Throughout this story, the reader is constantly reminded that in the world we live in, happiness in only a pursuit. Unless there is a major change to society (like Huxley's), this will always be so. When looking at the names of the characters, we almost always see similarities in names of people who either tried to have, or did have, an impact on society. Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, Fanny Crowne, Benito Hoover, Lenina Crowne, Pope, Henry Foster, and of course Our Ford all elude to a historically renowned individual. Although I would love to talk about each one mentioned above, length limits me to a select three. But if you are feeling curious, just pay a quick visit to Google and you will find something interesting on almost every name! So, the three I have chosen are Helmholtz Watson (who can resist a well-educated man like himself?), Bernard Marx (he can't help it that he's a little. . .well. . .little), and Our Ford (Built Ford Tough). Here goes!
Helmholtz Watson (Hermann von Helmholtz/John B. Watson)
In the story, Helmholtz is a very noble character, at least on the exterior. He has good intentions and is a likable guy. He's educated. He's handsome. And, by goodness, he's an Alpha-Plus! In a forcible emphatic way, he was handsome and looked, as his secretary was never tired of repeating, every centimetre an Alpha-Plus (page 66-67). He, however, is a little to "able" as Huxley continues. He's not interested in the things he should be. This sets him apart. As far as profession goes, Helmholtz is a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering and is an Emotional Engineer (page 67). Hermann von Helmholtz was a German physician and physicist. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he participated in two of the most significant developments in physics and philosophy of science in the 19th century: the proof that Euclidean geometry does not describe the only possible visualizable and physical space, and the shift from physics based on actions between particles at a distance to the field theory. Okay, so pretty deep right? That's why his name fits Huxley's Helmholtz so well. He was such a clever man that he was a scientific threat to Mustapha Mond's utopia. Then we have Mr. John B Watson. Get excited: this fits even better! Watson was an American psychologist. Emily Watson says ". . .he wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects on advertising on the "animal" or what we know as consumers." Behaviorism! Consumers! Ironic? Yes. Coincidence? No.
Bernard Marx (Karl Marx)
Oh, Bernard! So insecure and small. Although he is an Alpha, he has very little pride. When Fanny refers to Bernard as small to Lenina, she replies with, "I think that's rather sweet. One feels one would like to pet him. You know. Like a cat." (page 46) Not the thing males in our society would want the girl pursing him to think. There is also much reference to there being alcohol put in Bernard's blood surrogate. Not only is he physically challenged, he also dreads things most people in the utopia enjoy: soma, casual sex, rejection of natural beauty. He is set apart, just like Helmholtz. Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Marx's later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy." He is also known for his writings on class struggle, a factor in "Brave New World" that has been kept under constant regulation.Our Ford (Henry Ford)
Our Ford is the god of the utopia. He is the religion of the society and is very esteemed. But why Ford? Well, obviously it rhymes with Lord. But that can't be all. Ah, Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford was its founder back in 1908. He was also an engineer, but not just any old engineer. Oh, no! According to About.com, he revolutionized manufacturing. Using a constantly-moving assembly-line, subdivision of labor, and careful coordination of operations, Ford realized huge gains in productivity. Read carefully, for these are all of the things that Huxley builds his story upon (at least in the hatchery). Clever, if you ask me. "All hail Henry Ford, the creator of the assembly-line and the father of all this is functional!" (Just kidding.) Oh, and almost forgot! The Model T, one of the first automobiles ever on the road. Wait, wait. . .THE CHARING-T TOWER! In the midst of them, thin-stalked, a taller, slenderer fungus, the Charing-T tower lifted toward the sky a disk of shining concrete (page 61). Aldous Huxley sure has a knack for making things fit.So there you have it, just three of the multiple names that have much more meaning than what it seems on the exterior. But why? Why does Huxley use this literary device to stupefy his readers? To represent changes made to society in the past, maybe?
-Jordan Inge
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermann-helmholtz/
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycwed/history/watson.htm
http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/a/HenryFord.htm
Fantastically thought provoking post, Jordan! You brought up my favorite Huxley-fied icons. I wondered, though, is the name "Bernard" important as well?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I wondered about your final questions. On one hand, the reuse of 10,000 names among two thousand million makes sense because of the whole anti-individual thing. As a simple explanation, I thought maybe taking away just one more individualizing thing, like a name, would have been the whole purpose of that business.
I wasn't sure which "society" you were referring to. Ours? Mustapha's? The society of 1932?
I'm not sure if I can go with Mustapha's, because it seems to me that the majority of "society" isn't even educated about the past. The names are just names. At least, Lenina's description of the "Crowe" name suggests that it's a commonality and of little significance. Maybe the Alphas, or the Alpha pluses know the meanings or reasons for names, but like Mustapha said, Alpha only societies don't function well.
If the society IS educated on the origin of names, maybe it's part of the conditioning. Do you think that even their names might be defining the type of people they're supposed to be in the social order?
