One of the most striking—and comic—aspects of Huxley’s Utopia is the way sexual mores and assumptions have been turned on their head: monogamy is bad; passion is deviation; casual, meaningless sex is the norm. What is Huxley getting at here? Is there any expression of human sexuality that he finds acceptable? Is sex at the heart of the problem in his view of human nature?
Keep it serious and appropriate, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I was reading chapter three, I was surprised at they way relationships and sex is treated in their world. But as I read on, I began to understand Huxley’s point (though I do not agree with it). “Stability,’ insisted the controller, ‘stability. The primal and ultimate need. Stability. Hence all this.” (page 43) In this world Huxley has created, stability is the focal point. Serious relationships among other things can create chaos. Breakups, hookups, cheating, dying, dating, dumping, these all cause emotions and upheaval. Huxley has made a point that without attachments in relationships, there is no chance of this kind of upheaval. I don’t think Huxley thinks sex itself is bad, just the emotions it brings with it. Like I said before, stability is the key and Huxley has eliminated all elements that can cause disruption in stability.
ReplyDelete-Carli L.
Are you feeling that love has passed you by? How about a little love magic? Spells are rituals that focus energy.Dr obodo is highly recommeded for all kinds of spell .You can contact Dr via ( templeofanswer@hotmail . co . uk , cell/whatsapp + 234815542548-1 )
DeleteI believe Huxley is simply commenting on the degrading of women to the status of objects that he saw taking place in his society. This novel was written after the roaring twenties, a time when young women became far more promiscuous in dress and behaviors than most conservative people at that time deemed appropriate. I believe Huxley was one of the people appalled by this, and so in attempting to write about the future, he picked the most extreme scenario possible to use as an example, even if it is a little satirical. He chooses, however, to preserve some element of what he saw as the old way when he has the character Bernard Marx state that, in reference to the way two other characters had discussed a woman as “Talking about her like she was a piece of meat.” This, I think, is what Huxley saw as the eventual outcome of the promiscuity his society was promoting. And to some degree, he was right. Today, we sell sex to kids starting as young as twelve. Nearly all of our advertisements have some kind of sexual slant that is designed to get people to buy the product. This was what the Dove Evolution campaign was attempting to reverse, a noble goal to say the least. But it has not, in my mind, done much to stem the tide of promiscuity overwhelming our culture. And, as more and more is being allowed to be shown on TV and in Movies, The question I will leave you all with is this: Where does it end? In Huxley’s Universe? I think we can all hope (and pray), that it does not.
ReplyDelete- Nathan F. (Sorry, It's over 200 Words...)
Love can be a very messy thing that can involve almost every emotion a person has. I believe that because these emotions are not always positives, Huxley’s idea of having meaningless sex becomes understandable. If relationships were made, all sorts of disturbances would be caused in the society. The children are not made to have relationships that would likely affect their lives, they are created to have specific jobs and complete specific tasks. Because relationships are often full of emotion, the society wants nothing to do with these problems. So if Huxley wanted the society to avoid this problem, although I disagree with the solution, he would be best to eliminate the chance of real relationships. I believe Huxley does see relationships as possible deterrents in efficiency in society. Emotions often affect a person and how they perform their day to day activities. Negative emotions could seriously alter every day production in the society. Therefore, the best way to avoid these problems is to avoid the source, relationships.
ReplyDeleteThomas G.
Huxley finds that sex in the real world causes to many problems for humans. If you never attach your self with another person then you can never be emotionally hurt. You never have to deal with dating or breaking up. Things are made much simpler and I feel this is how Huxley feels life should be. Sex should have all of the physical satisfaction and none of the emotional attachment. However, not everyone is gets hurt. Some people find joy in that other special someone, and that makes their life better. So Huxley’s utopia only gives you physical gratification and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Huxley is trying to represent the relationship between a men and women in his utopia by focusing on sexual behaviors. I don't believe that Huxley is trying to represent his personal opinion on sex throughout this novel, but instead is trying to create a scenario which would be quite awkward to occur at this day in age. I also don't believe that Huxley thinks that sex is at the heart of the problem with human nature, many other more important issues are relevant to that question. With the time period the novel was written in, with the flappers, and the push to a less conservative driven era human nature and sex were a vital issue. Throughout his novel Huxley hints at various situations in which sex and the relationship between men and women become vital.
ReplyDeleteObaida D.
Huxley’s utopia focuses on how to most effectively satisfy the physical and psychological needs of human beings so that society can be more stable. He removed all very involved relationships, particularly those involving families and spouses, because he feels that they restrict humans from gratifying their basic needs. It seems evident that Huxley supports Freudian ideas because the book mentions Freud. Freud was a large proponent of theories that were based in sexual desires because he felt that that was the most important psychological need. Huxley seems in a way to be questioning society about why we find the need for sexual satisfaction so appalling. From this, it can be derived that Huxley feels the heart of the problem is that society has restricted humans from fulfilling their most basic psychological needs which undoubtedly leads to individual instability and, as Huxley states, is the source of societal instability. Huxley removes relationships, families, and religion in an effort to remove any person or institution that instills morals that promote abstinence and monogamy.
ReplyDelete- Mel B.
I think family and relationships are very important. I saw the way which Huxley presented sex in Chapter 3 to be comedic since I can not try to imagine the world in this manner. My inability to see the world as Huxley presents is ironic since in Chapter 3 they were unable to imagine what living with one's family meant. These everyday concepts were as foreign to them, as erotic play between children is to me. He goes on to talk about how their life without monogamy, or emotions for that matter, has been able to spare them from being hurt. This emotionless life allows them to only gain instant physical gratification without the feelings or passion that more commonly comes along with it. The absence of feelings, Huxley believes, will make a more stable society.
ReplyDelete-Farah S.
Huxley is criticizing the increasing amount of acceptance in society towards things like exploration and casual sex. For example, when Mustapha Mond is describing the way people used to live their lives (with women being viviparous and offspring actually living with their parents--gasp!), the general reaction from the students is shock. While this is oddly amusing, it points to a truth that is becoming more and more apparent as time progresses. Sex is found everywhere in the media, and children are being exposed to it at younger ages. People are becoming more accepting of alternative types of relationships, and I can not help but wonder if it is possible for our society to develop into a society like the one created in BNW. It is for this reason that Huxley suggests a shift towards old-fashioned ideas about sex and love.
ReplyDeleteSarah K.
The twenties were a time when women started to become more promiscuous. This was a drastic change from the decades before. I think Huxley, noting this change, chose the topic of the book to be what it is, so as to stop what was starting before it got too out of hand. I believe this is why Huxley makes his society so extreme in this sense. Huxley is trying to send the message that these types of things, meant to be intimate and private, will be stretched out of their bounds if happenings continue they way they were at that time. Also, I think in the society Huxley has created, the character of Bernardo is supposed to show what people should be like. Huxley seems to approve of his take on sexual activity. Bernardo is the only one who thinks people should not participate in meaningless sex all the time and with so many people. I don’t think sex is the only problem Huxley finds with human nature. I think the problem is independence. It can be clearly seen when Mustapha Mond is talking about the mother as an overprotective animal (specifically I think he uses the example of a cat) on pages 37-38. So, Huxley is trying to say that dependence, family, and boundaries are good. I believe that he is basically using his book as a warning for people in that time period and for generations to come.
ReplyDelete-Swathi M.
In response to Sarah K...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah in that Huxley is being critical of the societal changes. I think the shock to the readers was an intentional element because that is what is need in order to show people the reality of the situation. The concepts and scenarios Huxley placed in BNW when he wrote it in the twenties still apply to society today.
In reading this chapter, one thing jumps out at me: if, according to the controller, stability is so important, what is sex so accepted in their society? In our world, intercourse is often a major emotional issue in relationships between man and woman. I would think that in the society of "Brave New World," they would try to avoid sex as it could cause a great deal of instability. Perhaps Huxley is trying to make sex such a common denominator amongst people that it is no issue at all. In fact, his point could be that this society he has created has become so immoral that it is amoral. He could be warning his readers of what is yet to come if we are not careful.
ReplyDelete-Jeff M.
In Huxley’s utopia the outlook on sex has been shifted in order to achieve the goal of stability. Monogamous relationships and families could be not allowed in this utopia with such goals of a social oneness as they lead to individuality and identity. When families exist, many individuals identify closer with their family than a government, and hold the values of their family in higher esteem than those of the state as well. Relationships would also cause people to feel deep emotions that could be dangerous to this society’s stability. In reflecting on the old way of life the Controller says, “And feeling strongly (and strongly, what was more, in solitude, in hopelessly individual isolation), how could they be stable?” (Pg 41 of the paperback version). Deep emotions such as these could lead to thinking and questioning and forming of one’s own opinions which would be dangerous to a government that seeks conformity and stability. Therefore, in this utopia the only way to satisfy the human desire for sex without undermining the government is to ensure that it is meaningless and casual.
ReplyDelete-Sarah B.
In Response to Carli, Daniel, and Tom:
ReplyDeleteCarli, Daniel, and Tom all refer to Huxley’s utopia as trying to remove relationships in order to remove emotions. Close relationships, love, and sex are not the only things that create human emotion. The characters in the book are not exempt from anger or fear or happiness, and if they were then the efforts put to conditioning the children to love and hate certain things would not work. Therefore, taking away relationships and making sex a meaningless act cannot simply be to take away the “negative emotions” involved with them. The world has and will continue to change drastically through time, but one certainty will always be true no matter: humans have emotional and psychological needs. Furthermore, I think the arguments that Carli, Daniel, and Tom have presented are based in naïve conclusions.
- Mel B.
In response to Mel’s response to Carli, Dan, and Tom:
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Mel that the humans in Brave New World are not exempt from emotions, I believe that the real issue is that this utopia has removed any individual emotions. The emotions that the people in Brave New World experience are ones that they have been trained to experience through brainwashing and mind control at a young age, for example they go through heat conditioning while still in bottles to associate horror with cold (Pg. 16 of the paperback version). The emotions of this society are communal emotions, ones that everyone of the same class experience because they have all been conditioned the same way. The goal of the utopia is not to eliminate emotions, which I agree with Mel is impossible. The goal is instead to eliminate any emotions that promote individuality, specifically those regarding monogamous relationships that may provide people with an identity and purpose outside of that which the government establishes.
-Sarah B.
In response to Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWhen something in our society becomes so common, as sex in Huxley's novel, there is no longer an emotional factor to having sex. With the push forward in technology and the modern era we see in Huxley's novel it is evident that having more than one partner is common, and is pronounced abnormal if a person within that society practices monogamy. As mentioned before in many posts stability is a major component to this utopia, the people within this utopia believe that strong emotions can destabilize their society. Therefore, they try to make sex a common situation that people are open about, and don't face many emotions in its consistency.
Obaida D.
I am not sure if this is what Huxley's intent was in writing this chapter, but when reading it, and seeing how the students were laughing at the idea of monogamy, true relationships, and even the concept of a family, it made me realize how strange it would be without those things. How absurd is it to hear them talk about having sex with someone like it is just another day at school? The director talks about the stability the lack of these relationships brings to their society. But when i read it, I see how that stability is a much unwanted entity. It is the real emotion and connection that makes true love something to long for. I don' think that Huxley sees sex as the heart of the problem in human nature. I think he feels that the way that most people view sex, as a deep connection and commitment is the acceptable way to see it. The promiscuity that this society portrays is one of the things to add to the list of why the utopian society is really nothing of the sort.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Obaida
ReplyDeleteI agree with Obaida in the fact that as things become more common in society we begin to lose emotional attachment to it. It seems that our society is at a point where there is a growing trend towards emotional detachment. As technology becomes more popular, our relationships become more electronically attached and less personal. We see it with jobs as well. When the assembly line came to be, people began to take less pride in their work and let the machine do it for them. I think that Huxley is addressing a trend that we still facing, one that we choose to follow because we believe everything becomes easier if we do not get emotionally attached to it.
It is ironic to think that their utopia is complete opposite to the society we have set up today. Huxley tries to create stability by ridding his society of relationships, family and attatchment, which in our society is what we turn to to reach stability. It is these aspects in our life that we believe hold us togeather. It almost seems like his intent is to create a race that is free of moral obligations to others, and doesnt have the capability to think beyond what they are told. Or in other words, are taught not to think beyond what they are taught. Huxley has turned Freud's studies into a twisted psychological experiment where he has rid the world of emotions that he believes to cause chaos and insanity. I found it most disturbing how he reffered back to life when people had families and how one of the students began to feel ill watching it. Im not quite sure what the "controller" is afraid of and what has come to shape his ideals, but he without a doubt has an odd perspective on how to achieve an "unproblematic" uptopia.
ReplyDeleteKaili W.
I think Huxley's point in this case is plain and simple, he is trying to portray how ridiculous sex appears when you remove its emotional implications. By ridiculing a mother's emotion to HER child and the monogamous relationships of the past he is using exaggerating the view of people who see marriage and love as desires rather than needs. This is a direct reflection of the trend to cast off life-long marriages and mother-child relationships as old fashioned. Huxley's sees them as relevant regardless of the structure of society and a very basic part of what makes us human. His point exemplifies the idea that it is better to be an animal with deep, unexplainable interpersonal emotions than a robot on an assembly line. He isn't criticizing sex, he is satirizing its portrayal in modern times.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jeff's comment on making sex becoming a common denominator thus losing its intrinsic value...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. The system is "Brave New World" is meant to demystify sex. It has just become as detached an necessary act as going to the bathroom. You don't really think about it, it is just something you have to do and its a natural process. There are no deep emotional strings attached. Sex isn't necessarily good or bad, it just is thus losing its significance and value.
I think that Huxley is trying to express his views on his own society by showing an exaggerated version of what could happen in the future. The 20s were partly famous for women's sexual freedom such as the flappers with the shorter skirts and shorter hair. Sex seemed to become more casual (of course not to the extent that is portrayed in BNW) but I think he was trying to allow people to remember the emotional connections and relationships that usually come with sex. In Brave New World I found it quite disturbing about the children's erotic play and how "casual" it has become. I think Huxley was just illustrating that this pleasure-seeking society is being so conditioned to stay by the world's motto "Community, Identity, Stability" so they must remove privacy, love and respect from the equation. They make sex appear like it's just a daily activity everyone takes part in because that's what humans do and since, in a way, everybody belongs to everyone else commitment is not an issue since emotion could lead to destructive behavior that would disrupt this utopia.
ReplyDeleteMacKenzie L.
In order to understand this section, it seems crucial to realize that the BNW's sexual promiscuity is a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. The so far, the fundamental problem with relationships in Huxley's DYStopia (just thought I should remind some of the people above) is not that there are too many, it is that they are meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI believe love is about celebrating the journey of life with another person. Love can be felt between friends, brothers, sisters, parents, sons... the list goes on. Now that I've gotten the poetry out of my system, let's get to the point. The Brave New World is totally lacking of any form of love. No brothers. No sisters. No real friends nor any loving parents. This is why the absence viviparous mothers ought to be just as shocking as the sexual promiscuity. The critical element of relationships, society, and even life which is completely missing from Huxley's dystopia is Love (yes, with a capital "L" this time).
So promiscuous and meaningless sex is just a effective way Huxley gets his message across. The endless pursuit of inhuman goods, such as stability, if at the cost of human needs, such as love, cannot possibly yield a utopia. It will only result in a world where the greatest expression of love for another is a "silver-mounted greed morocco-surrogate cartridge belt bulging... with contraceptives".
Zach B.
In response to Amy:
ReplyDeleteI think you've really hit the nail on the head with regard to stability, and your analysis can be similarly applied to the rest of the the Brave New World's trifecta ("Community, Identity, Stability"). None of these empty ideas is intrinsically valuable. Stability without liberty, identity without morality, and community without individuality are less than valuable, they are despicable.
In response to Sarah B.:
I'm glad you brought loyalty into the equation. It certainly seems that by eliminating real relationships ("Everyone belongs to everyone else...") there would be fewer conflicts for loyalty in a utopia. It should be mentioned that Huxley wasn't the first person to realize this. Plato, in the original work on utopia, The Republic, wrote that no families should be allowed, since all loyalty ought to be given to the philosopher-kings in a utopia. What Plato seems to miss is that without any love, people must try to get by without a part of us as inherent to our being as hunger or thirst. Ultimately, Huxley seems to be mocking Plato's utopia for its failures, which seem obvious in retrospect.
Zach B.
P.S. "greed" in the last line of my previous post should be read as "green".
In response to Kaili…
ReplyDeleteI like the point that Kaili made about stability and how in today's society most of us will turn to loved ones to become more stable while in Brave New World to attach to someone is making the community unstable. It is sad to think that these people who live in this utopia have been conditioned to not connect to anyone or feel the comfort and love from a friend. And, it's even more unbelievable that these people do not even understand, for example, what being a mother really means or the concepts of friendship. They think of people as "pieces of meat" that can give them physical pleasure but don’t even care for the emotions that they could be feeling if they grew up in a society more like our own. These people cannot even grasp the idea of a family since everyone in their world grew up the same way with the same sets of rules that shaped their minds to thinking their way of life is best.
MacKenzie L.
I think Huxley's ideas of meaningless sex is just another example of the control that society wishes to have over the people. By removing the elements of love and emotion, the society does not have to worry about attachment and one person standing up for another. It creates another barrier between people, which is interesting because society has made them more, well, almost intimate, minus the features of caring and compassion. I think Huxley is trying to remove the emotional satisfaction and base his utopia off of physical gratification. This is further shown by the shocking of the children near flowers and books. He wants to make their society based off physical, not emotional, feelings.
ReplyDeleteHuxley is not necessarily making a statement about sex; rather, he is using sex to make a statement about love, emotion, and personal attachment. The meaningless, casual sex practiced by the citizens in Brave New World is a parallel to the test tube babies for the realm of romantic love as opposed to familial love. The "squalor" of familial relationships that Mustapha Mond describes is really just love and caring for our children and parents. The directors are able to take this love away by never letting people interact with their parents and raising them in the hatchery. Encouraging meaningless sex is the directors way of eliminating romantic urges as well. Forcing sexual play from such a young age, as described in the garden scene, has the effect of desensitizing people to the curiosities of sex, so they will regard it as commonplace. Men and women begin to look at each other as means to an end, and there is no cause for romance to develop. Huxley uses sexual promiscuity to develop the theme of "stability" in the society requiring a lack of emotion, while drawing attention to the ideas surrounding the development of sexual and romantic feelings in youth.
ReplyDelete-Natasha T.
I believe that Huxley is commenting on the trends he was observing during the time he spent writing the book. Huxley was alive in a time of major transformation in society. He witnessed the shift in society from Victorian era conservatism to the liberalism of the twenties and flappers. It is difficult to imagine a more dramatic shift in human history. Huxley was assuming that the trend would continue, and predicting how far it would go. As for Huxley’s view on the topic, I’m not sure that he is a person that would clearly fit into either side of the argument. He is someone that was widely condemned for his explicit writing, but at the same time it seems as if he is presenting promiscuity in Brave New World in an almost satirical fashion. But, at the same time, I think that he definitely recognized the importance of sex in our daily lives. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have made it such a big part of Brave New World.
ReplyDeleteAndrew G
In response to Mackenzie L.:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that Huxley's view on sex is shaped by the society of the 20s. This is interesting because the 20s contained groups on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, there were the flappers like you mentioned, who believed in freer sexual values and promiscuous dress and behavior. However, the 20s were also the time when new religious groups, such as the ones driving the Temperance Movement, were emerging, usually as a "solution" to these changing social values. These groups were the polar opposites of the flappers and represented views far more conservative than what many people believe in our society today. Perhaps Huxley was also commenting on the insane conservatism of these people with a sarcastic representation of the extreme opposite.
In response to Jeff M.
ReplyDeleteI think that sex is considered to be stable because it is so free and open. In their world, sex is not fully connected to the emotions we connect it to today. Sex without emotions can be stable because everyone does and accepts it. I agree though that Huxley is trying to make it a common denominator, with sex being a common base of everyone. I also agree that it could be a warning of what is to come, especially because of when this book is written, right about when women began to flaunt their femininity.
A lot of people have been talking about societal change as being almost a slow progression in one direction. I think that we tend to swing back and forth between extremes. Sure the 1920’s where characterized by promiscuity, but they were followed by the 1950’s which saw a return to conformity and conservatism. Ancient Rome was probably one of the most indulgent societies in the history of the world, and yet they were followed by the strict religion based societies of the middle ages. Naturally, I am writing in generalities, but overall this seems to be the case in many societies throughout history. I believe this is because it is difficult for a society to exist in a state of radicalism, you have to have balance. When a country is shifted to far towards one side of the spectrum, they risk gluttony, laziness, discontent of the people, and general inefficiency. When people feel that a certain way of life isn’t working for them, they tend to swing away from it.
ReplyDeleteAndrew G
In Response to Mel's response to me, Daniel, and Tom
ReplyDeleteI do not think the only emotions humans display come from sexual relationships and I certainly to not think they are only negative emotions. I was merely pointing out that by taking away emotional attachment to sex creates a lot of stability, which is what Huxley is looking for. I never even considered the idea of removing emotions completely even possible, because it isn’t. But in Huxley’s utopia, he is trying to achieve as much stability as possible and removing attachment helps remove some emotions. I stand by what I said, Huxley has created his utopia to be void of all attachment towards relationships and sex because he wants stability.
-Carli L.
In response to Natasha...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natasha's statment that Huxley paints the society in BNW as one that eliminates emotion in order to achieve "stability." The loveless society they create, through the use of techniques like hypnopaedia to condition their children into using sex as a way to satisfy a physical (evolutionary residue in this case) need, so that there is no emotional intimacy involved whatsoever. This eliminates the psychological need that many feel for sex, and it allows for the idea that "everyone belongs to everyone else" to succeed in the society. It also allows for more control over the society. No one is attached to anyone else, thus preventing people from acting (what would be percieved as) irrationally and preserving social order.
Sarah K.
I believe that Huxley is pushing for a conservative lifestyle. He uses BNW to show the other extreme and to make the readers feel appalled by such exotic ideals. He writes, “A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.” Imagining small children finding entertainment by having sex is a hard concept to swallow, yet I believe Huxley saw the world eventually coming to that state. The 1920s was a time flooded with rapid change, especially in the promiscuity of women. What if human ideals never stopped changing so quickly? Huxley wanted the readers to realize how much more comforting a conservative lifestyle felt in the stomach and the heart and thus push us away from the liberal ideals he saw in the 1920s.
ReplyDelete- Julia H.
In response to Sid...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sid's idea that Huxley shows the importance of loving relationships. One of mankind's greatest traits is its ability to show compassion for others. Yet in BNW, the people are stripped of their compassion by being prevented from having lifelong relationships. I like how Sid compares people without these relationships as robots and I think he is essentially right. Without feeling much passion towards others, we only respond to life logically instead of also emotionally, and thus we become simply robots. Humans are more complex than robots and should be given the opportunity to prove it, which is what Huxley seems to say through his novel.
Julia H.
I agree with Zach’s assertion that the fundamental problem with relationships in Brave New World is that they are meaningless. The characters with whom Lenina has relationships could almost all be switched out for anybody else, and hardly anything would change. This is not a relationship. In BNW, all relationships have been replaced by the omnipotent relationship to Society. In our world, sex is looked upon as a symbol of love, as a deep connection with a single other person that means more than the mere physical act itself. No such deep connections can exist in BNW, where the fact that people always put Society first is a critical aspect of life. So, to get rid of them, Huxley just makes sex another part of life. Like the relationships between people in BNW, sex in BNW is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteTim R.
In response to Tim ...
ReplyDeleteYou say, "In our world, sex is looked upon as a symbol of love, as a deep connection with a single other person that means more than the mere physical act itself." While I'd like to agree with you, I cannot. Huxley's criticism of meaningless relationships in his day extends to our day, too. It may have greater application now than it did then. Love--capital L or not--is a misunderstood value in our society. What is it? How do we get it? Do we really want it after we get it?
Love, as well the human relationships associated with it, is difficult. Too few people recognize the importance of showing up as an element of love. Absentee fathers, latchkey kids, What's that videogame that came out last week?--These serve as evidence of our disconnection from each other.
I can't end this without saying how much I appreciate the thoughtful responses that have been posted here.
Mustapha M.
Response to Carli’s response to Mel’s response to Carli, Tom and Daniel
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carli on this one. I believe that it is impossible to completely remove all emotions away from a person. However, I believe with relationships being removed that many emotions will be removed from the people in the society. I also believe that great amounts of tension that is a possible result of relationships would be removed from the society. The stability that Huxley’s utopia has can be credited to the absence of relationships because the emotions of the members of society are really sheltered.
In response to Tim
ReplyDeleteTim said at the end of his post that sex is meaningless in BNW. I disagree with this. In BNW sex is still useful and needed to satisfy the people's physical needs. Even thought they may not have as much of an emotional connection the people of BNW are still receiving some gratification out of the sex. Also, to clarify I did not mean to say that all emotions are striped from the people of BNW but that the emotional side of sex is gone. In BNW sex is not an emotional connection between two people but just a physical one. So the people still have emotions caused by other outside factors but all sexual emotions are gone.
With the absence of the emotional ties of a relationship, people would focus their energy on other things in life. In Huxley's utopia, the goal is stability. People are more emotionally stable when they are not dealing with the emotional roller coaster of a relationship. There is not an absence of emotion altogether, but people do have a more stable emotional level. It is evident in today's society that love can make people do irrational things, and without that passion, people are more likely to be better controlled and use the energy they would use on relationships towards more productive things. Though I think it is impossible to eliminate passion in human beings, by eliminating relationships, Huxley eliminates the negative emotions associated with them.
ReplyDelete- Annelise Q
Huxley’s strange themes concerning sexual mores presented in the book are interesting because they are so different that anything we have ever considered acceptable. In the twenties, when this was written, women were becoming more promiscuous and I think Huxley was trying to portray his fear that this behavior would continue to progress to a dangerous level. Meaningless sex was certainly not common before the twenties. However, I don’t think that sex is at the heart of the problem in his views of human nature, but rather just one element of it. I think that Huxley was disturbed with the direction in which the society during that time was headed.
ReplyDeleteMeg G
Sex is not the heart of the problem in this spin on utopia, but it definitely does contribute. The real problem is their need for control. Because of that need they had to give up relationships. I understand why this is the way they have to deal with sex because serious relationships do cause many problems and would stop their “stability”. Although I think they just sacrificed the wrong things in this world. They gained control, stability, and what they believe as freedom and happiness, but they gained this at a terrible cost. They gave up some of the most important things in our world today. Sure casual meaningless sex seams like bliss for some people, but eventually everyone wants to buckle down and have that one person who will always be there for them. And a world can not give up that for control. Of course love causes problems, but the problems are worth dealing with.
