Author: Logan Tantibanchachai
Brave New World is a dystopian novel published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley, a British intellectual. It is centered around two major societies: the Savage Reservation and The World State. The novel opens with a scene at The World State’s Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, which aims to standardize individuals through extensive psychological and biological conditioning. The stifling conditioning of the Centre is The World State writ large. About halfway through the novel, Huxley depicts the Savage Reservation. On its surface, The Savage Reservation stands in opposition to The World State. Huxley depicts The Savage Reservation to be uniform and rigid. The Savage Reservation achieves this through Lawrencian ritualistic practices and a moral absolutism that its denizens act in accordance with. Lawrencian refers to D.H. Lawrence’s beliefs. D.H. Lawrence was one of Huxley’s closest friends and could be characterized by a belief in vitalism, a “New Mexican primitivism,” and “outrageous stances” (Jerome 437; Aldridge 127).[1]
Some scholars deem the relationship between The World State and Savage Reservation a “satirical dialectic” (Aldridge). Satirical dialectic refers to Huxley’s usage of satirizing two opposing world views to get to a new understanding of their relationship. However, in contrast to literature that characterizes the respective societies of Brave New World as independent and distinct, I will argue that a core feature of the novel is tension between inertia and generation and that under this lens both societies are fundamentally the same. That tension can be seen through three major motifs of the novel: the standardized man versus the extraordinary man, physicality versus mind, and human nature. Through the framework of inertia versus generation, I will ultimately argue that Brave New World is not a warning about a future dystopia, but rather one about the tyranny of the majority.
The tyranny of the majority typically refers to a situation where the majority’s preferences and beliefs completely override minority rights. The term was first conceptualized by John Stuart Mill. In his book On Liberty, Mill sought to conceptualize the inherent weakness with majority rule. Mill’s understanding of the tyranny of the majority does not directly apply to Brave New World as a minority, prima facie, controls both societies within the novel. However, the power structure of both societies clearly caters to the majority in a way that is characteristic of tyranny. For example, The World State’s policies are solely focused on maximizing pleasure—a desire that Huxley believes is reducible to the masses “compulsive pursuit of pleasure” (Schmerl 331). Likewise, The Savage Reservation’s focus on rigid moral standards is upheld by the majority, with utter disregard for the minority’s desire to do otherwise.
In context of Huxley’s beliefs, we ought to understand the tyranny of the majority with one more stipulation. In his Intellectuals and the Masses, John Carey shows how early 20th century intellectuals, such as Aldous Huxley, viewed the masses as semi-human swarms drugged by popular newspapers and cinema. The view of the masses by early 20th century intellectuals indicates that Huxley’s view of the tyranny of the majority would be one tainted by the preconception that the minority, the intellectuals, make most of the intellectual contributions to a society. The early 20th century, moreover, was uniquely situated as it came at the forefront of the industrial age and was accompanied by mass production, standardization, and mass consumption capitalism (Hinchman 771). Huxley refers to the industrialization of society throughout the novel, indicating his disapproval of where society is heading. For instance, the period of time within The World State is named after Henry Ford and one of Huxley’s inspirations was his visit to the Imperial Chemical Industries Billingham plant.
In his biography on Huxley, Poller points out Huxley’s belief that the application of industrial techniques to media, the differential birth rate, and mass production will lead to a society devoid of artistic merit (Poller 67-68).[2] Poller goes on to say Brave New World is modeled to be the natural conclusion of Los Angeles—where Huxley saw his fears start to come to life. Like Poller, Firchow makes a similar argument about Huxley’s intentions in writing Brave New World, noting that Huxley believed the “American Way of Life … embraces a large class of the people who ‘do not want to be cultured, [nor] are not interested in the higher life’’ (Firchow 455). Both Firchow and Poller offer largely accurate analyses of Huxley’s goal in writing Brave New World, though they primarily argue that Huxley’s beliefs about the industrial age are represented by The World State. However, in regard to the Savage Reservation they argue that it is the manifestation of a distinct set of beliefs or that it acts as a “countervailing norm” to The World State (Beauchamp 61). In other words, the literature suggests that there is a meaningful difference in the way the respective societies come about and operate. I will show that is not the case.
