Deconstructing Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World’s Ambiguous Portrayal of the future En dekonstruktiv analys av Aldous Huxleys tvetydiga skildring av framtiden i Brave New World Martin Franzén English Literature 15 hp Fredrik Svensson Åke Bergvall January 19 Abstract This research presents a deconstructive analysis of Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel Brave New World. As a literary work, it is most commonly considered a dystopian visualisation of the future of modern civilisation. This essay reveals a more ambiguous reading of Brave New World by deconstructing and presenting the aspects of the novel which pertain to the classification of the novel as both dystopian and utopian simultaneously. This conclusion of ambiguity is presented to negate any notion that the novel can be classified as a definitive representation of either a utopian or a dystopian portrayal of the future. Keywords: Huxley, Brave New World, Utopia, Dystopia, Deconstructive Criticism, Future Sammanfattning Denna forskning presenterar en dekonstruktiv analys av Aldous Huxleys roman Brave New World skriven 1932. Som litterärt verk anses den främst vara en dystopisk visualisering av framtidens moderna samhälle. Denna uppsats avslöjar en mer tvetydig läsning av Brave New World genom att dekonstruera och presentera de aspekter som angår klassificeringen av romanen som både Dystopisk och Utopisk samtidigt. Denna slutsats av tvetydighet presenteras för att neka varje uppfattning om att romanen kan klassificeras som en definitiv representation av antingen en utopisk eller en dystopisk visualisering av framtiden. Nyckelord: Huxley, Brave New World, Utopi, Dystopi, Dekonstruktion, Framtid Franzén 1 Dustjackets covering Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World have referred to the novel as a dystopian vision of the future ever since it was first published in 1932. The state of society present in the novel has been used as an example of what nightmares the future might entail lest we steer clear of the dystopian tendencies presented in the novel such as totalitarianism and the eradication of individualism. However, this essay presents arguments for a more ambiguous reading of the novel. Based on the theory of deconstructive criticism, the essay breaks down the arguments for and against the common dystopian reading of Brave New World. Additionally, the dilemma brought on by the definitive definitions of the concepts of dystopia and utopia present the argument that as these concepts are juxtaposed they are mutually assuming one another. The notion that every page of the novel is written with the intention of satirizing the subjects are debunked by Huxley’s positive personal views on eugenics, which is a major part of the science present in BNW. On the other hand, the essay will not argue that the authorial intent to satirize and criticize modernity is absent in the novel. It instead argues that both utopian and dystopian qualities exist within the novel. The deconstruction of these opposite qualities presents a novel which is equally hopeful and celebratory of its own expectations of the progression towards the future as it is a cautionary and criticizing visualisation of what that same future might resemble. The novel should be regarded as a depiction of societal progression characterized by overlapping tendencies towards both utopia and dystopia. As the essay mostly consists of a discussion pertaining to the concepts of utopia and dystopia, these terms will need an introductory definition. The terms are defined in the online Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as follows: Dystopia: “An imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible; opposed to utopia n.” (1972), and Utopia: “An imagined or hypothetical place, system, or state of existence in which everything is perfect, esp. in respect of social structure, laws, and politics” (2013). The terms are defined to be absolute, describing Franzén 2 something that is either “perfect” or “as bad as possible”. The characterization of a world or society as either of these concepts is problematic since nothing could ever be construed to adhere fully to either definition. Furthermore, modernity is another concept in need of a definition. The online OED defines “modernity” in a general sense as “the quality or condition of being modern; modernness [sic] of character or style.” Specifically, the OED defines “modernity” as “an intellectual tendency or social perspective characterized by departure from or repudiation of traditional ideas, doctrines, and cultural values in favour of contemporary or radical values and beliefs.” In summation, modernity could be perceived as the aspects of society that have been developed based on traditional values or ideas to be replaced by a modern equivalent, or; the rejection of these traditional aspects in favour of new and modern ideas or values. The concept as used in this essay refers to the ideals and norms that were present at the time Huxley produced the novel. A definition of Deconstructive criticism