Andrew Churchill

Ms. DeLury
8 June 2015
AP Literature & Composition

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Introduction
Georges Bataille, a noted French intellectual, once postulated
that above all, human existence requires stability, the
permanence of things (Bataille 59). Countless societies have
tried to embody this ideal, yet it remains elusive. Is this
because of human nature? It appears that the free will of an
individual is impossible to reconcile with the common good of a
society, hence making the stability human existence relies so
heavily on a seemingly impossible goal. Of course, the tradeof
between free will and the greater good, social stability, means
that attaining stability is theoretically possible, if free will is
undermined. That poses an array of difficult questions: is free
will worth the cost it accrues for a society's long-term
prospects? Is sacrificing free will a feasible solution to attain
immortality for a society? Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley,
raises all of those questions. Huxley was a British author,
fascinated with societal structures and their interplay with
personal rights and pleasure. Brave New World was his most
famous book by far. Its story of a dystopia that goes with,
rather than against, the human grain (Kass), along with its
unconventional structure and conception, clearly spoke to
readers. Brave New World is a book of its era; Huxley wrote it
in 1932, as technological advances and modern attitudes were

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 1

coalescing

into

brand-new

world

society,

with

as-yet

unknown implications. Furthermore, the novel is modern in the

very way it conceives of and presents its characters; one
would be ill-advised to attempt to fit the characters of Brave
New World to any type of corresponding archetypes (Firchow).
In fact, he takes modernity to an extreme in Brave New World,
turning a flustering eugenics movement into widespread
genetic engineering, isolated research about mechanisms for
teaching humans into routine psychological conditioning.
Brave New World tells the story of a society hundreds of years
into the future, known as the World State and controlled by a
consortium of shadowy, all-powerful World Controllers. The
society

consists

of

an

odd

mlange

of

structures

and

philosophies, a complex dissonance (Firchow) incorporating

theocratic absolutism with dictatorial leaders and a communist
air of collaboration, then throwing in pervasive consumerism
and a rigid caste system to boot. The intent is to create a
society impervious to any subversion; every decision is
predicated upon maintaining permanence above all else. In the
process,

the

World

State

implements

controls

such

as

psychological conditioning and normalized debauchery; these

controls, which do an excellent job of maintaining the stability
of the society, simultaneously abrogate most of their objects
fundamental rights, ultimately dehumanizing them and calling
into question the value of such social stability the fordian
society

holds

so

dear.

Academic

inquiries

into

the

governmental philosophy and methods of control employed by

the World State overwhelmingly conclude that the Fordian
society robs its members of that which makes them human.
Therefore, the consensus is that the World State is an immoral
construct. While pleasure abounds in Brave New World, as
accessible to its citizens as water, that pleasure comes at the

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 2

cost of abstract conceptions such as the freedom to be

unhappy (Kass) and individuality, conceptions which are
almost universally viewed as vital aspects of a persons
identity. Ultimately, the World State is a study of tradeofs.
Stability and fundamental human rights cannot coexist due to
their axiomatically opposing natures; attempting to assure
either fundamental human rights or societal permanence
inevitably leads to difficult tradeofs.
Rights and Humanity
A society, for all its concrete value, is ultimately little more
than a collection of individuals. It is sensible, then, that those
individuals be guaranteed some fundamental human rights,
since if the individuals of a society are not respected than the
society cannot amount to anything in the long term; after all,
the whole is merely a sum of its parts. Therefore, it is valuable
to examine and define those fundamental rights. Furthermore,
it is essential to understand how those intrinsic human rights
lead to the humanity of those they are bestowed on. In
understanding those two conceptions one can better realize
the extent of the World States abrogation of said rights, and
therefore comprehend the far reaching extent of the downside
of the significant yet inevitable tradeofs in the fordian society.
For man to be advanced beyond his animalistic roots, certain
constructs

are

essential.

Achieving

elevation

requires

collaboration, and collaboration denotes society. But beyond

just society, another vital construct is established, abstract,
irrefutable human rights. To understand why these are so vital,
look no further than the American Revolution and subsequent
formation of Americas democratic system of government. Both
were

founded

on

the

principle

that

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

individuals

are

all

Churchill 3

guaranteed a basic set of rights, and the fairness and social

mobility of that system has made it a model for the rest of the
world. The World State, of course, difers vastly from the
American paradigm. Far from guaranteeing basic liberties, their
society is based entirely on eliminating any conception of
human rights. In fact, the fordian society is practically
unrecognizable relative to our own. Rather than being a society
defined by its individuality, the World State is shaped by its
prevailing

conformity.

