I am writing a research paper on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World on the topic "totalitarian perspectives on societal order, control, and social stability" and how (my thesis- my teacher's assignment)the author's depiction is not particularly accurate, despite the grisly methods of manipulation(people are controlled, economically, socially and even sexually by the government) presented in the novel, as their is still a conception of totalitarianism since the citizens are happy due to a false happiness. Huxley uses satire, and so that is why I am critiquing the legitimacy of the author's depictions- does this make sense?(But I don't know any original and good ways to attack the author's depictions)
I am having trouble researching, do you know what I can type into my search engine(I am thinking of using the Soviet Union in Russia, the Third Reich in Germany, and military rule in Argentina in late 20th century-this is the topic I am most struggling with) and would you mind also providing me with some if that is not too much trouble?
Also, do you know why Huxley purposefully created a misconstrued perception on totalitarianism? What does it allow his characters to do or what does it add to the plot? I am attempting to write a paragraph on his motives behind his depictions of totalitarian perspectives. Is this lack of legitimacy atrocious and should I sound very disgusted by the lack of accuracy in my paper?(I am having trouble explaining what is affected). Lastly, what other two points should I critique on in the legitimacy of the actual novel other than what I have so far(the fact that the government still attempts to instil happiness despite the torture, where in history life is extremely despondent and horrible)?
Thank you for your time and efforts, I really appreciate it!
Oh, my goodness! So many issues here. First, Huxley was not trying to be historically accurate in depicting a totalitarian state, he was satirical. He purposely exaggerated. That is not misconstruing anything. He was writing fiction, not history.
Totalitarian systems have (and you cite some good examples) used propaganda to convince people to "go along" with ideas that are not necessarily in their own interests at all, sometimes down to the deeply personal level of sex and reproduction. In Huxley it is drugs that lull the people into a false sense of happiness and contentment. In the Third Reich in Germany, it was propaganda (sort of like drugs for the mind, but not chemical), even to encouraging young women of the correct "race" to mate with men of the same "race" and produce babies of the right "race," amounting to a form of prostitution in that elite troops were encouraged to mate with good, blond young women and make "good" babies, regardless of marital status. Look it up, it's true. It was good for the dominant race to do so. Huxley was not far from historical fact, but he exaggerated it to make his points.
In looking for historical parallels to what Huxley fictitiously describes, you must look behind the mere facts of economic or other kinds of control exerted by a totalitarian state and look at what such a system does to the human spirit, freedom, independence, etc. When the family and the individual is convinced of the absolute truth of whatever doctrine the rulers want them to believe in, the family and the individual have circumscribed choices.
That is NOT to say that a purely libertarian point of view is any better. Where one's "rights" end is when they infringe on someone else's rights. That's a balance we are always trying to find, but a totalitarian system acknowledges no rights of choice for anyone. It's usually achieved by brute force or propaganda (some kind of mind control).
So, how can we learn anything from Huxley's obvious exaggerations? What parallels can we find in Argentina, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich, etc.? What is Huxley saying we should guard against?
Was Huxley wrong to parody, apply satire, exaggerate to make his point? Must he have written history instead of fiction? Is there any point to fiction except to entertain? Or can it point us to a truth that is often hidden in the historical "facts?"
Does my argument that the legitimacy of his depictions should be critiqued on strong for a research paper on this book?
To answer your question, "So, how can we learn anything from Huxley's obvious exaggerations? What is Huxley saying we should guard against?" is it that Huxley wants to exaggerate the corrupt ideals of totalitarian perspectives on social stability and societal control? I don't know, could you give me your opinion too?
What do you mean "on strong?" "Too strong?" You may critique the legitimacy of his work any way you like. I advise you think about my last paragraph above. Is it ILlegitimate to use parody and satire to make a point? If you can argue that it is, go for it. Whatever your conclusion, make sure you can make a strong argument for it.
The best way to approach such an essay is to make your arguments, then come to a conclusion. Don't try to make the arguments fit a preconceived conclusion. Let the arguments lead TO a conclusion.
Okay, "corrupt ideals of totalitarian perspectives o social stability and social control..."
What Huxley wants us to take away from his novel is that artificially imposed social stability and social control are not in the best interests of the people controlled. Do you agree or disagree?
You seem to be saying that because Huxley uses parody and satire, he fails to make his point. He is not using literal, historical narrative, therefore we can't appreciate his point? Is that what you are trying to argue?
No I am not saying that. Its just that my thesis(What my teacher assigned) is supposed to challenge something from the novel- preferably something on the legitimacy of the author's depictions. I think my teacher just wants to see me challenge something and back it up with research. So I didn't have anything, and decided to critique Huxley's depictions of totalitarianism. I am just wondering if you think this is a valid argument, which I agree with you its not, but only in the sense that I state that it takes away from the reader's appreciation. I never said that, but I am a confused wreck myself. Hence why I am asking you for your help. Hope you will see this comment tomorrow morning, thank you for your help so far, really appreciate your patience!
It's early morning now. I don't think you are wrong to critique Huxley's depictions of totalitarianism. A case could be made that depicting it in fiction set in some distant future is to remove the reader from the reality of what has actually happened in the world. You have good examples. Do some reading about the three regimes you have identified. Also Google (or Bing or whatever you use) "totalitarianism" and "totalitarianism - examples" and also look up "genocide." Really, examples of such things in history, and in the world of 2015, for that matter, are worse than anything Huxley imagined. I think you're on the right track.
But do the research/reading first, then compare and contrast Huxley's depictions with what you have read about. Your conclusions do not have to be that Huxley made a mistake. See what you think once you've done your research. To challenge or critique something does not necessarily mean your conclusions will be negative about the novel. Don't write the conclusion and then look for backup. You must see what your research and thought lead you to before you draw your conclusions.
I hope all this helps. I rarely go into so much detail, but you started it (grin) with your detailed thoughts. You seem a thoughtful student. If your arguments are cogent, I think you'll have a good essay.