Is there any past work of fiction that can help us make sense of today’s troubling trends? Taking into account the proliferation of references to obfuscating “Newspeak”, Big Brother-style leaders and impossible-to-circumvent surveillance systems in newspaper articles, this question cries out for a simple answer: “Yes – and that work is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
People on both the political left and right see Orwell’s 1949 novel as the book from the last century that speaks to the present most powerfully. But there are others who regard consumer culture and social media obsession as the primary concerns of today. They have a different answer: “Yes – and that work is Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.”
We, however, think the answer is “both”.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
In the long-running debate over who was the most prophetic writer of their era, Orwell, who was a pupil of Huxley’s at Eton, is generally the favourite.
One reason for this is that international alliances that long seemed stable are now in flux. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, his final novel, Orwell envisioned a future tri-polar world divided into competing blocks with shifting allegiances.
In the short time since the US president, Donald Trump, began his second term, his policies and statements have triggered surprising realignments. The US and Canada, close partners for more than a century, have faced off against each other. And in April, an official from Beijing joined with his counterparts from South Korea and Japan to push back as an unlikely trio against Trump’s new tariffs.
That is perhaps why there is a booming field of “Orwell studies”, with its own academic journal, but not “Huxley studies”. It also probably explains why Nineteen Eighty-Four, but not Brave New World, keeps making its way on to bestseller lists – sometimes in tandem with Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985). “Orwellian” (unlike the rarely heard “Huxleyan”) has few competitors other than “Kafkaesque” as an immediately recognisable adjective linked to a 20th-century author.
As wonderful as Atwood and Kafka are, we are convinced that combining Orwell’s vision with Huxley’s offers scope for deeper analysis. This is true in part because of, not despite, how common it has been to contrast the modes of autocracy Orwell and Huxley describe.
Orwellian and Huxleyan visions as one world
We live in an era when all sorts of systems of control limit our freedoms of expression, identity and religion. Many do not quite fit the template that either Orwell or Huxley imagined, but instead combine elements.
There are certainly places, such as Myanmar, where those in power rely on techniques that immediately bring Orwell to mind, with his focus on fear and surveillance. There are others, such as Dubai, that more readily evoke Huxley, with his focus on pleasure and distraction. In many cases, though, we find a mixture.
This is especially clear if you take a global view. That’s something we specialise in as international and interdisciplinary researchers – a literary scholar from Turkey based in the UK, and a Californian cultural historian of China who has also published on southeast Asia.
Like Orwell, Huxley wrote many books that were not dystopian fiction, but his foray into that genre became his most influential. Brave New World was well known throughout the cold war. In courses and commentaries, it was commonly paired with Nineteen Eighty-Four as a narrative illustrating a shallow society based on indulgence and consumerism, as opposed to the bleaker Orwellian world of suppression of desire and strict control.
While it is common to approach the two books via their contrasts, they can be treated as interconnected and entangled works as well.
During the cold war, some commentators felt that Brave New World showed where capitalist consumerism in the age of television could lead. The west, according to this interpretation, could become a world in which autocrats like those in the novel stayed on top. They would do this by keeping people busy and divided among themselves, happily distracted by entertainment and the drug “soma”.
Orwell, by contrast, seemed to provide a key to unlock the harder mode of control in non-capitalist, Communist Party-run lands, especially those of the Soviet bloc.
Huxley himself in Brave New World Revisited, a non-fiction book he published in the 1950s, thought it was important to think about ways the techniques of power and societal engineering in the two novels could be combined, approached and analysed. And there is even more value in combining the approaches now, when capitalism has gone so global and the autocratic wave keeps reaching new shores in the so-called post-truth era.
Orwellian hard-edged and Huxleyan soft-edged approaches to control and social engineering can be and often are combined. We see this within countries such as China, where the crude repressive methods of a Big Brother state are used against the Uyghur population, while cities such as Shenzhen evoke Brave New World.
We see this mixing of dystopian elements in many countries – variations on the way that science fiction writer William Gibson, author of novels such as Neuromancer (1984), wrote about Singapore with a phrase that had a soft-edged first half and a hard-edged second: “Disneyland with the death penalty.”
This can be a useful first step toward better understanding, and perhaps beginning to try to find a way of improving the troubling world of the mid-2020s. A world in which the smartphone in your pocket both keeps track of your actions and provides an endless set of enticing distractions.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
