I'm taking an online class at Carolina this semester while working ... and the first assignment for this class was to read Brave New World. I finished Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinkin. I'll save a comprehensive review of Blink later, but there are some underlying principles to both books that I drew as conclusions after finishing both.

In typical manner for this journal, this is all written very quickly. I have a lot of random thoughts I want to get down before I forget it. And like usual, I'll probably be too lazy to revise this to provide a solid theorem. So continue reading knowing this is another mumble-jumble of ideas with no clear underlying thesis.

First off, for those of you who haven't read Brave New World, the basic premise of the book is that after a disastrous world, the elite of human society have manipulated the world order into one where citizens are eternally happy by removing the desires to destroy. In essence, the world according to Brave New World is one where the individual has been destroyed for the sake of the community. The motto "We belong to one another" in essence sums up this mindset.

Unlike 1984 (George Orwell), most citizens are unaware of the state of their society. The elite control the masses through positive reinforcement; they do not punish citizens for bad deeds, but rather reward good deeds. When you couple this with the stripping of individuality (in BNW, environmental influences helps eggs to divide into hundreds and thousands of identical twins, which are then manipulated to produce a certain caste of workers), as well the government's willingness to produce soma (the Prozac of this future generation), one gets a totally structured society where everyone fits into a certain societal role, and the impulse to improve society (men freely have sex with as many women without consequences, which seems to fit in well with my previous post regarding the "nature of men") ... you get a social equilibrium. True, there is no death, but there also is no life.

I found the conversation between the Savage (in BNW, a "savage" who has not fit into the "normal" society is brought from the "uncivilized" parts of the world to integrate into their culture) and the World Controller (the world leader). The Controller, Mustapha Mond, does not deny that this new world does not have its downfalls (people are idiocially infantile) but justifies that this was necessary to prevent the pain and suffering of people. The Savage responds by asking how people can experience joy without pain... and this cuts through to one of the basic problems with society in BNW. I'm assuming that most of you would agree with me that there can be no joy without pain (or rather, that the feelings of joy are muted without the feelings of pain) ... so I wonder... how often does our subconscious (our id, possibly) create situations where we create pain for ourselves? Are infatuations and relationships with others destined to fail from start? Is this why people always want something they can't have - because a situation like that is destined for failure and pain?

What I really liked about the book was that it also didn't paint the alternative in a hugely positive light. Sure, the Savage represented honor and morality, but in the end (spoiler alert) he succumbs to the pressures of society and engages in a sexual orgy and soma-fest and soon commits suicide. Perhaps it's just Huxley saying that the conforms of society are impossible to escape, and that in the end, we all succumb to the pressures of the community...

In BNW, the control of the government (as I've maintained) is through positive reinforcements. By breaking down societal barriers such as family, each individual is no longer unique - one might say there's a level of transferrence from the love of family to the love of community in BNW. Children are inculcated with certain ideas ("I'm so glad I'm in this social class, and I'm so glad that other social classes exist, etc.") from the start which later on manifest themselves whenever the individual is questioned... instinctually. (Here comes the segue). Just finishing Blink, a book on instincts, provides a lot of insight into the process that the human mind uses in making proper snap judgements. So on one hand, we have Blink saying that we should trust our snap judgements (as long as they are not biased from prejudices) ... but if the snap judgements of the people of this BNW have been conditioned to a certain extent, and their snap judgements align with what society expects of them ... has basic human nature been corrupted?

I've heard that part of what makes this book such a great novel is the fact that it's so relevant today. We see the influences of society forcing an image of what is "good" upon people - even on superficial things like looks - Triumph says this best - " Now as for the bitches / lets give Britney thanks / For the face that launched a million preteen skanks." We really *are* seeing society starting to simplify itself to the lowest common denominator. We also see the growing power of the government and media in influencing the decisions of many through the power of reinforcement.

In BNW, we also see an obsession with time-trifling hobbies by the citizens; the World Controller also admits that people are given longer working hours, not because they need them, but because giving people extra time was dangerous - people would start thinking or taking more soma. Humans are consistently needing to do something, even if that something is absolutely trivial. The advent of the Internet has made this even easier - now we have whole communities talking about fictional things like TV shows and movies instead of doing something worthwhile. And people are all too willing to sell their souls for a paycheck, wasting away their lives from a 9-5 job chatting on the Internet.

Perhaps deep down inside, this was my problem with school. I've consistently had a problem with motivation from school - i don't lack motivation or a work ethic at all - just ask my friends - but for some reason, I could never get myself to study for classes or take anything seriously. Perhaps it's because I never liked the idea of going to college, getting a degree, going to grad school, and working on something insignificant for somebody else for the rest of my life. I'd much rather take a shot at creativity by creating something significant and "breaking the mold," so to speak.

I related to this book on many different levels - although I don't consider myself a non-conformist to the level of the Savage or even Bernard, I can see how Huxley fears our world may turn into one where everyone becomes a brainless, instant-gratification fulfilling drone.

Yush and I have talked about this before, but I think the key to life is self-control. I must always control my impulses ... not to the point of losing the emotions that make me human (follies are not bad!) ... but to the point where I never truly lose control of myself. When I submit to the pressures of the community to do what they want, a part of my individuality is lost... I guess the real balance is also finding the balance between the community and individuals...

I guess if I just had to summarize what I took from BNW:

• Be wary of being caught up in superficial things in life. Sure, they are fun as long as you recognize they are superficial... but realize that there might be something greater in life than simply giving into instant-gratification entertainment.
• Although there are many parallels from BNW to our world, I truly don't believe our society will get to the point that BNW's society exists ... but I do fear there is a general "dumbing down' for people ... it's funny because a dichotomy exists where things are constantly getting more complicated (thus providing a boon for "experts" like lawyers and lawmakers) while we constantly strive to "dumb things down" for the general populace.
• Does human nature ultimately succumb to the pressures of society and the community in every case? Huxley seems to think so. The jury in my mind is out.