Brave New World- Second Reading

Disclaimer: I wasn’t sure how much we were supposed to read, so I went to chapter 16. I’ll try to minimize the impact of the extra reading on what follows.

How durable is the one-state?

The one-state appears at present to be very durable. For one, its scope is enormous, both in its extent of geographical control and in its intrusion into the lives of its citizens. Huxley writes, “But as the two thousand million inhabitants of the planet only had ten thousand names between them, the coincidence was not particularly surprising” (49). This statement demonstrates that the government controls the entirety of the world populace, and furthermore, that such control extends to so personal a level as naming. Additionally, it has moved beyond the cruder, more brutish punishments levied in 1984 to a life filled with apathy derived from pleasure and contentment. Huxley explains, “’Old men in the past 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…” (68). From the moment consciousness begins, the individual is stimulated, through work and pleasure: leisure is structured; free time unavailable in a perversion of “idle hands do the devil’s work.” No one has a motive to rebel, and so the one-state is durable and powerful.

Does the one-state regularly deal with dissidence, and if so, how?

First, as indicated above, dissidence is minimally problematic because the vast majority of individuals are quite happy. Dissident individuals would presumably feel isolated and unusual, as Marx does. “’But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in your own way, Lenina?’” questions Marx, “’in your own way, for example; not in everyone else’s way’” (101). Marx is unhappy and an outcast for it—quite literally, being abnormal for an alpha—but he is one of the few (so far, two) who feel this way. The only implement for dealing with subversives mentioned so far is a job transfer to a remote location, where, according to the director, they “will have small opportunity to lead others astray by [their] unfordly example” (157). So far, no stricter means of punishment --punitive, rehabilitative, or otherwise—seems to be common.

How did the world come to accept what we would view as totalitarian rule?

This remains unclear to this point. What is clear, however, is that the society in which Marx and the other characters reside is far removed from our present-day society. The connotation of the word “mother” most vividly demonstrates this. The word is described as “smutty” (48) and “pornographic impropriety” (159), whereas in our society it carries a positive connotation of caring affection. Time is measured “after Ford,” and it is currently over a century after Ford; however, it is not clear when Ford lived or who exactly Ford was. Presumably, given allusion regarding the letter “T” Ford refers to Henry Ford, which would seem logical in tandem with the novel’s theme of technological abuse. This seems logical given the novel’s 1931 publishing date, but outdated now given both the year and the prevalence of mass-production techniques.