1984 brave new world comparative essay
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. A Brave New World is a novel about the struggle of Bernard Marx, who rejects the tenants of his society when he discovers that he is not truly happy. In both cases, the main character is in quiet rebellion against his government which is eventually found to be in vain. Huxley wrote A Brave New World in the third person so that the reader could be allotted a more comprehensive view of the activities he presents.
A Comparative Essay Between 1984 and Brave New World
Brave New World and were both written by men who had experienced war on the grand scale of the twentieth century. Disillusioned and alarmed by what they saw in society, each author produced a powerful satire and an alarming vision of future possibilities. Although the two books are very different, they address many of the same issues in their contrasting ways.
Huxley's novel sets out a world in which society is kept carefully balanced, with the means of reproduction just as closely controlled as the means of production. Human beings and the goods they make are tailored to one another: people are created in order to fulfil particular purposes, and are encouraged to consume so as to maintain the cycle.
The society presented in is less comfortably balanced. The population is kept content with a rather meagre lot because of the constant war, which, as is explicitly stated in the Book, is a convenient means of maintaining the status quo, and the Party keeps a very close watch on those members of society who are deemed capable of disrupting it.
Although set in Orwell's future, does not put great emphasis on technological advance—indeed, within the society of Oceania, there is effectively none any more, because the methods required for proper scientific enquiry are antithetical to the demands of the Party, and thus real science has been abolished.
Orwell posits a certain level of technological advance—the two-way television screens and the ever-present surveillance equipment, the novel-writing machines,, but not much else. His purpose was not to imagine the details of such technologies, but to present the use to which they are put. Huxley goes considerably further in imagining scientific advance. In his World State, humans are engendered and grown in artificial wombs.
There are also such things as 'the feelies', an extrapolation of today's cinema in Huxley's case, 'the talkies' were quite a novelty. However, the idea of automation seems to have passed him by, so that people are grown for the purposes of toiling in factories or operating elevators. Again, however, the author is not attempting to present a detailed picture of what life would be like in the far distant future; he is showing the effects of such things on human nature.
For both authors, a necessary action in their future societies is the abolition of the past. In Brave New World , the people have embraced Henry Ford's misquoted dictum that 'History is bunk', and have no interest in it. Anything from the past with occasional exceptions like 'Our Ford' is perceived as unimportant. Thus the richness of human history is cast aside. The rejection of history takes a more aggressive form in , where it becomes impossible to understand the past, because the details of the past are constantly rewritten to conform with the requirements of the present.
The concept of historical truth is irrelevant: truth, and history, becomes what the Party wants it to be. Winston Smith himself takes part in this, rewriting the news: he therefore knows that the details of the past have been tampered with, and is unable to discern or discover what the truth might be.
Just as history is effectively abolished in both societies, so is the family. Huxley extrapolates the trend for elective childbearing until it becomes grotesque: no-one bears children any more, and the concept of motherhood is obscene. In Orwell's world the family is not obsolete, but it has been subverted. Children are taught from their earliest years to give their loyalty to the Party and to Big Brother, and are encouraged to spy on and betray their own parents.
Thus the family becomes one more means of surveillance, so that everyone is surrounded by people who cannot be trusted. The horribly inappropriate behaviour of the children in has a counterpart in Brave New World , where children are expected to indulge in 'erotic play'. The reader can only be thankful Huxley does not go into details. Sigmund Freud's impact on the world shows up in both novels, which both put considerable emphasis on the importance of sexual behaviour to human beings, but in vastly different ways.
In Brave New World , sexual intercourse is completely separate from reproduction. The females who are not rendered sterile are obliged to wear 'Malthusian belts' and to maintain their contraception. Along with the family unit, exclusive partnerships have been abolished. Lenina Crowne's behaviour in remaining faithful to one man at a time and her aberrant interest in Bernard Marx dismays her friend Fanny, who encourages her back towards a 'normal' promiscuity.
Naturally, this sort of behaviour is incomprehensible to The Savage, who has been brought up on the edges of a quite different society—and in a close relationship with his mother, to boot. The consequence of such absolute promiscuity is that sex becomes a mindless and meaningless act of no more significance than eating a bar of chocolate.
In Oceania, sex is treated in a quite opposite manner. Sexual activity is discouraged, and divorced from pleasure. Winston's wife's attitude was to endure it for the sake of the Party, in order to reproduce. Winston considers sex to be a political act, an expression of freedom.
Julia puts her finger on it, explaining to Winston that sex makes people happy and relaxed, while the Party prefers that their energies be channelled into other activities. Privation increases tension, and can be forced into such activities as 'Hate Week' and so forth. With familial and sexual relationships either gone or terribly distorted, it is not surprising that both worlds also trivialise death. In Brave New World , individuals barely exist in the first place: their lives are so banal and interchangeable that it is not surprising death is made meaningless.
The members of the World State do not grow and mature, and they never really come to terms with death. Grotesquely, young children are 'conditioned' by visiting wards of the dying and being fed chocolate eclairs afterwards. In , people merely cease to exist. One day, Winston comes to work to find that all traces of an erstwhile colleague have been removed—Symes has ceased to exist. Yet Winston does retain a normal human dread of actual death: incarcerated, and hoping to be delivered a razor blade, he nonetheless wonders whether he would be able to use it to commit suicide—it is a natural human impulse to keep on living.
