A Round Peg In A Square Hole
This is my first attempt at writing criticisms. I have written before but they are for my private reading and for my improvisation. But this i decided to write from the day when i finished reading "Brave New World". Like all first attempts, this is also a bit of extremes with the urge to write whatever i felt and the inadequecy in doing it. I think I will improve in the future. I find it rather easy to criticize a piece than writing it. Now to the main article.
IntroductionA round peg in a square hole. That’s how Mr. Savage describes himself in this classic. When I first read it I just thought how absurd it will be for anyone to put a round peg in a square hole. It doesn’t fit. When I finished the novel I was just wondering about myself and scores of my friends who were nothing but round pegs trying to fit in a square holes. I always make it a point to reflect everything in lieu of the present state of the society and the conclusions I came to are very disheartening. I will try to explain whatever I thought of this particular novel in the context of our everyday lives and the habits we are getting into.
Why?. Why this novel and not any other?. Say why not "Crime and punishment" or "Tropic of cancer"?. I find "Brave new world" important because it is different in that it addresses the individuality problem. "Crime and punishment" or "tropic of cancer" were important but they run through the consciousness of an individual and they don’t predict anything. In that they leave the future to the reader. But "Brave new world" starts in the future and gives us a picture of individuality in the future. Rather the lack of it in the future.
When I put things as they are now and look into them, it is obvious that already we are moving towards a society where it is not allowed to be an individual. In a country like India it will be tough to shed one’s identities because of the various languages and cultures existing within the country. I will address the problem in India later. But in a developed nation like US, the urge to identify with the society is more and so the problem of being an individual is itself becomes a monotonous task and the process of alienation begins.
Pegs
How far an individual is important?. Is there any limit for Individualism?. If yes what are they?. If no why not?. These are some of the questions raised by the Huxley classic. I am talking of Individualism in a very loose manner. I will try to define it first and then will proceed to explain it further.
Defining a term is one of the things I do very lousily. Also defining something means actually defining something from my point of view rather than a generally admitted definition. Anyway I will try to explain what individualism means to me. I call individualism as the means of defining a particular individual’s "rights" and his/her "choices" for selecting those rights. The rights and choices are two broadly defined and very loosely used terms here. They are, in turn, defined according to the individual’s interpretations. As far as I am concerned, the right to choose the right is the most important right. It gives you almost everything under the sky in the name of right and gives you the grand choice of choosing whatever one wants to have.
Is that individualism?. Not really. That is one way of individualism. If I can define it completely then there is no such thing as individualism left out. Lets come to the essential problem of setting the limits for it.
But "Brave new world" is more about conditioning than individualism. Huxley shows traces of the problem of individualism in the later part of the story when the savage was struggling between the choices of the civilized nation and a savage reservation. He ends up in the middle of these two and finally dies. There are no big differences between the "savage reservation" and "the civilized" part of the society in the novel. Both are conditioned societies but with different levels of technological advancements. That brings us to the present state of the society which is technologically advanced than any other society ever existed on Earth and which has the potential of organizing a pre-conditioning in its people more easily than ever.
The problem of understanding what exactly "conditioning" is and what is not is very tricky that it is easy to fall into the trap. We grew up all along conditioned totally by the society we live in and it is not easy to get out of this mentality and look at the society to decide what this conditioning is. It by itself may become a sort of conditioned mind (i.e. Standing out and watching).
Our life is so entwined with the society that we are lead to believe so many things than ever look at the nature of them. God, faiths, traditions are some of these. But the stance against these is also having belief in science or reasoning. Both are the conditioning of the surroundings in different ways. All the revolutions in the world illustrate this very clearly. All of them failed invariably because of this reason. Having a different kind of belief is not the solution. (Some believe American Revolution to be a success but I think Americans are conditioned to believe that!). Is there any solution?. Probably not. Probably yes.
The mentality of analyzing things to categorize them into good or bad is one of the major factor in this conditioning. The analysis may be objective towards the thing which is analyzed but is subjective in its conclusions. We took it as a sort of our advantage over things. We judge things. But I think that is one of the reasons for our limitations as an individual. This judgement over things we use and people we move with is a very important factor in determining our outlook of life. That’s why for some life is endless orgy and for some other it is eternal absurdity. Again both are different forms of thinking and both are relevant for that particular individual.
