
With John’s immense knowledge and liking of Shakespeare, I soon realize that that it is through Shakespeare that John finds his own values on life. These standards conflict with those of the World State. This is evident in John’s relationship with Lenina, where the differing in ideals in love and lust are explored. John is in love with Lenina, and faces this desire for a monogamous relationship. In fact, in chapter 13, John proposes to her as a way to solidify this desire. He even justifies his proposal by quoting Shakespeare when he says, “It’s like that in Shakespeare too. ‘If thou dost break her virgin knot before all sanctimonious may with full and holy rite…’” (191). However, because of Lenina’s World State beliefs, she only has a desire to have sex with John, and becomes irritated with his idea of marriage. These conflicting views shown by the characters highlight the profound difference in values of humanity demonstrated through Shakespeare’s plays and of the World State.
In addition to how John and Lenina’s failed relationship represents the contrasting ideals of people through Shakespeare and the World, it also reminds me of Shakespeare’s actual play of Romeo and Juliet. When John first meets Lenina, he is completely infatuated with her, just as Romeo is with Juliet. In addition, just as the conflict between the Capulet’s and Montague’s prevent Romeo and Juliet from being together, the conflicting values between John and Lenina does the same. I’m beginning to wonder if Huxley intentionally represents John as a Romeo-like character to create a further difference between the ethics illustrated through Shakespeare’s works and those of the World State. What do you all think-a mere coincidence or an intentional action of Huxley?
A final thought I have about John is as he continues to encounter the World State society and their values; I wonder how he will face it. Will he hold his own ideals or ultimately compromise what he believes in?
Lia, I agree that Huxley uses Shakespeare to emphasize the differences between the societies of the World State and the Savages. One specific way he does this is by showing the difference between love and lust, as you said. However, I feel that this difference has a deeper meaning. Lenina’s lust represents instant gratification, since she desires sex without commitment. This idea is prevalent among many other aspects of World State society. For instance, soma is used to escape unpleasant emotions and instantly become happy. Meanwhile, the Savage society believes in commitment, which is portrayed through their monogamous relationships and devotion to religion. Overall, I feel Huxley uses Shakespeare to criticize the World State’s lack of commitment.
DeleteLia Golden
ReplyDeleteDecember 30, 2012
Entry #4: Free Will in Brave New World
While reading Brave New World, I have noticed how all of the characters do not have free will, despite their role in the story. Outside factors determine their fates, as they shape the characters’s ideals and views. It is interesting to explore how Huxley presents this lack of free will through the characters in the novel.
First, the World State eliminates free will as the government conditions their citizens to do certain tasks and want specific things. This is evident when Lenina realizes that she likes John, yet stops herself to thinking she only wants sex by saying “’Put your arms round me,’ she [commands]. ‘Hug me till you drug me, honey.’ She too has poetry at her command, knew words that sang and were spells and beat drums” (193-194). The culture of the World State drives Lenina’s actions. In addition, the citizens of the World State are given limited educations, so they lack the opportunity to know any other way of living their lives. This is seen in Chapter 7, when Linda, a citizen of the World State who was left behind on the Savage Reservation, complains about her life there: “’I mean, when a child asks you how a helicopter works or ho made the world-well, what are you to answer if you’re a Beta and have always worked in the fertilizing room’” (122). Linda doesn’t explore these questions because of her conditioning, and becomes frustrated when others pose these questions.
Next, the people of the Savage Reservation lack free will as they are shaped by outside factors through their own cultural traditions. Unlike the World State, these Indians practice religion and embrace family. This is apparent when the Indians hold a ceremony to marry a boy and girl: “Then Kiakime’s father stepped forward, and holding up a feathered prayer stick, made a long prayer, then threw the stick after the corn meal” (135). With an extensive ceremony to establish two people together, it forces the members of this Savage community to value marriage, which undoubtedly alters their life path.
