I would say that BNW took a psychiatric view to world domination, while 1984 followed Freud and Watson. Watson, because in 1984 people are brought to whatever the Party needs them to be, but also Freud because a twitch, laughter, tick or any other abnormal outward behavious, in the eyes of a Freudian, reveals distinguishable mental moods, ideas, emotions etc. In BNW, people were not simply blank slates upon which someone like Watson could satisfy his claim as far as children were concern, but were instead born already different, engineer for this or that, something that for Watson was of no consequence.
How interesting tough, that while watson might be vilified in so many many ways by his cold science, his system brought, or could have brought, if true, much hope, in the sense that all men would then have been created equal. The pauper could then become a King and the king was but a pauper who by mere accident became King.
Omar,
Please, elaborate on this. These are two of the most influential novels of the 20th century, in my view, and two of my very favourite books of any century, so I’d love for you to outline some of this in a bit more detail.
Also, have you ever read Manuel Puig’s Kiss of the Spider Woman?
I wrote about it in this essay:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=152222
I mention this for two reasons
- It’s a piece of fiction like BNW and 1984, though it’s debatable as to whether it’s dystopian or heterotopian
- It contians numerous footnotes as asides to the main narrative that comment on psychological and sociological theory as it relates specifically to sexual repression and more generally to societal oppression
Brave New World.
Kiss of The Spider Woman? Isn’t that the movie that William Hurt won best actor for?
BNW is not about world domination, its ultimately a utopian caste system, based on control. Like the one in India. Brave New World Revisited gives a good account of both books.
I prefer Brave New World but I haven’t read 1984 for many years.
Brave New World effectively blurs the line between Utopian and Dystopian, but of central interest for me was the way in which Huxley elaborates the ideas of fordism, mechanisation of human biological process i.e. biological engineering.
1984 seems more concerned with Language and Information and Brave New World with Technology and Biological Processing.
Both are powerful books.
Hey SIATD:
— Please, elaborate on this. These are two of the most influential novels of the 20th century, in my view, and two of my very favourite books of any century, so I’d love for you to outline some of this in a bit more detail.
O- There is not much more to add, hence it’s location in the mundane. I was reading Russell’s “Outline for…” and then went on for a bit of fiction and so I read 1984. I was sad that I had not read it sooner.
With Russell’s discussion on Behaviourism still fresh in my mind the first thing that impressed me about the reading was the method of control- the use of repression of the sex drive; the way a confession could be drawn simply by a facial expression and the way behaviour was controlled, as one controls the behaviour of one’s dog. This is a nightmarish world of suffering and fear. Because of this, it seems to me as fantasy, because while it is better, as Machiavelli said, to be feared than to be loved, one does not want to be hated. Hitler was not killed, but it was not because no one tried.
Sure, the two minutes of hate does point to a redirection of fustration and hate, obviously, but as seen in the USA, support for the war, any war, wanes and frustration directed at the govt.
In the end it struck me that both authors took a Hobbesian perspective. The Leviathan imposes it’s will, and rightly so, because even the hero is willing to commit any and all attrocities, and is ultimately selfish. No redeming attribute remains.
But I am just babbling.
In any case, BNW was also very good, and again a Leviathan exists, which must control the population and bend it within it’s needs. Yet, it is also less criminal than 1984’s regime, if, if, we believe that there is indeed a place of exile, and is not just an euphenism, a la 1984 Newspeak. Given the fact that the reservation exist can make a case for the existence of exile. Because it is more moderate, BNW is also more credible. I say that it’s outlook is that of a psychiatrist because such a practitioner would dispense drugs to remedy society’s problems, from ritalin to Soma. In other respects they disagree. The Leviathan in BNW succeds at being Utopian to a great majority. I could never endure the Party, but promiscuity, orgies? That is a male fantasy. And if I don’t like it I go to a peaceful island and left alone? Talk about a nice retirement.