Professional Documents
Culture Documents
citizens of Brave New World (BNW). Just add the rhyme ‘…and now let’s kiss’ and you
have a great hypnopeadic mantra for Huxley’s dystopic paradise. The excerpt given puts
this specious and persistent claim to the test. The World Controller clearly has his own
doubts about the supremacy of happiness, but observes that sometimes the obfuscation of
freedom for security – is a necessary function of a happy and stable society. Herein lies
the problem; finding the balance point between happiness and truth. In the excerpt,
Huxley reveals how society unwittingly conspires against itself to incline towards a
definition of happiness. It can be different things to one person, as well as different things
to many people. It is highly subjective, contextual, and most importantly, relative. But in
BNW, it has been localized and redefined to have new meaning; yet it is meaningless.
Thus, for the purposes of this essay happiness is meant in the simple sense of bliss or
ecstasy.
The first aspect of Mond’s speech to focus on is the ancient belief that progress
some critical mass, but that never happened in the history of ‘Our Ford,’ nor is it on the
horizon in our world. Instead, unimpeded scientific progress was terminated by the
catalyzing “Nine Years’ War.”1 While keeping the details mysterious, Huxley is emphatic
that that was what made people demand happiness before truth, rather than the conscious
subordination of truth. It is of particular importance to note here that these events can also
1
Huxley, Brave New World, p. 201
1
be (and sometimes are) conceived from within the state itself, in order to bring about
change. This was a premise in the 1984-style future fascist Britain dystopia portrayed in
the comic/movie V for Vendetta. There are also many real world examples, but naturally
they are accompanied by controversy since, as Henry Ford says, “history is bunk.”2
Either way, such an event is instrumental in creating a state of fear for advancing
unquestioning obedience. Such was the case with the 9/11 terrorist attacks; most people
were scared into accepting a new political agenda. Then, it becomes less a question of
whether people value happiness over truth, but survival over truth.
The second point made by Mustapha Mond is about the economic motivation to
choose bliss over reality. Truth and beauty did not drive economic growth; rather it was
happiness that kept the machine running. Mass production, thanks to Henry Ford, helped
people embrace this new paradigm of surreal happiness. When Huxley writes mass
production prompted the shift, he also means mass consumption. People began to find
However, this shift was not brought about by the collective will alone. Titans of industry
like Henry Ford prospered from the manipulation of the public will. To this effect I cite
the enormous contributions by the likes of Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman to the
fields of advertising and propaganda, around the time of BNW‘s writing. Thus, in this
sense, it is not happiness that ‘keeps the wheels turning,’ but the perception of happiness
brought about by the economic utility of providing it, while hiding the cost – the truth.
The third part of the excerpt is the crux of the statement. When Mond credits ‘the
masses’ with seizing political power and shaping the new paradigm, he is insinuating that
they made a free, albeit not informed, choice. The only difference between the masses
2
Huxley, p. xxi
2
and Mond, the Savage, and Watson, is that the latter group questioned society enough to
be able to make an informed choice. John the Savage and Watson chose exodus from the
Brave New World, to their respective places, because they wanted truth and beauty over
happiness and contentment. Mond, on the other hand, believes in happiness, and he is
able to talk of the masses with a degree of derision since he has chosen to serve their
oblivious joy. Moreover, Mond uses this perspective to justify his assertion that since he
makes the laws, he can break them.3 Meanwhile, ‘the masses’ are oblivious to this news.
condemnation of free will. That is to say, instead of accepting the responsibility that
structured and conditioned society. Freedom and individuality are existentialist notions
that are strictly forbidden in this sublime future. Our acquiescence of this type of society
symbolizes the denial of our fallibility because we presuppose that happiness is the
absolute measure of things, without even knowing what the alternatives are. Yet, as it is
no secret in BNW, everyone is conditioned to act this way, and conditioned not to
question it, so even the World Controller can’t be sure his thoughts are his own. We
become slaves to happiness, and that is not true happiness. Ergo, the civilization
proposed in BNW seems to offer the elimination of existential angst by the elimination of
existentialism altogether.
value happiness and comfort over truth, knowledge, and beauty? For most people, being
blissfully ignorant is agreeable; what you don’t know can’t hurt you, they say. But for
others, a minority, questions burn inside of us and erode our happiness until nothing else
3
Huxley, p. 192
3
matters but the truth. The trouble with trying to categorize ‘most humans,’ is that people
change. Humans are dynamic and depending on the unique circumstance may or may not
choose knowledge. But for simplicity sake, it is clearly observable the most people do
live and die in a mental prison of sorts, and some break free. As Mond puts it, these rare
individuals seek the “right to be unhappy.”4 The Savage welcomes this sentence, but in
his choice is neglecting that his own social conditioning in the reservation influences his
choice; he is not choosing sanity, but at least returning to the truth of his individuality. As
Huxley adds in his foreword, the Savage has not, nor have any of them, been educated in
any social philosophy, 5 so they are not really qualified to make any value judgments on
knowledge. For the Savage, Watson, and the like, the only thing they know is that they
would rather risk their happiness by embracing humanity, than deny truth and beauty.
