By Bridget Salter
Published in 1932, just nine years after the publication of H.G. Wells’ utopian novel Men Like Gods, Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel, Brave New World, ridicules the vision of utopia presented by Wells. While this ridicule can be found throughout the novel, as one of the main purposes of Brave New World is to criticize Wells’ Utopia through satire, Huxley utilizes three compelling counterarguments to ridicule and expose its absurdity: scientific innovation does not always equate to societal improvement, freedom cannot eliminate human suffering, and the assumption that people will willingly submit themselves to a society without force directly conflicts with the reality of human nature. These three counterarguments are in response to the fact that in Men Like Gods, scientific innovation has no limitations, freedom and trust coexist to form a society free from violence, and the utopians willingly submit themselves to the expectations of Utopia. Huxley ridicules these central aspects of Men Like Gods and exposes their limitations through his depiction of the World State as a society defined by its all-powerful leaders, citizens’ dependence on the drug “soma,” and the practice of eugenics to maintain a strict caste system. Huxley recognizes that all negative aspects of a society cannot simply be eliminated over time as Wells suggests in Men Like Gods, and ultimately societal advancements are always accompanied by negative consequences.
While utopias are characterized by harmony and perfection and dystopias are characterized by chaos and injustice, these two imagined societies share several principles, including a focus on scientific innovation. This common principle of scientific innovation, however, manifests itself in two drastically different ways. In Men Like Gods, the boundless possibility of scientific innovation is described as the foundation of their harmonious and peaceful society. It is arguably the one aspect of Utopia that is not static. For example, when the Earthlings brought a contagious illness that threatened to compromise the Utopians’ health, the scientists were quickly successful in creating a treatment for the illness, and their society was able to overcome the situation with no detrimental consequences. Additionally, the Utopians are portrayed as having an innate desire to work and contribute to society with little expectation of receiving anything in return. The explanation was vague; however, the reader understands that the Utopians evolved to have this perfect work ethic simply through selective reproduction. No negative consequences of this practice were ever insinuated. Therefore, in utopian novels like Wells’, scientific innovation only has the potential to further enhance and improve society for citizens to prosper.
Scientific innovation in dystopias such as Brave New World starkly contraststhe positive lens of scientific innovation presented in utopian novels. Harsh methods of scientific innovation were a central aspect of ensuring the stability of the World State through the indoctrination of citizens. These harsh methods range from injecting chemicals and alcohol into embryos “for keeping the Deltas and Epsilons small and backward” (263) to indoctrinating the Delta babies to hate nature by shocking them as punishment for touching roses. Scientific innovation is used to oppress citizens by stripping them of any opportunity to achieve any sense of freedom, and this process begins even before birth. Additionally, while in Men Like Gods there is a sense of boundless opportunity and advancement possible with scientific innovation, the world leaders in Brave New World restrict unlimited scientific innovation as a means of denying freedom. For example, Mustapha Mond, one of the Controllers of the World State, asserts, “Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled” (446). It is recognized that science has the potential to inspire a rebellion against the state, so it is censored and restricted to maintain the status quo of ignorant happiness in the World State. Therefore, Huxley criticizes Wells’ assertion that scientific innovation can occur without any negative consequences by exaggerating the negative effects of scientific innovation in the World State. Injecting alcohol into embryos to reinforce the World State’s strict caste system is no more absurd than a perfectly harmonious society as the outcome of scientific advancement.
Along with this unbounded scientific innovation, freedom and trust coexist in a world without suffering in Men Like Gods. The Utopians are simultaneously free from the bounds of any oppressive government or societal hierarchy while also collectively accepting their duty to work and improve society. There are no class struggles, wars, or riots, and the Utopians exude genuine happiness. Huxley, however, rebukes even the possibility of this reality through the assertion that freedom cannot eliminate human suffering. The citizens of the World State may be happy and content with their lives, but that is only because they have been consistently brainwashed, and when any aspect of their life gets a little too difficult, they take the drug soma to forget their struggles. Essentially, the citizens of the World State are constantly high to remain ignorant of the oppressive world they live in. Furthermore, phrases such as “a gramme is better than a damn” (118), “I’m so glad to be a Beta” (56), and “when the individual feels, the community reels” (12) are endlessly repeated to citizens until the phrases are internalized. They will never stray from the beliefs fed to them and continue to place their full trust in the World State leaders. While the citizens may be happy, their happiness is only out of blissful ignorance, and in reality, they live in such an oppressive state that they are denied any sense of individuality. Therefore, Huxley argues that it is better to suffer and be free than to be oppressed and happy because if a person is oppressed, then their happiness is not genuine. John the Savage, the one character in the novel who does not rely on soma and has experienced a certain degree of freedom, asserts in Chapter 17 that he is “claiming the right to be unhappy” (475), meaning that he would rather choose to live an unhappy life than being forced to live a happy life. Therefore, Huxley pushes back against this utopian assumption that freedom and trust can coexist to form a society free from violence. He argues that freedom cannot eliminate suffering and placing one’s full trust in a government or societal structure is inherently oppressive. Ultimately, freedom is preferable to the ignorant happiness portrayed in the World State.
