Orwell and Huxley in modern political thought and technology studies

Orwell & Huxley

Moving Toward Orwell and Huxley

The thesis of this paper is that our civilization is headed in a direction consistent with the viewpoint of both Orwell and Huxley. This paper will discuss generative systems (from Zittrain), the mediated public (from Boyd and Baym), and Internet freedom (from Shirky and Morozov), in order to support the thesis.

As Morozov states, "Huxley wasn't convinced that men were rational creatures who were always acting in their best interest" (77). Such is seen in the book Brave New World. In that book, people are ruled by their passions. In other words, their passions are manipulated through a drug called soma, and their sexual drive is exploited and used to "deny sex," as Huxley says. This is evident in today's society, where sex is exploited through pornography -- which is readily available on the Internet for quick and easy access.

Parts of Orwell's 1984 are also seen in today's world, with references to Big Brother made almost daily in the media and even in casual conversation. Both men have left an impact on society by showing the hated figures of totalitarian regimes in roles of power: in 1984 it is Big Brother; in Brave New World it is the regime that reduces life to the level of the Savage.

Ironically, Morozov notes that "Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." In a sense, Huxley's assertion is true -- for what we love can turn into a kind of control. As the Savage in Brave New World cannot rise above the empty, shallow, meaningless existence that he has been given, he takes his life. The same is true for Winston Smith in 1984. His love for the girl ultimately betrays him to Big Brother. And the same can be said for society today, with Iran being a good example: the Iranian love for Facebook is pitted against the Iranian hate for the regime that controls it. The regime uses that love to control the crowd -- and to watch it.

Then again, Orwell's idea that what we hate will ruin us can also be seen as true. The growing paranoia centered on the new technology of today and the media involved has many people wondering if their privacy is being invaded. That fear of a kind of secret police -- watching us as it does in 1984 -- can cause panic and lead to the creation of new laws that will ultimately limit the possibilities of social networking and generative systems.

As Danah Boyd states, "It is difficult to define 'public' or 'private' without referring to the other." What this means is that the two terms are like two sides of one coin. That coin, however, is now changing into a new kind of currency -- one, in a sense, without sides. What is private is becoming public. Boyd questions what role educators play in this new developing social networking culture: "Mediated publics are here to stay; yet they are complicating many aspects of daily life." This complication is exactly what controls the lives of the citizens in 1984 and is what Orwell described as one of the tools of the totalitarian regime. But Boyd argues that "the role of an educator is not to condemn or dismiss youth practices, but to help youth understand how their practices fit into a broader societal context." Boyd, here, seems to be open to this new union of public and private -- which makes one wonder if she is on the side of Big Brother. Boyd argues that educators should guide the young in this new union, not condemn the union altogether since it is obviously "here to stay."

What would Boyd's approach have been to Winston Smith in 1984? Would she have advised Smith to accept Big Brother and not to resist since it was here to stay -- neither dismiss it nor condemn but help Smith simply get along with it? Brave New World, in fact, criticizes modern culture's reliance upon sex, drugs, and endless entertainment because such things limit the person from transcending above the boundaries of the totalitarian regime. For Orwell, the regime was embodied by Stalin -- perfectly satirized and reflected in Big Brother and his Double Speak and New Speak. For Huxley, the regime was very much a Western regime -- the power that swayed a media-dominated culture to bow down to its every whim, without protest simply because the regime had given the culture what it loved -- sex, drugs, and entertainment.

Yet, according to Nancy Baym "new media often stir up fears of moral decline. These fears, which take form in dystopian rhetorics, can lead to important policy decisions at personal, household, governmental, and design levels" (41). Baym labels this as moral panic -- stemming from the kind of anti-utopian paranoia brought about by the works of Huxley and Orwell. Baym, like Boyd, argues that new technology does not necessarily have to mean bad technology.

The question then becomes: does new media help or hurt? That question is put before Shirky and Morozov in their discussion about Internet freedom: "Is the Internet a medium of emancipation and of revolution -- or a tool of control and repression? Did Twitter and Facebook stoke the flames of rebellion in Iran, or did they help the authorities unmask the rebels?"

Shirky admits that the question can be very confusing: "You very quickly get this kind of vertigo, where you think you're asking a question about Twitter, and suddenly you realize you're asking a question about, say, Hayek." What this means is that talking about the new social media can be like opening a can of worms -- one cannot help but launch into a discussion that includes the visions of Huxley and Orwell.

Morozov, however, attempts to reconcile Huxley's and Orwell's vision by stating that "there is a symbolic value attached to censorship." Censorship in 1984 helps give Big Brother the illusion of control -- just like it does in Iran. Yet, says, Morozov, "What the authorities would love to do is for everyone to believe that they are succeeding in their attempts to block Facebook." Ironically, Morozov goes on to say that the government has more interest in watching Facebook and Twitter than in blocking it -- because both networks give public access to private information, which could be beneficial to a government looking to root out any open rebellion. The same is true in 1984 -- the screens work two ways: they allow both the citizen to see and the government to watch.

Likewise, Zittrain shows how government is likely to use new technology to watch citizens -- just like Big Brother does in Orwell's 1984. People, too caught up in the new and exciting technologies, show little regard for the fact that these technologies might be a kind of form of control -- just like soma and science are both forms of control for the people in Brave New World. As Zittrain says, "Enterprising law enforcement officers have been able to eavesdrop on occupants of motor vehicles equipped with the latest travel assistance systems by producing secret warrants and flicking a distant switch." What this means, of course, is that global society is headed in a direction consistent with the kind of viewpoint expressed by Orwell and Huxley.