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with her first proclamation. This is a great post. I can also pose the samequestion with the importance of the name Bernard. Serena, I can not really think of a refernce to anyone named Bernard besides St. Bernard, who was arguably the creator of the Cistercian belief which emphasized manual labor and self-sufficiency. This is a bit ironic in the fact that Bernard wants to be more independent. The source you used for "Our Ford" (About.com) is not so much a credible source. It is more of a lower-level wikipedia; it can be changed on a daily basis. I was wondering if "Mustapha" was an important name to the book or not. Do y'all?
-David E.
Serena, I was actually referring to our society. Actual reality I guess you could say. I like your idea that maybe if the society (in Huxley's story) is educated on the origin of names it is part of the conditioning process. Maybe this gives them a destiny as to the kind of person they are supposed to be?
DeleteDavid, I looked up Mustapha also and didn't find an actual person that the name was in reference to. That doesn't mean there isn't someone out there that I just missed. Also, I did quote About.com (possibly the not most reliable). But the fact that Henry Ford invented the assembly line is for the most part common knowledge because you can find it in more than 3 sources.
Good post! Nice identification of who huxley is refering to through their life achievements. But what do you think is their refering significance? For example as you stated Karl Marx was a "revolutionary socialist" but when you think socialism and communisum what are the words that come to mind? Do you think they are relavent to Bernards character? Because the basic ideas of socialism is that everyone is equal but do you think bernard sees himself as equal?
ReplyDelete-Aryn Banovic
Aryn,
DeleteIt seems as if you have a plethora of unanswered questions that need to be looked at. I believe that "their referring significance" is shown, going back to what Jordan originally posted, by how "[Huxley] never forgoes a chance to make an impression on the reader". It makes it easier for the reader to coincide with a character and their belief. When I think about socialism and communism, I can't help but to think of the Soviet Union under Lenin. I think that communism is relevant to Bernard but not socialism. He clearly "dreads things most people in the utopia enjoy", which would not make him conform. I think he believes himself to be someone that's equal but can't be because of the "communism".
-David E.
Aryn,
DeleteAfter thinking about it a little, I'd probably half agree with David. After thinking about it a little, I decided I kind of want to think about Bernard as a dysfunctional member of the socialist/communist machine created by Huxley.
I think back to Animal Farm, by Orwell. The book portrays animals on a farm, who create a "nation" very similar to that of the USSR. They all start off with good little communist ideas - share and share alike, etc. - but in the end the leaders are corrupted, one of them killed, and everyone else is abused by the ones in power. Orwell wrote the book as an analogy for transition Russia had between being Russia and becoming the USSR.
This might sound a little squirrel-y, so I hope it's still understandable, but the connection I drew between the socialist and communist movements in Russia and Bernard's last name is this: Everyone wants to be an equal part, but some are "more equal than others," as Orwell put it.
Bernard really does want to fit in, I think. His spite and his anger is because others don't treat him as an equal, and in the end, he would much rather go back to being less equal than his peers if he could continue to be a part of the social order.
But because Bernard's been lowered in society (less equal to begin with, despite his engineering) he endeavors to become more equal than everyone else in the end.
Hope that made sense. That's basically what I came up with after pondering all of y'alls wonderful ideas.
I honestly don't think that Barnard sees himself as equal. But he wants to. And that what he strives for. Equality within his own level of humanity. Although Karl Marx was a socialist, and it seems as though Barnard Marx was struggling with the fact that he felt as though he wasn't, I still think that the two characters have a lot in common because they had the common goal of fighting for the own cause and beliefs.
DeleteIt is clear that Barnard wants to be "above" the lower classes of Huxley's society without the shadow of a doubt. But small things stand in his way. As soon as Barnard has the opportunity to prove his status, he pounces on it. He constantly fought for his own level of superiority, whereas Marx constantly fought for equality.
Great job Jordan! You truly bring the characters to life!
ReplyDeleteAryn I want to follow up on your question, because that is truly interesting to me. Bernard brought forth a lot of thoughts of "Marx" and I knew that I heard that somewhere in History!
I found this quote by Karl Marx---"Art is always and everywhere the secret confession, and at the same time the immortal movement of its time."
I want to ask the question, do they have more in common than longing for individuality? I believe that Bernard and Karl contain similar attributes, but what are they longing forl? Individuality seems to be somewhat on the back burner.I see both trying to attain the title of influential members of society, but are their motives different? Bernard seems to be proposing thoughts in order to prove that he is much more than a "misfit", while Karl was born in privilege and interested in building philosophical reasons? I think Bernard never feels equal, he is constantly claimed to not meet the alpha standards and belittled for his differences.
The explanation of Marxist Theory is said to be an idea that "holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals."
Do you think that Huxley was trying to illustrate consumerism and individuality by the use of a common last name?
