Monday, March 9, 2009

1984 and Brave New World - Ties to Today

Two of literature’s most famous dystopias, created by Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, haunt societies around the world. The debate rages on, pondering which one of them is most likely to happen and dominate mankind. Neil Postman believed that Huxley’s world of satisfaction and pleasure is more prominent today than Orwell’s world of misery and despair. Though it may seem that Huxley’s Brave New World is far more relevant today, Orwell’s 1984 still lurks in some parts of the world. Which threat is largest, it would seem, depends on the circumstances in that specific region.
Our society here in America is frequently one of convenience, and such a trend appears in other nations as well. Electronic devices, instant service and connection, availability, comfort, and other such social pleasantries suggest Huxley’s vision is close to being realized. Sex is spreading to lower age groups, or at least becoming more prominent, and the frequency of lawsuits in response to minor discomfort (often brought on by stupidity) suggests a growing need to keep the masses satisfied. However, international crises threaten this lifestyle. Shortages of supplies (for example, oil) and worldwide economic downturn prevents this utopia from coming to fruition. Not only that, people are too aggressive, prejudiced, and hateful to hold the carefree and loving attitude trademark of Huxley’s fantasy. And, as much as we have drugs today, there is nothing close to soma (in fact, most drugs today carry multiple unpleasant side effects, the exact opposite). We have some conditions similar to Brave New World, but we are far from reaching it.
On the other hand, there is Big Brother and Orwell. Many countries overseas are dominated by Oceania-like governments, and the boot grinds daily into the face of humanity. Other nations, too content to care, look on with a disapproving tsk, but do nothing more. Unnecessary waste will remove resources, and wars with other nations are used to fuel patriotism and act as excuse for violations of civil liberties. 1984 could happen, and there would be no relief from it. Of course, the American population are not the Proles; we are well aware of our situation, and will doubtlessly rebel in such circumstances. There are too many nations to set in place a series of waste-wars to keep us down; additionally, we hate the wars we already have, for the most part, so patriotism is out of the question. And, even more, unless our government suddenly becomes a dictatorship taken over by one party, there is no threat of a Big Brother crushing us underfoot. Elections will switch out someone else soon enough, and both parties will not agree to oppress us; they would not dare work together even for today’s crises.
Both utopias exist in our society (and others) in small amounts. Neither is close to fruition; barring any major world-changing event, neither will be achieved. What we must be cautious of, however, are advances in such smaller categories as described above. We must, in areas where a governor or statesman leads through fear, power, or corruption, remove that official. Where people are disconnected from the outside world, and are apathetic to world events, we must inform and evoke effort and action. We must keep ourselves vigilant against drifts to one society or another, while still understanding that what may result is not irreversible or catastrophic. Nor will these changes occur overnight; the conditions for sustaining these societies are too numerous and complex. We must avoid hysteria or needless fear, but still make sure that we avoid being too lax in accordance with either Orwellian or Huxleyan “nightmares.”