A Paper I Wrote
Someone asked if they could read this paper, so I figured I'd just post it here. I wrote it for my ethics class as a comparison and contrast of two societal models, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. You can let me know what you think if you feel like reading it.
The paper is in the comments.
The paper is in the comments.
posted by brien at
4/01/2005 05:12:00 PM
4 Comments:
The Imperatives of Hedonism and the Many Faces of Suffering
Henry Ford once prophesied that the “cure for materialism” would be found when there is “enough for everybody and to spare.” Such ideology seems inherent to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which consumerism is presented not as an ideal, but as the only realistic means to achieving a stable society. However, even in today’s “great year of Our Ford,” when scarcity itself is hard to come by, Western society is still quite far from a state in which material goods propitiate, rather than perpetuate, human desires. While a society of Huxley’s pessimistic idealism may not only fail to meet the basic needs of its constituents, eventually it will become the architect of its own demise; it is only through voluntary simplicity, as answered by John de Graaf in Affluenza, that a society can reach an equilibrium and bring fulfillment to those of which it is composed.
First and foremost in assessing the plausibility of de Graaf and Huxley’s societal models, the rationale behind each author’s philosophical ideals must be considered. Subsequent to the publication of Brave New World, Huxley stated, “At the time the book was written this idea, that human beings are given the free will to choose between insanity on one hand and lunacy on the other, was one that I … regarded as quite possibly true,” (Huxley viii). In this context he also mentioned that perhaps, in reality, we are given a third choice: the “pursuit of sanity,” (Huxley x). Therefore, in the light of philosophical completeness, the logic of Huxley’s Brave New World is fatally flawed. With a more optimistic point of view, de Graaf contends that sanity is certainly possible. Furthermore, this pursuit of sanity, as de Graaf soundly argues, should entail a search for deeper meaning, as one can only hope to attain true happiness through an awareness that “the best things in life aren’t things,” (de Graaf 8).
Before proceeding further, it must be noted that the extent to which happiness exists within a society largely depends on the method by which it is measured. If propensity to change is applied as the standard of measurement, then the Brave New World, with its constituents utterly incapable of altering their condition, would be on the brink of perfection, regardless of the individual sentiment. Alternatively, members of a poverty stricken family may accept their place in society not because they lack the desire to better their condition, but because they feel helpless and have adopted an external locus of control. If an individual enters into a new profession it is not necessarily because he found his old job particularly unsatisfying, but possibly because the individual is free to explore his many interests. The notion that discontentment may drive an individual to modify his behavior cannot be carried over into religion, politics, or any other arena that may bring one fulfillment, because as one learns more about the world his perceptions may evolve. A desire for change, then, cannot be equated to unhappiness, and conversely, stability cannot be equated to contentment.
Additionally, any attempt to quantify happiness will often prove to be a fruitless endeavor. Surveys, no matter how widely they are distributed, may fail to create an accurate projection of a society’s state of well-being. Questionnaires that track levels of happiness are not only ill-conceived and ambiguous, but perception varies from one individual to another, and further, the perceptions of an individual can be altered by externalities; a citizen of Huxley’s Brave New World would likely reply, “Of course, ‘everybody’s happy nowadays,’” (after 54,000 repetitions a year, from age five to thirteen). Analyzing factors that are hypothetically correlated to well being, such as materialism, may also fail to suitably portray the state of society. For instance, while the United States brings in a high gross domestic product it also reports among the highest incidents of depression among its population. Numerically speaking, since 1977, the GDP has risen by seventy-nine percent, but “the social health index [has] declined forty-five percent,” (de Graaf 66). Similarly, Sweden simultaneously claims the largest amount of altruism and one of the highest suicide rates among developed nations. Thus for the purpose of this argument, happiness must be considered as an unquantifiable, yet relatively attainable commodity.
From this perspective, it becomes evident that there is a fundamental difference between the happiness that de Graaf alludes to and the happiness depicted in Brave New World. For the individuals that compose the World State, satisfaction is simply a matter of flooding the senses with stimuli; the true desires are never fulfilled, only averted. In the name of stability, love is replaced with a surrogate, and should the marvels of modern society ever fail to make one content, there is always soma to cloud over reality’s afflictions. However, instant gratification serving as a temporary means of fulfillment proves to be problematic as intermittent periods of suffering must be endured throughout inevitable slight delays. Additionally, should one ever long for something that he could not attain, he would be incapable of ever recovering his happiness, as demonstrated by Lenina Crowne and her desires for John the Savage. In light of these arguments, the constituents of Brave New World could never attain true happiness, but could only hope to catch a glimpse of the perverted shadow it casts through temporary superficial fulfillment.
In contrast, De Graaf proposes that true happiness can be reached, and that the road to be taken does not involve succumbing to whimsical fleshy desires, but purposefully pursuing those true needs that are deemed most important by the individual. With these ethics, one can focus his attention on what he values, with the goal of maximizing what he views to be the positive aspects of life while simultaneously minimizing the negative aspects. As viewed by de Graaf, voluntary simplicity is the means to a deeper meaning in life, both through work and the strategic utilization of free time. This approach is ultimately the method toward achieving self-actualization.
Among the most obvious benefits to pursuing only the desires that an individual determines to be of significant importance is that this would generate a remarkable amount of spare time through a decrease in consumption. Copious amounts of time must be expelled in order to accumulate material goods, and once these goods are acquired even more time will be consumed in using them. Often, the hours spent using these goods will benefit the user very little, or in no way at all (watching television, for example). A computer may help save time in performing certain tasks; however users are given other opportunities that weren’t available before, thus negating any time saved by doing a few things faster. Since many modern gadgets are extremely complicated, considerable time may be spent merely learning how to operate them. As de Graaf mentions, individuals must also spend significant amounts of time shopping for and maintaining these goods. Even after all this time and money that must be invested in them, material goods may get little or no use since they sit in empty households all day long while their owners are working to pay for them.
This new-found abundance of time may be applied in many ways to improve the over all quality of life. First, this time may be used for self-development, either through the pursuit of knowledge or development of abilities that are of deeper interest and long-term-value to the individual. Self-development of one individual, however, can have a multiplier effect for an entire society. By becoming more productive, learning new information, or by introducing a new trade, many may benefit from the fruit of an individual’s labor. Also, time can be wisely spent fostering relationships with family and friends. While financial security may benefit children in some ways, no one ever says, “I wish I didn’t spend so much time with my kid while he was growing up, I could have gotten a big promotion.” As well as spending time with people, one would also have more time to spend enjoying nature. De Graaf argues that while modern society has neglected to spend time outdoors, there exists a strong bond between nature and our level of contentment. Lastly, more available time allows us to focus on higher callings, such as religion, spiritual or philosophical enlightenment, and community service. Over all, the idea of a simpler life is accompanied by less stress, and more energy to concentrate on the things that matter.
While de Graaf’s plausible argument for achieving a better society possesses many desirable attributes for the long term, Huxley’s pessimistic vision of the only sustainable society contains several instances of oversights, absurdities, and erroneous or unwarranted assumptions. Among these flaws is the assumption that maximizing consumption creates a stable society. While the constant emphasis on increasing consumption within society creates a vibrant economy, Huxley’s model does not consider the immediate ramifications that over-consumption can have on the environment. The Indians of the Great Plains, for instance, lived for thousands of years off of the buffalo through conscious consumption, but the great beast nearly went extinct after less than a decade of exposure to the migrating white man. As illustrated by this reality, resources are extremely limited, and due to the principles of scarcity, a society that does not recognize the importance of conservation will inevitably face impediments to achieving stability.
Moreover, as environmental quality is a variable of a society’s standard of living, it can reflect on quality of life. The presence of wild life and natural environment has a profound impact on comfort and recreational enjoyment. Even more importantly, air quality and water quality have a wide variety of effects on human health. As de Graaf notes, faster patient recovery has been linked to views of pastoral beauty, and likewise many illnesses have been related to pollution. Hence, over-consumption, whether it is deliberate and reasoned or not, will eventually lead to adverse effects on the environment, and in turn its inhabitants.
Consumerism, rather than being utilized as an instrument of stability, can in fact allow a society to gorge itself into ruin. The fall of Rome is a perfect example of how the hidden cancers that develop during prosperity can drive a society into the ground. As the Romans basked in the riches of their success and seeming invincibility they became their own worst enemy through the mounting expenses, both public and private, that drove them into debt. As illustrated by the Romans, human desires tend to increase exponentially as material goods are amassed, and this factor was not taken into account by Huxley’s societal model based on instant gratification. The fulfillment of desires only fuels further desire, ad infinitum; no system would be capable of distributing commodities at a rate that could keep humans satisfied.
The condition of the environment and prudence in self-government would by no means be the end of the sacrifices to be made for a society based on instant gratification. As Huxley argued through Mustapha Mond, art, science, religion, individuality, and even love had to be set aside to achieve stability. Mustapha Mond points out to John that in claiming these liberties, he also claimed “the right to be unhappy… the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind,” and in response John says, “I claim them all,” (Huxley 240). As being the only member of society capable of exercising self control and experiencing everything that makes life worth living, the Savage was depicted as more civilized than the soma captives. On the other hand, truth and autonomy are robbed from members of the World State in return for a superficial level of comfort. In this society, the individuals become enslaved by instilled desires, rather than liberated to pursue the desires of their choice and the ‘piddling fountains’ spouted by each individual is not a true release of their passion, but the constraint of it. Huxley agreed that any individual who had experienced “[motherhood], monogamy, and romance” would undoubtedly be willing to suffer for them, but replies, “You’re welcome,” (Huxley 240). Believing that suffering, in the end is unproductive, Huxley maintained that a society could never maintain efficiency and stability while it existed. However, productivity may not be the most important element of a society.
Perhaps the most absurd notion presented by Huxley is that an elite group of individuals would be capable of running a society with the best interests of the collective whole. This proposal is intrinsically contradictory since it recognizes that humans, by nature, are compelled to pursue their desires and work for what benefits them individually. Huxley also acknowledged that the hypnopaedic conditioning “everyone works for everyone else” only propagated ignorance since some levels of the caste system were clearly better off. And even if a leader were capable of selflessly looking out for the individuals of society, by what measures would he be better suited for the job than the individuals themselves? Huxley juxtaposed these various levels of absurdity and employed them to enhance his satire, but it also makes the risk of pursuing an alternative appear worth taking.
A proponent of Huxley’s ideology is likely to argue that decreasing consumerism to the form of voluntary simplicity as proposed by de Graaf would undoubtedly cause the economy to collapse. A society that minimizes consumption would certainly face the loss of many jobs. However, in abiding by the principals of voluntary simplicity the willingness to supply labor would decrease as well, and the amount of consumption would eventually come to terms with the quantity supplied. It is also important to recognize that a shift toward voluntary simplicity would not occur over night, but over an extended period of time. In this manner, the economy would easily be capable of maintaining equilibrium as demand for goods and supply of labor simultaneously decreases. Additionally, according to the principles of economics, if the supply of labor does not decrease proportionately to the demand for goods, then the price of goods will change for the system to reach equilibrium. The only markets that would suffer directly from voluntary simplicity would be those that have extremely elastic demands – markets for luxury goods – and are the very markets from which a majority of the debt, anxiety, and dissatisfaction within our society are derived.
The strongest opposition that one might offer against de Graaf’s voluntary simplicity is that it is voluntary. Even ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs were centered on materialism; why after all these years would humans suddenly be able to shed these innate shackles – and even if it could be done, what would prevent them from relapsing into a consumer driven state? Perhaps the beauty in de Graaf’s proposal is that it does not require one hundred percent compliance. Certainly individuals that adhere to consumerism would have a capacity to affect “simple lifers,” but the greatest benefits to voluntary simplicity come through individual “consumption [choices that] are made with a clearer understanding of their possible consequences,” and the improvement in quality of life that can result (de Graaf 8). The ultimate goal de Graaf had in mind was not to create a Utopian society, but to improve the society that we already have by “[converting] convictions to public policy, and ideas about sustainability into reality,” (de Graaf 236).
While the positions that Huxley and de Graaf held on the issue of a realistic ideal civilization conflict on many levels, they would likely agree that as a society we are either on the wrong track or the wrong train. Brave New World parallels our society in several ways, and to a certain degree, de Graaf proposes a solution to the problem Huxley presents. Whether the hardships of life are compensated for through consumption of soma or material goods, the cause is not alleviated and only a perpetual cycle of meaninglessness is created. “The love for possessions is a disease” of our culture and many instances of human history marked by greed have resulted in failure (de Graaf 127). If reform efforts are not made in lieu of our transgressions history will repeat itself, and the price will only go up.
By
brien, at 6:23 PM
too long..
By
Anonymous, at 1:56 AM
actually it was too short... it was supposed to be 10 pages and it was a little under that. I got an A though, I guess that's all that matters.
By
brien, at 9:03 AM
Excellent work Brien. Truly a good job.
Cheerio,
Nate
By
Anonymous, at 2:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home