Comparison of Hobbes' and Rousseau's Views on Social Structure

Much of our day to day lives revolve around working to fit in with society. Our culture, interactions and government provide rules which we must follow in order to remain a member of society and reap the rewards of being part of it. Furthermore, some believe that this connection to society leads to issues with human behavior and interaction. To truly understand how humans behave, we must figure out which of our traits we are born with and which ones are the product of our societies. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” both provide theories as to the origins of human social structures as well as how they affect our human nature.

Hobbes and Rousseau both make contrasting claims regarding the basic nature of humans in the absence of any social order. Hobbes’ argues that humans are born solitary and self interested, void of any moral inclinations. By establishing that humans are all more or less equal in terms of our skills and abilities, Hobbes derives the basic sources of human conflict. One source is competition, which results from a limited resource desired by two individuals. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies,” he explains. Two individuals engaged in conflict while in their natural state will suspend their isolative tendencies and use their mental and physical abilities to gain a favorable outcome. Hobbes also explains diffidence, which comes from humans’ ability to relate to the emotions of others. We understand our own capacity for self-interested action, so it is easy for us to project this onto others. We recognize that others are unlikely to help us if it does not serve their self interest, therefore it is difficult to establish trust with others. Finally, we have a natural tendency to prove to others that we are at minimum their equal, if not greater than them. This attribute can be used to describe many actions that do not appear to be self interested. If a man knows that others are donating to charity, he too my donate to show that he has the abilities and resources to donate as well. He may even give a significantly larger donation to show that he is better at managing his self interests than others, to the extent that he can afford to give this kind of money. These conflicts, Hobbes argues, are what drive humans to form governments and social orders.

Rousseau also offers her views on the behavior of humans in their natural state, although her view is notably different than Hobbes. While Rousseau may accept that Hobbes’ ideas may represent a modern human, he believes this is humans in an “artificial” state created by society, and that the natural state is much different. He claims man in his natural state only strives basic needs and will be content once those needs are met. Modern humans are constantly struggling to make more and more money, even once their basic needs are met. Rousseau would claim that this is simply the result of our society training us to constantly want more. Additionally, Rousseau asserts that humans are naturally sympathetic to the suffering of other living beings and have moral issues with the suffering of others. This is sharply different from Hobbes’ views that humans are solely self interested. Rousseau believes have been changed by the social orders we live in to lose some of these attributes like pity for others. He claims this social structure allows us to rationalize the suffering of others, escaping us from the burden of feeling pity towards others. For example, one might see an injured man on the ground, but avoid the pity towards him by rationalizing that they did not hurt the man, or that it is the government's responsibility to provide medical services to him. Rousseau provides other problems that social structure has caused, such as the constant desire for wealth and property. He goes as far as to state that the type of human relationships we have are only the product of society training us to treat others like resources to acquire. He believes in the natural state, our interactions would be much more transient with long term relations not existing.
Given the natural state of humans as described by Hobbes and Rousseau, humanity has developed social structures and governments to serve the mutual benefit of men. The development of social structures can be imagined as two natural individuals each possessing a resource the other desires. They wish to make a deal to exchange resources, but can not trust that the other person will not lie and act in their own self interest. However, a higher social power, such as a government, could oversee the deal and enforce the execution of the promises made. This would be the ideal government to Hobbes, one dedicated to enforcing contracts between individuals. By forming this type of social system, the men would no longer have the total freedom they would in their natural state. Hobbes believes man can justify this loss of freedom as a means of gaining the protection and order of a governed society.

While learning about Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the natural state of humans and the development of societies, I couldn’t help but think of how modern biology and anthropology could shed more light on this topic. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” was written in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” was written in 1754. Over 100 years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin would publish “On the Origin of Species”, the famous piece describing the ideas of evolution and natural selection. These ideas can be used to expand, and in some cases reject, the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. The key idea of evolution is that the attributes of all animals have developed as a way to help the animal survive until the point in which they can reproduce. While Rousseau believes that humans will naturally feel pity for a fellow man who is suffering, there is little reason for a solitary man to relate to others from an evolutionary point of view. Compassion for others develops only when there is a social structure to provide mutual benefit for helping others. Modern evolutionary theories tend to support Hobbes’ ideas more than Rousseau's, as self-interested action is more likely to lead to successful reproduction than compassionate action. Hobbes and Rousseau provide thoughtful explanations for the foundations and problems with modern societies, however modern science should not be ignored when describing the basic nature of humans.

