“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”
This quote, an excerpt from Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, reflects one of the key themes from the same well-known novel; psychological conditioning as a means of control. Huxley’s novel has arguably been as influencing as George Orwell’s ‘1984’, sharing the theme of picturing a future totalitarian civilization where censoring and conditioning seep through all layers of public and personal life. Despite focusing mainly on scientific progress as a crucial factor for a future utopia (or dystopia, if you will), there are plenty of reasons to consider the content of this novel as a perspective of understanding censorship, which will be discussed in this blog.
Firstly, for those unfamiliar with this novel, I will list the key features of the book that have a connection with the process of understanding censorship. But I can certainly recommend the reader to read this classic if this has not been done before. Regarding the book itself: published in 1932, Aldous Huxley wove a future world where all civilization is united in one great utopia, with a managed population in which natural reproduction is absent. Instead, people are bred in so-called Reproduction & Reconditioning Centers, in which they are unconsciously indoctrinated to naturally fit into one out of five castes. Indoctrination works mainly by constant citing of maxims, which are all meant to promote an ideology focused on Fordism and consumerism. Citizens of this world have sex only for fun, solitude is forbidden, and any doubting of the system is erased by close observation, elimination and mostly by applying a hallucinogen called soma. The story focuses on a young man whose conditioning failed to restrict his freedom of thought, who is to meet a Savage boy from a small part of the world that is excluded from the utopia and whose people live in rough, deserted nature. The most important element of the novel for this blog lies in the idea of (re)conditioning, ideology and the struggle for pursuing a nigh impossible counter hegemonic view of the world.
In the context of censorship, this work is fascinating, because it tends to assume that ideology and the censoring (or even erasure) of some of our most basic human elements (e.g. the need for solitude, parenthood, individual thought, the nature of our human relations) find their origin from ‘above’, meaning the State. Conditioning finds its origin here, but its success in the plot lies in the idea that the discourse in case is enforced and checked continuously by all the citizens. This is the source of agony for the main character Bernard, who has retained a sense of autonomous thought. In this we see reflected a key notion in the study of censorship: an example of New Censorship (as coined by Muller), which argues that censorship and ideology are imposed both by authorities and everyday social communication. Huxley’s vision describes the end of freedom of thought; substituted instead by ideology imprinted in our very genes.
Huxley’s end-of-the-line vision creates food for thought, regarding conditioning. Now firstly we ought to understand ideology in this case in a Marxist way: as a belief system that is implemented within a society in a top-down fashion, causing subordinate clauses to subject themselves willingly to beliefs and interests that benefit the ruling classes (Lewis 26). This is altogether a notion political, philosophical and personal: in Huxley’s novel ideology dictates birth, happiness, thought and death in every possible detail. And censorship is compliant with this: ban or erase one way of thinking and living often entails promoting another manner of thought and believing. In other words, according to Billiani’s research, censorship is to be understood as a (usually dominant) discourse itself, produced in a given society and time, and expressed in repressive cultural, aesthetic, political or economic ways. Yet Huxley reminds us that we should not only view censorship as part of the public sphere and as something repressive only; rather it is something that can be considered a form of conditioning too. Brave New World erases our basic human values and substitutes this by a completely new discourse. Huxley meant this as a warning for future generations, but it can also be interpreted as part of our personal lives too: discursive ideology teaches us how to live as part of a society or civilization, dictates what one ought to achieve or pursue, and minimizes anything that does not conform to the dominant ideology.
This definition and function of censorship serves a purpose of finding its roots in cultural studies; which draws extensively from philosophy. I am assuming censorship is a philosophical concept too, a complicated tool used for dictating not only what is ethical, but also as a means of diverting the individual’s attention away from matters that may pose a challenge to a society’s ideology. Huxley plays with this idea in Brave New World, by writing the following: “You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.”, with ‘reading books’ as an example of something that does not fit with the guidelines. By assuming that censorship may be a philosophical problem, I feel that it is worth the shot of continuously questioning the origins of one’s belief system, as well as one’s external ambitions and practices.