That

conditioned

conformity

is

essentially a Trojan horse, a veil cloaking the massive

invalidation of civil liberties. It [denies] individuals their own
privacy and personal feelings, (Varricchio) replacing them with
a

supposedly

ideal

collective

consciousness.

Of

course,

eliminating personality and privacy amounts to little more than

a blatant annulment of two human necessities. Privacy and
personal feelings are two incredibly valuable and arguably
fundamental human rights; to understand why, realize that all
human rights stem from the vital ideal of individuality, the
necessity that all people are allowed to have their own, unique,
self-determined identity. Abridging them is akin to abrogating
the individuals humanity, yet the World State does so with no
issue. Clearly, something in the fordian society is allowing them
to so massively overlook that which humans should be
guaranteed;

some

tradeof

must

be

present.

Because

otherwise, there can be no valid explanation for what

ultimately amounts to an abusive society. But the abuses do
not stop at mere privacy and personal feelings. Rather, the
main casualty of the World States tact is the desire for
freedom, which has inevitably been suppressed (Varricchio) as
a means to control the population. However, stealing a
populations desire for freedom is no small matter. The need for
freedom is a fundamental one; it has been since long before

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 4

humans formed societies, long before they were even a verbal

species. Freedom, however, is an entirely abstract conception,
and therefore its elimination can be achieved with little
apparent efect. Yet freedom is not such a small matter. In its
provision lies the key to fairness. After all, a free human is
human in the fullest sense of the word; they are capable of
exercising free will, the hallmark of true humanity. Therefore,
stealing a humans freedom leads to internal emptiness, the
basic condition of fordian society (Varricchio). After all, a
persons rights give them humanity, and stealing that persons
licenses as a human being efectively dehumanizes the
individual.
In the World State, the citizens are not fully human. Although
they fit the physical and biological definitions of humanity, they
lack other vital elements which would make them human. They
are characterized by their internal emptiness (Varricchio),
and defined by their subservience to the World State and its
whims, despite the surface appearance of a happy populace.
How is it, though, that their lack of rights is related to their lack
of humanity? The answer is that ultimately, the rights
enumerated above lead directly to humanity. For example, one
of the rights mentioned above was freedom. Freedom is
undeniably a vital human right, and therefore it leads directly
to humanity. The fordian society, in stealing its members
freedom, is also ultimately stealing its members humanity. For
a persons character [merely another word for humanity] is
shaped by sufering, and the new world state has abolished
sufering in favor of a continuous, soma-stupefied, infantile
happiness (Firchow). Sufering is a vital aspect of character
formation, and therefore a vital aspect of being human. When a
person sufers, they experience strong, painful emotion.
Ultimately, they either transcend that emotion or succumb to

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 5

it. Either way, such a significant mental (and sometimes

physical) occurrence will indubitably leave a significant imprint
on that persons psyche. Those imprints ultimately form the
basis of that persons character; they shape their outlook on
life, their actions towards themselves and others, and all of
their major decisions. While positive experiences leave imprints
just the same, it is negativity which strikes the hardest and
persists the longest. Therefore, without sufering, a person
cannot be fully human. They are denied of the opportunity to
form those imprints, and therefore they are denied of the
ability to be an individual. In the World State, sufering has
been abolished in favor of an ostensibly much more pleasant
constant fog of artificial satisfaction. However, that fog
ultimately obscures the true loss: freedom, and humanity. With
the nature of the World States restrictions on freedom,
sufering is impossible, and without sufering, mankind is
ultimately less human than ever. The World States error lies in
its goal of perfection. By viewing its duty as perpetual
happiness and satisfaction at any cost (a means to the ultimate
end of stability), the World State fails to realize one valuable
lesson: in aspiring to be perfect [man] is no longer even
human (Kass). As hard as it may be to accept, imperfection is
a fundamentally human trait. Moreover, true perfection is
impossible for a society, or even an individual, to achieve.
Therefore, attempting perfection will ultimately result in
inevitable detrimental side efects. These unavoidable tradeofs
make the World States attempt at perfection impossible to
truly achieve, and they are the root cause for the loss of
humanity in Brave New Worlds approach to societal perfection.
Another casualty of the fordian societys destructive approach
to mans basic entitlements is another vital element of
humanity: passion. Experiencing powerful emotions, both
positive and negative, is a basic human right (as the previous