Kant's Views on Attaining Enlightenment

For centuries, governments have struggled to reach the correct balance freedom and regulation for a society to be best suited. Some believe that strong civil liberties allow people to freely express themselves and make the best decisions based on their decisions. Others believe governments should regulate “bad” behavior to keep people on the correct path. In “What is Enlightenment?”, Immanuel Kant provides his views on how to best balance these two ideas to attain “enlightenment”.

Kant defines enlightenment as the ability to use and act upon one’s own rationality. He states that the main reason people are often unable to do this is the fact that they lack the courage to make their own decisions. It is often easy to allow society to take control of the way we act and think, preventing us from making our own decisions. This “laziness” is understandable, as the human instinct is to avoid unnecessary pain. The full use of reason requires practice in order to be fully developed. Kant even goes as far as to state that conflict is necessary for reason to develop, which is also understandably avoided. However Kant describes these as individuals to reach enlightenment and for societies to truly flourish.

Established religion is used as a strong example in “What is Enlightenment?” as an example of a societal lack of critical thinking. In a church, individuals attend ceremonies in which a pastor describes how they should be thinking. Rather than deriving morals and ethics from rational thinking, they allow themselves to mirror the mindset of the other members of their church. Furthermore, Kant explains how the pastor himself must also suspend his critical thinking. As a pastor, he is “bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition.” The pastor may use his critical thinking to find errors with these lessons, however he will not pass on this information to his congregation, as it is not his job to do so. With a congregation blindly following a pastor and a pastor blindly following his religious teachings, churches exemplify Kant’s idea of laziness. By relying on others for these ideas, individuals avoid burdensome thought, however they also avoid the increased understanding that would come from thinking about these issues.

Despite Kant’s calls for greater rational thinking, he does not believe that total freedom will lead to enlightenment. In describing an enlightened society, Kant separates public freedom from private freedom. He views the current climate as one in which people are told to refrain from arguing and just obey. Kant believes it is still required for people to obey the rules of their society in order for it to work properly, but that argument should be encouraged, or in his words "argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!". Public freedom is the ability to argue and think rationally in an open and free manner. This is the only way that the public can truly strive towards enlightenment. However, there would be no issue restricting private freedom, which would be viewed as obeying the rules necessary for a smooth running society. An example of this contrast would be an individual publicly decrying a supposed unfair taxation, while continuing to pay the tax. This allows individuals to strive towards enlightenment without disrupting the workings of a society.

When comparing the work of Kant to those of other philosophers, it is notably more realistic than some. The idea of maintaining order by restricting private use of reason shows Kant is less concerned with a overhaul of existing laws, simply a change in the way we think. Additionally, “What is Enlightenment?” reinforces the idea that quick revolutions are uneffective at helping people reach enlightenment, changes are only made through slow changes in thought. However, there are instances in which restricting private reason and focusing on slow changes would lead to problematic outcomes. Throughout American history, blacks have faced discrimination not only through the ideas of individuals, but even through discriminatory laws. Kant’s view of a situation like slavery or the African American civil rights movement would likely have been that rational thinking would slowly lead to a time in which slaves are freed or blacks are given equal rights. However these slow changes would have kept blacks enslaved or repressed until the full transformation was complete. The freeing of the slaves or the civil rights laws would be seen as breaking the restrictions on private reason. Kant’s ideas lay a good ground for a society in which people freely share ideas and think critically, however there are some extreme cases in which these ideas do not hold up.

Essay on Aristotle's "The Nicomachean Ethics"

One of the defining features of humans is our self awareness and free will. These attributes often lead us to believe we are in total control of our actions and character. However, in “The Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle argues that individuals are the product of their environments, with their values and ethics shaped by the society in which they live in. Furthermore, he explains that our adherence to these principles is dependent on our upbringing. 

One of the key points of Aristotle’s thesis is that the character of a human is dependent on the society in which they live. From the day we are born, we are constantly being trained on the types of behaviors that our society views as correct.We can explain the social forces that mold an individual as a current. When an individual conforms to social norms, they move smoothly along the path set out by society. However, one who deviates from the pattern set by society will be met with resistance and struggle. Aristotle breaks the virtues that we learn into two categories: intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are explicitly instructed to us, and requires “experience and time” for us to learn them. However, moral virtues are learned through experience. We first experience these virtues by observing them in others, and acquire them by practice and repetition. It important that humans learn these virtues at a young age, as the older one gets, the more they become resistant to changes in their virtues, and Aristotle argues that virtues are not something that can not simply be consciously changed.

In addition to explaining where humans attain their virtues from, Aristotle also explains what makes different behaviors “virtuous”. First of all, an individual must have full awareness of the action they are taking and it’s expected outcome. The person must then deliberately chose to take a virtuous action, rather than have that action forced upon them or happen out of habit. Accidentally helping out someone else would not be viewed as virtuous because the person did not intend or expect to be helpful. Finally, the action taken by the individual must be taken in following their “own firm and immutable character.” Many small children act correctly under their parents’ watch, but this does not make their actions virtuous. The drive to take virtuous actions must be a part of the person’s character. However, Aristotle does make clear that the character of a person is based on their actions rather than their emotions, stating “for we are not called good or bad for our emotions but for our virtues or vices.” In following with the idea that the basic human goal is to seek pleasure and avoid pain, Aristotle notes that we can use these ideas to measure how strong one’s moral virtues are. An individual who has been trained well with moral virtues should experience pleasure for doing the right types of things and pain for doing the wrong types of things. While Aristotle expresses criteria for the types of behaviors we can identify as virtuous, he is clear to state that these virtues are not part of humans by nature, “for nothing that exists by nature can be transformed by habit,” as he says.

The result of this training of an individual is what Aristotle calls “Prudence”. Prudence is the ability of an individual to recognize the correct course of action and make it. Virtuous people must be able to analyze a given situation and rationally conclude the correct course of action to be taken. To act in accordance with what society deems is virtuous behavior, Aristotle explains that actions must fall into the mean, “which is equally distinct from both its extremes.” This means that actions should not be too excessive, nor insufficient. For example, when someone is in the threat of physical harm, a virtuous person should aid them rather than choose inaction. However, it would be foolish for that person to place themself in a situation where they too are at risk of physical injury. Prudence should tell the person to act according to the mean of the situation and safely help the person.

After reading these select portions of “The Nicomachean Ethics”, it is clear that the social forces described by Aristotle are very much a driving factor of today’s society. While humans do have some generic traits expressed by all, much of the character of a person can be seen as coming from the environment that they come from. Additionally, many people present themselves and even pride themselves on taking a firm stance on their values. For example, many people see themselves as always honest, always helpful or always brave. However, the actions of these people will then show them taking the mean course of action. Humans are social beings, and Aristotle’s writings help show us the way society sculpts and molds who we are as people.

Analysis of Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?”

As humans, we like to perceive ourselves as in control of our environment. We have free will and can make use of technology at our own discretion to help alleviate our problems and issues. However, some would argue that technology plays such a major role in our lives, that it is in control of us. Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?” argues that we must consider “nonhumans” when analyzing the social structure of society. Technologies contain the ideas and morals of their creator, and these ideas are passed on to us as we attempt to learn how to make technology a part of our lives.

The idea that technology is in control of us may seem counter-intuitive at first. Technology is built by humans to serve a purpose, in a way that asserts our control of physics, natural resources and engineering. However, technologies are only effective when used in the proper manner. Latour cites doors as an example of these ideas; doors serve the purpose of a temporary wall, however they will not function correctly if one walks straight into a door. Through conditioning, we to twist the door nob then push before passing through a doorway. Technologies “teach” us through our attempts to use them, and this develops in to parts of our personality. Nobody tries to push doors that have knobs, the doors have trained us not to. Some personality traits are more subtle than turning a door knob, such as frequently checking a cell phone for new text messages or emails. Whether good or bad, it is hard to miss the fact that much of our lives are controlled by the technology around us.

One of Latour’s main claims in his paper is that technology should be analyzed in a similar fashion to humans when developing a social theory. When a person interacts with a second person, we can describe this as “using” that person. They may be using the other person for advise and assistance, or simply entertainment and social interaction. However, people are more likely to interact with those who they know personally, this can be described as interacting with those that they know how to use. This relationship is very similar to a human interacting with technology. Just as a person would be uncomfortable talking to a stranger that they don’t know how to “use”, people approach new technological devices with caution. They slowly gain comfort and develop a relationship with that object until they can easily use that object. In fact, a recent study shows that being shown one’s cell phone causes similar brain activity to being shown a close friend or family member (Lindstrom). We are all familiar with basic social guidelines, such as people will respond better to communication if it is in a kind and friendly manner. Technologies all have similar guidelines that we learn to follow as well, such as a cell phone will respond better to attempts to communicate if it is near a window or outside. When looking at the social frameworks that hold our society together, it is important that we look at the relationships between humans and technology as well as the relationships between humans.