Huxley’s final counterargument against Wells’ Men Like Gods is the assumption that people will willingly submit themselves to a society without force is in direct conflict with the reality of human nature. The livelihood of Utopia depended directly on the Utopians’ desire to work, and they all accept this reality and are innately drawn to work for the greater good of Utopia. Therefore, every Utopian follows the same expectations without any objection. This aspect of utopian literature conflicts with human nature, and Huxley ridicules this assumption that humans will willingly all submit themselves to a common cause through the use of soma in Brave New World. A particular scene in which the necessity of soma is most fully realized is when John the Savage throws the cases of soma out of the hospital window and in response, “the Deltas charged with a redoubled fury” (424). This scene is significant because it exposes how much the World State depends on soma to maintain its power and stability, and how without soma, uprisings would be inevitable. Without soma, the citizens of the World State would begin to recognize their lack of freedom and demand change. Therefore, if society expects to enforce anything on its citizens, then there must be an incentive. In the case of the World State, the order is only maintained because its citizens are dependent on soma. In other dystopias, the order is maintained through fear tactics and violent punishments. Even in the real world, the order is maintained through laws, restrictions, and punishments. Utopias, however, enforce the idea that people can live harmoniously without any outside force as long as their needs are met. Huxley, however, argues through the use of soma in the novel that an entire population of people will never willingly submit themselves to all of society’s expectations. There are always bound to be people who dissent from societal expectations.
While Huxley successfully satirizes Men Like Gods to a degree in which Wells’ arguments may be viewed as ridiculous, Huxley’s complete opposition to the scientific utopia may also be viewed as equally ridiculous. Huxley ridicules Wells’ assertion that scientific innovation is directly correlated with societal advancement through the portrayal of the World State, a society where citizens are stripped of all freedom and opportunity for self-determination as a direct consequence of scientific advancement. While scientific advancement can certainly hinder the well-being of a society, Huxley’s portrayal of these extreme detrimental effects of scientific innovation can be criticized as just as ridiculous as Wells’ portrayal of exclusively positive effects as a result of scientific innovation. The truth is that any scientific breakthrough will result in both positive and negative effects for society. For example, the invention of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has significantly increased the world’s food supply; however, this invention has also led to the destruction of biodiversity. Portraying scientific innovation as only positive or as only negative unjustly reflects reality. Humans must be aware of the inevitable unintended consequences of any scientific advancement, while also understanding that scientific progress is a vital part of societal advancement. Therefore, it can be argued that Huxley’s World State is just as ridiculous as Wells’ Utopia, as the World State portrays extreme and even unrealistic consequences of scientific innovation. That being said, the extremities portrayed through the World State were a conscious decision by Huxley. He did not intend to create a realistic or believable depiction of a future society, but rather to expose the ridiculous assertions presented in Men Like Gods through the depiction of an incredibly repressive society to contrast with Wells’ blissful Utopia.
Only by reading Huxley’s novel alongside Well’s novel can a reader recognize Huxley’s intention to satirize Men Like Gods. Upon further analysis, Brave New World contains distinct elements that can be recognized as a satire of Men Like Gods. On the basis of scientific innovation, the relationship between freedom and trust, and the fragility of peace, both Huxley and Wells’ novels portray opposing viewpoints on each of these discussions. Huxley believes that scientific innovation does not always equate to societal improvement, freedom cannot eliminate human suffering, and people will not willingly submit themselves to an oppressive society. Ultimately, Wells’ portrayal of Utopia as a place of boundless scientific advancements with happy citizens who know no violence does not find favor with Huxley. In response, Huxley created the dystopian World State, in which he portrays extreme forms of oppression and control as a different result of many of the same aspects as Men Like Gods to expose the absurdity of many of Wells’ claims.
Works Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Mercy House, 2020. (iBook)
Wells, H.G. Men Like Gods. Edited by Susan L. Rattiner and Jim Miller, Dover Thrift Editions, 2016. (iBook)
