RSS

Emotions in Brave New World

January 7, 2011

Featured Content, Philosophy, Popular Culture

Last week, I read the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Now, before you start thinking “why only now? It’s a classic!”… I’m from The Netherlands, and we don’t get taught English literature in high school (at least, not extensively. Harry Potter is as far as we get and we are even allowed to read the Dutch translation >_<). And so I had never read Brave New World before last week.

It was a quick read and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I found many of Huxley’s concepts surprisingly insightful and interesting. Especially if you consider the book was first published in 1932.

A (very) short summary

Brave New World is set in the UK of the far future. People are no longer born the normal way, but are bred in tubes. They are conditioned in their sleep, and emotions as we know them are banned. If people feel uncomfortable, they take “soma”, a drug that suppresses any form of emotion (without any side-effects).

I don’t want to spoil too much about the story, and essentially I would like to discuss the way people experience emotions and how they live in Brave New World.

Banning emotions

According to the leaders in Brave New World, emotions caused all negativity in the world. Unhappiness because of a broken heart, grief over a lost family member, jealousy, anxiety, guilt, etcetera. To create a “happy” world, they thought that all emotions should be banned. And so, the people of the Brave New World no longer experienced unhappiness, grief, jealousy, anxiety, guilt or any of those other pesky emotions. They were conditioned so that they wouldn’t fear death, would enjoy their duties, and if they felt unpleasant, they were conditioned to take soma.

Soma, a form of drug, would ban all emotions. Instantly rewarding, it removed all unpleasant emotions without any side-effects.

The society of the Brave New World

Yes, there was never war in the Brave New World, or civil unrest, or unhappiness. But at the same time, they could not experience love, either, and were repulsed by the idea of “parents” (as they were conditioned to be repulsed by it). They were conditioned to be socially promiscuous, and if you didn’t “have” more than one person a week, you were considered an oddity.

But some people, particularly a few of the “alpha” group (those that were bred to be smart and to do the important jobs) felt there was something missing. Despite of their years of being conditioned, they were aware that there should be more.

Philosophy of emotion

There are very many theories regarding human emotions, of which the “James-Lange theory” is the best known. This theory was developed in the 19th century, by two scholars named William James (an American psychologist and philosopher) and Carl Lange (a Danish physician and psychologist).

The James-Lange theory states that emotions are caused by the activation of the nervous system. As a response to an experience, the autonomic nervous system creates physiological events such as a heightened heart-rate, muscular tension, perspiration, etcetera. Emotions are caused by these physiological events, instead of the other way around (the emotion causes the physiological event).

Of course, this theory has been challenged many times. Criticism such as “we feel the emotion before the physiological event”, “cutting nerves from the viscera has no effect on emotions” and “whatever emotion we experience, the visceral response remains the same” has been frequently brought up.

The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion is the theory that challenged the James-Lange theory most directly. This theory states that physiological changes are caused by emotions.

It is entirely possible that Aldous Huxley was influenced by the Cannon-Bard Theory of emotion, as it was proposed in the 1920’s. The use of soma does suggest this, as people used it to subdue their emotions before they would cause any physiological symptoms.

A question I would like to discuss is this: would you prefer to live in a world like Brave New World? Would you give up experiencing emotions for world peace?

Next week, I will discuss the many psychological theories around emotions, and the neuroscience of emotions. Stay tuned ^_^.

(P.S. I’m currently working on a list of topics that I will write about in future blogs. If you have any topics you would like to learn more about or that you would enjoy reading about (that is, in the field of Psychology and Philosophy)… Please let me know!)

, , , , , , , , , ,

About Manon Eileen

Dutch 23-year-old SF/F YA writer, BSc in Psychology and soon MA in Global Criminology. She is creative, easily bored, and craves tea all the time. Also: "science isn't about why, it's about why not" - Cave Johnson.

View all posts by Manon Eileen →
  • http://cmstewartwrite.wordpress.com/ CMStewart

    Would I want to exist as an emotionless being in an emotionless world? No. Seems rather pointless.

    If it were just me giving up my emotions, and the guarantee was world peace meaning no more torture, rape, or murder of innocent sentient beings, then yes, I would gladly do it. I would consider it a death of self, but wouldn’t be able to live with myself knowing I could have, but didn’t, prevent the torture, rape, and murder of innocent sentient beings.

    Would I ever make the “no emotions” decision for others? No. I would want to, but wouldn’t impose my will on others to that degree. Ask me again after I read today’s headlines and I may have a different answer.

    Great question!

    • Manon Eileen

      Thank you for your reply again!

      It would be rather pointless – what purpose would life have if we wouldn’t even be able to experience it? But on the other hand, if Aldous Huxley’s predictions would be right, the world would become a whole lot stable by banning emotion.

  • http://unsanityfiles.com Albert Berg

    I’d think the real question would be, could banning emotions truly lead to world peace? And if you were to give up emotions what would world peace even mean?
    I think too, it’s important to know exactly what an “emotion” is. Are desires emotions? Even desires to better ourselves? If that were the case, banning emotion would halt all forms of human progress. We might have peace, but the innovations that could bring many of the still-poor countries of the world into better circumstances would be lost forever. Is that a price worth paying for peace?

    • Manon Eileen

      Yes, desire is a human emotion. And you pose a good question.

      I will explain more about what emotions (and how they come to exist in our brains) next week… I think it will shed some light on the question, too.

      Why however, would banning emotion halt human progress? I’m not sure it would – it could form a purpose in people’s lives, and they still have their focus. Instead of being distracted by personal emotions, they can work together as a collective, striving toward improvement of the world (and those poor countries).

      • http://unsanityfiles.com Albert Berg

        But ultimately, that drive to work together must be based in some emotional structure. Pride in one’s community is an emotion. A sense of purpose is, a very real sense, an emotion. It could even be argued that hunger has an emotional component. A world without any emotions would be a world in which everyone would need to schedule feeding times. And even then, you would have to ask yourself, why would they continue feeding themselves? Is not the desire to continue living an emotion?
        Emotionless beings have no drive whatsoever. This is why we don’t need to fear computers taking over the world any time soon. Even if they grew smarter than us without some inner drive to accomplish something of their own they would be perfectly content to continue doing our bidding. Without us to tell them what to do they would sit idle. Because pure reason with emotion to drive it is meaningless.

  • http://www.billhubiak.com Bill Hubiak

    Nietzsche posed that the superior human (the ubermensch) would fully experience but not be controlled by their emotions. Passion monitored by intelligence. Reportedly,the Superman comic book character was inspired by this concept. Without passion how could there be art? With greater intelligence, maybe there would be no need for violence. We read Brave New World in a high school literature class and I remember participating in a debate class regarding the nature versus nurture debate as it related to the characters in this work. Were you aware that Huxley was also an advocate for LSD use to expand one’s mind? I think his book on this subject might have been entitled The Doors of Perception? It was a required reading in my freshman Literature class in college in ’65.

    • Manon Eileen

      Thank you for reading and commenting!

      Nature vs nurture is a really fascinating debate and I will very likely write a future blog (probably more than one) on it.

      I had no idea Huxley advocated LSD! That’s really interesting.

  • http://indiegamedesign.blogspot.com Patrick Thunstrom

    Albert’s first question is one that really sparks my interest.

    I don’t think lack of emotion would cancel the need for war unless the entire population of the planet were under singular rule. Whenever you have people, emotional or not, they need to make decisions, and those decisions will follow a scale of value. Without emotions, those values are very ‘hard’ values. Products become functional only, with little care for form, except as the form promotes the function. As resources become strained in an area, that area will need to move out, giving reason for war, a very realistic, plausible, and worst, logical reason for war. Even a controlled population would eventually run out of certain finite resources.

    • Manon Eileen

      Hey Patrick, thanks for reading and commenting!

      You’re very right about the finite resources. It indeed would be a very rational step to warfare. So my conclusion is that the world would have to be one united entity before they could ban emotions! lol.

  • http://petersaintclair.wordpress.com Peter Saint-Clair

    I would actually love (…I know…) a world without emotion. As I’m watching Star Trek at this very moment, being a Vulcan comes to mind (without the pointy ears). Logic would drive everything, leaving no room for things like love, hate, etc. Human progress would not suffer as progressing civilization would be the logical thing to do. Although a world without emotion would certainly hamper my desire to be an author of fiction, I think it would be more preferable.

    As always nice post Manon!

    • Manon Eileen

      Hey Peter, thanks for reading and commenting again! ^_^

      Personally I wouldn’t want to miss love (and hate for that matter) – but I suppose that if you were born without emotion, I don’t think you could even miss it.