Latour’s view of technology revolves around the idea of displacing our actions on to technology. When an engineer builds or designs a product, they have a set of ideas about how this new product should work, what it should do, and how people should use it. This new product now contains those ideas within it, people will forever have to learn the ideas of this engineer in order to extract the benefit of using his product. The advantage is, of course, that this product also displaces the work required to preform a task. For example, someone attempting to use a power drill is looking to displace the work required to create a hole in an object. However, the engineer of this drill has given it some new requirements, such as providing electrical power to the drill, holding the pistol grip of it, and squeezing the trigger. To someone accustomed to using a hand drill, this new drill removes the problem of strenuous cranking to drill a hole. However, the operator of the drill must become comfortable with the requirements imposed by the drill’s engineer such as finding a source of electricity and holding the drill correctly. Every problem solved by technology creates new problems associated with using that technology.

With the large amount of control that technology has on our lives, we can wonder whether we can consider these devices as having human characteristics. Latour points three reasons why we can characterize some technologies as anthropomorphic. First, technologies are the product of human designers and are made up of the ideas of their creator. Second, these products replace humans at preforming a task so that humans are no longer required. Third, these technologies shape our mind and relationships with the world around us. Latour lists those characteristics while referring to a door closer, however they an be applied to any type of object or technology. Latour continues by comparing technologies to written text. While writing is not a living being, it expresses ideas, opinions and the characteristics of the author. Just as a book can convince you to act in a different way, technology expresses the ideas of it’s creator, teaching you to act in a different way. If we can accept writing as anthropomorphic, than the same principle can be applied to technology.

Unlike earlier philosophers, Latour’s goal is not to express the benefits or problems with technology or our relationship with it. “Where Are The Missing Masses?” is intended to present the reader with a new way of understanding social relationships and accounting for the different aspects that play a role in our lives. Technologies are the product of men, and Latour shows us that these technologies contains the ideas and attributes of the men who made them. Only when we accept the way technologies can affect us can we fully understand how our society functions.

Works Cited
Lindstrom, Martin. "You Love Your IPhone. Literally." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html>.

Analysis of Habermas' "Technology and Science as Ideology"

Do humans use technology, or does technology use us? Does technology allow us to reach into the future, or does it constrain us to the social order. These ideas are central to Jürgen Habermas’ piece “Technology and Science as Ideology.” In this essay, Habermas criticizes Herbert Marcuse’s ideas that technology corrupts our idea of what we need to do to succeed and makes us resistant to social change. Rather, Habermas states that technology is the natural method of outsourcing our tasks that has been universally growing for all of history. Habermas divides our interactions with technology into purpose driven and culturally driven actions. Unlike Marcuse, Habermas believes our problems are not with our relationship with technology, but rather which parts of that relationship we put more emphasis on.

Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.

Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.

Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.

“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.

Heidegger vs Marcuse

Few would disagree that technology has become an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. We use cars and to quickly transport us miles away, share vast amounts of information with each other over the internet and depend on our cell phones for communication. Despite the benefits of these technological advances, some are critical of this dependence on technology. Martin Heidegger’s "The Question Concerning Technology" and Herbert  Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man are both philosophical pieces critical of modern societies’ relationship with technology. 

Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.

Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.

Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.

Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.

Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.

I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world. 

It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.

"Brave New World" Analysis

“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery,” states Mustapha Mond, as he explains the workings of the futuristic society in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. This society is remarkably different than our own, and is intended to be a cautionary tale of how undesirable the world can become as we use technology to shape away our problems. In this world, Mustapha Mond is one of the few Controllers, the most powerful position in the government. In our current society, many people view happiness as achieving goals such as wealth and human relationships through hard work. However, Mond believes that humans are happy when they can quickly satisfy their urges without pain or suffering. By shaping the culture around this idea, many of the major problems that face humanity have been solved, however Huxley tries to point out the cost of this type of society.

While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.

In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.

One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.

To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.

The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.