Several weeks back I was honoured to receive an email from one of the top people on the list on the right. “Fancy a pint this week”, it [approximately] read, “at the usual place?”. The “usual place” being a brightly-lit loudly-musicked characterless vermin-infested modern pit, of the kind described so aptly by Betjeman, chosen for its cheap beer and mutual convenience in London’s Zone Two.
At one point the beam of conversation settled briefly on the subject of the dystopian novel. I remarked on how contemporary Britain looks much more like Brave New World than Nineteen Eighty-Four. Authoritarian government is much easier when the populace is materially rich, I opined. Hardly an original comment, but one that I felt had been ignored in the libertarian blogosphere’s discussion of New Labour’s legacy. My drinking partner then proceeded to quote almost verbatim the passage about the perfume tap which I had been thinking of at that moment:
At this moment, and for no apparent reason Bernard suddenly remembered that he had left the eau-de-Cologne tap in his bathroom wide open and running…
“Cost me a fortune by the time I get back.” With his mind’s eye, Bernard saw the needle on the scent meter creeping round and round, ant-like, indefatigably…The little black needle was scurrying, an insect, nibbling through time, eating into his money.
A decilitre of eau-de-Cologne every minute. Six litres an hour… Six times twenty-four – no, it would be nearer six times thirty-six. Bernard was pale and trembling with impatience.
One hangover later, I started to think about Brave New World and how I might do a post on it. I wanted to be able to quote that passage. Now, where was my copy? A rapid scan around the flat revealed my shameful and previously unknown secret: that I did not have a copy. I then remembered that I had not read it since the first time, as a boy, and therefore that it must have been the “house” copy rather than my own. How embarrassing to have a bookcase containing such a glaring omission.
I didn’t get around to investing in a copy until this week. The book was sitting on my desk at work, at the front next to my screen as a reminder to put it in my bag and take it home. Of course I forgot to take it home and it was still there yesterday morning when a colleague came in to harass me about something. She noticed something new about my desk and focussed on the book.
“Why does your book have a baby on the front?” she sneered. “Umm, it’s Brave New World, have you read it?”. “No”. “Have you heard of it? It’s quite well-known”. “No, is it about child abuse?”. “Umm, not really, not abuse as such, you should read it, do you want to borrow it?”. “No thanks”.
What happens in a democracy when the demos is inadequately educated? What happens when, to win an election, a party does not have to appeal to the people who are willing and able to consider carefully the issues of the day but to a larger number who only care about their material comforts and the childish “news” headlines propagated by the mass media? New Britain happens.
Many dystopian novels have, as part of their premise, a tyrannical government that hides from public view information and opinions that could embarrass the authorities. In Fahrenheit 451 an elite squad of “firemen” go around burning down any house down which is discovered to contain books. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the newspaper archives are altered retrospectively to ensure the state’s narrative is maintained. Some say that in the information age such restrictions could never be enforced.
In reality, the government does not need to go to any effort to hide the truth or subversive texts. All it has to do it ensure that sufficient numbers of people are not interested in the world around them. Make sure enough people get a shit education so that they grow up lacking curiosity in the way things work, make sure enough people are comfortable with their mundane existences, make sure that mass entertainment is sufficiently banal to stop people from opening their eyes and engaging their brains. As long as the number of people who can be bothered to keep themselves informed and are experienced enough to be able to form their own opinion is kept small enough, who cares what those people think?
If you want “power” in this country, you don’t need to have the best thought-out policies, you don’t need to be the brightest mind. This is socialism’s legacy: a nation so ill-educated that many haven’t even heard of the classics, where vast swathes of society don’t have to engage their brain to feed and clothe themselves, where generations of parents don’t feel the need to encourage their children to explore the world. This country is no longer run by a patrician elite, but by a cynical class of populist authoritarians who pander to every ignorant desire of the largest minority. Britain is a tyranny of the ignorant.
RSS - Posts
I’m sorry, but that kind of reasoning only ever annoys me, due to its self-contradictary nature.
Here’s the thing: if we lived in Huxley’s nightmare, you wouldn’t be writing about it. The very fact that you’re here, writing about it, and other people are reading and responding, demonstrates that you’re wrong about living in a ‘tyranny of the ignorant’.