Last, as stated in my previous blog entry, John is a complete outsider from the Indians and the World State. One might assume that his loneliness would allow John to possess free will. Yet, John’s liking of Shakespeare’s works shapes his values, which drive his own decisions in life. John additionally does not have free will as the themes from the Shakespearean works affect his beliefs. For example, also shown in the previous entry, when John wants to marry Lenina, he rationalizes his actions with quoting Shakespeare.
The way that the characters of Brave New World are subjects to fate makes me question my own life. Do I gear my life in the direction I want it, or is it determined by surrounding factors? This might be a stretch, yet I found an interesting article on free will by Sam Harris, a writer and neuroscientist. I don’t necessarily believe everything he says, although his views are fascinating to read and think about. What do you all think about his opinions on free will?
Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/is-free-will-an-illusion-sam-harris-on-his-new-book.html
Tristen Lee
DeleteJanuary 3, 2013
Entry #3.5
Lia, I find the point that you make very valid, and revealing of an important theme that Huxley makes about society. He makes it clear that no one has free will and he makes that clear by showing two, completely opposite societies, containing people that share this way of life in which they do not make individual decisions. What it brings us to question in our lives is if we, as high school students, have individual ideas. Now girls, you will know what I mean when I speak in regard to your “personal blogs”, but really, how personal are they. For the most part, you hunt through the blogs of other girls and find pictures and quotes of “things that are YOU” (yes, Mrs. Rosenhaft, this is what blogs have evolved to, it’s evil). Really, what is you? What do you represent? It makes me ponder a “chicken or the egg” theory because if you follow the idea back from person to person to its original creator, there would be someone that had to have been influenced to have this idea. Now, what makes an idea your own? Is it the fact that you accept it? If so, aren’t you accepting and rejecting things that you have been raised to believe or not to believe. A wise man (Mr. Mathews) once told our class about a friend of his that raised his children under a bad religion. He didn’t specify which, but he said the reasoning was so that the children could have something to push off of, to create a basis for their own ideas. I though that that was the most interesting style of parenting that I had ever heard. Imagine going off to college and your parents sit you down to tell you that Christianity (just an example) was just a little test, and that you should move away from those beliefs. Exaggerated, of course, but still getting closer to what individuality and free will really is. Now, another bit of wisdom that was shared by Mr. Mathews was the idea that a concept may become yours once you have analyzed it and gone over its true value to you and if it is ethically valid. I believe that there is a point where you have to begin to say that “this idea is yours”, otherwise people could argue that no real ideas have been though of for hundreds of years, which is obviously false because the complex machinery that you are using to view this post was not an idea thought of hundreds of years ago. Maybe I’m being too hard on people and their ability to have their own thoughts. There is a large possibility that the thoughts that I am thinking about peoples ability to have thoughts of their own, is a thought of Mr. Mathews, whose thought may be of another man’s who bestowed that wisdom onto him. Or maybe the thought is mine because of how I have analyzed and questioned its legitimacy. It is food for thought.
Tristen, I like how you compared this idea of free will to our society today. I do not have a “personal blog,” yet it is extremely compelling to think of how much media shapes our ideas. In an age of technology, it seems that everyone communicates via texting, video chatting, etc. Actions are completely different than they would be from ten years ago, and these actions alter our relationships with people as they are based on social media. Still, I don’t think it is necessarily bad to conform to our society, yet I think people need to realize how much outside forces influence their lives-and others. If you haven’t read the Sam Harris article that I linked above, you should. He describes a horrid crime, yet says that so many things have shaped the criminals lives that it is almost inevitable for them to do this. If people can understand this idea, it will help to solve and prevent crimes, and overall, will make our society a better place.
DeleteVenesa Rugova
ReplyDeleteDecember 30, 2012
Entry #4: Perspective
Through chapters 7-12, different perspectives arise, especially the perspectives of the World State and the Reservation. These two contrast from one another in numerous ways and due to this, the people don’t see eye to eye and don’t intend to. Both societies, like any other in the world today, have grown to their own ways of like and do not desire to adapt to the others life styles.