In conclusion, I repeat that Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World touches upon the notion of a future utopia (or dystopia) that features indoctrination and conditioning as means to consolidate a totalitarian ideology. In more plain words: Huxley describes a world, in which the things you think and feel are just a result of genetic modification, put in and enforced by other people. This idea can be linked to cultural studies and censorship, reminding us that censoring one thing and promoting another dictate not only large external events, but also our personal beliefs and philosophical notions. Censorship is an intimate phenomenon, telling what to believe; but even with the best intentions, it is still a philosophical as well as a sociological issue in this sense. This, after all, is the message that lies perpetuated in Huxley’s novel, a reminder that censorship is neither a thing of the past nor something used solely against counter hegemonic individuals.
Bibliography:
- Müller, Beate. “Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.” Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
- Calder, Jenni. “Huxley and Orwell: Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four”. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1976, 7-59.
- Billiani, Francesca, ed. Modes of Censorship: National Contexts and Diverse Media. Routledge, 2014, 1-27.
- Lewis, Jeff. Cultural Studies - The Basics. Sage, 2002, 23-27.
This quote, an excerpt from Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, reflects one of the key themes from the same well-known novel; psychological conditioning as a means of control. Huxley’s novel has arguably been as influencing as George Orwell’s ‘1984’, sharing the theme of picturing a future totalitarian civilization where censoring and conditioning seep through all layers of public and personal life. Despite focusing mainly on scientific progress as a crucial factor for a future utopia (or dystopia, if you will), there are plenty of reasons to consider the content of this novel as a perspective of understanding censorship, which will be discussed in this blog.
Firstly, for those unfamiliar with this novel, I will list the key features of the book that have a connection with the process of understanding censorship. But I can certainly recommend the reader to read this classic if this has not been done before. Regarding the book itself: published in 1932, Aldous Huxley wove a future world where all civilization is united in one great utopia, with a managed population in which natural reproduction is absent. Instead, people are bred in so-called Reproduction & Reconditioning Centers, in which they are unconsciously indoctrinated to naturally fit into one out of five castes. Indoctrination works mainly by constant citing of maxims, which are all meant to promote an ideology focused on Fordism and consumerism. Citizens of this world have sex only for fun, solitude is forbidden, and any doubting of the system is erased by close observation, elimination and mostly by applying a hallucinogen called soma. The story focuses on a young man whose conditioning failed to restrict his freedom of thought, who is to meet a Savage boy from a small part of the world that is excluded from the utopia and whose people live in rough, deserted nature. The most important element of the novel for this blog lies in the idea of (re)conditioning, ideology and the struggle for pursuing a nigh impossible counter hegemonic view of the world.
In the context of censorship, this work is fascinating, because it tends to assume that ideology and the censoring (or even erasure) of some of our most basic human elements (e.g. the need for solitude, parenthood, individual thought, the nature of our human relations) find their origin from ‘above’, meaning the State. Conditioning finds its origin here, but its success in the plot lies in the idea that the discourse in case is enforced and checked continuously by all the citizens. This is the source of agony for the main character Bernard, who has retained a sense of autonomous thought. In this we see reflected a key notion in the study of censorship: an example of New Censorship (as coined by Muller), which argues that censorship and ideology are imposed both by authorities and everyday social communication. Huxley’s vision describes the end of freedom of thought; substituted instead by ideology imprinted in our very genes.