I’d go on, but as usual xkcd got there first. http://xkcd.com/610/
Cheer up.
Comment #fail there Stu. Did you read my post? Did I suggest there is oppression of opinion? No. Have you read Brave New World?
Universal suffrage is a failed experiment, as we evil, right wing bastards say.
If we’re quoting: “Service guarantees citizenship. I’ve done my part. Have you done yours?”
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say you would be oppressed or prevented from writing. You wouldn’t be bothered to write. You wouldn’t care. You wouldn’t be interested. It wouldn’t matter enough to you to write about.
I said we were more like, not exactly like. Jeez. And anyway in BNW there are a small number of people who do care. Just like now! My point is that it doesn’t matter that I care enough to write, not enough people care enough to read. Quite a simple point, perhaps I haven’t explained myself very well.
RayD – I don’t say that universal suffrage is a bad thing, but to go with it we must have voters who at least understand the problems facing the nation.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the newspaper archives are altered retrospectively to ensure the state’s narrative is maintained. Some say that in the information age such restrictions could never be enforced.
Oh but they can. VERY easily.
And the Web/Blogs do it for themselves.
It is called the “Scream conspiracy theory at everything you want to cover up method”. And like magic, half the computer literate world will back you up.
Consiracy theorists are “Governments” best friends. They save them a FORTUNE on counter propoganda, and “denial stories”.
Quite agree, Blue Eyes, educated voters is the most desirable option. But if we don’t have them? I appreciate the dangers, but I do keep getting drawn to the idea that you have to make some kind of a contribution before you get a say.
In a democracy, voters have a duty to educate & inform themselves. I have no objection to the state teaching literacy, numeracy & some form of critical thinking & an overview of subjects. But beyond that the work is ours, partly through further education but even more so through reading.
Those who say “I never did X at school, how am I meant to know about it?” should be hung on the same gallows as the “I’m not interested in politics because it doesn’t affect my life” brigade.
One thing that does worry me is that in a society where people are ill-educated, & a large proportion are of very low intelligence, individual liberty is basically unsustainable. We also need to look at whether policies such as the welfare state as it currently exists are essentially rewarding people who shouldn’t be having childre for perpetrating their problems. This is what I think of whenever I hear of deprivation being passed down the generations- I also, & not a pretty thought at all, bring to mind the section in “Freakonomics” (have you seen it?) on about abortion.
Re: Huxley. Have you read his other works? I love all his stuff. Interestingly I rarely read fiction, & what I read is by those (Huxley, Orwell, Umberto Eco etc) who write extensive non-fiction, or those (Edward Rutherfurd etc) who write essentially history-based works.
Huxley is a really towering figure.
Re: Stu’s critique. I think the fact that the vast majority of people aren’t on blogs & don’t give a damn about anything proves that Blue Eyes is closer to the truth than you are.
RayD – the problem with that in practice is that how on Earth do you qualify people?
Asquith – thanks. You have explained my point better than I did. The fact is that most people who *are* politically engaged don’t *read* the blogs. Free thought is actually a pretty minority activity in this country. I haven’t read/seen Freakonomics but keep meaning to. I haven’t read any of Huxley’s other stuff, I should really!!
You are right that we have a duty to inform ourselves. What I am partly railing against is the fact that many many people are not taught the skill of working things out for themselves. Education seems to be seen as a way of cramming facts into children not teaching them how to think for themselves.
vS – so true! Apparently there is a department of the CIA which exists to construct conspiracy theories to take people’s minds off the real conspiracies!
Slightly OT: I’m surprised that when you feel the urge to read one of the classics you actually head off to the shops and buy it
“Chapter One
A SQUAT grey building of only thirty-four stories. — Over the main entrance the words, CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE, and, in a shield, the World State’s motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY.”
Downloaded a few seconds ago for nothing. Put it on your PDA (or whatever) together with a few thousand others and carry it around in your pocket. It’s not as if you’re depriving the writer. Handy for airports, insomnia, indeterminate prison sentences etc.
On the other hand, that wouldn’t enable you to discover the the blinding ignorance of your colleagues. ‘Praps it’s because they’ve never made BNW into a film (there was a made-for-TV series in the eighties, I think) though when it comes to dytopian visions I’d be far more worried if she hadn’t heard of 1984. As has been endlessly commented upon, that seems to be the Bible for our current rulers.
Asquith, I think the important thing to look at is not the raw number of people who read blogs (if we’re to take that as a measure of interest in the world around you, which I highly doubt it really is), but the direction that number is going in. Where’s the evidence that there has ever been a significant level of political involvement by the masses? Did the people of this nation, for example. really understand the reasons we had to go to war in 1918 and 1939, or did they simply trust that if the Government said it was necessary, it was necessary? If the same situation happened now, with our 24-hour media coverage and our anti-war protesters, would there have even been a war?
I’m not convinced that we, as a population, are less engaged or involved or interested than the generations who came before us. It wouldn’t surprise me all that much, in fact, if it turned out that interest in the world we live in has never been higher. Political activism is certainly on the up. That’s hugely different to ‘engagement’ in party politics, though, or to voting in Parliamentary elections. I imagine most people (rightly) see what goes on in the Commons as a sideshow, and largely an irrelevance. If they have an ideology it’s ‘leave-me-alonism’. If they care a lot about a specific issue, they don’t bother voting for a different government (which they’ve seen makes basically no difference in the long run), they join an activist group or donate to a charity.
Fundamentally, all governments are the same and all politicians make promises that can’t actually keep. Can you really blame the public for not wanted to play in their stupid games? It’s not unfeasible that the very people you guys are deriding as uninvolved and lacking understanding are the ones who understand the situation whole lot better than we do. At least they have the good sense not to get wound up about it.
Hi Dave, welcome to the blog. I did Goggle for it when I wanted to do the original post but didn’t dig very deep and only found discussions rather than the original text. Plus I actually like having physical objects to refer to and pick off a book shelf… Good point about the films and TV. I think that point reinforces the lack of curiosity in so many people: they won’t bother to seek out something they might like, they just wait to be shown something by the flashing bright thing in the corner.
Stu:
“Fundamentally, all governments are the same” – incorrect. See the differences in response to the recession by, say, the German government, the Singapore government, the British government, etc.. See the differences between the British government in more liberal eras and now.
“At least they have the good sense not to get wound up about it” – incorrect. Many of the people you say I am deriding* get very angry about things. Just not the things which are at the heart of the problems they face. Please see excitable reaction to immigration for example.
*I am deriding the rulers for making sure people are ill-educated, not particularly berating the victims of poor quality education themselves, as such.
Jesus, BE aren’t you reading your own words back to yourself?
“I think that point reinforces the lack of curiosity in so many people: they won’t bother to seek out something they might like, they just wait to be shown something by the flashing bright thing in the corner.”
Barely people, are they. Why should we give a damn about them anyway. They don’t really need a vote anyway.
“[I'm] not particularly berating the victims of poor quality education themselves, as such.”
No, doesn’t sound like it either. Really. Incidentally, what was so different about your education that helped you escape this terrible fate? If the same education system produced you as them, howcome you’re so much more able to think for yourself?
Stu, I am struggling to find the bit where I said that not everyone should have a say. I can’t find it anywhere. Maybe the site shows up differently in your browser.
The point I am trying to make (not clearly enough, apparently, although others have managed to understand it) is that where a significant proportion of the population do not care to think about the issues and their possible solutions, we end up with a situation where political debate is led by the appeal to people who do not care to think about the issues and their possible solutions. Hence we have huge debates about trivial issues and rarely get to the fundamentals.
Since you ask and despite its total irrelevance, I am lucky because my parents made damned sure that from an early age we were challenged and stretched. As I said, I read BNW as a boy. My dad thought I might be interested in it. Straight after he gave me 1984. We had quite high level discussions at the supper table most evenings. My parents made sure of it. They didn’t abdicate the responsibility of bringing us up and leave it in the hands of a state system which has failed. Oh, and they sacrificed an enormous amount of material wealth to send us to schools that they could not afford the fees for.
And I’m bloody glad they did.
[URL DELETED BY B.E.]
This also has work by many living or recently dead authors (there’s stuff by Sebastian Faulks FFS! And it’s not been seventy years since Douglas Adams sadly passed away) so the site may suddenly disappear. No doubt you’re breaking the law too by using it.