Before proceeding further in the argument though, I would like to first establish definitions for generation and inertia. Generation should be understood through the first meaning of the word: generātiō, meaning the action or process of creating (OED generation). Additionally, generation denotes the process of creating something new. In other words, generation ought to be something that creates what is sui generis. Bob Barr offers a conception of autonomy within Brave New World when he notes that humans “by their very nature, are not static creatures” (Barr 847). In other words, human identity is grounded in what is new. Our understanding of generation ought to be understood in the context of identity and thus generation is the process of creating new.
Generation should be understood in the context of identity because the novel indicates that generation is fundamentally predicated on its relation to humans. Psychologist Erich Fromm argues that one’s “sense of identity develops in the process of emerging from the ‘primary bonds’ which tie him to mother and nature” (Fromm 59).[3] From this point of view, the development of identity is understood as a sort of generation. Man in The World State lacks both of Fromm’s ‘primary bonds:’ to have a “viviparous” mother was taboo and children were conditioned away from “flowers … and wild nature in general” (Huxley, bnw 24-26). Under Fromm’s understanding of identity, it would follow that without those primary bonds, man’s sense of identity could not develop. Brave New World supports that understanding as there are very few characters within the novel that seem to have their own identity. Instead, they just have societally imposed ones.
Inertia should not be understood as the absolute lack of change as such a definition would imply that the phenomenon does not exist within Brave New World. Instead, inertia should be understood as the maintenance of a status quo where the status quo is one of uniformity and standardization. By this measure, the biological conditioning of The World State is an example of inertia as it does not truly develop anything new, but rather continues to replicate uniform, standardized people. Additionally, the ritualistic, moral absolutism of the Savage Reservation represents a sort of inertia because it indoctrinates people to act uniformly, thus removing the generation of new, truly individualistic thought. So we have a concept of inertia, which is the lack of new, and a concept of generation, which is the creation of new. These definitions are directly in tension with each other.
The General Framework: Inertia vs. Generation
In this first section, I will argue that there is tension between inertia and generation in both the Savage Reservation and The World State. I will then show that inertia overpowers generation in both societies. Finally, I will argue that the tyranny of the majority is closely correlated with inertia. In other words, the tyranny of the majority, as construed in Brave New World, threatens the existence of generation by presenting a paradigm in which inertia is the norm.
Mustapha Mond is one of the World State’s World Controllers. We should first start by noting his view on generation. In Mond’s discussion of The Inventions Office, he argues that “change is a menace to stability … [and that is] why we’re so chary of applying new inventions” (Huxley, bnw 269). One scholar recognizes this facet of The World State, but primarily examines it under economic considerations: that is Mustapha Mond restrains The Inventions Office for the purpose of “keep[ing] every individual happily employed” (Barr 855). However, while it is true that there is an economic purpose, I want to focus on the tension here between inertia and generation. On one hand, The Inventions Office indicates a proclivity towards the generation of new. On the other hand, Mond’s restrictions on The Inventions Office indicate a desire for inertia. Huxley’s World Controllers opt to prioritize inertia and in doing so they “achieved a perfectly static [society]” and indeed a policy of inertia (Franck 75).
Huxley’s portrayal of The World State as inert further appears through his usage of language that refers to The World State’s inhabitants as insects, rather than human beings. For example, the group of identical twins in the hospital ward are referred to as “maggoty” and the leaf-green Gamma girls are compared to “aphides and ants” (Huxley, bnw 241 and 74). Huxley’s description of the masses as insects reveals that The World State operates with no regard to the individual; instead, the masses are forced to blindly work in uniformity. As the inhabitants are treated merely as insects with no further regard to agency, it follows that they are inert because they can do nothing besides what they are programmed to do. For example in the first chapter of the novel, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning argues that “the secret to happiness and virtue … [is] liking what you’ve got to do” (Huxley, bnw 17). The populace itself clearly reflects a tyranny of the majority because they act as a collective mass with no regard for individual choice.
For that reason, even the highest castes—Alphas and Alpha Pluses—are “programmed to remain the same” (Aldridge 123). If The World State allowed someone to act out of the norm, the tyranny of the majority would fall away as the masses would not act in a collectivist way. For example, Schmerl argues that the existence of the few ‘individuals’ within the novel is completely inconsistent with Huxley’s purpose and thus they “could not have been enlarged into full-scale antagonists of their society without violating the conception of the novel” (Schmerl 329).[4] In other words, individuality is linked with generation because an individual can generate action that contradicts the collective masses. There is thus no change in The World State because there is no choice. And because there is no change, there is no generation.