VW,
DeleteI love the quote you found and put in your post. I like how he compares art as a "secret confession" and an "immortal movement". It's a confession because it's the untold truth that nobody is fond with, and Huxley and Marx stuck out their beliefs in a world that would not have seen anything like their beliefs before. I like the questions you pose. However, I'll answer the one that stuck out to me the most. Their, comparing Karl Marx and Bernard, motives are different. K. Marx wanted to control a society, whereas B. Marx wanted to live in his own. K. Marx was wanting to always point out the "ugly truth", whereas B. Marx was not wanting to hear the truth. One can certainly write a paper about this stuff. Who can you think of as a notable figure that Bernard is similar to?
-David E.
I've been so intrigued by the "is Bernard like Marx" conversation that I've done a little interest and I've come across something interesting. According to the Wikipedia article (which is cited so many times my computer's voice box spoke more footnote numbers than words sometimes), Marx's principle of human nature was this:
ReplyDelete"Humans recognize that they possess both actual and potential selves. ...Self-development begins with an experience of internal alienation stemming from this recognition, followed by a realisation that the actual self, as a subjective agent, renders its potential counterpart an object to be apprehended." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx
According to the article, Marx fleshed out his ideas through intense study and internal reflection after being exiled numerous times and eventually falling into poverty. I would guess that he probably felt the experience of seeing an "actual" and "potential" version of himself more acutely than most.
I'd also say that his experience is very much like Bernard's. Bernard realized that he his "actual" self at the beginning of the book left a lot to be desired. Women didn't want him, his colleagues made fun of him, and he was too short and scrawny to be thought of as Alpha-ish. He saw himself as someone who SHOULD be an Alpha, though. And by Ford, Bernard definitely managed getting the Alpha treatment there for a while.
Karl Marx philosophied that once someone realized the discrepancy, their ideal self became an object of pursuit. At the very moment Bernard figures out who John is, he immediately devises away to successfully pursue his potential position in society.
David's right in that Bernard definitely doesn't reach the type of level Karl did, but I wouldn't say their motivations are all that different. I imagine that at one time, Karl experienced what he himself says is human nature. Especially since he lived through poverty, exile, and utter debasement by the ruling social order. How different can any of us be, really?
Here's a question I just thought of and will probably chew on much later on through the night: How different are the characters in Huxley's novel? Are they all motivated similarly? Differently? What makes them good or bad? Is anyone better than anyone else? Who's right? Us? Mustapha? Marx?
I really like how much you participated in this discussion, Serena! It sounds like you really put some serious thought into the ins and outs of social order in Huxley's Brave New World society. When you ask about motivation, in the end, I think that these people are "programmed" into thinking a certain way. So they are trained to have certain motivations that won't cause conflict of interests. Naturally, I think that they have different motivations because they have no real choice.
ReplyDeleteAnd to answer your question about superiority, I honestly think that all humanity is equal. Even if we have higher power trying to create different societal ranks. We all have the same rights; just because we have someone making people who they are before they are born does not mean that those people deserve less or are less. Barnard definitely has his issues, but in the end, is it truly his fault that he questions his expected outlook on life? Mustapha cannot expect that every aspect of his grand scheme will go perfectly. Barnard is just one of the unexpected hiccups.
I agree jordan what is "good and bad" as serena put? This is something that our parents had hoped we learned while growing up, or at least what they "tought" us. And thats just it. What we see is right and wrong is what we were conditioned to see as right and wrong. But my real question is do you think that everything we are conditioned to do is all the conditioning of our environment or also our inner humanity and nature just like every other mammal? For example if you were to feed a carnivore nothing but vegatebles do you think it would survive or would it's biological nature cause it to eat you or would it know that we concider that wrong?
DeleteGreat thoughts, guys! Aryn I want to answer your question about inner humanity and conditioning. As we know, they are two very different things. Inner humanity such as instinct and what not is definitely not taught. We know that a mother's instinct is to protect her child, but is she taught that? Not necessarily it comes natural, it's biological. My question is, with the way the aplhas, epsilons, etc. are produced do they still contain that biological substance, or are they so manipulated that they do not even have that?
DeleteIf you feed a carnivore vegetables, you are in a sense educating it, manipulating it. If a carnivore was biology made up to eat meat, it is biological, so it may eat it. Considering it wrong, is definitely a moral situation, which means it would of have to been taught. It's all conceptual. Some things we learn, some things we cannot change. In our prior readings, it has been proven that morality can easily change within dictatorship. That is caused from learning. Learning is definitely good, but like anything it can also be very bad.
I found this statement by PhD, Phil Bartle, because I think he does a better job of explaining the difference between socializing and education. This seems somewhat off topic, but I will show you the connection...
"Socialization is what happens every day of our lives, is not planned, involves our learning our identities, the nature of reality, and how to get along with others."
Biological? Instinct? What is out of our control?
"Education, in contrast, is planned, usually involves a formal organization with the responsibility of providing and monitoring the learning, and concentrates on finite skills and knowledge."
Sleep teaching? What is manipulated in BNW?
Do you think the characters in BNW have even experienced socialization? If you look at the definition provided, I would say no. I want to know your thoughts. The characters of BNW are learning, but are they learning on their own? No. It is controlled. So maybe they haven't even experienced socialization at all.