Relationships in Brave New World
"Everyone belongs to everyone else."
The hypnopaedic phrase in Brave New World that teaches people (at least Alphas) to not get attached to one romantic partner but instead to "belong to everyone else." The idea of monogamy is strictly frowned upon and sleeping around is the norm, so as to discourage people from becoming too attached to one another. However, as humans go, there's always the rule-breakers, which begs a few questions.
First, if people in our society -- where monogamy is encouraged and sleeping around is frowned upon -- people still cheat on their partners, we must wonder whether or not there are those outliers in Brave New World. For example, people who become a couple for a very long time but don't share that with the public, and have an understanding with their friends not to talk about it. Or whether there are people who cycle through a certain few partners. The idea of people being secretly in love, or at least secretly emotionally attached, is not far from possible in this universe.
Additionally, I also wonder whether there ever were relationships between people of the same gender. I understand that Aldous Huxley in 1932 probably did not have that in mind, and I assume that he didn't intentionally exclude the idea of gay people in this society. I believe he just wasn't thinking about it in 1932 as much as we do in 2019. Regardless, it is interesting to wonder whether that is encouraged as much as heterosexual relationships are. From the characters that we know, we don't see that happening, but that doesn't mean it could nor would never happen. We can't be forced to believe that the people in the World State don't get interested in that as well. Also, if society argues that it's wrong, it goes against the very same phrase that teaches them to be promiscuous in the first place.
"Everyone belongs to everyone else."
If gay relationships started to occur and were frowned upon, that could topple over the whole system of hypnopaedia and "fixing" people so that they are always content. Furthermore, people who might sleep with both men and women (not considering any other genders, although that could be an entirely different debate) could just be following the norms extra carefully and truly belonging to "everyone else."
On a slightly different note, the book doesn't talk enough about friendships to give a clear message of how they work exactly. It is made clear that people don't get too attached to one another, therefore they never get too upset about death. It also is definitely a way for the World State to try and prevent any uprisings because those usually rely in power in numbers, and by keeping people relatively separate they avoid any conspiring. So it makes me wonder again whether particularly close friendships are treated similarly to romantic attachment. In the book, Bernard and Helmholtz are the closest friendship we ever see and they don't seem particularly secretive or anxious about it. However, they never seem to acknowledge if they mean a lot to one another, or whether one of them would be terribly upset if the other one died.
The reason I question the nature of the relationships in this book is because it reminds me of another utopia/dystopia that depends a lot on that lack of connection, Wall-E. I am currently working on my quarter project about Wall-E, and I keep thinking about how the reason that the society toppled over is because of a few well-connected people. It starts with Wall-E and Eve, but then there's the two humans that talk face-to-face for the first time in about a hundred years of human history, then there's the amicability between Wall-E and the other robots in the spaceship.
I'm not saying that is the only reason why the society in Brave New World might one day crumble, but I do believe it could be very influential. Whether or not Huxley was thinking of these issues, I wonder if the characters in the world he created were thinking about that when setting up this new society, and whether or not they did it to not provoke the stability that Mustafa Mond talks about in chapters 16-17.
-- Cocoa
The hypnopaedic phrase in Brave New World that teaches people (at least Alphas) to not get attached to one romantic partner but instead to "belong to everyone else." The idea of monogamy is strictly frowned upon and sleeping around is the norm, so as to discourage people from becoming too attached to one another. However, as humans go, there's always the rule-breakers, which begs a few questions.
First, if people in our society -- where monogamy is encouraged and sleeping around is frowned upon -- people still cheat on their partners, we must wonder whether or not there are those outliers in Brave New World. For example, people who become a couple for a very long time but don't share that with the public, and have an understanding with their friends not to talk about it. Or whether there are people who cycle through a certain few partners. The idea of people being secretly in love, or at least secretly emotionally attached, is not far from possible in this universe.
Additionally, I also wonder whether there ever were relationships between people of the same gender. I understand that Aldous Huxley in 1932 probably did not have that in mind, and I assume that he didn't intentionally exclude the idea of gay people in this society. I believe he just wasn't thinking about it in 1932 as much as we do in 2019. Regardless, it is interesting to wonder whether that is encouraged as much as heterosexual relationships are. From the characters that we know, we don't see that happening, but that doesn't mean it could nor would never happen. We can't be forced to believe that the people in the World State don't get interested in that as well. Also, if society argues that it's wrong, it goes against the very same phrase that teaches them to be promiscuous in the first place.
"Everyone belongs to everyone else."
If gay relationships started to occur and were frowned upon, that could topple over the whole system of hypnopaedia and "fixing" people so that they are always content. Furthermore, people who might sleep with both men and women (not considering any other genders, although that could be an entirely different debate) could just be following the norms extra carefully and truly belonging to "everyone else."
On a slightly different note, the book doesn't talk enough about friendships to give a clear message of how they work exactly. It is made clear that people don't get too attached to one another, therefore they never get too upset about death. It also is definitely a way for the World State to try and prevent any uprisings because those usually rely in power in numbers, and by keeping people relatively separate they avoid any conspiring. So it makes me wonder again whether particularly close friendships are treated similarly to romantic attachment. In the book, Bernard and Helmholtz are the closest friendship we ever see and they don't seem particularly secretive or anxious about it. However, they never seem to acknowledge if they mean a lot to one another, or whether one of them would be terribly upset if the other one died.