ReplyDeleteRachel K.
I think the point that Carli brought up is interesting, that the emotions attached to monogamous relationships, passion, and so on are harmful. However I don’t think that Huxley is advocating sex without emotions. I don’t think that he is trying to portray this world where everyone is happy because there is an absence of these emotions. Rather, he is portraying this world as emotion free in order to show the importance of these connections between people. It seems to me that Huxley was worried that society was headed in this direction, and is attempting to show people the necessity of emotional connections. In this world he created, everyone is supposed to be happy and carefree because that is how they were designed to be, however the characters in the book are not. Lenina, Bernard, and his friend (can’t remember the name...) all seem secretly miserable.
ReplyDeleteMeg G
I agree with Mackenzie L that the world Huxley portrays and the casual sex that takes place is a stiff warning for what could happen in the future. We have already seen some disintegration of chastity in society since Huxley time. If this downward trend in morality continues, who knows? Maybe sex will eventually become this common and accepted. The main difference between our world and that of the novel’s is that sex is still a highly emotional area of life for us. It would take a great deal of time for that to change, but it could certainly happen if we aren’t careful.
ReplyDeleteJeff M.
I think Huxley believes sex causes too much problems in the world. People get emotionally attached and Huxley believes that emotions shouldn't be part of sex at all. He thinks the physical pleasure is the only thing that sex should do. Another problem that emotional attachment proposes is the idea that their love is greater than the whole. This is what Huxley is trying to prevent in this Utopia. As we can see from this utopia, it isn't looking too good. It just goes to show that sex can never happen in the real world without emotional attachment and that may not be so bad.
ReplyDeleteresponse to Meg G.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Meg on this. Huxley shows that it's not possible to have sex without emotions. These emotions aren't actually bad as they show connections between people. The people in the Utopia are supposed to be happier without the emotions with sex but as we can see, they aren't.
-Mike M.
In this chapter, Huxley talks about relationships between people as a form of satisfaction and nothing more. It is hard to fully understand what Huxley is trying to portray in his mock society. We live in a world where relationships are viewed as an emotional connection between two people who love each other. But in Huxley’s world, relationships feel robotic. Sex has no meaning to it, other than a way of satisfying each other. I personally find it hard to view a world where this would be completely true for every “relationship” there is. The intention of the utopias perception on relationships is interesting though. By keeping a relationship free of the traditional values of emotion, the connection between the two people is not harmful and will not cause troubles for people all around. Many times today we see relationships end because of differences between the couple. Even though emotions created the relationship, they are the cause of a break up. Differences lead to problems, and problems lead to negative consequences. With Huxley’s idea of removing relationships, the utopia is capable of operating with one less source of disruption.
ReplyDelete- Connor B.
A major theme in this book is the fight between having solely one lover, or being sexually open with your life and your body. Because of our society today and the vast amount of media that tries to sell sex, we are not totally in the dark about that. But our society views that people that have more than one person with whom they have a sexually relationship with is completely devoid of any morals. I think that Huxley was, in a very opposite way, showing the public relationships of people during his time. Given that this was in the 1930's, people weren't as open about their relationships are we are today. It was unacceptable to show public displays of affection, causing you to act in a casual manner whenever in public. In this backwards way in the book, people are very open about their relationships and are classically conditioned to not become attached with people as we do today. I don't think sex is at the heart of the problem in his view of human nature because, even at the beginning of time, humans have had sexual drives. Now, these were just to reproduce and not so much for pleasure, but it has become now that humans have sex for both reasons; to reproduce and for the sake of pleasure.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nikhil,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Huxley is trying to remove so much from his society that the only thing left will be lifeless humans who live in a “perfect world.” Observing this situation through modern day perspectives, it seems difficult to fully understand how our lives would play out if this were to happen to our society. Even though humans today do have relationships with more than one person throughout their lifetime, Huxley’s take on this is so extreme I would think it would never work. The idea of sex and a relationship seems to be not only an action that has no meaning, but also something that removes the passion that runs through every human. The idea that sex is something that is done with everyone with no meaning is silly and irresponsible. When looking at our society, however, we can see that we are not too far off of this. It is not uncommon to encounter someone who views sex as nothing more as pleasure to themselves. But to remove relationships and every emotion connected to it is a whole new ideal that is foreign to us.
Connor B.
I think what Huxley is trying to get at during this chapter is that humans are starting to lose the sacredness and meaning of sex and relationships. During the 1920's and 1930's, society was becoming less conservative and one trait that was more common was sexual promiscuity. This was hard for conservative society to accept the idea that monogamy was not the social norm anymore. Huxley sees the extreme manifestation of this promiscuity when there are no fathers or mothers in Brave New World and everybody is single, leaving sex to be a thing meant to be a way to satisfy our internal desires for pleasure.
ReplyDeleteScott K.
I agree with Tom G. on his point that relationships are emotional and become complicated because of it. Humans are emotional beings and unfortunately we cannot fully separate emotions from how we function. Fanny said to Lenina, "And do you know how strongly the D.H.C. objects to anything intense or long-drawn. Four months of Henry Foster, without having another man-why he would be furious if he knew. . ." This quote suggests that the D.H.C. sees extended relationships as possibly detrimental to work, making it a painful experience for a person to lose that deep emotional connection with their partner. Lenina's connection with Henry shows that when conditioning one to think that monogamy is bad, human emotions will overpower any logical impressions.
ReplyDeleteScott K.
Some values that the Brave New World are built upon are community and sharing and the lack of privacy. Having a relationship with just one person would destroy the Utopia as couples would begin to isolate themselves from the community and people would become upset that they cannot share a person with someone else. These new values of isolation and upset emotions would destroy the community so of course the stem of these values, monogamous relationships must cease in the BNW. But the real world opposes the BNW as it is supportive of monogamous relationships. Some values that our society are founded on are loyalty, honor, and respect. All these come when committing to a monogamous relationship. I think Huxley is trying to say that just as polygamous relationships were necessary in the BNW to maintain its' values, monogamy needs to continue in our society to maintains its' values also and any actions that deter people from having a monogamous relationship need to cease.
ReplyDeleteLuke M.
In response to Scott K.
ReplyDeleteI question your point that in the Brave New World, sex is just a thing to satisfy their internal desires for pleasure. In a world where happiness can be found in a bottle of soma and babies are made in factories, why is sex even necessary in the BNW. I feel there is a deeper reason as to why they are conditioned to participate in these actions. Since sex is not necessary, every inhabitant could have been conditioned to not participate in it and it would have eventually disapared from their world. At first it seems as though it is a pleasure activity but it is also an "old" action. It something people use to do in the "old" days to make babies. So my question is why would they let something "old" still persist in a society that has gotten rid of everything old, even God? Was it kept to be a tool they use to get people to interact and feel more connected with each other?
