Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

What I like most about Brave New World is that it centers on the disease of human passivity as it's controlled by the higher-ups in society. With 1984 there is the possibility for consciousness of the inherent evil of the subversive intolerance of the government, and therefore the possibility for revolution. If only the people would realize their situation! If only the proles could unite against totalitarian tyranny!

With Huxley's fable, however, this consciousness is completely undermined through the fulfillment of the base drives of the majority. There is no reason to rebel, and society can change only through an impossible systematic negation of all the techniques espoused that clamor to fulfill these drives. Anyone who comes to realize the true state of affairs isn't filled with a Herculean wish to revamp it, but can only sigh to himself while secretly saying, "ah, that's just society getting what it wants," and make plans for voluntary exile. This is the cynicism of Huxley given literary flesh. He echoes the Dostoevskian lament through the Grand Inquisitor (alluded to in Brave New World Revisited) that human beings want to be taken care of and provided for, not free. Freedom is too hard, it takes work, and to be human is to take the easy way out.

The grandeur of Huxley is that he wasn't just a novelist, as seems to be the case with creative writers for the last fifty years -- Walker Percy, Anthony Burgess, and a handful of others exempt. "Brave New World Revisited" attests to this fact, as well as other minor philosophical gems, like "The Perennial Philosophy", where he stretches to mysticism, and "The Doors of Perception", where he journals the psychedelic flavor of mescaline. His ruminations are perfectly commensurate with our state today -- where education is in decline, where neohedonism is the game, where it's all about money and fulfillment of drives over truth, etc. --, and the points that shine the most are on propaganda and, well, the distractability of human beings:

"In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies -- the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

This is the basis of society in Brave New World, and scientific and technological advances (eugenics, hypnopaedia, classical conditioning) are a means to this end. Huxley saw, like Chomsky after him, that you don't need to bludgeon the population in order to coerce it to your preferences. Rather, you manipulate minds. Things are less messy this way.