The two world wars and the great depression definitely changed people’s perception of the future. This was adequately represented in literature and other popular art forms where there was a dramatic shift from the glory days of utopic representations to depicting worlds that are inherently undesirable. Throughout the history of literature, there have always been projections and forecasts about the future and this marked shift in the mood and tone towards dystopia reflected the conditions in which they were written. Surely, the most disturbing and well known works of dystopian literature are Yevgeny Zamyatin’s WE, Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World. WE was definitely a precursor to the other 2 and contains many themes that were the cornerstone of a generation of dystopian works.
I read an interesting bit about the difference between 1984 and Brave New World in a foreword to a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. I shall reproduce the same here and then have a go at it myself:
| “ |
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.”
Based on this, it would easily seem that Huxley hit the nail right on the spot. There are many striking resemblances in today’s society with Huxley’s. Judging by these criteria, it would be easy to declare that Huxley was a better soothsayer than Orwell. While there is nothing to disagree in what this author has written, I would say that he has missed other important over-arching criteria.
My question is: In our modern futuristic projections based on these great dystopian myths, are the two really that different? My proposition is that it is not that dichotomous, they are not binary ends. Consider the situation today: what we have is a very fine delicate balance between these two supposed contradictions, generously garnished by the ingredients we find in WE.
‘We’ speaks about a dystopian totalitarian post apocalyptic society which runs on the principles of collectivity, loss of individual identity, absolute transparence, where, the engine of growth for society is increased productivity à la the infinitely exaggerated principles of Taylorism (F.W Taylor, the father of modern scientific management (of labour)). Brave New World deals with, again, a collectivist futuristic society based on extreme division of labour, assembly line production and no doubt, Freudian hedonistic construction of human needs and Pavlov, Skinner, Thorndike, and co’s human learning models. 1984 is perhaps the darkest conjecture of the human society to come: a totalitarian society controlled by an overarching, omniscient and omnipotent Party, the fuel for growth is perpetual and continuous warfare, external and domestic.
It is rather facile to dismiss Orwell’s vision because he basically projected a communist based totalitarian government and Huxley’s hedonistic information-overdose situations seems to be the more plausible one. However, the present reality seems to healthily borrow subdued versions of the nightmarish elements present in all three works. I see the three works complementary in nature rather than substitute visions of the future.
At a societal viewpoint, Huxley has made the right projections. With a preoccupation with self, society has allowed itself to decay, as indifference permeates its veins. Consumerism, in its pejorative sense of equating personal happiness with ever increasing consumption, is the closest manifestation of Huxley world order. Life’s purpose is trivialized to the sole aim and objective of consumption; one’s goal in life is simply, to increase purchasing power. This would keep societies content and the order once established, ceteris paribus, the ability to consume is the only determinant of growth and stability.
However, this can be regarded as a partial equilibrium analysis as it dwells on the society’s status quo position. The other side of the equation has to be considered and here is where the complementarity of the two visions falls into place. How is the status quo established for the people at power? How do they ensure they remain in power? 1984 provides powerful tools of analysis of obtaining and maintaining power.
The basis for power in the Orwellian analysis is clearly fear and intimidation coupled with meticulous propaganda. Both play a key role in our society. However, it is not a direct fear via physical force but a psychological fear against a common enemy. Following the Durkheimian analysis of the positive functions of deviance, a common enemy helps in social solidarity and maintaining the status quo. The common enemy takes various forms. In the cold war era, the obvious enemy was communists (remember McCarthy?) and the irony lies in using communist tools against the commies. Then, it was terrorists followed by recessions and depressions and unemployment and foreclosures. Throughout, economic fear plays a key role: the fear of not being able to get a satisfactory share of the pie. Fear drives us into obedience and servitude, nay, even love for those in power. To combat the common external enemy, we look up to those in power.
So, who is in power? This is the evident point of departure from the Orwellian vision. However, for an instant, replace Orwell’s totalitarian government with a totalitarian monetary and economic system and we can readily see the eminence of his prediction. Replace government propaganda with corporate sponsorship and marketing and the similarities are striking.
In Orwell’s view, for the oligarchical, hierarchical societal structure to be intact, production has to incessant and the value of this, instead of being transferred to the consumers, the masses, it has to be perpetually destroyed via continuous warfare. The essence is thus, that production has to be endless in order for the nation to ‘progress’, but produced goods should never enhance the value of the masses. Fortunately, today’s economic system has not yet reached this devastating extreme, but there are traces of it sprinkled all over our economic order. Planned obsolescence is the most striking representation of this, albeit a much sober version. Produced goods in today’s society are never meant to be sustainable and a great deal of economic activity centers around perpetually creating and destroying goods.
Thus, what I have tried to achieve here is build a synthesis of 1984, Brave New World and reality. Next, just to feel better and infuse a sense of hope in mankind’s destiny let me try to recognize any representation of utopic elements in the world today, a much arduous task, without a doubt!