Luke M.
n response to Scott, I think a display of the time period is definitely shown throughout the chapter. Huxley commented on the shift in society by totally taking it to the extreme. This made me think, if Huxley were to write BNW today which aspect of our culture would he pick on? Also, I would like to agree with what Kaili said about how we would associate our family with stability and support, but in the BNW they do not want any such thing. The government is more important than the formation of love with another to create a family.
ReplyDeleteFarah S
I don't think that Huxley thought that sex and relationships were a bad thing. I think he thought they were the most important thing. But, the way that people were treating sex as a meaningless activity is wrong. I believe that Huxley thought that sex mean something. The way that Huxley saw sex progressing in the twenties probably made him feel like people were cheapening sex and that if the trend continued it would become meaningless which would make life meaningless. Without the realtionships we form in life, our lives would be very empty.
ReplyDelete-Becca W.
In response to Carly's first comment I have to say that I agree that it is the connections cause trouble and make the society and world less stable. But, i disagree with her that Huxley thinks that removing them would make things better. I think that Huxley saw how removing connections between people made life empty for the people in his book. They didn't know what mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters were. They also had no idea what husbands, wives, lovers, monogamy, or romance was. Think about the most important people in your life. I 'm betting that they fit into one of these categories. I'm betting the Huxley had these relationships as well. These are the things that make us matter in this world and without them life is just pointless and boring.
ReplyDelete-Becca W.
By emphasizing casual sex Huxley is trying to draw attention to the lack of meaningful relationships. In BNW each person is their own entity. They aren’t supposed to become emotionally attached to any one person. As a result no real relationships are formed. People don’t truly understand one another. This is demonstrated in Bernard and Lenina’s relationship.
ReplyDeleteThrough the emphasis on casual sex Huxley is advocating the importance of relationships by pointing out the deficits acquired by not having meaningful relationships. In that regard, sex isn’t the heart of the problem. The lack of meaningful relationships and understanding in relationships is the greater issue.
Lauren S.
Huxley's sexual mores in BNW make me sick. This does not mean that I do not think it would work. Logically, it makes sense: If there is no attachment, then everyone gets to have a good time with no drawbacks. But do they know what they're missing? Commitment to anything in life, whether it is a sexual partner or simply doing well in school is what gives me a sense of accomplishment. In the long run, who feels better about themselves: the cheater and lazy student, or the loving husband and college graduate?
ReplyDeleteAs far as what Huxley finds acceptable, I think he sees monogamy as the best way to go about things. He portrays promiscuity in such a terribly exaggerated manner in BNW so much so that I can only draw the conclusion that he is trying to scare his audience into monogamy.
The complete abscence of any substantial relationship that goes along with sex is another of Huxley's illustrations of how hedonism is used as a method of control for the populace, to keep them in line with the ideology of the world state with a machine like efficiency. By juxtaposing this shallow attitude towards sex with the totalitarian policies of the regieme, Huxley does indirectly show some reverence towards. meaningful relationships. He voices these opinions directly through the character Bernard, who is one of the few people who question the world around them.
ReplyDeleteRajiv R.
In response to Kaili
ReplyDeleteI agree that good relationships help to create stability rather than destroy it. Usually good relationships help promote contentment. Contentment in itself helps retain stability because if the people are pleased with their situation then they won’t feel the need to have anything change. Problems in societies tend to arise when people are unhappy. By eliminating any emotional attachments the people in BNW have created a false sense of stability. As others have mentioned relationships can be difficult to deal with at times. However they are essential. Humans need to have meaningful relationships with others to be happy.
Lauren S.
In reponse to Erik B.'s comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation that Huxley is using the attitudes about sex in the future as a warning of how current trends can end up completely out of control. The only way I can see Huxley's portrayal of sex being even remotely acceptable is if sex was actually used for its intended purpose: reproduction. However, the people in this world use a obscene amount of birth control to keep up their lifestyle of casual sex, which is absolutely shallow. Sex is not only seen as a leisurely past time in this society: rather, and more outrageously, it is used as a form of control over the populace. By creating an environment conducive to instant gratification, people have no incentive to question anything.
Rajiv R.
In response to Mike M:
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I think he is simply trying to point out to his audience that this is the way things could be if people arent careful. I think he was trying to warn his audience of the potential dangers that he thought could become real in the future; whether the dangers were sex or genetic engineering.
I agree with many people here that the main point Huxley is trying to make relates to relationships and not necessarily sex. I think it's wonderful he's added a comic touch to chapter 3, because it shows how trivial a strictly physical attraction is compared to the power and intensity of love. By making a mockery of promiscuity, he is indirectly advocating love and emotion, no matter how painful it may turn out to be. I think this also addresses the constant struggle between the individual and society. Love is very personal, but Huxley shows that it has negative influences on society when it goes wrong. An example that comes later on is in the savage reservation. Hardly living in a stable community, the women's emotions have a negative impact on the reservation when they find out Linda has been sleeping with their husbands. This is compared to the indifference of "civilized people." What is more important here: the freedom of the individual to love and show emotion, or the stability of society?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kaili:
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a really interesting point that our view of relationships coincides with greater stability while it is the opposite in the Brave New World. I wonder why they thought it would bring less stability. We have to remember that they made this conclusion after analyzing the world we have now. I think he took emotion out of the picture to show how powerful it can be. Love can build up a community as well as tear it down. The people in the Brave New World were more concerned with the tearing down part. They look at the Savage Reservation and relate the suffering there to the relationships people form. Why not eliminate pain and happiness that comes with emotion when you can have fake happiness all the time? Wow, that's just a messed up idea.
I think what Huxley is trying to suggest is that he sees a degradation of morality, especially in the area of sexuality. The time around when he wrote BNW is close to when Freud's theories of psycho-sexual development first came out, which explains the use of the phrase "Our Freud" in BNW. This novel, to me, seems like Huxley's prediction of our future if we continue to act in a way that Huxley would view as culturally degrading. Shallow sexual encounters, degrading family values, focus upon sexuality, all of these were occuring during the time in which Huxley wrote BNW, and perhaps he saw these changes as detrimental to the state of the world's morality. I think Huxley finds monogamy to be the ideal state of a relationship, seeing as how he satirizes every other behavior except for monogamy. In the book, he describes monogamy in a way that we would see as normal, making it seem ridiculous that they would view monogamy as such a horrid behavior.
