12 February 2008

Brave (New World?)

Alright, so much to talk about, so little time.
"When the individual feels, the community reels." Of the many mantras used by social controllers in Huxley's brave new world this seems to be, so far, used less often than many others yet far more important. I understand its meaning. When a single person breaks from the mold that the world controllers have put in place by "feeling" it causes the community to "reel," or falter. The reason this is more important than many of the other mantras used in the text is because the society is based, entirely, on protecting stability and any reeling, lack of stability, is a serious problem for the society, or at least its controllers. I'm not entirely sure how this is going to play out in the end of the book, but I do see instances of it starting to come into importance. Bernard's individuality causes the community to "reel," if just barely, which in turn leads to him being sent away from the community in the hopes of preserving stability. I understand the mantra's meaning and its importance; I don't understand why it is necessary. It seems that it would be much easier to just drug or kill anybody like Bernard. I suppose the reason the world controllers don't do this is because they want to preserve the APPEARANCE of freedom. This reminds me of our current world, hence the question mark in the title, but I suppose that this discussion is meant for our other blog on what is freedom, so I will save it until then.
Considering all the other mantra's they have in place to stop people from feeling, such as "a gramme is better than a damn," the necessity of this mantra should indicate that something is wrong with the way their society is being run. If their social conditioning works so well, why do they need seventeen, just a random number, other mantras in order to protect their socially conditioned community. That is, of course, unless the leaders know that their method is flawed and continue to use it anyway, which seems to be the most likely case.

No comments: