"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."
- Rick Warren
Monday, June 1, 2009
I've read both 1984 and Brave New World. I've long thought that the brutal world of 1984 would not have been sustainable. In many ways, I think history has already shown this.
Huxley's world seems far more probable, in my opinion.
Here's an interesting comparison, in illustrated form.
[H/T Jonah]
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5441.
Comments on "Huxley, Rather Than Orwell, Was Right":
2. Inklingstar
- 06/01/2009 10:54 pm CDT
I read both many years ago and I came to the same conclusion. It's amazing that Huxley could forsee such advances as genetic engineering so long ago.
One area of distinction between the two was that of sexual morality. In 1984, sex was shunned, and young people crusaded against it. In Brave New World, sex was used as a distraction by the powers that be. Which seems more like our world? :)
One other thing I noticed - when reading Brave New World, the description of the neo-natal facility really reminded me of the cloning labs from Attack of the Clones. It's creepy to think of that actually happening here...
3. Bill
- 06/02/2009 7:04 am CDT
Roy, good point. I should have titled this ". . . was less wrong", or "was more right" :-)
Great insight. And Lewis rocks the truth, of course.
IS: as time goes on, I see Brave New World becoming more of a reality (still a long way to go, of course). Great point.
4. Bob Sacamento
- 06/02/2009 8:14 am CDT
Despite my great respect for Jonah Goldberg, I've got to say the question is alot more complex. Western Europe and America have been sliding toward BNW for decades now, no question. But the horrors of 1984 (and let's not forget Animal Farm) were very real to people in the Soviet Union, and very "sustainable," for well over half a century. 1984 is still a reality for a billion people in China, even though neither Reps. nor Dems. want anyone to say that.
On top of that, even in the West, it's clear that, should the "newspeaking" PC crowd ever finally get the upper hand, they won't do us the BNW courtesy of distracting us from the pain they will put us through.
5. Bill
- 06/02/2009 9:26 am CDT
But the horrors of 1984 (and let's not forget Animal Farm) were very real to people in the Soviet Union, and very "sustainable," for well over half a century.
That was kind of my point. They weren't sustainable (and never reached to the level of 1984).
That being said, the North Koreans are closer to 1984 than Russia ever was, and have sustained that pretty well. So you may have a point.
6. Andrew
- 06/02/2009 10:21 am CDT
One big reason the Orwellian nightmare probably isn't sustainable is the concept of Newspeak. Newspeak assumes that language controls thought, but modern linguistics has pretty well determined that it's the other way around. I believe Orwell said in an appendix that Newspeak would have been fully implemented by 2050 and concepts like "freedom," "rebellion," and "equality" would have been completely eliminated from vocabulary, and, presumably, would be unthinkable. Orwell was right about the erosion of language and the danger of not saying what is meant, but went too far in assuming that the mind was completely under the sway of language. That kind of linguistic determinism has been pretty well debunked over the last 30 years.
Even so, I still love Orwell.
8. shrode
- 06/02/2009 2:30 pm CDT
Andrew,
So thought controls language? That's interesting. I think that while that may be primarily true, there is some extent in which language affects thought.
I remember learning from the great Asbell that in translation "usage determines meaning". I wonder how that truism applies here?
And to a certain extent we have seen words either redefined, or euphemisms used for the purpose of defining debate or even influencing thought. Just two easy examples:
Abortion Debate Terms: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, murder, Partial Birth, terminate the pregnancy, woman's rights, selective reduction etc...
Homosexuality Debate Terms: Gay, Partner, Marriage, Love (Gay is the most obvious one. It does not mean what it used to mean. It might in the dictionary, but not in our society or usage. And think about it. They chose a word that meant "happy" and co-opted for themselves.)
In the case of the homosexual agenda, I think that one front of their war has been language, and they are winning that one. Other fronts have been media and the schools. And so language, hasn't been the only thing influencing public opinion, but I think it has helped them change the public attitude and view of homosexuality.
9. Andrew
- 06/02/2009 3:02 pm CDT
I think that while that may be primarily true, there is some extent in which language affects thought.
I remember learning from the great Asbell that in translation "usage determines meaning". I wonder how that truism applies here?
It isn't that vocabulary has no effect on opinion, but during the first half of the century, many thought that reason was dependent upon language. English speaking people will think their thoughts in English and can only reason about the things that the English language lends itself to.
Many linguists now believe that there is a kind of "thought language" universal to humans. We insert the vocabulary of whatever language we know, and we do it intuitively, but our capacity to reason doesn't depend on vocabulary. For instance, babies who can't speak have been shown to have a basic grasp of math without knowing what the numbers are called or even knowing what they are. There have also been studies done on people who were born deaf and never learned sign language. They were shown to have strong cognitive faculties despite a total lack of language.