The sort of inertia that Huxley characterizes The World State to comprise of clearly reflects the tyranny of the majority. One scholar argues that Brave New World is fundamentally built around the idea that a society could decide what sort of person to make (Nicol 47). Nicol then goes on to discuss the direction of the conditioning that The World State takes. However, the direction that the conditioning takes does not play a role in the question of generation’s existence. Rather, what matters is that generation within the novel is subverted by the majority’s desire for inertia precisely. Because both societies are run by a tyranny of the majority, the given political decisions within each society aim to maintain their tyrannies. If we return back to The Inventions Office, it is clear that the limitation of The Inventions Office was a decision to protect the tyranny of the majority. Mond argues that change is “potentially subversive” (Huxley 269). In other words, Mond desires inertia because change could destroy the tyranny of the majority.
The Savage Reservation displays a similar tension between inertia and generation. Firchow notes this sort of inertia, arguing that the Savage Reservation has “abolished individuality” to reach “stability” (Firchow 458). However, though Firchow recognizes the inertia within the Savage Reservation, he fails to also develop a framework of tension between inertia and generation. In building this tension, we ought to look towards the circumstances of one character’s birth—John the Savage. In The World State, biological conditioning removes generation from birth by replacing the natural process of birth with the replication of fertilized eggs that are then developed in incubation tanks. Generation, however, cannot come from mere genetic copies as that lacks the component of something new. In contrast to this artificial conception of birth, Huxley explicitly notes that John the Savage has a “mother” and thus came from a natural birth (Huxley, bnw 138). A natural birth is not standardized and thus represents generation ipso facto that each instance creates something new and unique. Thus, like The World State, in the Savage Reservation there is a similar tension between inertia and generation. Similarly, within the Savage Reservation inertia eventually overpowers generation. Though John the Savage was clearly born of a natural birth he is conditioned into the Savage Reservation’s morally absolute, static mold (Firchow 458).
The link between inertia and the tyranny of the majority appears most clearly through The Savage Reservation’ conditioning its citizens into a sort of moral absolutism. For example, to be with more than one person romantically is considered “wicked” (Huxley, bnw 142-143). John the Savage’s mother—Linda—broke this maxim, by sleeping with “more than one person” (Huxley 142). As a result, Linda says that everyone in The Savage Reservation “hate[s] and despise[s] her” (Huxley 143). Even John the Savage falls into this belief: when he found out his mother had been with multiple men, he “got so upset” (Huxley, bnw 143). In other words, The Savage Reservation’s tyranny of the majority is predicated upon a complete lack for those who do not follow the majoritarian desires.
In both societies, the tyranny of the majority acts to protect inertia. Inertia is incompatible with generation. As a result, the tyranny of the majority, in Brave New World, threatens the existence of generation.
The Tertiary Frameworks
In this next section of this paper, I will further expand on inertia and generation within Brave New World. I will do so through three major motifs of the novel: the standardized man vs. extraordinary man, physicality vs. mind, and human nature. In each instance, I will argue that the tyranny of the majority is clearly present in the way these motifs embody the tension between inertia and generation. Finally, I will argue that the tyranny of the majority, and the subsequent downfall of generation within the novel, implies a loss of true creativity: that is, generation is required for creativity and a tyranny of the majority leads to the denial of generation and thus the loss of creativity.
Huxley’s understanding of the masses is grounded in what he calls the standardized man of which he contrasts to the extraordinary man. In one opinion piece, Huxley argues that the natural conclusion of the industrial age will be the prosecution of the extraordinary man and thus to not “be ordinary will be regarded as a crime” (Huxley, Outlook for American Culture 270). In other words, Huxley develops tension between the standardized man and the extraordinary, unique man. The extraordinary man is characterized by generation as their individuality is a new entity and thus generation’s product. In contrast, the standardized man is the result of mere inertia by the very fact that they lack the generation of anything new: they are merely the same as everyone else in the masses and are thereby static. Within Brave New World there are three “extraordinary men” and for each one there is a distinct event within their life that indicates the generation of individuality. These three “extraordinary men” are Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, and John the Savage. Outside of the three individuals within the novel, Brave New World is constituted by “standardized men” who are inert.
Bernard Marx’s individuality took root when alcohol was introduced into his blood-surrogate, resulting in the stunting of his height (Huxley, bnw 54). In other words, Marx’s individuality springs out of a momentary flaw within The World State’s standardized system. Marx’s individuality springing out of a momentary flaw reveals that individuality cannot come out of the standardized system itself; instead, there must be a lapse in that system for individuality to come about. Individuality springing from a momentary lapse in a standardized system further buttresses Huxley’s understanding of the extraordinary man. An extraordinary man can only come out of extraordinary circumstances.
The second of these three individuals is Helmholtz Watson whose individuality comes from “a conscious mental excess” (Aldridge 125). The distinct event in which Watson’s mental excess comes about is “very similar” to “the sense of … apartness” Marx gets from his event (Huxley 79). Marx’s case supported Huxley’s conception of the extraordinary man. Thus, because Huxley notes that both cases are “very similar” it follows then that Watson’s case further undergirds Huxley’s understanding of the extraordinary man. Moreover, Watson believes that he is “all alone” because of “too much ability” (Huxley 80). Huxley makes explicit that Watson is sui generis because of his mental excess. The way in which the extraordinary man is generated within the novel is in and of itself distinctly unique.
Hereto we have two completely idiosyncratic individuals—Watson and Marx are individuals for different reasons—and that is a core part of the reason they are extraordinary man. If the generation of individuality was too standardized, then by definition it would not be individuality. Extraordinary men come about through distinct manners and by virtue of that, the generation of new is at the core of their character.
Individuality coming out of a distinct, extraordinary event reveals that the generation of new plays a crucial role in the development of the extraordinary man. The idea of new generation comes through most clearly with John the Savage’s literal generation at birth. John the Savage’s individuality comes about when he is born from a “mother”—in contrast to the standardized methods of reproduction in The World State (Huxley, bnw 138). Because the tyranny of the majority is upset by change, this literal generation of new leads to John the Savage becoming an outcast in The Savage Reservation (Huxley, bnw 162).
Huxley further develops the tension between generation and inertia through the distinction between physicality and mind. The novel indicates that mind is required for generation because instances of generation within the novel are distinctly linked to the mind, whereas ones that are examples of inertia are related to the body. One manifestation of individuality in The World State is a specific character—Bernard Marx—acting in a unique way in regards to the way he views Lenina, Marx’s romantic interest. Marx views Lenina as more than just “meat,” contrary to how both she and others perceive herself (Huxley, bnw 51 and 109). In other words, the normal mode of thought within The World State is grounded in the physical; however, there are instances of some characters, such as Marx, attempting to go beyond the physical and in doing they demonstrate individuality.
For an example of physicality being linked to inertia let us return to conditioning. In both The World State and Savage Reservation, the conditioning often comes about through modes of physicality: for The World State it is biological, chemical, and psychological conditioning and for the Savage Reservation the ritualistic conditioning of the population is often characterized by bodily mutilations. As mentioned previously, conditioning is an inert act and thus we can see here that instances of inertia are related to physicality.
