Two Futures, One Objective

Considering the vast number of dystopian novels that have been introduced into the world of literature, especially during the relatively recent past, it is easy to question just how original a novel addressing this topic can really be. When writing about such similar topics, authors will almost inevitably begin to repeat or build upon the ideas of previous authors, making the innovation of their ideas questionable. It is also easy for a reader to compare the different futuristic theories that authors present in an almost competitive manner. As we come closer and closer to the future that authors have attempted to theorize on, it is tempting to try pinpointing which will be the most accurate prediction. Two of the most praised dystopian novels, Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984, have certainly received their fair share of scrutiny in both of these categories. The written analysis entitled “The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” discusses both of these issues. The more important discussion, however, within “Two Futures” and especially within our society, is not the creativity of an author or the differences that exist between two theories but rather the similarities that they share. It is the common thread that lies between opposing theories, the shared idea that is proposed by multiple sources, that will prove to be the greatest threat to our society.

In regards to 1984 and Brave New World, the common element between the two perverse civilizations is manipulation. In both novels, the minority of the population utilizes manipulation in almost every aspect of life to maintain control over the majority. The first element of life that both governments use to manipulate the people is the very reality that the people experience. They take advantage of the fact that reality, rather than being a concrete occurrence, is simply a perception unique to each individual. They have learned to warp this perception so greatly that they have succeeded in essentially altering each person’s reality and therefore their ability to protest wrongdoings. As is written in “Two Futures,” one of the greatest means of manipulation “…is to substitute for reality a fiction that then becomes absolute. Fiction-as-reality can be controlled and manipulated in a way that reality- always fluid and unpredictable- cannot.” Orwell’s government does so by altering the past while Huxley’s simply erases it, but both systems achieve the same goal. The ability to question evil is eliminated when the people are given nothing to compare it to.

The second aspect of life that is used as a means of manipulation is human desire. Both governments recognize the fact that basic desires can be one of the greatest tools in controlling a populace. Big Brother appeals to the desire for power. Fear, used as a generator of power, is used to both intimidate and entice the people. Huxley’s government uses comfort and luxury to lure the people. Not only does everyone live securely and stably, they even have the opportunity to seek extravagance in the form of unrestricted sex. In Orwell’s novel, “the intoxication of power is the equivalent, in Huxley’s future world, of the intoxications of sex and soma…In both cases, man must be intoxicated,” (“Two Futures”). The two novels describe very different methods of tempting the citizens, but the fundamental approach of appealing to want is present in both.

The final and most frightening liberty that is violated for the purpose of manipulation is the very beliefs that the people maintain. Even the thoughts and opinions of the people are not free from modification by the government. It is then impossible for individuals to contest any misdeeds because they are incapable of even maintaining a contradicting thought. In 1984 it is the development of Newspeak, and when necessary, a barrage of torture, that is ripping this freedom away. In Brave New World, it is the intricate and thorough conditioning process. Either way, “both states rely heavily on conditioning to guarantee the orthodoxy of the administrative caste…,” (“Two Futures”).

The study of dystopian novels can easily be muddled with arguments over issues such as originality or future accuracy. The challenge that readers face when assessing such works is that they must be evaluated in a manner different from other genres. These works are less a piece of literature than they are a warning. They are intended to caution current society to the dangerous potential that exists for the future. 1984 and Brave New World can be judged for their accuracy or picked apart for their repetitiveness. Neither of these issues, however, is relevant to the true value of the works. It is the recurring themes that appear in both that become the most significant. The fact that two intelligent authors have both warned of us such uninhibited manipulation should be what a reader grasps most strongly when analyzing such pieces. We should stop undermining the real value and purpose of these tales of caution by harping upon petty issues and begin to focus more upon the real issues that are at stake.

In the Words of Aretha...

Differences between people have and hopefully always will exist in our world. Diversity is what defines us both as a human race and as individuals. If all people were to comply with a uniform standard, we would each lose our sense of individuality when given nothing to compare to. Variety is an integral piece of society. Unfortunately, it is these same differences that are the root of the most terrible tragedies we humans inflict upon ourselves.

Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.

I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.

This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.

However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.

The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.