Both the examples you used (homosexuality and abortion) are good examples of the evolution of terms, and it's possible (even likely) that the change in vocabulary has influenced public opinion slightly, but it isn't the same thing as Orwell's vision. Even if I think of "gay" as synonymous with homosexual, I haven't lost my grasp on the meaning of what it is to be homosexual. I imagine that if all reference to sexual preference was erased from the English language, I would still be able to reason about homosexuality and heterosexuality and perceive a difference in behavior.
Newspeak was designed to make rebellion impossible. By eroding the language and erasing words having to do with human freedom or non-conformity, they thought people would completely lose their conception of these things and wouldn't be able to reason about them.
What I meant in my comment about linguistic determinism is that language is far more involved than just vocabulary. It is more than just naming things. There are parts of language that are innate to the human brain and they don't go away by watering down language. Semantics are important, and clarity of language is essential. But part of why I don't believe Orwell's vision is sustainable has to do with the holes in the reasoning behind Newspeak.
10. Andrew
- 06/02/2009 3:05 pm CDT
Oh, and as for Asbell's comment on translation, he was right, but translation's a whole different game. The words a translator chooses don't have any influence on what the author actually meant, but only on the reader's perception of what the original author meant. That's doesn't mean they couldn't understand what the author meant with a better translation.
11. shrode
- 06/02/2009 4:50 pm CDT
Wow Andrew. If you ever become a university professor, I want to take one of your classes.
Thank you for that. That was helpful and I learned from you. I think you are right. You can't erase concepts just by eliminating words or changing their meanings.
But perhaps you can change concepts? The idea that homosexual marriage is redefining "marriage" for example. Once upon a time, "homosexual marriage" would have been an oxymoron, or at least two terms that don't go together like "love" and "torture".
The concept itself changes along with the definition of the term. (Usage does determine meaning!)
12. Andrew
- 06/02/2009 5:47 pm CDT
But perhaps you can change concepts? The idea that homosexual marriage is redefining "marriage" for example. Once upon a time, "homosexual marriage" would have been an oxymoron, or at least two terms that don't go together like "love" and "torture".
The concept itself changes along with the definition of the term. (Usage does determine meaning!)
Heh, I suppose you're right, although if marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman the way grass is, by definition, a plant, then putting two incompatible words together is still nonsensical. Even if we changed the way we talked about grass, it wouldn't become an animal.
In concepts that, to the culture, are more ambiguous, I suppose the vocabulary does have the ability to significantly change our perception and the way we reason about things, though it doesn't actually change the nature of what it is we're talking about.
Again, I'm not saying language doesn't influence opinion, because I believe it does. All I'm saying is that reason isn't necessarily dependent on language. Things are what they are.
13. Enkurio
- 06/03/2009 12:36 pm CDT
Andrew & Shrod,
Seriously, amazing thoughts on this topic. That stuff wasn't covered in my high school English class when I had to read 1984 :-)
On the lighter side:
Didn't you guys see the movie "Firefox".
"You must think Russian", in order to shoot the missile from the plane.
There debate settled :-)
14. shrode
- 06/03/2009 2:09 pm CDT
Thanks Enkurio,
I saw Firefox at the theater with my Dad. I remember it as being a great movie. (I don't know how it would hold up now.)
Anyway, you are right. That settles the debate. :)
Andrew wrote:
Heh, I suppose you're right, although if marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman the way grass is, by definition, a plant, then putting two incompatible words together is still nonsensical. Even if we changed the way we talked about grass, it wouldn't become an animal.
What's interesting to me is that the definition of the word has become part of the debate. The pro-gay marriage folks define marriage one way, whereas, the anti-gay marriage folks would agree with your above statement.
I wonder though, if a pro-gay marriage person would say that marriage "never meant between a man and a woman" and therefore always meant "a loving commitment between two people" , then they would argue they are not changing the definition.
Of would a pro-gay marriage person say, "yes we are changing the definition of the word, and it's the right thing to do"
I know I'm getting off the subject.I think you are right by the way, about reason not being dependent on language. And I appreciate your help in thinking this through.
But I do still think that usage and meaning of terms, can influence a person's opinion. But I know you agree so we have no disagreement.
I kind of hate to end the discussion though. This was fun. :) I just don't have any more to add.
Leave a Comment:
Actually, both failed to recognize spiritual reality. That failure led both to despair. C.S. Lewis knew what they did not and outdid them both. His space trilogy realized man's problem hinged neither on pleasure nor pain, love nor hate, but on submission vs rebellion.