The novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World vs. the United States: A Comparison

Aldous Huxley’s book Brave New World tells the tale of the World State, an ideal nation. The World State’s citizens are subject to predetermined norms and regulations that restrict their freedom to partake in activities like romantic relationships and family life. While the leadership of the utopian state defends its policies on the grounds that they preserve stability and happiness, which are essential to the existence of the society, some characters view them as being dehumanizing. It is possible to compare the situation in the World State to that in the United States, where both the federal and state governments work to preserve a delicate equilibrium between freedom and peace. In particular, the Second Amendment of the US constitution gives private citizens the rights to own guns and defend themselves (Yassky 589). However, this right has been challenged by a section of the society because it has opened a window for gun violence in the country. Therefore, this essay compares the two societies and seek to answer the question; “will we have a right to protect our self in the New World?” The American people have been blinded into believing private ownership of guns is safe just the same way the Utopian world presented in the novel deceives its people.

The United States: A Society Shaped by Conditioning

The United States assumed the status of the world’s superpower and advocated for human rights that empowered the individual. According to Dietrich, ”The United States rose to superpower status and worked with other countries and the United Nations to establish new global human rights standards” (270). However, despite the efforts by the founding fathers to create a free world where people have genuine rights, the social systems still dictate the behaviors of people. For instance, the media and the commercial sector of the United States still condition the public to adopt a consumerist culture in a subtle manner. Unlike in the World State where human embryos are pre-programmed to adopt a certain lifestyle, the American system does it in a subtle manner using advertisements and other incentives. Therefore, the authorities in the US used a different approach from the situation at the World State where the residents do not have any rights.

Social Stratification in Brave New World and the United States

A critical look at the utopian city described by Huxley shows that the society is divided along caste. The novel indicates that there are five distinct social classes that include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon (Huxley 6). People who belong to the higher level castes such as Alpha and Beta have more freedom than those in the lower castes. In fact, the leadership of the World State, such as the Director, lived contrary to the policies that they claimed to enforce. The American society is also divided along social classes and races. According to Demitchell and Hambacher, ”policies like zero tolerance are especially harmful for students of color and those with disabilities” (9). It clearly indicates that only a section of the society that belongs to the lower social classes bear the burden of the oppressive policies established by the state. In as such, the rich in the society have more rights to protect themselves while the poor are left to the mercies of the social elements. In the New World, the poor cannot afford to acquire a firearm license or even purchase a gun because they have more pressing needs such as food and shelter. However, the wealthy people can hire security personnel, own several firearms, and live in fortified compounds. Therefore, the privilege to protect themselves rests with only a few people in the modern society.

The Right to Bear Arms: A Tale of Two Societies

The founders of the United States accorded the people the right to free speech as well as the right to protect themselves by bearing arms. The Second Amendment of the US constitution gives private citizens the right to own guns and protect themselves (Terence 283). For many years, the federal government, states, and lobby organizations have tried to regulate the provision so that only individuals with the moral and mental capacity to own firearms are licensed. However, it has not been easy to legislate and enforce the gun control policies in the United States. Dietrich believes that the right wingers still believe that everybody has an irrevocable right to protect themselves and the state should not interfere with the right (281). Yassky asserts it is a great honor for Americans to have both the right of expression and that of protecting themselves using guns (597).

Policies, Opposing Views, and Freedom of Expression

Likewise, the World State described by Huxley has opposing views that seek to change the prevailing policies. The character John makes it clear that the policies of the utopian world are dehumanizing. He asserts that without arts, science, and religion, human life is not worth living (230). John is brave enough to debate with Mond and make it clear that the authorities in the state need to review the policies and give the residents the freedom to express themselves. However, John does not succeed in convincing the people of World State to change and he is threatened with whipping. Bernard and Helmholtz are forced into exile because of their opposing views, and this shows that the situation is severe in the Utopian city compared to the United States where divergent views are welcomed and debated amicably.

The Right to Self-Protection: Divergent Paths

The right to protect for self-protection may be open in the United States but not in the Utopian world. The United States Constitution has made it clear that individuals have the liberty to own firearms and defend themselves when necessary (Check 301). This is a different policy than that of the World State that only gave powers to a few in society. According to Huxley, the state believed that the happiness and stability of the majority were more important than the right of the individuals. Therefore, people who pushed for their personal freedom or rights such as John and Bernard were not accommodated in the city. The entire community was supposed to have the same thoughts even though the leadership and the upper castes enjoyed more freedom to think and enjoy life.

The Role of Government and the Disconnect Between Individual Rights and Obligation

On the same note, there is a lack of disconnect between the rights of an individual to protect self and the obligation to protect the country. Check, in explaining the rationale of private citizens to own firearms, claims that ”Founder’s primary purpose was to enable the defense of the community and country from external and internal enemies’’ (293). However, with time, the state took over the responsibilities of external defense and only allowed the public to protect themselves against localized crimes such as robbery, rape, and assault. On the other hand, the world described by Huxley gives no powers to the individual to protect the state. The leader, Mond, takes the role of defending the World State against both foreign and internal criticism. He does not delegate the role to the other citizens in the city. In as such, there is little hope that the New World will devolve powers to the residents as is expected of a good democratic country. The supreme leader of the state continues to hold power and exercise the authority to ’’protect’’ others. The use of the Soma gas to control the people is an indication the state is not willing to allow free will. Soma confuses the people and gives them a false impression of happiness.

The Paradox of American Gun Ownership

The United States government contradicts its objectives because it advocates for zero tolerance policies to violence in schools but still allows the public to carry guns (DeMitchell and Hambacher 8). Consequently, instead of the society becoming safer with the presence of guns amongst civilians, it has become more dangerous. It is ironic that the New World forbids violence but allows people to carry guns freely. Consequently, many people have used their legally acquired guns to commit crimes that range from murder, robbery, and even suicide. The fact that people are free to carry guns has contributed to problems such as the assassination of US presidents such as J.F. Kennedy and the shooting of innocent people by gunmen such as the incident at Columbine High School in 1999 (Kopel 1597). Despite numerous attempts to regulate gun ownership, 75% of Americans still feel that it is not right for the government to ban handgun ownership (Check 300). Therefore, US citizens continue to expose themselves to gun violence by upholding firearm ownership in the name of self-defense. Actually, few people have effectively used their firearms to protect themselves from harm. The police remain the best option for the public to remain safe from gun-related violence.

Controlling Relationships in Brave New World and Hypocrisy in Foreign Policy

Apparently, the same happens in the World State where the authority outlaws family relationships and love but encourages sex. According to Huxley, the citizens of the utopian city were made to believe that a world of mothers and fathers would be full of misery (39). They were forbidden from falling in love and getting into relationships with people of the opposite sex. However, young children are taught sexual skills from an early age and encouraged to engage in sexual fantasies but not fall into relationships. Unfortunately, that seems to be the same as giving people guns and telling them to avoid violence. Even the director of the World State became a father because freedom to have unprotected sex is a sure way for people to bond, conceive, and have families.

The Hypocrisy of the United States: Guns and Human Rights

The United States has a hypocritical relationship with the outside world by allowing its citizens to carry guns and advocating for human rights that they abuse in foreign lands. The situation is comparable to the World State where they do not treat the Reservation well but insist on morality amongst its people. The people from the reservation such as John have high moral standards and ideal lifestyles that give people the freedom to engage in arts, science, and religion. However, the leadership of the World State still abhors them and prevents its citizens from going there freely. The same applies to the New World where the United States continues to perceive itself as the moral police of the world. According to Dietrich, the US has been quick to punish other countries such as Serbia, Iraq, and Burma that have violated human rights of their citizens (275). For example, despite the strict policy in adherence to human rights, the United States government took part in questionable missions such as the Vietnam war that triggered protests in the country (Dietrich 270). However, he explains that there are many other countries that have exceptional human rights standards but have never condemned the United States. Kopel argues that even though the British were among the early supporters of gun ownership, they have reformed over the years (1537). They have appropriate laws that allow people to enjoy their rights with control. Many other countries in Europe have elaborate laws protecting the rights of human beings across the world. Not so long ago, the United States was accused of violating the rights of minority groups such as the African Americans. Therefore, the New World should adopt policies that will protect all humanity and not just the citizens of powerful states such as the US.

The Role of the Military and the Conundrum of Individual Rights

The role of the military in maintaining the stability of the country mirrors the policies of World States as argued by Mond. The work of the military and the police is to provide collective protection to the citizens of a country. The United States founders established state militias and the national army to maintain the stability of the country despite the fact that individuals had the right to own guns and protect themselves (Yassky 606). In as such, there is a clear line of contradiction on the role of the individual and that of the state security agencies. Those against civilian gun ownership have argued that the state can provide systems that will ensure threats to insecurity are quick and effective. For instance, the availability of emergency hotlines guarantees that the police can respond to distress calls from civilians swiftly. The same applies to military intelligence systems that guard the country against unprecedented foreign attacks. However, even with the state security systems, people are not safe because the danger is with the individuals carrying guns on the streets.

Towards a Safer New World: The Need for Restructuring

There is hope that in the New World the government will take the absolute role of protecting the citizens. Check asserts that “The realization of the Second Amendment’s ‘unpopular’ nature merely promises a change in the current legal debate” (303). Since the inception of the United States, the people have been made to believe that the intentions of the founders are irrevocable even in the modern age. However, a critical look at the current situation reveals the need to restructure the laws that allow civilians to own firearms. Eventually, with the increase of gun violence across the country, it will be evident to all that weapons are best in the hands of authorized government personnel and not any individual in society (Cheney 13). The same liberal spirit that granted the public the rights provided in the Second Amendment will be the same that creates a new system that will make the streets of the New World safe.