The return to the question, it seems to be a false dilemma – people really want
happiness and truth, not one or the other. In BNW, they have completely destroyed any
means by which to reconcile the two. You are either part of the collective, or exiled to an
island. I think it is safe to say that everyone wants happiness, but it’s the price we can’t
agree on. When a person is forced to decide, they choose ignorance because they do not
know what’s at stake. What’s at stake, according to Huxley, is our sanity.6 For all in this
story except maybe Helmholtz Watson seem to be out of their mind. When Bernard Marx
expresses his torment over the inescapability of their predetermined lives, all Lenina can
do to hedge the pain of reception of these claims is reflexively invoke her mantras and hit
the soma. She has been conditioned to hate independent thought. Later, Marx relishes his
new popularity and forgets his troubles when he brings back the Savage. And in the end,
4
Huxley, p. 212
5
Ibid, p. xx
6
Ibid, p. xviii
4
the prospect of being cast away horrifies Marx7 so much that we get the sense that all he
ever really wanted was to be happy in this life, and was less interested in truth.
Thus, the question would be better phrased, how much pain can one withstand
before forfeiting the truth for happiness? The threshold for Lenina was small since she
had no reservations about indulging in soma. For John the Savage, the release was none,
and his terminus was suicide. The pain they experience is caused by the cognitive
dissonance of their conflicting beliefs. They both seek happiness, but their social
conditioning denied them what they desired most; each other. Challenging the status-quo
was never easy, and the possibility is all but eliminated in Lenina’s world where personal
love is replaced with sex-on-demand and group solidarity conditioning. Conversely, John
does not want his happiness given to him, he wants to earn it. So, they have to settle for
What are the social implications of making happiness the supreme objective?
The most glaring one is that society has to be homogenized so the same things make
everyone happy. Although in varying degrees, among all castes life’s fulfillment is found
unquestioningly, life needs to be orderly and predictable. It rationally follows for the
World Controllers that they would focus the entire system around stability. In a
libertarian society the goal of the collective is the individual. But in BNW - where
happiness is traded for knowledge - the purpose of the individual becomes the collective,
7
Huxley, p. 199
5
Stability in BNW is achieved through various draconian measures including strict
course, indoctrination. These are the common methods used in all totalitarian societies.
However in dystopias like Orwell’s classic 1984 there is a large difference; stability is
enforced by the constant threat of painful death. In BNW, since happiness is equated with
stability, it is maintained by the will (again, albeit not informed) of the masses. This is
exactly what John Stuart Mill referred to as the ‘tyranny of the majority,’ where the
majority tends to impose its norms and penalties on the minority.11 In this case, the
minority happens to be philosophers, and society is deprived of the fruits of their labour.
And in Huxley’s future, it has been taken to the extreme since there was no defense
against it. The superficial will of the masses dictated their doom.
While deviants like Marx and Watson can derive a modicum of illicit happiness
from cogitating about their ‘perfect’ society, the masses choose to ignore them and their
own dissident voice within. The result is a closed system where the ‘anomalies’ are
expunged from society and humanity does not grow or progress. In the analogous film
The Matrix, those who reject the system are condemned to the awful truth of human
existence that is the city of Zion. Worse still, in 1984, nonconformists are summarily
condemned to death (although in the end Winston Smith is reintroduced into society).
Nevertheless, this is evidence that some willingly choose truth over happiness.
Unfortunately, in these totalitarian societies instead of being recycled back into the
system, the undesirables – those who challenge the system – are amputated; a disparaging
fate for those who only wish to have happiness with truth.
8
Huxley, p.198
9
Ibid, p.154
10
Ibid, p. 196
11
Mill, On Liberty, p.1
6
What about the philosophical implications for humanity? One is that we may
never know freedom, if it is the destiny of humanity to serve the collective. Evidently,
too; 8/9ths of people value happiness over truth, leaving the remaining 1/9th who value
knowledge more engendered with the responsibility of making sure humanity doesn’t
destroy itself (or consume itself). The enduring tyranny of the majority makes sure that
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”12 For if we were all intelligent and informed,
he argues, we shall agree on this. But sometimes the truth is very disconcerting,
especially when you have been brainwashed to think so far from it, and we yield to a
‘fool’s paradise.’ It is critical to note here that Mill’s utilitarianism did in fact promote
collective happiness as highest goal of the individual. Our happiness did not have to be at
happiness, which includes free intellectual pursuits.13 He was careful to stress the
importance of qualitative happiness over quantitative. Clearly, most people are only
considering quantitative happiness and they convince themselves that this is true
happiness.
way things are is the natural course of humanity. The masses demanded more and more
12
Bramann, p.1
13
Ibid.
7
stability and happiness, and now they are saturated in it, thanks to the benevolent World
fanatical about such lofty ideals, can only end in the totalistic enslavement of humanity.
fact precarious, but it’s true. The more controlled society is, the less free we are, and
consequently the less adaptive we are to unknown variables, like the introduction of John
the Savage. With the freethinkers of society quietly paid off with island life (not that they
have a choice), there is no critical evaluation of society; it’s just taken for granted that the
moral ends (collective happiness) justify the means (suppression of truth, knowledge, and
beauty). Through neglect of these checks, civilization is prone to decay to a state that
In the foreword to the book, Huxley himself warns his prognostications may be
inevitable if we do not learn to decentralize our power base and emphasize human
we must acknowledge our own fallibility and find solace in the openness of our destiny.
Happiness can remain the goal of society as long as it’s qualitative and not at the expense
of the truth. Perhaps a first step in understanding how people victimize themselves for the
can be bliss, but it is a far cry from true happiness. Then again, isn’t it all too easy to just
14
Huxley, p. xxvi