ReplyDeleteHuxley has taken the most emotionally unstable topic and shattered it. The concept that really struck me was that "everybody belongs to everyone else". It is a truly interesting concept if you think about it for a moment. If everyone belonged to everyone else, no one gets turned down or left out. While I am disgusted with the immorality of all the promiscuous sex, I understand why it is important in a utopia where stability is key. Relationships are also very selfish; they are private between 2 people and a lot of time and energy is invested into this being alone with the other person and getting to know them on a deeper level. Huxley's utopia simply does not have time for the drama that the selfish aspect of relationships cause or the disjunction from the group that private aspect of relationships cause.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joe:
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't quite think that Huxley is trying to "scare his audience into monogamy", I do agree that he values it. He makes his world of casual promiscuous sex so overdramatized that we are enraged and want to step up and defend monogamy (interesting for a society where the divorce rate is higher than those of lasting marriages). The beauty of the marriage ceremonies described on the Savage Reservation elevates the commitment of a marriage to a religious status. It is respected and revered by the men and women on the reservation , including John who feels left out that he will never be able to experience such an intense and deep commitment. This is also why he is so timid around Lenina, he thinks of sex as part of the marriage covenant; something holy and unattainable for him.
In response to Joey...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that Huxley wished to accentuate the positives of monogamy and the repulsiveness of promiscuity. Also, I find his proposed system of citizenry contol to be quite logical, as does Joey. What bothers me more about this system is not the promiscuity, but really the lack of the option to pursue more traditional relationships. It's possible to attempt to make a monogamous relationship, but as seen with Lenina and John, it doesnt really work out. I, myself, believe that marriage has some rather antiquated ideology behind it, but at the same time, it isnt wrong that people want the security of a relationship with a single person. I just think that marriage shouldnt be this life-binding contract as it is in the current day.
In response to Luke,
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Huxley is trying to eliminate monogamy, but more so eliminate the emotional wirlwind that comes with it. When you have people competeing for a "mate" so to say, it brings out the best and worst in people, such as jealous, obsession, love and many others. For the control and stability that Huxley is looking for in this Utopia, he cannot have these emotions present. By conditioning these cititzens to believe that everyone belongs to everyone and that they are are needed, though not always equal, he creates a mutual mindset that they are all ultimately useful and equal within their social stature, thus creating stability within their utopia.
Kaili W.
In response to what Nathan said, I think he's on the right track. The concept of BNW is the worst case scenario on the track of where the human civilization is headed. Therefore he is likely warning us, and adding a touch of humor, with where society might be headed if the value of sex continues to decline. Nathan was also right in concern to the context of when BNW was being written. Huxley was of age where he would witness the change in ideals, morals, and behaviors. He saw the way sex was being loosely practiced and the way intimacy was seen was changing. I believe Huxley thinks sex is an innate behavior, though society will be hurt if the value of it plumemets. I think Huxley is trying to urge people not to fall victim to a change in society's view on something so vulnerable as sexuality.
ReplyDeleteJohn C.
I don't think that Huxley is criticizing sex itself but what it's capable of becoming. Sex is an expression of passion, love, and is necessary for procreation. It's a natural animal instinct but a paradigm shift, as Huxley suggests, could be lethal to the value of sex and privacy as a whole. The situation members of the society are in is comical and does not seem plausable. I believe Huxley is mocking the familiarity of which sex has been associated with and the increase in promiscuity of the time. I don't think Huxley vies sex as a fundamental problem of humans, though it can easily and rapidly become one.
ReplyDeleteJohn C.
I agree with John that Huxley is mocking what sex can become if not looked at seriously. In today’s society sex is mentioned everywhere and is made to seem like something that requires no responsibility, which is how sex is dealt with in Brave New World. The way Huxley is almost making fun of the way the people in this book deal with sex could also be a small attack on their lack of personal respect. No one who has sex all the time with people they barely know can have any self respect. The characters in this book don’t have much self respect through everything that they do and Huxley just enforces that thought through their promiscuous view on sex.
ReplyDeleteRachel K.
This is a difficult topic to interpret Huxley's intention on, because everyones concept of a utopia's treatment of sex must in some manner be influenced by their past sexual relationships. The key problem, which I believe he sorts out quite well, is that sex and love are entirely different entities though they are often viewed as one. I feel like we put too much weight and taboo on sex and that a general openness about it would save a lot of negative competition and heartache. It is a basic need that must be filled, and in any sort of utopian society we must acknowledge it as such.
ReplyDeleteSince Huxley's Brave New World utopia is an extreme parody focusing on the values which he perceived human society is moving towards more and more, his depiction of sexuality in BNW is a stretched out version of the increasing real world promiscuity. Consequently, in BNW, this promiscuity has been extended to the point that there is no more emotion associated with sexual relations. In this way, he adds yet another commentary on the direction in which the real world is moving, one probably for the worse.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident from Aldous Huxley's writings that he is not a supporter of promiscuity and lewdness. His farce on the theoretical standards for sex in Brave New World show this. Huxley clearly believes that sex should be considered a sacred act. He believes it is a consensual decision between two people who would consider themselves in love. The parody of emotionless sex that Huxley shows us in Brave New World is a way for Huxley to say that he disapproves of the emotionally void route that our world is beginning to pursue. I don't believe he considers sex specifically to be the heart of the inefficiencies in humankind. Instead, he is trying to show that while all humans have inefficiencies that prevent us from being the masters of production envisioned through Ford in Brave New World, they are part of the human condition. Without these defining imperfections, we would not be human.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that came to mind when thinking about this topic in the context of Brave New World was an chapter in the book A Brain that Changes Itself. At one point the author cites the facts that since pornography has exploded all over our media and internet the prescriptions for erectile disfunction medication has increased exponentially. His point was that our brain actually changes on a physiological level when subject to this perversions and disrupts our personal, intimate relationships. This, I believe, is Huxley's point: Love is a beautiful and available thing which can easily be thwarted by the daily perversions in life and the appeal to short-term, meaningless satisfaction. He envisions a world which is ruled by the Id (Freud) and the meaningful compenents of relationships are taken out of the equation. why spend time and effort on long-term gratification when short-term satisfaction will always be available? Huxley's answer would be that life suffers a great loss without those relationships which ultimately make our life meaningful. Huxley's vision is concerning to me considering the current state of the world.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I think farce is the perfect word to describe it. I really liked what you had to say about the defining characteristics of mankind. Brave New World is definitely about the loss of humanity and definition in mankind.It is clear that Huxley is a large proponent of the imperfect and ambiguous lifestyle, full of emotion and learning. There is no learning without uncertainties and working towards the most efficient "machine" is definitely driving civilization away from humanity. Clearly this is not the fundamental flaw with civilization that he is getting at, but it just might be the last nail in the coffin.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben Y:
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with your assessment about what Aldous Huxley is trying to say about marriage. While the institution of marriage is very old and has many outdated concepts attached to it, it still has a huge sentimental value to much of our worldwide community. And while the loss of marriage would be unfavorable, I believe the scarier part about the restrictions against monogamy in Brave New World is the fact that the characters in the book have no options. It's not that they have forced people to choose between two options with one being more morally correct than the other, it's the cat that they've created a world with a lack of any choice at all.
