Near the end of Brave New World, Mustapha Mond, a Controller, explains his view on stability versus instability. As he
explains the workings of society to the Savage and Helmholtz, Mustapha makes it
apparent that he thinks stability comes with a price. For one, he believes that
change is a menace that will only cause unbalance. Even science, in his mind,
can be dangerous towards society since every discovery can bring about great
change. Art, diverse beliefs, and literature are looked down upon unless
approved by society as a whole. He believes that truth and beauty
will bring about unhappiness rather than universal happiness. Universal
happiness allows the society to progress forward and become stable, even if the
price of truth, knowledge, and beauty comes with it.
However, is this necessarily true?
Does happiness and stability have to come with such a great price as to banning
all truth and beauty? Is the constant systematic way of society the only option
the people have for stability? Personally, I think that although stability is
most effectively reached through a system of order, I do not think that people
have to live without truth and beauty. Society can prosper and progress with a
balance of both. While rules can still be in set, knowledge of literature, art,
and change can exist as well. What do you think?
I believe that the government thinks to have true stability, risks must be taken, and sometimes at the price of banning "truth and beauty". Yes, the truth of a different type of lifestyle in which there is a family unit, friendship, love, art, and literature is kept from them, but these people have no idea that these things existed. While reading this, whenever I find myself utterly disgusted by this society (which is quite often), I remember that I am reading this book from a biased persepective, and the characters of this book are unaware of how amazing the life we live today can be. They only know what they are told, and are living proof of the phrase, "Ignorance is bliss".
ReplyDeleteI also think that the reason the government banned the arts, literature, and religion, is because all of these things encourage strong, passionate emotions. The government doesn't want their citizens to participate in these activities because it may cause them to doubt their lifestyle and begin to wonder (as we are now while reading this book) whether everyone is truly happy or not.
As Taylor said I think the government only banned the arts and literature because of the passion it could provoke between the classes. For example, when John (the savage) tries to provoke a rebellion the classes become completely enraged. They know only what they are programmed to know, so when John went against the government the people had no idea how to respond to such passion. Whenever someone seems to become consumed with passion in the novel, people just tell them to take soma. This seems to be their programmed way of responding to such passion. I too found myself frustrated at their ignorance, but I think that since most of the people are happy as a whole then the society should keep its ways. I mean, they do give the "radical thinkers" a choice to go of on an island and be happy-that's much Better then banishing them or forcing them to live unhappily on a life drugged up by soma. If they are happy with their version of the arts then I don't think there would be cause for them to change what they are doing. By adding art and literature it would confuse and make the people think it was a joke-they are simply not well equipped to handle such liberality, as we saw in hemholtz's reaction to Shakespeare
ReplyDelete