Furthermore, Huxley’s discussion of soma further indicates that physicality within the novel is linked to inertia. Soma is an instant gratification drug and, in using the word soma, Huxley invokes the somatic. Somatic means related to the body, as opposed to the mind, and derives from the ancient Greek word for body: σῶμα (OED soma). The denizens of The World State use soma to “to take a ‘holiday’ from reality” (Franck 78). Franck’s argument indicates that soma is not focused on the body, but rather the mind. However, because Huxley is a vitalist, the sort of body he would believe in, encapsulates the mind as well. What the ‘mind’ here should be understood as is that distinct life force from the body. In this sense, the “‘holiday’ from reality” is suppression of one’s true emotions and thoughts.[5]
In repressing one’s true emotions and thoughts, The World State further imposes standardization on the populace through modes of physicality. Moreover, the usage of soma within The World State is characteristic of inertia as enforced by the tyranny of the majority. For example, in a conversation with Marx, Henry Foster and the Assistant Predestinator notice that he looks “glum” and offer him a “gramme of soma” (Huxley, bnw 64). Their offering of soma to him indicates a state of emotion outside the norm of unadulterated happiness—in this case, being glum—should be relieved by the usage of one gramme of soma to alleviate the “damn.”[6] In other words, The World State prioritizes an inertia of emotion. For example, Henry Foster says that with Soma, “stability was practically assured” (Huxley, bnw 65). Thus, the generation of an emotion outside of the standardized mode of happiness must be adjusted back to the norm.[7]
This sort of emotional inertia is maintained by the tyranny of the majority. Regardless of all his repeated refusals, the Assistant Predestinator and Henry Foster attempt to press Marx into using soma (Huxley, bnw 65). To reject soma is to reject the masses and that is why one character, Benito, notes that Marx’s continuous rejections of soma are indicative of a abnormal “brain” (Huxley, bnw 72). Eventually, however, Marx gives into majority and takes soma; Marx becomes jealous of the connection that John the Savage and Helmholtz Watson develop and he takes soma to alleviate his jealousy (Huxley, bnw 217). In other words, like the other motifs showed, there is a tension between inertia and generation; however, in conjunction with the majority, inertia triumphs.
Huxley’s view of human nature undergirds both these previous motifs as well as the understanding of the larger framework in mind: that is inertia and generation as used to portray the tyranny of the majority. Barr and Young both offer conceptions of human nature within Brave New World: Young argues that autonomy is crucial to human nature and Barr argues that humans are not static creatures (Young 39 and Barr 847). I.e., Young and Barr both offer a conception of human nature where generation plays a crucial role. The previous two motifs of physicality versus mind and the standardized man versus the extraordinary man point towards a society without generation. Thus, if generation is an essential element of human nature, then both societies within Brave New World offer a fundamentally incomplete accommodation of what it means to be human.
The comparatively minimal role of generation within the Savage Reservation and World State aligns with Huxley’s understanding of the tyranny of the majority: i.e., if the majority rules not only does the intellectual minority begin to lose their rights, but society gradually loses intellectual progress. For Huxley, the tyranny of the majority is less centered on rights, but instead the place of creative generation in society. The masses, in Huxley’s view, are standardized, inert, and focused on animal pleasures. As a result, they are incapable of creative generation. If the majority has power then they will inevitably make decisions predicated on their desire for mere animal pleasures, subsequently destroying creative generation. If everyone is conditioned to seek only animal pleasures, then animal pleasures are all that will exist. The novel is, thus, predicated on an understanding that the society is built purely on majoritarian considerations. For that reason, Huxley, near thirty years later, writes “the shortest and broadest road to the nightmare of Brave New World [is] … through overpopulation” (Huxley, Brave New World Revisited 18). An increasing majority is Huxley’s greatest fear as he believes the decline of creative generation is incessantly linked to the tyranny of the majority.
The conclusion that I take away from Brave New World is that the tyranny of the majority must be avoided. Creative generation is intimately linked with what it means to be human and without it, we are no more than “automata” (Huxley, Brave New World Revisited 21). That is, things to be programmed. Huxley thus presents a tyranny of the majority where the danger is not is not the loss of minority rights. Instead, the danger is the loss of creative generation which represents a crucial aspect of human nature writ large.
Works Cited
Aldridge, Alexandra. “‘Brave New World’ and the Mechanist/Vitalist Controversy.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, 1980, pp. 116–32.
Barr, Bob. “Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World—Still a Chilling Vision After All These Years.”
Michigan Law Review, edited by Aldous Huxley, vol. 108, no. 6, 2010, pp. 847–57.
Beauchamp, Gorman. “The Shakespearean Strategy of Brave New World.” Utopian Studies, vol.
1, no. 4, Oct. 1991, pp. 60–64.
Bedford, Sybille. Aldous Huxley: A Biography. New York City, Alfred A. Knopf and Harper & Row, 1974.
Bertrand, Russel. Science and Values. George Allen & Unwin, 1931.
Bradbury, Malcom. The Modern British Novel. Penguin Books, 1995.
Buchanan, Brad. “Oedipus in Dystopia: Freud and Lawrence in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New
World.’” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 25, no. 3/4, 2002, pp. 75–89.
Firchow, Peter E. “THE SATIRE OF HUXLEY’S ‘BRAVE NEW WORLD.’” Modern Fiction
Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, 1966, pp. 451–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26278482. Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.