From the first introduction to the Reservation, it can be easily seen that the reservation is very different from the World State. Once at the Reservation, Lenina and Bernard are shocked to see its aged and ill residents; no one in the World State has visible signs of aging. Unlike the World State, the people on the Reservation are not brought up like the way they are in the World State. The Reservation is much more filthy and foul and with people who are unhygienic, while the World State is more manufactured to be clean and sustained. The reservation could be considered very uncivilized while the World state is rather civilized, stable and more like a society.
Both life styles can lead to different perspectives on life due to their opinions that have been formed throughout their life. For instance, Lenina is a character that is adapted to the controlling like style of the state. Once in the reservations she is disgusted with the sighting. In the novel, she states, “But cleanliness is next to fordliness” (110). In this case she is stating that being clean is in a sense being holy. Her life in the state has lead to her adapting that thought which is what leads her to criticizing the reservation. She also goes on to becoming confused with the aging of the people. Once she sees a wrinkled old indian, she does not understand why he looks he way he does. Bernard assures her that the man is just of old age but this still bewilders her because the director is old but he looks nothing like the indian man. Due to the fact that the State preserves the people from disease and old age, people like Lenina aren’t exposed to the natural cycle of aging.
On the other hand, there are characters like John who are are shocked by the actions of the World state. Due to the fact that he was raised on the reservation, John is unaware of the production of life in the state. The sight of dozens of identical twins in a factory sickens John. Before entering the state, John was thrilled to visit this mysterious “other world” and re-sights the phrase, “O brave new world that has such people in it” (139). The mood on the phrase shifts from being excited to being mortified. Because John was conceived, he is not able understand the process of creating children in the State. His life differs completely with the World State even though that’s where his mother was originally from. Because John was raised in the reservation, his surroundings have developed his thoughts and opinions and therefore have lead him to feeling discomforted with the State.
(continue of entry 4 ^)
ReplyDeleteOne thing that this novel has so far reminded me, is that a persons upbringing and environment can construct their perspective on life. For Lenina and John, because both of have been raised in two very contrasting societies, this leads both to having unsettling feelings about each others societies. In chapter 7, Lenina states, “But how can they live like this” (109). This sentence grabbed my attention because it’s ironic in a way that Lenina may think that for the reservation, but on the other hand the people on the reservation think the same for the world state. I personally have always thought to myself of how the people in the World State could live in such a controlling and absurd society. I have questioned their society because it differed from the society we live in today. Ones environment can create a persons perspective the same way it creates a persons opinions. Even in the world today, when some people go to third-world countries, they are baffled with how different the life styles are. Although perspective can be created by ones environment, it can also be altered with a persons experiences. In the novel and even in the world, by brainwashing a persons mind, you alter their perspective on things and therefore their opinions won’t change unless they allow themselves to truly understand the world around them. The phrase, “Put yourself in the other persons shoes,” has a full effect on perspective. But as i think about it, the one question that still lingers within me is, do we truly have control over our perspective for life or does our society have full control of it?
Oliver Stein
ReplyDeleteEntry #3
Like the World State
Lenina and the placid inhabitants of the World enjoy life without thinking about what they are doing, or if it is right. Bernard is constantly worrying about what is going on and what the consequences will be, while those around him beg him to be happy. The best example in BNW is in Lenina and Bernard’s date, ~ pages 88-90, when Lenina says: “A gramme is always better than a damn.” She is indoctrinating him back into the philosophies, and it takes deliberation and will on Bernard’s part to avoid them. What is missed then is that if Bernard gave in, he’d be happy. Why else would it be so hard to fight their propaganda?
With that in mind, think about another boogeyman—Peer Pressure. It drives people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, and to choices they wouldn’t otherwise. Choices like smoking, drinking, and bullying. Choices like blind faith, mob mentalities, and hatred. In practice, that view is both correct, and a perfect example of sampling bias. Peer Pressure drives people to try new things, expand their horizons, and forgive others. Peer pressure drives people to be happy, to strive for greatness, and to care for other people. Now that’s biased too, but that’s my point. Trying to bring moral judgments on life in the World State is fruitless because we are without their conditioning. For that reason, I would hate to live in the World State, and if I lived there, I would love it.