Huxley’s end-of-the-line vision creates food for thought, regarding conditioning. Now firstly we ought to understand ideology in this case in a Marxist way: as a belief system that is implemented within a society in a top-down fashion, causing subordinate clauses to subject themselves willingly to beliefs and interests that benefit the ruling classes (Lewis 26). This is altogether a notion political, philosophical and personal: in Huxley’s novel ideology dictates birth, happiness, thought and death in every possible detail. And censorship is compliant with this: ban or erase one way of thinking and living often entails promoting another manner of thought and believing. In other words, according to Billiani’s research, censorship is to be understood as a (usually dominant) discourse itself, produced in a given society and time, and expressed in repressive cultural, aesthetic, political or economic ways. Yet Huxley reminds us that we should not only view censorship as part of the public sphere and as something repressive only; rather it is something that can be considered a form of conditioning too. Brave New World erases our basic human values and substitutes this by a completely new discourse. Huxley meant this as a warning for future generations, but it can also be interpreted as part of our personal lives too: discursive ideology teaches us how to live as part of a society or civilization, dictates what one ought to achieve or pursue, and minimizes anything that does not conform to the dominant ideology.
This definition and function of censorship serves a purpose of finding its roots in cultural studies; which draws extensively from philosophy. I am assuming censorship is a philosophical concept too, a complicated tool used for dictating not only what is ethical, but also as a means of diverting the individual’s attention away from matters that may pose a challenge to a society’s ideology. Huxley plays with this idea in Brave New World, by writing the following: “You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.”, with ‘reading books’ as an example of something that does not fit with the guidelines. By assuming that censorship may be a philosophical problem, I feel that it is worth the shot of continuously questioning the origins of one’s belief system, as well as one’s external ambitions and practices.
In conclusion, I repeat that Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World touches upon the notion of a future utopia (or dystopia) that features indoctrination and conditioning as means to consolidate a totalitarian ideology. In more plain words: Huxley describes a world, in which the things you think and feel are just a result of genetic modification, put in and enforced by other people. This idea can be linked to cultural studies and censorship, reminding us that censoring one thing and promoting another dictate not only large external events, but also our personal beliefs and philosophical notions. Censorship is an intimate phenomenon, telling what to believe; but even with the best intentions, it is still a philosophical as well as a sociological issue in this sense. This, after all, is the message that lies perpetuated in Huxley’s novel, a reminder that censorship is neither a thing of the past nor something used solely against counter hegemonic individuals.
Bibliography:
- Müller, Beate. “Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.” Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
- Calder, Jenni. “Huxley and Orwell: Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four”. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1976, 7-59.
- Billiani, Francesca, ed. Modes of Censorship: National Contexts and Diverse Media. Routledge, 2014, 1-27.
- Lewis, Jeff. Cultural Studies - The Basics. Sage, 2002, 23-27.
Dear Rick,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting review. Being a big fan of Huxley’s Brave New World myself, I really enjoyed reading your piece. I especially like how you linked conditioning with censorship. Both concepts are so closely intertwined, but I never saw them as two sides of the coin so clearly as now. You defined both concepts well and used them insightfully in this review to clarify the novel. This gave new depth to the novel. You included scholars to substantiate your point as well, which I thought was good in the case of Müller, but could maybe have been clearer in the case of Billiani’s research.
In terms of writing style, you did well. Your writing sounds academic and generally reads quite fluently. I only have a few comments. I would have liked to see page numbers after quotes from the novel. Next to that, I would be careful with the use of brackets, as they end up making sentences long, complicated and confusing. These are only minor issues, though. The structure of this review is perfect. I liked that the compelling introduction was followed by a paragraph describing the main elements of the book without revealing anything about the plot. The subsequent analysis of the novel within the conceptual framework of censorship and conditioning was placed very well within this structure too.
Despite the insightful third and fourth paragraph, the fifth was not very clear nor relevant to me. I did not quite understand your argument about censorship’s roots in cultural studies and the link to philosophy and the link of all that to the novel. To me, it added confusion and didn’t seem very relevant. You did not define how censorship is philosophical and how this relates to cultural studies. Instead, you repeated your definition of censorship from the previous paragraphs, but the fact that it was now philosophical did not change anything in this definition. Maybe you had a great point to make, but unfortunately it didn’t come across.
That being said, I did enjoy your review a lot. It really encourages to read this novel and is very interesting for those who have already read it too!