![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Reveal
Feb. 9th, 2011 05:01 pmIn the course of reading Brave New World, one scene stood out amongst all others. The reveal in Mond's study. No other scene in the novel is so densely packed with both Huxley's argument, and a deeper philosophical statements.
However, first, I would like to comment on whether or not I believe there is no conditioning in Piercy's "good" future. There is. Luciente was, without doubt, conditioned. So was Connie. So are we. One's environment always conditions. Through the environment, and pervading culture, people naturally tend to develop who they are. I suppose the way I spoke of conditioning earlier was vague. In terms of my comment, I thought it interesting that a society could be built actively, through active, conscious conditioning, by effort to develop its own ideals and mores. In contrast to a passive, natural conditioning, such as what is seen in our society.
In any event, that is very different from what I WOULD like to talk about here, and now. The book's climax, I feel, is the confrontation/reveal scene in Mond's study. For it is the first time that Helmholtz, Marx, John, and Mond are all in the same room. Mond acts as the representative of absolute power, and society as a whole. Many things happen here. Marx cracks. He attempts sell out his friends in a moment of hysteria, and is quickly removed from the picture. Helmholtz, the oppressed artist, and John the savage, continue on in their discourse with Mond. John asks many pointed questions to Mond, through which Huxley enacts his inquisition of this proposed civilization. In quick succession, John asks about just about everything that our society would consider part of the human experience, and just as quickly Mond explains each and every thing he brings up as dangerous to stability.
From what I gather, Huxley argues that by eschewing, what today most of us would consider to be, the human condition, a "utopia" can be achieved. He is not arguing for it, however. Here, John argues that something is gained by the struggle, the passion, the misfortune of life. Mond does not discount this, but rather notes that it is not good for social stability. John expresses desire for all this, as does Helmholtz, in a more round about way.
I find it immensely fascinating to think of Freud in this context. To think of natural drive, and instinct, frustrated and applied in another area, their directions subverted, but their magnitudes entirely the same. This is what I see making society, not completely unfettered sexual desires, and drives. Freud would, and as noted in the book, find this infantile. It is not much to say that infants are not great at building societies. I feel in a way that this whole scene goes to show that through some struggle things are achieved, and that Huxley's world is one that is without its own builders. They have been absent for some time, which is why stability is of the utmost importance. Freud comes in heavily here as well.
I fell this entry was a bit stream of consciousness at the end.. I began to write what came to mind..
However, first, I would like to comment on whether or not I believe there is no conditioning in Piercy's "good" future. There is. Luciente was, without doubt, conditioned. So was Connie. So are we. One's environment always conditions. Through the environment, and pervading culture, people naturally tend to develop who they are. I suppose the way I spoke of conditioning earlier was vague. In terms of my comment, I thought it interesting that a society could be built actively, through active, conscious conditioning, by effort to develop its own ideals and mores. In contrast to a passive, natural conditioning, such as what is seen in our society.
In any event, that is very different from what I WOULD like to talk about here, and now. The book's climax, I feel, is the confrontation/reveal scene in Mond's study. For it is the first time that Helmholtz, Marx, John, and Mond are all in the same room. Mond acts as the representative of absolute power, and society as a whole. Many things happen here. Marx cracks. He attempts sell out his friends in a moment of hysteria, and is quickly removed from the picture. Helmholtz, the oppressed artist, and John the savage, continue on in their discourse with Mond. John asks many pointed questions to Mond, through which Huxley enacts his inquisition of this proposed civilization. In quick succession, John asks about just about everything that our society would consider part of the human experience, and just as quickly Mond explains each and every thing he brings up as dangerous to stability.
From what I gather, Huxley argues that by eschewing, what today most of us would consider to be, the human condition, a "utopia" can be achieved. He is not arguing for it, however. Here, John argues that something is gained by the struggle, the passion, the misfortune of life. Mond does not discount this, but rather notes that it is not good for social stability. John expresses desire for all this, as does Helmholtz, in a more round about way.
I find it immensely fascinating to think of Freud in this context. To think of natural drive, and instinct, frustrated and applied in another area, their directions subverted, but their magnitudes entirely the same. This is what I see making society, not completely unfettered sexual desires, and drives. Freud would, and as noted in the book, find this infantile. It is not much to say that infants are not great at building societies. I feel in a way that this whole scene goes to show that through some struggle things are achieved, and that Huxley's world is one that is without its own builders. They have been absent for some time, which is why stability is of the utmost importance. Freud comes in heavily here as well.
I fell this entry was a bit stream of consciousness at the end.. I began to write what came to mind..