I actually find books-for-free an encouragement to read more, but that might simply be an admission of personal shortcomings; I may download Ulysses one day just so I can repeatedly fail to finish it in a more technically modern fashion.
(In true ultra-saddo style I’ve just checked the only thing I can vaguely remember from a boyhood reading of BNW: the formulae for TNT and mercury fulminate are technically accurate but not in accordance with current nomenclature. Yawn. The term ‘pneumatic’ as a descriptive for women is far more interesting.)
Dave, I’ve deleted the URL because I feel I should not be a forum for the exchange of naughty stuff on the internet. Sorry for being “dry” about it. The word “pneumatic” is very distinctive, isn’t it. I was too young to know what it really meant when I read BNW!!
Fair enough. Gutenberg play it straight, which necessarily means they won’t have BNW for another 46 years or so. (BTW Mr Faulks and the Estate of Mr Adams have both benefited from me doing things the non-naughty way, which is why they stuck out to me).
For that matter I’ve a tatty copy of BNW, coincidentally dating back to an era when I didn’t understand what ‘pneumatic’ meant either.
Looking at WIki, my first comment wasn’t quite accurate: there have been several TV films. Perhaps the shock factor of 1984 grips the imagination more. After all, (from memory) most of the inhabitants of BNW spent most of their time blissfully happy, albeit stoned and pre-programmed to be so.
Yer what? Try a takeaway pizza.
You do have to ask yourself if any of the shit on this planet does ‘matter’ don’t you? Why not just get stoned and have sex? And half the people who want us to care are only doing so in order to acquire material goods – for some reason. I might not mind living in a Brave New World at least its honest…
As a favour I sometimes take on one of my chaps sons for a few months…nice lads all but completely lacking in all but the barest knowledge…it no longer surprises me.When in conversation they do hear about subjects unknown to them they are often keen to listen and learn,it’s not the people it is the system.
Hi Mr Mutley! You pose a very good question. Why do we care? I don’t know why I care. I often wish I didn’t. I sometimes wish I could just switch off and not give a shit, but for some reason I do. I don’t care what other people get up to as long as it doesn’t impose on what I get up to, but a lot of other people’s actions do affect me: from the people upstairs who make a racket at all hours to the people who run the country thinking it’s OK to steal half my income and then waste it on bullshit.
Thud – I agree it is the system that messes up people. I am not particularly blaming my colleague for not having heard of BNW, she was never taught to think.
I think you’re spot on, Blue Eyes. But don’t you think it’s unsustainable?
This structure can only continue to work as long as the human cattle can be kept in a warm barn with enough hay to keep them docile.
That time is rapidly coming to an end – the balance will very soon tip so that those who pay for the comfort and security of the ignorant won’t be able to do so any more. They will lose their jobs, they will stop paying, they will be broken, some will seek to join the ignorant masses, some will leave.
What happens then? The will to survive is a powerful motivator and they will have no choice but to start thinking. It’ll be brutal, it’ll be painful and some will not make the transition.
In the end, there will be no choice.
Never heard of it. Nice post though.
Perhaps people are just not interested in politics. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the quality of education and more to do with the interests of individuals and their hobbies. I discovered libertarianism through an interest in economics. It was a voyage of discovery that happened purely by chance. It was inquisitiveness and a thirst for knowledge but it happened because I was interested in politics and economics.
Some people just aren’t interested in politics. They’re extremely well educated in other areas but they won’t read political books or blogs because it doesn’t interest them.
What I think is missing is a basic level of political understanding where people may spend the rest of their lives pursuing other hobbies but at least have a basic level of political knowledge.
What I’d love to see in schools is a discussion of the Nolan chart. My 12 year old cousin is interested in politics and he keeps asking his Dad what the two flavours (i.e left and right wing) are all about. They live in Brighton so I think the discussion boils down to; left = nice people who care about the poor and eat organic fair trade bread, right = evil people (thatcherites) who live in big houses and want everything privatised. That was the view point I was presented with throughout my childhood. I never discovered a world outside of the left-right scale until I was in my late twenties.
