Print format
Aldous Huxley
Brave New World
(1932)
Leon R. Kass
The urgency of the great political struggles of the twentieth century,
successfully waged against totalitarianisms first right and then left,
seems to have blinded many people to a deeper truth about the present
age: all contemporary societies, the open ones no less than the closed,
are traveling briskly in the same utopian direction. All are wedded to
the modern technological project; all march eagerly to the drums of
progress and fly proudly the banner of modern science; all sing loudly
the Baconian anthem, "Conquer nature, relieve man’s estate."
Leading the triumphal
procession is modern medicine, the epitome of compassionate
humanitarianism, becoming every day ever more powerful in its battle
against disease, decay, and death, thanks especially to the astonishing
achievements in biomedical science and technology—achievements for which
we must surely be grateful. Yet contemplating present and projected
advances in genetic and reproductive technologies, in neuroscience and
psychopharmacology, and in the development of artificial organs and
computer–chip implants for human brains, we now clearly recognize new
uses for biotechnical power that soar beyond the traditional medical
goals of healing disease and relieving suffering. Human nature itself
lies on the operating table, ready for alteration, "enhancement," and
wholesale redesign.
Some transforming
powers are already here. The pill. In vitro fertilization. Bottled
embryos. Surrogate wombs. Cloning. Genetic screening. Organ harvests.
Mechanical spare parts. Chimeras. Brain implants. Ritalin for the young,
Viagra for the old, and Prozac for everyone. And, to leave this vale of
tears, a little extra morphine accompanied by Muzak. What? You still
have troubles? Not to worry. As the vaudevillians used to say, "You
ain’t seen nothin’ yet!"
Years ago Aldous Huxley
saw it coming. More important, he knew what it meant and, in his
charming but disturbing novel, Brave New World, Huxley made it
strikingly visible for all to see. Brave New World is not a great
book, and, in purely literary terms, even the author found it seriously
flawed. Yet, in my experience, its power increases with each rereading,
and coming generations of readers should—and I hope will—find it still
more compelling. For unlike other frightening futuristic novels of the
past century, such as Orwell’s already dated Nineteen Eighty–four,
Huxley shows us a dystopia that goes with, rather than against, the
human grain—indeed, it is animated by modernity’s most humane and
progressive aspirations. Following those aspirations to their ultimate
realization, Huxley enables us to recognize those less obvious but often
more pernicious evils that are inextricably linked to successful
attainment of partial goods. And he strongly suggests that we must
choose: either our misery–ridden but still richly human world, or the
squalid happiness of the biotechnical world to come.
In this satirical
novel, Huxley paints human life seven centuries hence, living under the
gentle hand of a compassionate humanitarianism that has been rendered
fully competent by genetic manipulation, psychopharmacology,
hypnopeaedia, and high–tech amusements. At long last, mankind has
succeeded in eliminating disease, aggression, war, pain, anxiety,
suffering, hatred, guilt, envy, and grief. But this victory comes at a
heavy price: homogenization, mediocrity, pacification, spurious
contentment, trivial pursuits, shallow attachments, debasement of
tastes, and souls without loves or longings.
The Brave New World has
achieved prosperity, community, stability, and nigh–universal
contentment, only to be peopled by creatures of human shape but of
stunted humanity. They consume, fornicate, take "soma" and "violent
passion surrogate," enjoy "Riemann–surface tennis" and "centrifugal
bumble–puppy," and operate the machinery that makes it all possible.
They do not read, write, think, love, or govern themselves. Creativity
and curiosity, reason and passion, exist only in a rudimentary and
mutilated form. Art and science, virtue and religion, family and
friendship are all passé. What matters most is present satisfaction:
"Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today." Like Midas,
brave new man will be cursed to acquire precisely what he wished for
only to discover—painfully and too late—that what he wished for is not
exactly what he wanted. Or, Huxley implies, worse than Midas, he may be
so dehumanized that he will not even recognize that in aspiring to be
perfect he is no longer even human.
Huxley’s novel is, of
course, science fiction. But yesterday’s science fiction is rapidly
becoming today’s fact. Prozac is not yet Huxley’s soma; cloning by
nuclear transfer or splitting embryos is not exactly Bokanovskification;
MTV and virtual–reality parlors are not quite the "feelies"; and our
current safe–and–consequenceless sexual practices are not universally as
loveless or as empty as in the novel. But the kinships are disquieting,
all the more so since our technologies of bio–psycho–engineering are
still in their infancy—and it is all too clear what they might look like
in their full maturity. Indeed, the cultural changes technology has
already wrought among us should make us even more worried than Huxley
would have us be.
In Huxley’s novel,
everyone without exception is genetically programmed and psychologically
conditioned, beginning even before birth, under the direction of an
omnipotent—albeit benevolent—world state. Accordingly, for Huxley, it is
lack of freedom that will be the major price of engineered "perfection,"
including the freedom to be unhappy. But the dehumanization he portrays
does not really require despotism or external control. To the contrary,
precisely because the society of the future will deliver exactly what
people most want—health, safety, comfort, plenty, pleasure, peace of
mind, and length of days—mankind can reach the same humanly debased
condition solely on the basis of free human choice. No need for World
Controllers. Just give us the technological imperative, liberal
democratic society, compassionate humanitarianism, moral pluralism, and
free markets, and we can take ourselves to Brave New World all by
ourselves. If you require evidence, just look around.
In our age of cultural
unraveling and dissolving moral agreement, it is heartening that readers
are still revolted by Huxley’s picture of the life to which, absent some
moral and religious reawakening, our cherished prejudices will take us.
While philosophical essays and moral exhortation are today largely
impotent, good literature can—at least for now—capture our impoverished
imaginations and thus keep the human flame aflicker.
Copyright ©
2000 First Things 101 (March 2000): 51-52.
www.firstthings.com
Print format
|