I agree with Tom on this issue- Sex is no longer an intimate activity between two people who want to show eachother how they feel in addition to being married. It is no longer a monogamous association with it. Sex has been perverted and skewed by the media. Sex sells, as many retailers and companies have seen, and it's really unfortunate. Huxley is bringing out one of the demons in mankind and that is sexual immorality. He plays it off as a joke in the way he makes sex seem like a careless, normal activity. We treat it that way in our society, so through his writing Huxley decided to poke fun at our ridiculous life style
ReplyDeleteDavid L.
Sex is one huge source of corruption in the hearts of men and women everywhere. It has the potential to strengthen a relationship as well as betray a loved one. I believe that Huxley brings the tainted aspects of sex in today's society out through his writing in Brave New World. He sees how little of commitment is seen in marriage and couples today, and ridicules our ways through the characters in his utopia. Monogamy has become a joke, and Huxley has made that very clear.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe Huxley thinks that sex is the heart of the problem concerning human nature. However, I think he sees our world as having potential to become a society where promiscuity is encouraged. A lot of it has to do with the idea of instant gratification, which the World State gives much esteem. To some degree there is nothing wrong with doing things purely for pleasure, but in Brave New World, it is encouraged to reduce conflict. There are some conflicts that are good, because resolving conflicts is what allows people to grow. For example, an argument between a husband and wife could actually make their relationship stronger once they overcome the problem.
ReplyDelete-Andy H.
In response to David:
ReplyDeleteWhile I absolutely agree with you in that sex has become commercialized by the media, and in many cases, no longer has the monogamous association, and I also agree that Huxley is providing a significant commentary on the modern-day state of affairs regarding affairs, I hardly believe that he passes BNW's version of sex off as a joke. The roller coaster of emotions that results from Bernard thinking that Lenina is "meat" and John disliking Lenina's conditioned responses to his affections drives a large portion of the plot. So, rather than being a joke, Huxley shows how a lack of emotion associated with sex could result in serious societal problems
In response to Andy...
ReplyDeleteI agree that the presence of conflict in a relationship allows people to grow. There are some emotional strains associated with some relationships that are more negative than positive, and I think that Huxley's utopia in BNW shows a world without the presence of those negative conflicts. But realistically, there is a balance between conflicts that are necessary and conflicts that hurt more than they help. Eliminating the negative by having no emotional connection to sex also eliminates those positive conflicts, and I think Huxley shows that it is a two-sided situation, where you can have both or you can have none.
In response to my dear Mustapha:
ReplyDeleteI must disagree. I believe that love is something that cannot be generalized to all society such as when you say “love is a misunderstood value in our society”. The questions that you list after, along with an understanding of love, are deeply personal, and cannot be answered for all of society. We all must provide our own answers based upon our own experiences. Which we are capable of doing, no matter how confusing it might be.
I’d argue that those absentee fathers and latchkey kids do not love, or do not understand their love, for their kids or parents (this is based on my own understanding of love of course). That’s not to say they never will, it’s just that they don’t at the moment. They will eventually reach their own understanding, but it will reached by themselves, not with the rest of society. I agree, love is difficult. But from my experience, love (or whatever you want to call a deep personal connection), is worth its difficulties.
Tim R.
I agree with Andy's theory that Huxley things that the world may become too sexually active. Remember, this book was not written five years ago, it was written in 1932. This was the time right after the roaring twenties where promiscuity first started to occur after after hundreds of years of conservative views on sex. The birth control pill had just been invented which also increased promiscuity. It is very possible that Huxley set up a clearly flawed utopia where everyone had meaningless sex as a way to show that he believes that promscuity should be avoided.
ReplyDeleteMax B.
In response to David...
ReplyDeleteI agree that the idea of commitment in today’s society has become very minimal. Since about fifty percent of all marriages in today’s world will end in a divorce, clearly people have a problem with monogamy. To some extent the World State makes more sense than our current marriage situation. At least in the World State, people know what they want and aren’t completely indecisive like many of today’s relationships. And at least when marriages are non-existent, nobody will be crushed when they discover their spouse has been cheating. However, I would still rather live in a monogamous world, but only because that is the world I know.
-Andy H.
I don't think that Huxley meant for his approach on sexual mores to be humorous. He very purposefully exaggerated a trend that he saw in society, that of increasing intimacy in earlier stages of a relationship. As time has gone on, society has changed drastically in its views of sexual relationships. For the past few hundred years at least, there seems to have been a consistent pattern for these relationships, a pattern of increasing intimacy and prostitution. There can be no doubt of this change when we consider the advancement of marriage standards in America, which have changed from being arranged as a matter of survival for daughters, determined based on a family's eminence and social class rather than the candidates' feelings, to freely chosen by sons and daughters out of love and personal interest. This standard must, from a purely biological view, hurt our chances of survival. We no longer marry to reproduce, we marry for personal satisfaction and love. Huxley exaggerated the standards of his characters' relationships to show a pattern of increasing complacency and prostitution that has been appearing in our society's most recent years, as relationships length, value, and skirts have became drastically smaller.
ReplyDeleteCaroline F.
In response to Zach B.:
ReplyDeleteI really like the approach you took; I never thought to look at BNW that way! In comparing the Savage society to BNW, it seems apparent that love is the missing element. The savages live a happier life because of their love for one another...right? I have to play Devil's advocate a bit here...is Huxley really promoting love? The savage's relationships cause them pain, pain that Mustapha would undoubtedly consider unnecessary, like the jealousy that many of the savage women feel for John the savage's mother, who came from the BNW society and has had their sexual mores drilled into her brain since birth. She sleeps with almost all of the savage women's men and causes pain for not only herself but her son, due to his love for her. Huxley's book features another love relationship, between John "The Savage" and Lenina, and that relationship doesn't work out ideally either. John becomes obsessed with Lenina but has been raised in a society that values the opposite sexual mores, so he cannot except her as she is, with her promiscuity. His love for Lenina ultimately drives him to a psychotic break down leading to his death. So I'm not sure if love is necessarily the missing factor that Huxley is pointing us towards, as there seem to be no happy endings in his characters' relationships that are based on love.
Caroline F.
I am so glad to be on this site today in other to express myself to the world because i made a promise to Dr.Obodo that if he grants me my heart desire that i am going to make sure that the world knows about his powers.. My lover left me nine weeks ago after searching for solution all over i came across Dr.Obodo and i was convinced with what i read about Dr.Obodo. So i contacted Dr.Obodo for help, With my greatest surprise my lover came back to me within a week .. Once again don’t forget Dr.Obodo contact details which are "templeofanswer@hotmail.co.uk" i am so glad that i met you
ReplyDelete