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 6

paragraph hopefully established beyond doubt). Therefore, any

creation disallowing or otherwise impairing the experience of
those emotions would, by definition, be revoking that human
right. In the World State, Desire is dead...: to admit the
existence of it would mean to recognize the failure of
the...State (Varricchio). Desire is the most significant subset of
passion. It is the root of perhaps the most intense of all
pleasures, and even of all emotions, love. However, that also
means that it is privy to the pitfalls of free will. The passion
that desire leads to is richly human, but it is also contrary to
the

World

States

goal

(stability

and

permanence)

and

therefore it is disallowed and discouraged, through such clever

devices as obligatory contraception and institutionalized
promiscuity (Buchanan). The issue is, that passion is an
essential facet of humanity. Without the emotional fulfillment
only they are fully capable of providing, a person is inevitably
less

human.

After

all,

institutionalized

promiscuity

is

undeniably a poor substitute for true love and real passion. In

summation, the World States callous approach to guaranteeing
its citizens basic rights ultimately detracts from its residents
very humanity; in other words, a persons rights determine
their humanity.
Paths to Social Stability
As explained above, a society is a solution to the problem of
collaboration which, ultimately, elevates humans beyond their
animalistic roots. A society turns a combative, individualistic
species into a communal, civilized organization. The situation is
undeniably ideal, as it provides a whole greater than the sum
of its parts, benefiting unequivocally all those parts. It seems
illogical, then, that this objectively genius construct is so liable
to deprecate, that mankinds greatest invention is also one of
their most ephemeral. For societies and civilizations are just

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 7

that: ephemeral. They seldom endure, even the greatest. Rome

and Greece are the two civilizations that come to mind when
one thinks of greatness and longevity, yet they lasted for a
relative blip on the horizon of human existence. Societal
stability seems to be an impossible goal. However, by
classifying

the

subversive

influences

making

that

goal

impossible, then understanding how to counteract them

systematically, it is possible to understand how the World State
has, for all intents and purposes, attained permanence.
For the World State, the ultimate goal is a society that lasts as
long as the world it exists on. Far from existing as a murky,
abstract guiding principle known by all but followed by few,
social and societal stability is at the forefront of the minds of all
in the fordian society with any semblance of power. It is
practically a religion, an axiomatic and even dogmatic devotion
to complete permanence. That pervasive mindset among the
ruling class is clearly conducive to their goal, but it has some
unsurprising side efects. The most significant downside to
Brave New Worlds dedication to stability is their view of most
of the citizens of the threat. To the World Controllers, every
baby created in their labs has the potential to subvert the
society and end what others have worked so hard to maintain.
There is a collection of particular actions which particularly
strike fear into the controllers hearts, a select few subversive
influences which the World State views as the greatest threat
to its continued existence. The most predominant of them all is
intellect; those in charge of the fordian society know that the
true genius must finally lose faith in the human social setting
that others depend on (Buchanan). This is the essence of what
the World State is attempting to prevent. All the residents of
the fordian society must be fully reliant on it, or true
permanence would be nigh impossible to attain. A single

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 8

person

smart

enough

to

understand

the

fundamentally

oppressive nature of the World States governing principles

would pose a great threat to their carefully maintained image
of happiness and freedom. A group of people with that intellect
and understanding would likely have the capacity to topple the
World Controllers vise-like grip on their subjects, as they would
be capable of exposing the unfairness and inequality integral to
the fordian societys basic construction. Therefore, a great
intellect is the greatest subversive influence possible on the
World State. However, running in a close second is love. Love
specifically, and passion in general, are a fundamental human
right, and therefore their guarantee contributes directly to their
benefactors

humanity,

as

explained

in

detail

above.

Unfortunately for the denizens of the fordian society, an only

love is an incestuous love, in Huxleys futuristic world, because
it tends to work against the social solidarity which is the key to
a peaceful life (Buchanan). While mere love, involving little
more than two individuals, may seem perfectly innocuous, the
issue in the World State is that love is a potential precedent to
strong feelings, exactly what Brave New Worlds society would
love to avoid. The intense (and fundamentally human) passion
only love can bring will, in many cases, inevitably lead to
equally intense heartbreak. The dejection of rejection, of a lost
love, is a raw and visceral emotional pain; its victims are
therefore, in the eyes of the World State, dangerous, due to
their likely lowered regard for the laws and restrictions imposed
by the World Controllers. Even when the relationship does not
end with agony, the strong bond it creates between two people
transcends most other things that matter to them. For
example, a man in love will not care about societal regulations
such as the restriction on all childbirth if it means he can be
closer to the object of his desires. Even diferent types of love,
such as the love between a mother and her son (such as the

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 9

protagonist Johns love for Linda, his mother and fellow outcast
from the fordian society) will still lead to subversive influences,
such as when John lashed out in anger after his mothers death
by destroying a large supply of soma. Either way, love can
easily lead to subversive actions and nonchalance towards the
laws governing the society, and that is exactly what the World
State fears the most. Therefore, love is the second greatest
subversive influence the World State wants to avoid. Another
general possibility for subversion is any distinct individuality
and

the

exclusion

stemming

from

it.

The

greatest

demonstration of the risk inherent to that possibility is Bernard

Marx saga. Marx was a misfit from his birth, a runt amongst
the generally physically intimidating Alpha caste. As a man, he
was often excluded and looked down upon for his physical
abnormality, and ultimately it made him feel as if he did not fit
in. The greater part of the beginning of Brave New World is
entirely dedicated to his struggle for acceptance. However, he
has a significant issue: he wanted to be accepted by his
society, but only on his own terms, terms that are not
acceptable in the long run if stability is to be maintained
(Firchow). Bernards search for a place to fit in in the World
State is an anomaly, a rare occurrence of unhappiness in a
society where happiness is all that matters. His unhappiness
was not just a shame; it was dangerous for the society as a
whole. After all, Bernards dejection due to his inability to fit in
with the rest of the society led to passion, and passion (despite
being a human right) is anathema to the fordian society, as
explained above. The entire predicament could have been
avoided if Bernard had not been so diferent, if he had not been
such a distinct individual. The failing can be attributed to a
lapse in the technological processes used to control the
citizens,

demonstrating

the

vast

importance

of

those

processes. Ultimately, the World States greatest worries

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 10

regarding its own possible subversion all stem from a fear of

individuals. They believe there can be no social stability
without

individual

stability

(Huxley

40),

and

that

the

subversive actions (or even thoughts) of one have the potential

to rock the society as a whole. Of course, the World State does
not just stand by and allow itself to be subverted; it takes
decisive, preemptive action to ensure that its own permanence
never fades.
With so many possible subversive influences from mere
individuals, it seems the World State would have a significantly
hard time counteracting all the attacks, subtle and obvious, it
could possibly be undermined by. In fact, perhaps the most
likely reason one could hypothesize for the difficulty of
attaining a permanent society is the impossibility of stopping
every single possible incidence of subversion. It seems highly
improbable that the World State could efectively control its
millions of inhabitants, without letting a single one slip through
the cracks and become a subverting nightmare. Furthermore,
even if the World Controllers could devise a system of control
for efectively controlling the entire globe worth of citizens,
humans traditionally respond very poorly to control; men tend
to have a desire to maintain their own free will, and not submit
to the whims of a controller. Of course, the fordian society did
efectively solve all these problems, creating a system of total
control for every single living man, woman, and child under the
World States auspices. Doing so was clearly no small change
to the traditional structure of a civilization; rather, it was as
fundamental rethinking of every single institution and construct
we know in modern society. Among the new institutions
introduced by the World State: suggestion techniques, genetic
manipulation, pleasure-giving drugs and, of course, feelies and
television, all of which dispense[d] with the need for

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 11

repression in the fordian society (Varricchio). Of course,

repression is not absent from the World State, it is just cloaked
in pleasurable devices which hide the truth from the citizenry.
The first and most powerful system employed by the fordian
society is genetic manipulation. Children are no longer born
in the traditional sense, the result of a union between mother
and father. Rather, they are created in test tubes, and
conditioned from their pre-embryonic stages to their specified
caste and profession. For example, Epsilons (the lowest caste)
are deprived of oxygen as they develop into a fetus, in order to
stunt their growth; future chemical workers have harmful
chemicals inserted in small doses into their tubes, so they can
build up a resistance. These genetically tailored and massproduced babies are designed to fit in perfectly in their
specified caste and profession, giving every single member of
the society a stable foundation for their entire life. Once the
babies are actually born, psychological conditioning prevents
them from questioning their society or their upbringing.
Another device is the suggestion technique. Its main
implementation is the rigid caste system. Consisting of five
castes, from Alpha to Epsilon, the caste system separates
citizens of the World State from the day they are born and
keeps them separate throughout their entire lives. While it may
seem to be an unfair system, the genetic engineering ensures
that members of the lower castes are too dull to understand
the confounding nature of their dilemma, and members of the
higher castes are placated by their own superiority. And finally,
the pleasure-giving drugs and... feelies and television ensure
that every member of the fordian society has cheap, simple,
and unencumbered happiness available at a moments notice.
In order to avoid any questioning of these systems, the World
Controllers are essentially able to strengthen powers capable

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 12

of controlling every single facet of their subjects lives by

depriving them of all critical attitude (Varricchio) through an
intense

regimen

of

psychological

conditioning

continuing

throughout the citizens entire lives. While the loss of any

ability to question ones surroundings and situations is
certainly dehumanizing, the World State simply does not care;
their greatest priority is permanence, and a total absence of
critics does wonders for maintaining a societys stability.
Another method of conditioning, social, also serves a similar
purpose in blocking citizens from experiencing any possibly
subversive emotions or passions. For example, when Lenina
falls in love with Johna possibly disastrous situation for the
World State, as love provides multitudinous possibilities for
subversionshe

fails

to

truly

understand

her

feelings,

ultimately limiting her from expressing herself to John, who

could not understand her sexual demonstration of her love (the
only way she knew how to demonstrate it). She is foiled
because she has no name for the new feeling and hence no
way of conceiving or understanding what it is (Firchow). The
love Lenina feels is an example of her humanity shining
through, and thus proof that the World States citizens still
have a modicum of humanity, despite the States best eforts.
However, it is still worth nothing; the World Controllers
accounted for the possibility of a situation such as hers. They
ensured that the conception of love was a dirty word, not one
any of the citizens had any experience with, in order to rob
them of any possible experiences of love. Such is the power of
the Controllers; they are able to control unofficial social
regulations along with the official laws. Overall, despite the
seeming

impossibility

of

counteracting

subversion

in

all

instances, the World State manages to do so through a

carefully managed and concealed brand of oppression that,

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 13

despite its seeming pleasantness, still amounts to complete

control over the hundreds of millions of humans falling under
its influence.
Fundamental Tradeoffs
So far, the eforts of this paper have been dedicated to proving
two

simple

yet

powerful

facts:

individual

rights

bring

individuals humanity, and societal stability is possible with

drastic interventions. Until now, those two have been mostly
unrelated. However, in reality they are inextricably linked to
one another. Rights and stability are, as a matter of fact,
impossible to attain simultaneously; for a society to be fair, it
must accept subversion, and for a society to be permanent, it
must abrogate its citizens basic rights. The decision in either
direction causes ripples throughout the fabric of the society,
ultimately resulting in a web of complex consequences and
unintended results. Often, the greater good can sufer along
with stability when a society is devoted to guaranteeing
individual rights; similarly, a deliberately permanent society
will generally take an individuals identity along with their
rights.
When the United States of America were founded, their
greatest accomplishment and most unique feature was the
(mostly) universal guarantee of basic human rights. Later, as
the government matured, it became clear that the result of
giving every man a level playing field of rights allowed for
greater social mobility than had ever before been possible.
Those who would have previously been relegated to drudgery
for the duration of their short lives were given an opportunity,
for the first time on a large scale in history, to advance
themselves. The ability to determine ones own fate is the

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 14

hallmark of a society in which everybody is respected with a

baseline of rights. Objectively, that structure based on equality
is a fair one. On the surface, it appears to favor each man
equally. However, a system based on individual merit will
inevitably lend itself to bitter competition, and from that
competition loss and negative emotion will inevitably follow.
Therein lies a quandary, one that cannot be resolved without
loss on one side or another: should a society guarantee
individuals

their

rights

and

base

accomplishment

on

competition, or abolish any conception of individual rights and

assure the greater good by destroying all individuality (and,
along with it, sufering and unhappiness)? To this day, no
society has successfully attempted the latter; however, Brave
New World raises the enticing and simultaneously terrifying
possibility. The dystopian novel raises the tradeof multiple
times throughout. One prime example is their method of
raising children. The World State is able to control...all aspects
of a childs birth and upbringing and [keep] adults in a
condition of infantile dependency on a larger social body,
ultimately robb[ing] the child of his or her...potentialities
(Buchanan). Essentially, the World State is able to afect true
social stability through complete social control. Gone is any
potential for individual rights; the World State has a vise grip
over its citizens, and controls them in every sense of the world.
The adults are rendered infantile, the children brainwashed
with the philosophies and dogma of the fordian society.
However, despite all that seemingly negative intervention on
the part of the government, everybody living in the World State
is perfectly happy. Even those with ugly features or other
physical malformations, even those with tedious or even
dangerous jobs, all are happy; furthermore, all are respectful of
each other. While Alphas may not like Epsilons, they are still

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 15

mutually respectful of the others role in the social body as a

whole. It is true that none of them have any rights to speak of,
and none of them are free, yet the end result is a content, and
stable, society. Still, is it not a bad thing that the citizens of
the Brave New World are incapable of constructive, imaginative
thought (Clareson)? Ultimately, they are losing one of the
most basic human rights, the right to ones own thoughts; the
World State hijacks its citizens very minds from before they are
born, and continues to maintain its control until the day the
citizen dies. It is a blatant violation of basic principles of human
rights, yet the World State does it completely intentionally. The
citizens have been so conditionedin order to preserve the
stability of their world (Clareson). That blatant violation is
really only designed to allow all citizens lifelong happiness and
the society an eternal dominance. Therein lies the difficult
nature of the tradeofs societies must make. Similarly, the
World State controls its citizens through the Pavlovian
conditioning we encounter in the nursery [, which] is essential
to cutting the future citizens connection to his or her
autonomous potential (Witters). What this amounts to is
another way of saying that the World State dehumanizes its
citizens. A persons potential is odd in that it is often defined as
much by their surroundings as by the person themselves; the
World Controllers understand this and so they block any
possibilities of that potential resulting in any exceptional result.
While individuals may be artificially limited (contrary to their
rights) from such measures, the end result is a more stable and
content social body. Allowing one person to be exceptional is
not conducive to the greater good; it allows that individual the
opportunity

to

eventually

subvert

the

societyas

was

established above, a genius is the single greatest subversive

influence the World Controllers fear. The most succinct

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 16

explanation

of

fundamental

the

fordian

tradeof

is

societys

Mustapha

position
Monds

on

this

assertion,

paraphrased here, that free will leads to chaos, and... the

world is better of with individuality suppressed and the good of
the social body exalted (Iatropoulos). If one chooses to put the
benefits of free will above all else, then the World States
approach is a blasphemous and unfair one. However, if one
instead chooses to believe that a societys ability to care for all
its citizens and itself (as far as stability), then free will is little
more than an impediment. The choice between the two ideals
is difficult, and in most cases it is impossible.
The World State, in its creation, was created with only one goal
in mind: permanence, beyond the point of any other society in
recorded history. Every single structure and bureaucratic
organization, every single technological advancement, every
single social construct, all were conceived, created, and
developed with a single-minded focus on social stability, and
nothing else. Brave New World is technically a dystopian work
of fiction, but it is unlike any other dystopia. Most have a fairly
regular structure: a society that is attempting to be perfect is
actually deeply flawed, a heroic individual realizes those flaws,
and

they

heroically

assemble

group

of

other

heroic

individuals and, together (under the leadership of that first

hero) they take down the evil, corrupt society. Huxleys Brave
New World smashes the mold of that archetype, and replaces a
heroic liberator with an obtuse moral firebrand, in John, and a
milquetoast without any real convictions, in Bernard. Instead of
an evil, oppressive government, Brave New World ofers the
World State. The World State is a peculiar government, one
that does not seem evil yet clearly is. After all, it seems to be
loved and defended by everybody John and Bernard come
across, yet all those people are also clearly lacking in basic

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 17

human rights. The end of Brave New World does not bring a
dramatic victory for a heroic protagonist, but rather a
systematic denial of the protagonists entire worldview and
their eventual suicide. Of course, Huxley decided to break so
significantly from the established mold for a good reason: his
government

is

diferent

from

those

presented

in

other

dystopian works. Instead of being an evil organization doomed

to failure, the World State is a questionable organization which
seems prepared to exist in perpetuity. All this is to say,
Huxleys seminal novel is dedicated completely to what a
society must do to attain permanence, true stability. As it turns
out, a stable society is possible; however, creating one requires
significant, perhaps even impossible, sacrifices of individual
identity. In creating a society built to last, the World State had
to employ the service of all of its citizens. The issue is that they
cannot coerce the populace forcibly into their service, as doing
so would be self-defeating as unhappy people will never be
satisfied with their situation, including their government; so, for
the fordian society, what needs to be solved...is the problem
of making people love their servitude (Varricchio). In order to
create a stable society, certain things have to be controlled for.
The greatest causes of societal collapses (especially in
dystopian literature) is the dissatisfaction of many coalescing
with the rebellion of an individual. The World State had to
control for both in order to be most efective in maintaining
stability. So, it introduced three key constructs: the rigid caste
system,

psychological

conditioning,

and

encouraged

debauchery (i.e. soma, orgy-porgy, etc.). The caste system

prevents any large subset of the population from becoming
dissatisfied all at once; the psychological conditioning prevents
any

individuals

from

being

unhappy;

and

the

constant

debauchery shrouds the lives of the citizens in a haze of drugs

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 18

and sex. Therefore, both are impossible, and the citizens all
end up loving their servitude. However, the three devices
mentioned do more than just help the citizens enjoy their
service: they take away the identity from the individuals
impressed by the World State. Castes are merely a cheap
impression of a true personality, serving to placate every
humans basic need for a foundational identity and little more.
The psychological conditioning and unending fog of sex and
drugs actually steal the citizens identities. They make them all
equal (within their castes) and take away any incentive for
actions outside of the World States approved ones. Anything
subversive, anything even outside of the ordinary, all are
eliminated and replaced with a common code of conduct. For
that reason, the social body system is, in the words of critic
Keith M. Booker, little more than a subtle form of tyranny and
subjugation, a utopian veil of universal happiness cloaking a
coercive agenda of oppression (Iatropoulos). In other words,
happiness cannot replace fundamental human rights, and
subjugation cannot allow identity. There is simply no way for
the World State to counteract the subversion as they need to in
order to maintain stability, while simultaneously guaranteeing
the basic human rights necessary to allow individuals to form
their own identity. Therefore, the fordian societys inhabitants
have

become...so

much

meat,

however

pneumatic

(Clareson). The citizens of the World State are closer to animals

than they are to humans. Their society restricts anything
making its citizens human, such as emotion, individual identity,
and the ability to control their own destiny. So, while they may
be permanently pleasured, that is not necessarily equivalent to
being whole; the residents only think it is because they were
conditioned to. This reality may sound bleak, but it is important
to remember that both possibilities have significant upsides as

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 19

well. In the World State, the citizens are undeniably happy, and
they clearly enjoy their lives; furthermore, the society itself is,
ironically, fairly egalitarian in that every individual has the
same opportunity to attain happiness. In a rights-driven world,
more like our own modern one, individuals are given the
latitude to do practically whatever they want and accomplish
whatever they work at, something that fordian men and
women could only dream of. Essentially, Brave New World
presents a choice: either our misery-ridden but still richly
human world, or the squalid happiness of the biotechnical
world to come (Kass). It seems to be an impossible choice,
with both virtues and sacrifices for both sides weighing pretty
much exactly equally. But of course, all societies must choose.
Conclusion: The Past and the Future
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxleys seminal dystopian novel,
the all-powerful World State creates a society in which stability
is the sole goal. However, in doing so, the State condemns
most, if not all, basic human rights and therefore robs its
citizens

of

their

personalities,

identities,

and

collective

humanity. The unusual conception and structure of their

government inevitably raises the contrast of the Brave New
World with contemporary society (Clareson); that contrast
ultimately proves that individual humanity and social stability
cannot coexist, and deciding between the two raises a number
of impossible tradeofs. On the one hand, attempting to
guarantee basic human rights is ostensibly the more moral
goal,

as it gives individuals a fair playing field. Also,

guaranteeing an individuals rights creates that individuals

humanity, and allows them the freedom that all individuals
should, in fairness, be guaranteed. On the other hand,
guaranteeing stability seems to have a much more efective