will also be useful. Tyson summarizes deconstructive criticism by splitting it up into 3 constituent parts. she writes: “For deconstruction, (1) language is dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable, continually disseminating possible meanings; (2) existence has no centre, no stable meaning, no fixed ground; and (3) human beings are fragmented battlefields for competing ideologies whose only “identities” are the ones we invent and choose to believe” (244). The important terms in this summary that will apply to the analysis of Brave New World are the ambiguous nature of language and the “competing ideologies.” Since utopia and dystopia are antonyms they can be regarded as competing tendencies in Huxley’s writing in the sense that they are absolute in their assessment of a certain political system or society. The theory of deconstruction will be used to call attention to the ambiguity of Huxley’s vision of societal progress since the theory Franzén 3 allows for an analysis of the way the competing concepts overlap instead of demanding the exclusion of one of them. Many of those who have read Brave New World might instinctively refer to the cold and mechanical future as dystopian. Modern views on concepts such as individualism, political structure, class and childbirth differ immensely from how these same concepts are regarded in the society present in the novel. If one is to begin deconstructing the novel’s critique of how this future society has come to completely disregard societal standards normative to 20th and 21st century civilization, one must regard the views that have been replaced as ethically sound and important for the inevitable progression of civilized society. One also needs to regard Huxley’s description of the future as a mostly satirical one. If the narrative is interpreted as a comment on the dystopian future which we are all progressing towards then all aspects of this horrific future should be considered ludicrous exaggerations of present-day social ills. Most instances in the novel where something differs widely from modern day standards could be interpreted as a comment on the negative consequences of the rejection of those same standards. Someone who claims the novel to be dystopian would have to claim that the narrated and hypothetical progression of modern society should be considered to be the worst possible outcome of this progression per the definition of the term dystopia. With these ground rules set for the dystopian argument, we can begin to look at instances in the novel that could be construed as a critique of modernity. Firstly, Individualism is a behaviour that is regarded as strange in the novel. The protagonist, Bernard struggles with this notion throughout the narrative. An example of this is the conversation between him and Lenina as they are hovering above the dark ocean: “I don’t want to look’. ‘But I do,’ he insisted. ‘It makes me feel as though […] I were more me, if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something else. Not just a cell in the Franzén 4 social body’” (Huxley 99). Theodor Adorno, a 20th century German philosopher, writes about the problematic nature of the eradication of the individual in his 1951 book Minima Moralia: In the face of the totalitarian unison with which the eradication of difference is proclaimed as a purpose in itself, even part of the social force of liberation may have temporarily withdrawn to the individual sphere . While the individual, like all individualistic processes of production, has fallen behind the state of technology and become historically obsolete, he becomes the custodian of truth, as the condemned against the victor. (129) Adorno acknowledges the dangers of any society that through technological advancement oversees the replacement of its individual citizens for a “totalitarian unison” where citizens are no more than part of an indifferent group which together are seen as a social body. Bernard’s cynicism towards the societal rejection of the individual is a vital part of his character’s importance to the story. The others’ skeptical comments on his wish to spend time alone and his aversion towards communal activities are shown to be a programmed reaction towards those who show signs of social deviance. Here, one can begin to see signs of a dystopian nature. The implied meaning of the “programmed” skepticism directed at Bernard’s character is that the “Social body” (Huxley 99), as Bernard himself describes the general population, is designed to reject free thinking that challenges the status quo. Alisha Scott touches on the importance of social interaction in Huxley’s imagined world: “Huxley’s utopian nightmare here is not so much one of isolation, but as the outcome of forced socialization and the near-impossibility of an option to withdraw and reflect, or respond in rage” (43). The dystopian qualities of Brave New World are made obvious here: the global totalitarian government have designed a life for its inhabitants so as there is no use in Franzén 5 reflecting upon the possibility of revolution.