Is that a reason for setting a limit for individuality?. It is not. But it is a limitation of our individuality. It is not a thing to set. It is there. That is why the savage ends up in the shores of Surrey unable to decide what is good for him and dies. We judge things based on our beliefs and so when we see something "good" in things we don’t believe we panic and it strongly shakes our beliefs.
That is one reason the society conditions its people according to their wishes. Individuality becomes a term defined in the context of the society it is defined in. It becomes a sort of collective individuality with a few features becoming common in the majority of the people. When this few features grew into more, the problem arises. If we are going to believe that in democracies this is not likely to happen, I think we are in for a surprise in the future. It is more likely to happen in democracies.
Hole
When the peg is getting more and more similar to fit in the hole, Huxley steps in. In Huxley’s world it is a absolute world control which mass-produces people according to a definite caste structure. He predicts it to happen after around 600 years. But the world he lived was a world without computers and televisions. Although Huxley describes Feelies in his novel, he gives only a vague picture of the communication network in the future world. But we are already ahead of the predictions for this century and will be increasing our knowledge in ten folds every year for at least another 50 years. In another we will be colonizing other planets or at least try to colonize them using Terra-farming or some similar techniques. It is a bit frightening. The pace of our "Progress" is going to be very fast.
But this progress is not going to be even. So it will take more time for a similar society to exist all around the world. But the buzz word of this century is democracy and it is going to be so for at least another century (unless something dramatic happens, like Hitler). So what is the chance for a standardized Human society?. Our conventional thinking leads us to think that there is a very less chance for it.
What is the state of this hole now?. It is not even. We have dissident elements in every society and people who don’t want to be the stereo type is always there in every society. But the important aspect of today’s society is the way it looks at those persons. They are considered "abnormal" persons. Not fitting into the social fabric of today is a sure enough reason to be branded an "abnormal" person. This is the case 100 years ago or 500 years ago. What is the difference now?. Technology. They don’t have internet to banish a person in a second.
How far it is true in a technologically lagging society like India?. We have a very complex culture with a lot of things common and contradictory to each other. But we have some common traits like the passion for cricket. Today we are moving towards a society more easily identifiable than 50 years ago. We are getting more and more identical in our thoughts, culture or behavioral patterns. Today there is not much difference in our movies irrespective of the languages or culture. So where this will lead us into?. Into a more homogenous society than what is now. And a more common identity. There is a drive towards this now a days. We wont find much difference in the youths of Bombay or Madras or Delhi. They like the same pop stars(Alisha, Anaida or Asha) and they talk the same language and wear trendiest dresses and have the same ambition of flying to USA. Anyone who doesn’t fit into this description becomes an outsider and we look at them with suspicion. Modern savages.
This is more prominent in an advanced and "civilized" society like USA. (Still people are asking me about the snake charmers in India). They have more commonness between them than any other society of this size. This gives a social stability and relative peace. The same reasons Huxley attribute for the future society’s state. They have same heroes and their heroes are all alike. Sexual freedom is one thing Huxley attributes for future society’s stability. America is one of the most sexually freed societies. There is not much emotions in relationships (except in Julia Robert’s movies) and all other emotions have outlets in the video games or in the form of stray violence once in a while in the schools or in the houses. That reminds of the Feelies in "Brave New World". No respect for alternate views and the worse part is the alternate views are supplied by the media. (Noam Chomsky is a dissident because he had views which the media didn’t agreed to be alternate). It is more a society which concentrates on productivity in factories and wall street. Their youth have a definite pattern of life and it is sickening to find it to be the same everywhere. They have a textbook defined life and they will stop evolving and try to produce more and more Americans in the future. This is in the largest democracy in the world which never had a third party other than the democrats or the republicans (I still don’t know the exact difference in their policies).
The aim of all other societies is to be exactly like America and it will happen in the next 100 years or so. So we will have a world of democracies copying the American way of life and except with some differences like the languages,will start resembling the society of "Brave New world" without any world controllers. Everybody will be happy and we will have reservations for the savages. And will live happily ever after.