Essentially, the Party manages to persuade its members that mere feelings are of no account. Each person is kept in a state of persecuted fear, and distrust of those around him—who ought to be the 'nearest and dearest' but may well turn out to be betrayers. In Huxley's World State, human interaction is simply reduced to the shallowest possible level, so that feelings become unimportant because they are trivial. Winston's thoughts take much the same direction:. In , novels are written to formula by machines; in Brave New World , the 'feelies' aim at the audience's immediate sensual gratification, not at their minds or their emotions.
As a result of the insistent reduction of human feelings to the least possible level, the people in both societies treat other people as objects and do not experience decent emotions with regard to them.
The Savage attempts to create a world for himself taking his own problems into it, of course, but escaping as far as he is able from the society into which he cannot fit , but his privacy is invaded and a 'feelie' is made of his life. Then a crowd of sightseers come to see him, and treat him as though he were an exhibit at the zoo, chanting at him to use the whip, and turning his frenzied behaviour with Lenina into an orgy.
Winston himself shows this kind of insensitivity when he writes about the war film he watched, refugees being bombed in a lifeboat. He presents the callous laughter of the audience as perfectly normal, and does not recognise his own lack of humanity either. Essentially, Winston has been conditioned to behave with craven selfishness. Every aspect of his life is regulated, and he can hardly call his thoughts his own, since the concept of Thoughtcrime makes it plain to him that his rebellious thoughts are forbidden, and the existence of the Thought Police makes him certain that he will be caught and horribly punished.
The conditioning in is less explicit than that of Brave New World , but again there are similarities—the 'Two Minutes Hate' and the 'Solidarity Service' both encourage frenzied, animalistic emotions from the participants, and enhance their obedience to the state's imposed lifestyle. In Brave New World , of course, the conditioning is done openly and for the acknowledged purpose of fitting different people to their different roles in life.
The scene in which lower-caste babies are conditioned by terror and pain into a loathing of books and flowers demonstrates that under the smooth surface, this society can be as ruthless as the Party. There is an interesting difference in the way in which these novels treat the 'proles'.
Both authors seem to make the uncomfortable point that the masses are easily contented. Huxley's lower castes, the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons, are easily content—work of a non-challenging nature, followed by relaxation, drugs and sex, are all they require although the existence of police capable of dealing with a rioting mob suggests that there can sometimes be trouble.
They are so unimportant that they are not even individuals at all, but are bred in batches called Bokanovsky Groups, dozens of identical specimens at a time. The lower castes do not really have any influence in Huxley's book, and are simply the background to the doings of the upper-caste characters. The 'proles' in resemble the lower castes in their lack of aspiration and their capacity to be content with what little they can get.
They are also unimportant in the eyes of the controlling Party—although there must be some surveillance of them, as we are told that any potentially subversive proles ie those who demonstrate an ability to think for themselves are 'eliminated'. These ordinary people do conform to low expectations—they enjoy the banal songs which are manufactured for them, and the most excitement that Winston sees generated among them is in a fight for some tin saucepans.
However, the proles —not as heavily controlled and conditioned as Party members—have not lost their humanity. Winston recognises this, contrasting his own callousness with their willingness to care even when the caring will make no actual difference. He also dreams of the proles breaking free and overthrowing the Party, which they vastly outnumber. He is logically correct in realising that they could do so, but at the same time it is clear that the proles are extremely unlikely to take such action.
The Party does not bother to control them because, in fact, it is unnecessary to do so. The proles are very much like those Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons, and are content with the easy comforts of life.
They do not strive. There seems to be a similarity of attitude between Orwell and Huxley which incorporates a kind of contempt for 'ordinary people', who do not have high aspirations or deep perception, though Orwell at least grants them potential.
Huxley's dystopia is, all the same, a less terrible place than Orwell's. Although it is the 'World State', there are tiny pockets of escape. There are the Reservations, where primitives live and practise a quite different lifestyle; there are also islands, to which awkward members of society can be sent if necessary. Mustapha Mond points out that Bernard Marx is in fact privileged to be sent to such a place, although the prospect terrifies him.
And although the effect of such a society is to dehumanise human beings, removing their need to strive, and keeping them emotionally immature all their lives, it is at least apparently done for a benign purpose. The difficulties of twentieth-century life have been smoothed over in order to keep the members of society happy—and by and large, they do seem to be happy, at least in a trivial sense. The arresting image from , however, is that of a boot grinding into a human face.
There is no benign intent behind The Party, only the desire for Power, absolute and unceasing. The power is not to be used to improve the world, but is simply to be maintained, and it is because this power must be complete that the Party goes to such lengths to 'convert' Winston to its preferred way of thinking. Most societies are content to determine what people do, but in this one, every thought must be controlled.
Moreover, there are no islands to which nonconformists can be sent—it is clear that the two balancing powers of Eurasia and Eastasia are identical in their repressiveness to Oceania.
The remainder of the world is a permanent war zone—but in any case, Winston has no means to escape thither even if he considered doing so. The style and presentation of these novels varies quite considerably.
His thoughts and feelings and his fate are the story of the novel, although there is also the long and very dull section of The Book which explains how the world functions, and the extensive appendix on 'Newspeak'. Brave New World presents a less taut, less tense story, and the story-line moves from one focus character to another: initially it seems as though the Director may be the main character, then the story moves on to Lenina and to Bernard, and eventually to John, the Savage.
There are some didactic passages here, too, most pointedly when Mustapha Mond explains how the World State functions, but this is more carefully integrated into the storyline than is The Book. However, neither novel really makes a point of presenting realistic characters—or even particularly likeable ones.
Winston's many flaws are ruthlessly exposed as he writes in his 'diary' or moves through life without doing much to make us like or admire him. Bernard Marx is an outsider and in a situation which ought to evoke our sympathy—he is not a 'proper' Alpha, and acutely conscious of his shortcomings—but he is too selfish and whining to be very attractive.
Brave New World and Compare and Contrast Essay. Words5 Pages. Two Different Societies: Two Twisted Foundations Aldous Huxley's Brave New. Compare and contrast vs Brave new world. 6/5/ 0 Comments. During my 11th David Jaramillo English February 22, & BNW Essay.
New customers only Cancel anytime during your trial. Sign in. Accessibility help Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer. Become an FT subscriber to read: Orwell v Huxley: whose dystopia are we living in today?
Junio
While both societies are oppressive in their own rights, the societies uphold their communal beliefs in different fashions. The World State in Brave New World use non-violent means to control the population and to avoid uprisings. The use of hypnopedia, or sleep learning, along with vigorous conditioning.
1984 and Brave New World
To start off, this essay will look at the main theme in both books. It comes clear in the book that there is an absolute dictatorship that is common to all the parts of our world. What we do get out is that the world is divided into three: Oceania, East-Asia and Eurasia. There are apparently always wars between these and there are always two against one, it comes clear in the film however that the war might not be as real as the state wants people to think. All in all we do not really know what is happening around the world, so there is no evidence that states that there is a total dictatorship all over the world, if there actually is a world divided into three, or if there is something completely else going on.
A Comparison Of George Orwell's Social Control In 1984 And Aldous Huxley Brave New World
One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. In this quote Gandhi is discussing different elements of how power is maintained in a society. The novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley displays a futuristic society controlled through pleasure, while. This also shows that neither of these novels care if there are lives taken as long as the world is perfect and everything is the same. Both governments in and Brave New World express how government control negatively impacts the lives of everyone. Also they both dehumanize people. One of the differences is that Brave New World focuses on scientific advancements and talks about a. The definition of this utopia is in constant flux due to changing times and cultural values. Many works of literature have been written describing a utopian society and the steps needed to achieve it. However, there are those with a more cynical or more realistic view of society that comment on current and future trends.
Brave New World and were both written by men who had experienced war on the grand scale of the twentieth century. Disillusioned and alarmed by what they saw in society, each author produced a powerful satire and an alarming vision of future possibilities.
Both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley attempted to warn society of the damage that can occur as a result of embracing and widely supporting totalitarian regimes. In the real world, there has been a non-stop global effort to find the perfect society, often referred to as a utopia.
A comparison between "1984" and "Brave New World"
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. It is interesting to note, before anything, the similarities between Brave New World and Firstly and rather obviously, they are both prophetic novels, they were both written in turbulent times, both suffering changes that could revert the future of the world. When was written, the world had just gotten out of a second war and the surprising rise of communism and their totalitarian government was frightening most of the western world. Don't use plagiarized sources. That is exactly what makes the two novels so alike and so different at the same time. Down the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn papers into spirals, and though the sun was shinning and the sky was blue, there seemed to be no colour in anything, except in the posters that were plastered everywhere. Both novels also similar in the aspect that most inhabitants do not seem to see a problem with the world they live in, most comply and obey, in Brave New World, most consume, but in both novels, there are the odd sheep. However, many other people seemed to think that both were equally extreme to have actually concretized themselves. Accessed May 22, This is just a sample. You can get your custom paper from our expert writers. Americans feared that the Soviet Union hoped to spread communism all over the world, overthrowing both democratic and capitalist institutions as it went. Communism was, in theory, an expansionist ideology, spread through revolution Total collapse of the economy, finances, and capital.
Brave New World and 1984 Compare and Contrast Essay
Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you. As The Party defeats Winston and the characters of Brave New World attempt to push through their conditioning, both authors show how when the mind is conquered, true control is achieved. Buy this point is apparent that through the dehumanisation of an individual, control can be obtained. Orwells shows how control of past events can lead to the suppression of a population. In The Mistry of Truth, the memory holes symbolise how social control can be achieved by controlling the available knowledge to a population of people, specifically in , by altering and destroying facts from the past that conflict with the governments regime. Remnants of the past are still present however, such as the painting of St. It is revealed however that the party bares control over even these objects, as the painting of St. This shows that the repression of individuals can lead to control and opression of a population.