So think about it this way: From our perspective, life in the World State is cruelly restrictive, and if they could think like we could, it would be a blessing. From their perspective, we just haven’t reached the point, technologically or culturally, to be happy and successful without fretting over everything. So we are at an impasse; you can’t argue philosophy without a point A to agree on, as the logic required needs to have things that both sides can take as a given. Maybe a pros/cons table could work, but even that fails when you need to weigh them. A metaphor to describe them could be this: We, modern Western culture, are adults and the members of the World State are young children. Adults are far more capable of philosophical and technological complexity, and have everything that goes with such abilities. Children can believe in Santa Claus and run in the yard all day. Clearly the adults are more able to deal with problems, but the World State has solved all the problems that we have today, so they don’t have to deal with that.
With that in mind, who wouldn't want to be a kid? Just because they need their parents to drive them doesn't mean they aren't free.
Michelle Perez
ReplyDelete12/30/12
Entry #4- Soma's Control
Soma plays a major role in the way the government is able to mask the freedom of thought of the people. People mask their sorrows by taking soma holidays, to not have to face the realities of the world. Along with the brainwashing, the soma drug allows for the government to take away the free will of the people, but in a way that it like the people giving their government the ability to take advantage of them. The World State keeps feeding the public this drug so that with all of the time the people are under this drug induced state, the government has the freedom to do whatever it wants, as if giving candy to a child in order to keep it quiet.
This form of brainwashing makes me thing of an elite group of corrupt officers called the Dai Li, in a show called Avatar the Last Airbender. During a 100 year war, the Dai Li is able to keep the entire city of Ba Sing Se and even its king from knowing about the dangers lurking just beyond the walls of the city that are thought of to be impenetrable. The Dai Li keeps a close watch on new visitors and brainwashes anyone who dares to disturb the false peace being kept. What really reminded me of the form of brainwashing in Brave New World, was the way the Dai Li brainwashed a group of similar looking women, all called Joo Dee. These Joo Dee's have the job of ensuring everyone that everything is fine and that no harm can come upon them while in the walls of Ba Sing Se. This brainwashed group of women are perfectly happy, and speak in lines fed to them by the Dai Li, as do the castes of people in Brave New World. Both forms of brainwashing provide an ignorant bliss for these victims as they have no worries as the government is thinking for them. But when faced with a flaw in their perfect world, they immerse themselves in numbing soma pills, or a "trip to Lake Laogi" (the headquarters of the Dai Li where they are further brainwashed). But people like Bernard would rather face his pain and struggles, than numb himself with drugs. These people don't allow themselves to be silenced by temporary pleasures while the world just passes them by.
Both Linda and Lenina drown themselves with soma to avoid having to face their problems. They refuse to face their confusion in their love lives or confusion in identity and take more and more of this drug, not realizing that once their dream like state ends, their problems still remain. What happens when they can't get enough of this drug, when it's not enough to mask their pain? What will they be forced to turn to? You can't run from your problems and avoid them forever. At some point all of the pain you kept bottled up and pushing aside will eventually come crashing back down. The tranquility and bliss of not having to think or worry is only temporary and can only keep you so detached from reality for so long.
Halle Vernon
ReplyDeleteDecember 31, 2012
Entry #4- Comparing Characters- John, Helmholtz and Bernard
John is growing up with many conflicting sourcing of information. He has the myths and legends of the old men of the pueblo, the science his mother is unable to explain, and the things he reads. Due to this, he is one of the most diverse characters in the novel. He knows of primitive sacrifices and rituals, he has heard of embryos and fertilization, and he is fascinated with the words of Shakespeare. Despite their extremely different backgrounds, I feel that John and Helmholtz would get along incredibly well. Both are seeking for greater truths, and neither feels as though they belong.
