Two Dystopian Visions: Orwell Vs. Huxley | Neil Postman
In my last post, I introduced you to the great academic and cultural critic Neil Postman, who coined the termed “media ecology,” and founded the media ecology program at NYU.
The first Neil Postman quote we’re going to look at is from his best-known work, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business:
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.”
– Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 1985
George Orwell published his dystopian novel in 1949, and it captured the minds and hearts of much of the post-war West. While the great threat from the right had been defeated in WWII, there was a real fear of the great threat from the left: authoritarian communist rule was a very real thing after WWII, and it appeared to be spreading around the world.
George Orwell gave the West a year to be concerned about: 1984. So there was a certain relief in 1984 when it came and went without Orwell’s prophecy coming true, Americans felt relieved and a certain pride in their democracy.
Postman, however, argues that this optimism was somewhat misguided: while Orwell’s authoritarian vision had not taken root (yet(!)) in the West, Aldous Huxley’s often overlooked dystopian vision in Brave New World was increasingly becoming a reality.
As Postman points out, Orwell and Huxley had different warnings: while Orwell warned of external oppression by an authoritarian regime, Huxley warned of people willingly giving up their freedom due to their love for oppressive technologies and pleasures. Huxley’s vision is harder to discern, and therefore more dangerous: it doesn’t require an authoritarian Big Brother; people give up their autonomy and their privacy on their own, seduced by the comforts of technology. Huxley’s chief warning is that threats to freedom can come from within, through our own choices and desires
Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, and things have only gotten worse since then. The internet, and particularly social media, have degraded the value and integrity of information, as well as responsible and civilized discourse on important matters. Television was a hugely disruptive technology, but social media has proven to be an even more powerful and disruptive technology.
So…what can we do about it? I would like You Are Not a Machine to not only be a place where we can discern and discuss the important changes that our culture has experienced in the last century, but also a place where we can imagine a more positive vision for the future. Regardless of how bad things become, we do have agency – there arethings we can do to make things better. As with all real positive change, however, it begins within each of us. If we want to help make the world a better place, we need to begin by making positive changes within our own lives. In this case…a good place to start is to begin to be more aware that social media can be seductive. We can, for example, be seduced into saying things online that we wouldn’t be bold enough to say in person.
If we are going to continue to be online, in order for us to be healthy, whole, and integrated people we need to make sure that our online persona matches our offline persona. We also need to remember that civilized cultures put up boundaries for a reason. It used to be common wisdom that politics and religion shouldn’t be discussed in polite society, because to do so was likely to cause division. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the case, but it definitely is the case that healthy societies are societies that have healthy social boundaries.
One aspect of the mass social experiment in which we find ourselves is that we live in a culture that is tearing down all boundaries and is trying to get rid of all taboos. Again, the problem is that these boundaries and taboos were put into place centuries ago in order to preserve social cohesion. We shouldn’t be surprised to see our societies unravelling as we actively tear down the conventions and institutions on which our social cohesion depends.
Again, I am not saying that all change is bad. There are certainly historical wrongs that need to be addressed. I’m simply saying that we need to be wiser…there are many babies being thrown out with the proverbial bath water, and it’s not a good thing.
OK…I’ll get off my soapbox now! I hope you enjoyed this first foray into the work of Neil Postman…as always, stay tuned for more by joining the newsletter and downloading The How Did We Get Here? Reading List!