Firchow, Peter. “Wells and Lawrence in Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’” Journal of Modern
Literature, vol. 5, no. 2, 1976, pp. 260–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830944. Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.
Franck, Matthew J. “Brave ‘New World’, Plato’s ‘Republic’, and Our Scientific Regime.” The
New Atlantis, no. 40, 2013, pp. 73–88.
Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society. Routledge Classics, 1956.
Hinchman, Lewis P. “The Idea of Individuality: Origins, Meaning, and Political Significance.”
The Journal of Politics, vol. 52, no. 3, 1990, pp. 759–81. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2131826.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Harper & Row, 1932.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. RosettaBooks, 1958.
Huxley, Aldous. Jesting Pilate. London, Chatto & Windus, 1922.
Huxley, Aldous. “The Outlook for American Culture.” Harpers Magazine [New York City], 155th vol., Aug. 1927.
Jacobson, Dan. “D. H. Lawrence and Modern Society.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 2,
no. 2, 1967, pp. 81–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/259951. Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.
Meckier, Jerome. “Aldous Huxley’s Americanization of the ‘Brave New World’ Typescript.”
Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 48, no. 4, 2002, pp. 427–60. JSTOR,
Meckier, Jerome. “Aldous Huxley: Satire and Structure.” Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary
Literature, vol. 7, no. 3, 1966, pp. 284–94. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1207145.
Nicol, Caitrin. “Brave New World at 75.” The New Atlantis, no. 16, 2007, pp. 41–54.
“Generation, N., Etymology.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, December 2023,
“Soma, N. (2), Etymology.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, July 2023,
Poller, Jake. Aldous Huxley. Reaktion Books, 2021.
Sargent, Lyman Tower, and Lucy Sargisson. “Sex in Utopia: Eutopian and Dystopian Sexual
Relations.” Utopian Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 2014, pp. 299–320. JSTOR,
Schmerl, Rudolf B. “The Two Future Worlds of Aldous Huxley.” PMLA, vol. 77, no. 3, 1962,
pp. 328–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/460493. Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.
Wells, Arvin R. “Huxley, Plato and the Just Society.” The Centennial Review, vol. 24, no. 4,
1980, pp. 475–91.
Wilson, Robert H. “‘Brave New World’ as Shakespeare Criticism.” The Shakespeare
Association Bulletin, vol. 21, no. 3, 1946, pp. 99–107.
Woiak, Joanne. “Designing a Brave New World: Eugenics, Politics, and Fiction.” The Public
Historian, vol. 29, no. 3, 2007, pp. 105–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2007.29.3.105.
Young, Robert. “The Value of Autonomy.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 32, no.
126, 1982, pp. 35–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2218999.
[1]Vitalism can be loosely defined as the philosophical belief that life is fundamentally different from non-life due to the presence of a vital force or energy. Lawrence’s belief in vitalism manifests itself through his distaste for science, which he believed misses that essential life force. For example, when the Huxley brothers discussed science, D.H. Lawrence “exploded with a snort of impotent rage” (Bedford 191). This outrage was typical of Lawrence’s views and led to his primitive, ritualistic lifestyle.
[2]Differential birth rate refers to the belief that lower income people reproduce at a higher rate, thus degrading the population.
[3]Erich Fromm is a social psychologist that Huxley discusses in Brave New World Revisited.
[4]These ‘individuals’ are Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, and John the Savage. I put quotes around the word individual to represent the fact, that these characters do not fully encapsulate what an individual is as will be discussed later.
[5]The saying “a gramme is better than a damn” indicates that a “gramme” (soma) will replace the “damn” (which refers to one’s true emotions).
[6]Barr notes the usage of soma as another control mechanism through a similar argument: that is The World State “repeatably conditions its citizens to use ‘soma’ … to afford them a sense of pleasure” (Barr 849).
[7]Another example of this in the novel is the “Violent Passion Surrogate” where once a month citizens of Brave New World get their system flooded with emotions (Huxley, bnw 287). This operation is necessary because the utter lack of emotional change that the denizens of The World State experience is abnormal. However, even this ‘generation’ of emotion is not truly generation as it is standardized to lack “any of the inconveniences” of true, human emotion (Huxley, bnw 287).