I thought Bernard would have strived for change when he returned, but “in so far as it recognized him as important, the order of things was good.” (157) The fact that Bernard’s desire for change was caused only by his own loneliness and not for a moral desire for righteousness means that his thoughts of revolution were short lived. He may have humiliated the director, but for what cause? Bernard had the opportunity to take a stand against the system he was always so cynical of, and instead he used it to gain popularity. His social growth is temporary and situational, for people only have interest in him for as long as he has John and Linda. No good can come of this, and I worry that he’ll be exiled.
These few chapters really showed the importance of having interest in things beyond oneself and the trivial parts of life. Helmholtz is searching for deeper meaning and importance in his life, and John has a fascination with words and the power they have. In the Savage Reservation, they have myths, rituals and beliefs to supply answers keep their world in order. The majority of Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons do not understand their world, and have been trained to not care through years of hypnopaedia. The leaders fear intellect because “The greater a man’s talents, the greater his power to lead astray.” (148) People are lead away from knowing anything that isn’t necessary for them to do their job. Linda not knowing what chemicals are, despite her job in the fertilization room shows just how ignorant people are universally in this brave new world. As a child, John was always asking questions, and he’d turn to his mother. “Linda never seemed to know. The old men of the pueblo had much more definite answers.” (130) This is how myths end up influencing him so much, despite his mother’s knowledge that they are futile, she cannot supply him with explanations, and without being brainwashed in his sleep, his development is dependent on a wider array of sources. People like John and Helmholtz have a deeper meaning in their lie because they care about more in their life than others do. It is easy to be insignificant if you make no attempt to understand anything around you.
The diversity of John’s influences are what cause him to be such an interesting character- and in the eyes of many high ranking men, a threat to stability. Even though at the moment he is regarded at a primitive sort of pet, a writer like Helmholtz would love to spread news about his life on the savage reservation. John has a way with words himself and would make for a powerful speaker. Do you think they’ll have a chance to cause change, or will they be exiled for threatening the order of things?
Nicely done, people! Happy New Year! See you tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteOliver Stein
ReplyDeleteEntry 4
A Cunning Savage
Though I have been playing devils’ advocate for a while now, the ironies that spring up from John’s interactions with the inhabitants of the world state are brilliantly written. The first one that struck me was John’s upbringing among the people of the reservations. John is a clever, classically educated (Well he quotes Shakespeare, which is close.) man living among illiterate quasi-Indians, while his only connection to “Civilization” doesn’t know anything outside her factory-line job. That it would take fleeing such a technologically super-modern society to read the classics, but the only people who still have them are illiterate, is a Catch-22 worthy of the name.
Lenina and the World State’s reactions to the old men and women of the Reservation are also noteworthy. As Lenina says, they look terrible, especially compared to the nearly eternal youth of the members of the World State (On a slight, but rather terrifying tangent, Bernard says on Pg 111 that people are kept looking young until age 60, then “Crack- the end!” This, along with the frequent mentions by people like the Director that death is natural and no big deal makes me think there is a system of Euthanasia in the World State.) The irony of that is that we are made to infer that the savage is still perfectly clever, “His eyes still extraordinarily bright.” (Pg 111) While even the Alphas of the World State are superficial and nearly immune to thinking for themselves, though they still look young.
Lastly, Bernard is hypocritical to an absurd degree. He wants to develop a real relationship with Lenina, he won’t take Soma, and looks down on the other members of the World State for being so shallow. That is, before he brings John to the World State and receives universal acclaim. As he says to Helmholtz, he “Had six girls last week,” (Pg 156), and on the next page it’s even more explicit: He likes it because he’s at the top, even though he still doesn’t like the World State. What is ironic is that had he acted like the other members of the World State and prescribed to their mottos and Soma, he would be accepted all the same, and just as happy. However, he instead makes things difficult for himself, and then happily accepts everything about the World State when they give him the light of day, which he could have had if he wasn’t different.