Summary of “Huxley’s Brave New World and – Ours”
By April Gray
Even though Huxley sought to critique Stalinism in Brave New World, Bülent Diken explores in his essay “Huxley’s Brave New World and – Ours” how the novel reflects “democratic totalitarianism.” His essay criticizes that Huxley did not follow through on his critique and examines the consequences himself in terms of biopolitics, nihilism and network society. In addition, the novel’s relevance and even similarities to our own world are discussed.
Diken analyzes Huxley’s world as one that is rendered frozen in time by the supposed “happiness” of the citizens, as change is “not only impossible but also undesirable” (Diken 1). Happiness is a mask for consumerism, just as politics only exists to keep up conformism. The only defense the novel provides is through John the Savage, who presents a fundamentalist view point. Here Diken points out that both worlds “take themselves for granted and only know of one enemy — fundamentalism” (Diken 1).
Diken identifies the “brave new world” as totaliristic in that citizens are controlled by reward, instead of the standard punishment and fear. However, restriction can still be found in the novel as sovereign through Mond, as he believes that since he makes the laws he can also break them. He is a “law beyond the law”, a classic case of sovereignty. Diken also links the capitalist west to the “former totalitarian society of the East” stating that the iron laws of the market are homologous to “the iron laws of Stalinist ‘history’” (Diken 5).
Put into Diken’s perspective, networking is an essential element of Huxley’s novel. The body is seen as “a networked common good, a public property” (Diken 2). This seems more applicable of a Fordist principle, “reducing [people] to machine-like appendices to the assembly line,” (Diken 16) then it does to our more “‘liquid’ brave new world” (Diken 15) created in the wake of Bill Gates, Diken professes. Networking in a way causes everyone to belong to everyone else, but unlike in Huxley’s meaning, they are allied and not reduced. However, Diken reconciles these differences. Networkers fall into one of two categories: a networker or a network-extender. While a networker is interested in the common good of the network, a network-extender has only self-interest. It is the network-extender that reduces his or her relations into a commodity, and is able to create that atmosphere of “everyone belongs to everyone else.” This commodification of the fellow human “transgress[es] once more the moral (and partly legal) imperative not to commodify human beings” (Diken 17) and as such falls into biopolitics.
Biopoltics, as it is used in Brave New World can also be seen to be reflected in our world. Before the fall of the Nazis, eugenics was a popular idea. Even Huxley advocated its use to preserve the “west European stock.” After World War II, Nazism was defeated but its focus on biopoltics remains. “Liberal eugenics” of today still focuses on the improvement in human well-being but does so on the basis of the individual and doesn’t suppose a norm, such as in Nazi eugenics. However, even with this distance from the government “they inevitably entail a propensity for increasing biopolitical regulation of potential life through legal and technological intervention” (Diken 7, qtd. in Mills 201).
Diken was able to identify nihilism, “originally an inability to accept pain, conflict and antagonism,” (Diken 9), in the novel and as this is a part of life, it is linked to a “denial of the world as it is” (Diken 10). The split into two types of nihilism can be seen in the characters John the Savage and Mond. Mond represents the passive nihilistic side, as he cares not for the existing values as long as the current world is preserved; he strives for peace and stability. John, on the other hand, fits in with radical nihilism, which clings to values even if they are not recognizable in the real world, as is his case in the new world.
As Diken puts it, “perhaps books like Brave New World deceive not by presenting what is fiction as true but by creating the illusion that what is true (biopolitics, inequalities, unfreedom) is fiction” (Diken 7). Diken shows us that Huxley’s new world is not just a fantasy dystopia written in a book but one that can be seen as taking place in our own world.
Diken analyzes Huxley’s world as one that is rendered frozen in time by the supposed “happiness” of the citizens, as change is “not only impossible but also undesirable” (Diken 1). Happiness is a mask for consumerism, just as politics only exists to keep up conformism. The only defense the novel provides is through John the Savage, who presents a fundamentalist view point. Here Diken points out that both worlds “take themselves for granted and only know of one enemy — fundamentalism” (Diken 1).
Diken identifies the “brave new world” as totaliristic in that citizens are controlled by reward, instead of the standard punishment and fear. However, restriction can still be found in the novel as sovereign through Mond, as he believes that since he makes the laws he can also break them. He is a “law beyond the law”, a classic case of sovereignty. Diken also links the capitalist west to the “former totalitarian society of the East” stating that the iron laws of the market are homologous to “the iron laws of Stalinist ‘history’” (Diken 5).
Put into Diken’s perspective, networking is an essential element of Huxley’s novel. The body is seen as “a networked common good, a public property” (Diken 2). This seems more applicable of a Fordist principle, “reducing [people] to machine-like appendices to the assembly line,” (Diken 16) then it does to our more “‘liquid’ brave new world” (Diken 15) created in the wake of Bill Gates, Diken professes. Networking in a way causes everyone to belong to everyone else, but unlike in Huxley’s meaning, they are allied and not reduced. However, Diken reconciles these differences. Networkers fall into one of two categories: a networker or a network-extender. While a networker is interested in the common good of the network, a network-extender has only self-interest. It is the network-extender that reduces his or her relations into a commodity, and is able to create that atmosphere of “everyone belongs to everyone else.” This commodification of the fellow human “transgress[es] once more the moral (and partly legal) imperative not to commodify human beings” (Diken 17) and as such falls into biopolitics.
Biopoltics, as it is used in Brave New World can also be seen to be reflected in our world. Before the fall of the Nazis, eugenics was a popular idea. Even Huxley advocated its use to preserve the “west European stock.” After World War II, Nazism was defeated but its focus on biopoltics remains. “Liberal eugenics” of today still focuses on the improvement in human well-being but does so on the basis of the individual and doesn’t suppose a norm, such as in Nazi eugenics. However, even with this distance from the government “they inevitably entail a propensity for increasing biopolitical regulation of potential life through legal and technological intervention” (Diken 7, qtd. in Mills 201).
Diken was able to identify nihilism, “originally an inability to accept pain, conflict and antagonism,” (Diken 9), in the novel and as this is a part of life, it is linked to a “denial of the world as it is” (Diken 10). The split into two types of nihilism can be seen in the characters John the Savage and Mond. Mond represents the passive nihilistic side, as he cares not for the existing values as long as the current world is preserved; he strives for peace and stability. John, on the other hand, fits in with radical nihilism, which clings to values even if they are not recognizable in the real world, as is his case in the new world.
As Diken puts it, “perhaps books like Brave New World deceive not by presenting what is fiction as true but by creating the illusion that what is true (biopolitics, inequalities, unfreedom) is fiction” (Diken 7). Diken shows us that Huxley’s new world is not just a fantasy dystopia written in a book but one that can be seen as taking place in our own world.
Works Cited
Davidson, William L. Political Thought in England: The Utilitarians. Westport, Connecticut: Hyperion Press, INC., 1979.
Driver, Julia. The History of Utilitarianism. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2009. 31 march 2014 <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history>.
West, Henry R. "Utilitarianism." Encyclopedia Britannica . 2013.
Whale, John. Imagination Under Pressure, 1787-1832: Aesthetics, Poltics and Utility. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Driver, Julia. The History of Utilitarianism. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2009. 31 march 2014 <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history>.
West, Henry R. "Utilitarianism." Encyclopedia Britannica . 2013.
Whale, John. Imagination Under Pressure, 1787-1832: Aesthetics, Poltics and Utility. Cambridge University Press, 2000.