  • http://piperbayard.wordpress.com Piper Bayard

    I believe if we abandon our emotions, we abandon our humanity. I like being human. I am a Savage, for sure, and would rather die than live in a drugged, inhuman condition.

    You do an excellent job of explaining intellectual issues, and your blog is one of my favorites. I hope I don’t sound like too much of an old fart when I say I laughed at, “I found many of Huxley’s concepts surprisingly insightful and interesting. Especially if you consider the book was first published in 1932.” That was my grandmother’s generation. I knew her and her friends well. I assure you people were no less intelligent, insightful, or interesting in 1932 than they are now.

    I would ask you your own questions. Would you like to live in a Brave New World? Would you give up your emotions for world peace?

    Again, I always enjoy your blog. You have a wonderful writer voice, and you make me think. I enjoy thinking. All the best.

    • Manon Eileen

      Aww thank you Piper, that’s so sweet :D

      I wasn’t really trying to suggest that people were less intelligent or insightful, but I meant it more in a way that, well, they didn’t even have TV, phones, or computers or internet! How would he come up with ideas like that? (Although Bill Hubiak just told me Huxley was into LSD, so who knows, lol).

      I don’t think I would want to live in a Brave New World. I like our emotions, and apparently we’re supposed to have them, because we’re born with them (unless we don’t know we’re being genetically tampered with, lol). Although, perhaps we’re born without emotions and learn them (nature vs nurture). But… I do think we’re born with them, and I wouldn’t want to be rid of them. I like loving my boyfriend, I enjoy listening good music, I like crying or laughing over a story or a movie. I think the world would be really boring without emotions. But I suppose that would be the idea of the Brave New World. No emotions, no unrest.

      I guess I’m too selfish to give up my emotions for world peace! (and too pessimistic too, because I personally don’t think it would solve anything, much as Patrick Thunstrom commented).

      Thanks so much for reading again, and for all the compliments, Piper *blushes*

  • http://ajzaethe.com A.J. Zaethe

    What a terrible way to exist. To be without emotion. Might as well be a machine. This also reminds me of the Giver and 1984 and even V for Vendetta, all of which restrict and control the people. A world with no expression could have no true art. It would all be lifeless, plastered happyness. How repulsive.

    But great post, gets me thinking on a few ideas.

    • Manon Eileen

      1984 and V for Vendetta are both great examples. Especially 1984 I think (I haven’t read The Giver, though!).

      It’d be very controlled indeed, and it would likely not end well. And yes, it’s a really interesting concept to work with! :D

      Thanks for reading and commenting again, A.J.!

  • http://frankiesachs.blogspot.com Frankie Sachs

    I think what’s being overlooked is that it’s not emotions like jealousy or sadness that cause the problems. (On a large scale, anyway.)

    It’s greed, hunger for power and control, too, but mostly greed, I think. At the source of any conflict, if you look deep enough, lies money and resources. The people at the heart of it are cold and calculating. It’s the propaganda that fires emotions. But planning the conflict comes before the propaganda.

    I agree with the first commenter. If giving up my own emotions would magically bring about peace for the rest of the world, and it was just me, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

    As an opt-in scheme for social control, I don’t think it would work. The people who are most likely to do negative things because of their emotions, the rapists and murderers, are already too selfish to willingly make the sacrifice, I think.

    • Manon Eileen

      I think even the most random person (businessman to housewife) would be too selfish to give up their emotions.

      That’s why I think that if they were ever to do such a thing, they should probably do it with every new child born, because they wouldn’t even know what emotions were. That way, emotion would become extinct with the last person that has emotions that dies.

      Thank you for reading and for your comment, Frankie!

  • http://benmind.wordpress.com Ben Miller

    Wonderful question. As I ponder the different ways to address it, I’m left foremost with the question: what would I replace it with? It’s such a large part of my construction. Pure logic/reason? That sounds great, but logic is a vehicle, not an end in itself. At the same time, if I knew with certainty that giving up emotion would end all the wars and other forms of violence, it might be worth it. But, would I still be me without them?

    • Manon Eileen

      Hi Ben, thanks for reading and for your comment!

      You ask a great question as well. I think it would depend on the question whether or not the personality is built out of emotions, or the other way around.

      I don’t think we’d still be the same person without our emotions, though.

  • Pingback: Affective Neuroscience