Mustapha Mond, World Controller in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, describes his world as “Stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get. They’re well off; they’re safe; they’re never ill; they’re not afraid of death” (193-194). In this new world, people have their immediate desires met and are generally happy and conditioned not to want anything that cannot be purchased. It is possible to consider this a utopian society, an ideal community whose citizens are delighted and in harmony- even though its happiness is achieved through unconventional means such as recreational coitus or legal drug use. However, the story reveals that people are engineered and conditioned according to the requirements of a few leaders. Should freedom of thought and action be considered a criterion for a utopia? And is happiness enough if it is a robotic effect produced on an assembly line to sustain demand for consumer products? While the general happiness and satisfaction displayed by the majority of the people within the novel may suggest that the World State represents a utopian society, the manipulation and even fabrication of human thoughts and emotions by a few world controllers who cannot seem to tolerate difference and individuality indicates a totalitarian attitude that reads more like a dystopian trait.
Everyone’s desires are met in the novel’s new world; people seem permanently satisfied with their status in life. This is because embryos are treated with Bokanovsky and Podsnap Processes, and children are conditioned to be content with the occupations for which they are groomed. For example, Lenina is perfectly content that she is “pneumatic” and desirable. Throughout the novel, she does not express any concerns or desires beyond material comfort and sexual gratification. This shallow outlook is clarified in contrast to John’s romantic sensibility:
‘I’ll do anything,’ he went on more incoherently. ‘Anything you tell me. There are some sports that are painful-you know. But their labor delight in them sets off. That’s what I feel. I mean, I’d sweep the floor if you wanted.’
‘But we’ve got vacuum cleaners here,’ said Lenina in bewilderment. ‘It isn’t necessary.’ (167)
Lenina seems confused by John’s tortured feelings for her; all she wants from him is “hug me till you drug me” (167). She is an excellent example of society's superficial values of "orgy-porgy, Ford, and fun.” Indeed, as this chant suggests, there does seem to be a universal mass-produced and uniform kind of happiness and satisfaction that the society affords its citizens. Thus, it can be argued that the World State qualifies as a utopia. However, whereas a utopian society is expected to satisfy the desires of its citizens by improving itself to meet the requirements of evolving humans, the World State does so by degrading humans and eliminating their deeper philosophical desires so they are satisfied by worldly means. Society encourages drug consumption to dull the senses and promotes orgies to foster instant gratification, which leads to more consumption. This can’t be what Plato had in mind when he wrote the first ever recorded utopian proposal.
Another quality that is commonly considered utopian is social harmony. At first glance, the World State seems to be harmonious and peaceful. There are no instances of war and conflict before John is introduced to the story. Of course, this is partly because people are cleansed of any desires they need to fight for, as shown above. However, misfits like John, Bernard, and Watson also demonstrate that society achieves its uniformity through totalitarian means, such as by expelling differences. Not only are thoughts erased by soma, but literature that does not promote instant gratification, such as Shakespeare, is banned, and odd people who “aren’t satisfied with orthodoxy, who’ve got independent ideas of their own[and] Everyone, in a word, who’s anyone” (pg.200) are exiled or somehow silenced. John, for example, is forced to seclude himself on an isolated island when he is not convinced by Mond’s defense of the current world order. Mond calls this “the price you have to pay for stability” (194) Thus it is not a society sustained through equality and understanding; those who refuse to be molded according to the designs of the elite few are banished. While it leads to uniformity and artificial harmony, totalitarianism can’t be an acceptable means of achieving a utopia.
The decision regarding whether the World State is a utopia comes down to definition. The citizens of the Brave New World do enjoy the satisfaction, stability, and peace that one might expect from an ideal world, but this is at the expense of the depth, individuality, and free will that make us human. Can a society, however peaceful and “happy”, be considered utopian if its citizens are reduced to grinning automatons programmed to pop soma pills and buy things? Ignorance may be bliss, but whether it is a utopian quality is highly debatable.