The Impossibility of Change in the Utopian World and the United States

However, in the utopian world created by Huxley, change seems to be an impossible quest. John was the only person in the World State that had the intention of pushing for positive changes, but he ended up committing suicide because he was frustrated. The other revolutionists in the city such as Helmholtz and Bernard are banished, leaving no hope for positive change. Ironically, the ”Brave New World“ is made up of people who do not have the courage to protect themselves from the oppression of the state. All have buried their heads and agree to maintain the status quo despite the few calls to change the system through a revolution. The masses in the New World are hypnotized by soma such that they cannot see reality. The same applies to the United States, where money and the illusion of freedom have made it almost impossible for society to see the dangers of the current gun ownership policies. The few that emerge to oppose some of the provisions of the Second Amendment are silenced by the majority just like John.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States is comparable to the utopian World State in many ways. However, unlike the utopian world where people have limited rights, the United States has given the public the rights to protect themselves by carrying or owning guns. Nonetheless, the same rights have become a threat to the people and led to contradicting policies from the government. The freedom accorded to the people has blinded them from seeing the truth about the dangers of having private guns on the streets. People still have the illusion of ”protecting themselves“ through the rights given by the constitution. Unfortunately, the truth is that the society is harming itself by allowing any American above the age of 21 years to own a firearm. The mass shootings and other gun-related crimes that take place across the country are proof that the right accorded to private citizens to protect themselves is doing the contrary by increasing crime risks.

Works Cited

Check, Terence. ”Is the Right to Bear Arms an Example of Unpopular Constitutionalism: Comparing Modern and Historical Opinions on the Second Amendment.“ Faulkner L. Rev. 6 (2014): 283.

Cheney, Dick. ”The Military We Need in the Future.“ Vital Speeches of the Day 59.1 (1992): 13.

DeMitchell, Todd A., and Elyse Hambacher. ”Zero tolerance, threats of harm, and the imaginary gun: Good intentions run amuck.“ BYU Educ. & LJ (2016): 1.

Dietrich, John W. ”US Human Rights Policy in the Post‐Cold War Era.“ Political Science Quarterly 121.2 (2006): 269-294.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave new world. Ernst Klett Sprachen, 2008.

Kopel, David B. ”The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century-and Its Lessons for Gun Laws Today.“ Fordham Urb. LJ39 (2011): 1527.

Yassky, David. ”The Second Amendment: Structure, History, and Constitutional Change.“ Michigan Law Review 99.3 (2000): 588-668.

Self-Reflective Exercise

What was the most challenging aspect of the process?

The most challenging part of the process was trying to connect the aspects of the fictional world and the present. I accomplished the task during the drafting of the outline and the thesis statement. I spent a lot of time thinking about the ideal connection and most importantly, how to integrate the sources provided into my arguments. Some of the texts I read were complicated that made things difficult in formulating a worthwhile outline for the essay. I was sure that if I got a good outline, the writing part would not be complicated.

What was the most interesting/engaging?

The most interesting part was the reading and analysis of the novel Brave New World. It was quite interesting to know that Huxley could imagine such a world and present ideas that still persist in the modern world several decades after the publication of the novel. It was a pleasure stretching my imagination to the utopian society created by the society and fantasize living in search an environment. I had to read the novel several times to grasp the satire, irony, and sarcasm expressed by the author in every chapter of the novel. This was an engaging process but quite interesting and enlightening.

What did you learn from the process?

I learned several things from the process of writing the research paper. First, I was equipped with the important skill of textual analysis. Even before the writing, I had to read the novel and the other sources and understand them. Unlike the regular reading process, this required looking at hidden meanings, themes, analyzing the characters, settings and many other aspects of the texts. Secondly, I sharpened my writing skills. The whole process required intensive writing from the drafting to the editing of the completed copy. I understood that completing a nice piece of text requires a thorough process of writing that must be preceded with planning. I also learned how to compare different texts and synthesize them on one piece of writing.

Do you think you have got a complete draft, ready to be reviewed by peers? Explain.

Yes. I believe that I have fulfilled all the requirements of the essay. I started with formulating a thesis statement and an outline then completed the essay as per the instructions provided. I have also proof-read the essay and it should be ready for peer-review.

Which specific element of your work needs the most work? Why?

The writing of the essay requires a great deal of work. It is through the writing that my peers and the instructor will be able to assess my grasp of the task as well as the entire course. Therefore, I have to put sufficient effort in writing a good essay that will reflect my achievement of the set course objectives. Even if I understood the novel and other texts, I must prove that by submitting a well-written piece.

Is there anything you would like to communicate with you about the process or draft?

I would like you to know that the process is intensive and the perfect way to apply the concepts learned in class. I am looking forward to the peer-review process so that my work can be examined by my colleagues and I can do the same for their essays.