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 20

long-term outlook, as it guarantees not only the humans alive

currently but the humans alive for thousands and even millions
of years to come the safety and security of an efective society.
But of course, neither can live while the other survives.
Attempting to guarantee individual rights will negatively
impact the greater good of the society; attempting to
guarantee stability will detract from the individuality of a
societys inhabitants. Now that this paper has hopefully
established the inevitable nature of these tradeofs, one
question remains: how can a society ever hope to choose
between the two? There is a simple answer and a more
complex answer. The simple answer is, a society will do what
others have done and are doing. That is why no civilization in
our modern world follows the World States lead: it is simply
too radical a departure from the status quo to allow it to occur
feasibly. However, assuming in the dystopian tradition that a
cataclysmic event were to occur, and a brand-new society and
government would need to rise from the ashes. How could they
decide? The answer lies in intrinsic morality, and explains why
despite its obviously unfeasible and even immoral nature by
our own standards, the fordian society can still appeal
compelling. A society which places little value on intrinsic
morality in the traditional sense will be most likely to institute a
revolutionary governing structure and societal standard such
as the World States. Morality, after all, acts like blinders on a
horse: it prevents its disciples from seeing anything outside of
the narrow field of what is, in a traditional sense, morally
acceptable.

When

it

is

abridged

or

even

disregarded

completely, governments such as the World State can flourish,

filling the moral void. This may sound impossible, and most will
think they would never support the institution of such a
radically diferent society. Yet the nature of Brave New Worlds

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 21

power is encapsulated in one simple fact: in the people

[Huxley] portrays, we can still somehow recognize ourselves
(Firchow). A brave new world does not seem so far of.

Word Count: 0

Works Cited
Bataille, Georges, and Annette Michelson. "Van Gogh as
Prometheus." The MIT Press 36 (1986): 58-60. JSTOR.
ITHAKA. Web. 3 Jan. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/778550>. Originally written in 1937
Buchanan, Brad. "Oedipus in Dystopia: Freud and Lawrence in
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World." Journal of Modern
Literature Summer 2002: 75-89. Rpt. in Children's
Literature Review. Ed. Dana Ferguson. Vol. 151. Detroit:
Gale, 2010. Literature Resource Center. Web. 17 May
2015.
Clareson, Thomas D. "The Classic: Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New
World'" Extrapolation Dec. 1961: 33-40. Rpt. in
Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Carolyn Riley. Vol.
1. Detroit: Gale, 1973. Web. 17 May 2015.

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 22

Firchow, Peter Edgerly. "The End of Utopia: A Study of Aldous

Huxley's Brave New World." The End of Utopia: A Study
of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World,' N.p.: Bucknell UP,
1984. N. pag. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism.
Ed. James P. Draper and Jennifer Allison Brostrom. Vol.
79. Detroit: Gale, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Web.
17 May 2015.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World: And, Brave New World
Revisited. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.
Iatropoulos, Mary Ellen. "(Re)negotiating the Dystopian
Dilemma: Huxley, Orwell, and Angel." The Literary Angel.
Jeferson: McFarland, 2010. 115-29. Rpt. in Children's
Literature Review. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 196.
Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2015. Literature Resource
Center. Web. 17 May 2015.
Kass, Leon R. "Aldous Huxley: Brave New World (1932)." First
Things Mar. 2000: 51-52. Rpt. in Children's Literature
Review. Ed. Dana Ferguson. Vol. 151. Detroit: Gale, 2010.
Literature Resource Center. Web. 17 May 2015.
VARRICCHIO, MARIO. "Power of Images/Images of Power in
Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four." Utopian
Studies 10.1 (1999): 98. Literature Resource Center.
Web. 17 May 2015.
Witters, Sean A. "Words Have to Mean Something More:
Folkloric Reading in Brave New World." Huxley's Brave
New World: Essays. Jeferson, N.C.: McFarland &, 2008.
73-87. Rpt. in Children's Literature Review. Ed. Dana
Ferguson. Vol. 151. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Literature
Resource Center. Web. 17 May 2015.

Impossible Choices in Civilizations and Societies

Churchill 23