The reason I question the nature of the relationships in this book is because it reminds me of another utopia/dystopia that depends a lot on that lack of connection, Wall-E. I am currently working on my quarter project about Wall-E, and I keep thinking about how the reason that the society toppled over is because of a few well-connected people. It starts with Wall-E and Eve, but then there's the two humans that talk face-to-face for the first time in about a hundred years of human history, then there's the amicability between Wall-E and the other robots in the spaceship.
I'm not saying that is the only reason why the society in Brave New World might one day crumble, but I do believe it could be very influential. Whether or not Huxley was thinking of these issues, I wonder if the characters in the world he created were thinking about that when setting up this new society, and whether or not they did it to not provoke the stability that Mustafa Mond talks about in chapters 16-17.
-- Cocoa
I’m pretty sure homosexuality was mentioned in the first chapter! I was wondering if Huxley was going to revisit it, but he never did. If I’m remembering correctly, it was spoken of as an outlet for repressed desires, which implied that it wasn’t really a “problem” anymore, with the new structure of things. Innate heterosexuality seems to be assumed, which fits for the time period this was written, I guess.
ReplyDeleteOn the broader subject of relationships, it seemed like people weren’t even capable of forming well-rounded relationships, thanks to their conditioning. Bernard and Hemholtz were already atypical, so perhaps that allowed some room for a bond to form. I thought it was interesting how Lenina briefly seemed interested in just seeing Henry, so I guess there is some innate desire for monogamy implied. She couldn’t continue it (partially Henry’s fault, partially peer pressure), but surely with the sheer number of people in the world, there are some secretive, exclusive connections. I think Lenina—who, theoretically, is fully conditioned—shows relationship-leaning behavior that backs up your point about relationships being a potential problem for the society’s future.
Great post! I’m excited to see your Wall-E project!
I agree with Bridget. I think that overall homosexuality while not ignored seems to have been eliminated somehow in Brave New World (Probably showing the values of the time). This is kind of interesting to me as well because given that sex is no longer used for reproduction or as having any kind of internal connection I wonder what Huxley's argument for it being a "problem" would be.
ReplyDeleteI like the question you raised about gay relationships. I feel like gay/bisexual people would be good for this society, as the goal seems to be just to have more sex. At the same time, there somehow don't seem to be any, which could just be a product of Huxley's time, or it could be a product of some conditioning that we don't see that means that they never express the way they actually feel.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very interesting perspective about whether there are secret romantic relationships in the World State. I personally think that it would make sense for secret exclusive relationships to exist in the World State. Just as it is in our society, just because you're conditioned to think that something is bad doesn't mean you won't do it. Just as people in our society cheat even though our society frowns upon it, I'm sure people in the World State engage in exclusive relationships even though it's frowned upon. We even see a small development in the direction of an exclusive relationship between Lenina and Henry Foster. I think this shows that it's entirely possible that some people of the World State have the urge to stick to one partner.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely interesting how stories kind of change as time goes on. I would be surprised if Huxley was thinking about homosexuality at all when he was writing this. It seems like the government has pretty tight control of people through means outside of just hypnopaedically (did i spell that right?) influencing them. After all, Bernhard kind of becomes attached to Lenina, like doesn't he at one point bring up that he wants to talk about things privately with her? And he ended up getting kicked out. So I guess I think anyone who thinks differently will either stay silent out of fear, or be forced silent by the government. But on the other hand, I do agree with your point that when you build a society around forcing people to do what you want, eventually, something will slip up and it will all come crashing down.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a few interesting points! I also did briefly think about whether people develop intimate monogamous relationships in the New Order society. Just as you said, there are always outliers. However, I think that the society has probably found a way to minimize any inclination people might have to engage in monogamous relationships. For example, (assuming they discovered a way to do this) they might have created something to add to the test tubes that could manipulate the embryos' development in a way to encourage tendencies towards polygamy.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting! Re: friendship, I think Bernard and Helmholtz were...friends, I guess, but I don't know if they liked each other, really. It was more like they had no other choice than each other. Even if they were really close, genuine friends, that would probably get noticed very quickly, since they're both high-profile people in the society.
ReplyDeleteI think if BNW were to be written with more 2019 sensibilities, its society would explicitly have no notions of sexual orientation. Probably, a gay woman in this society would be expected to sleep with a straight man if he wanted her, or a straight woman would be expected to sleep with a gay woman if she wanted her. Personal preference and consent are just...not really a thing in the first place, so if you also remove consideration of sexual orientation--yeesh.
Very interesting points! I think that if the book was written today, it would probably be incredibly different, but not necessarily. There is a chance that the book could stay much the same if it was directed by people with the same ideas that existed when the book was first written. Change happens slowly, and it never happens with total agreement and so if the book was rewritten, just because it was written today, doesn't promise a different narrative.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to friendship, I would guess that the World State doesn't explicitly outlaw tight bonds, but the societal structure would probably make them uncommon. In a world where everyone is encouraged to act upon their desires, most people would act fairly selfishly, doing things only for themselves or the greater community. Individual favors don't seem to be prominent, and while tight relationships could emerge, the individualistic conditioning of the World State seems inherently oriented away from friendship.
ReplyDeleteYou're ideas about how gay people could upset the society of the World State are very interesting to me. While it is obviously not explicitly discussed, I wonder if, in the universe of Brave New World, part of the conditioning that occurs is to make sure that everyone is cisgendered and straight. This seems like the type of thing that the World State would control for, and I think it would be interesting to ask Huxley about this issue.
ReplyDelete