My political literacy could have been advanced 10 years if someone had shown me the Nolan chart or had me take the political compass test at politicalcompass.org and then I might be free to go on and become an expert in Iraqi folk music or whatever perversion I might have but at the same time be sufficiently tooled up to understand differing poltical philosophies.
Would still have never read Brave New World though – sounds a bit boring – but then I’m not really a big fan of reading books or writing.
Hi Shigella, welcome to the blog.
In the scenario you describe yes it is unsustainable. But remember that not everyone is depending on someone else economically.
Kevin, welcome to the blog.
You are right, there are many ways of encouraging people to think. BNW does not have a monopoly on it. “not really a big fan of reading books” – perhaps because you were never taught how to enjoy them in early life?
I doubt most people were highly educated a century ago but they did have religion. For all its faults, spiritual belief counters the march of materialism by fostering temperance, discipline and thinking of others. I’m not a believer myself but I sure wish more people were.
Blue Eyes, it’s true that not everyone is depending on someone else economically. But they don’t need to be to cause the system to overbalance.
All it needs is for too many people to be dependent on public money (benefits, govt. employment, grants etc) – the tipping point will come when those contributing to the pot are overstrained. It does not even matter whether the ignorant are working or dependent – once it becomes unsustainable many people will find their cosy lives slipping away. At that time, they will have no choice but to think. Perhaps first they will riot, but it won’t help. After that they will begin to think.
OK but can I just ask how you figure that it is government which makes sure that mass entertainment is sufficiently banal to stop people from opening their eyes and engaging their brains. How does government do that? Mass entertainment eminates freely and primarily from the US and is a choice for all. It is part of an immediate satiating consumerism, along with the wallet full of low interest credit cards we all get in our “have it all now” modern society.
Government doesn’t need to. This is the beauty of the “system”.
Keeping everyone ignorant and misinformed is necessary to allow the political class to get away with giving the country a right royal going over, treating us all as criminals, surrendering the last of our sovereignty to a bunch of foreigners in Brussels and making themselves wealthy in the process. The scum in the media have gladly gone along with this, partly because they’re lazy and stupid, partly because they’re in cahoots.
As usual, Machiavelli got it right: ‘The people are more honest in their intentions than the nobles [political class] are, because the latter want to oppress the people, whereas they want only not to be oppressed.’ People are honest in just wanting to get on with their lives, having plenty of spare cash, drinking, smoking, having cheap holidays, watching videos, watching the bloody football, buying clothes and so on.
Their biggest mistake is to have trusted the political class to get on with the job they’re meant to do, ie the tedious, unglamorous business of managing the machinery of state – which is there (supposedly) for our benefit.
As a result we’ve all ended up with a bunch of talentless, arrogant, lying shysters who couldn’t be trusted with looking after a bag of sweets. It’s no surprise they don’t want us to be able to count, of course, because then they can filch our sweets with impunity.
‘Impunity’ – now there’s a word my students won’t know. Along with words such as ‘precarious’ and ‘despotic’; and books such as ‘The Odyssey’; and classic films in black and white; or, indeed, anything that existed more than five years ago.
The destruction of education as most of us understand the word is deliberate. When Blair spoke of ‘education, education, education’ he meant it in the old Soviet way – ‘indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination’. Although he my just as well have said ‘ignorance, ignorance, ignorance’.
Fuck it. The wine calleth.
Found your post through DK.
Like your thoughts – tend to agree with them, but I think there is more to this than even you suppose.
If you want to know what is happening in today’s politics, just read The Prince. It was written 200 years ago and is as true today as it ever was.
Historically, we never change – there are a bunch of people who are in power, there are those who think they are in power, there are those who would like power, and the rest of the people don’t care, as look as they are well fed and entertained!
It was true in Rome, its true today, it will be true in 1000 years time!
Read a book once. Didn’t like it.
Is it out on video yet?
As long as you’re not suggesting that having read brave New World is part of what makes us “educated” I’m cool with it
Seriously though I know what you mean and I understand where you are coming from. This also ties in with what I call “CBA Syndrome” (Can’t Be Arsed) which is another indicator of a largely uneducated and docile (in my opinion) populace. However, I don’t (and won’t) criticise anyone for a lack of education, there’s always a chance it will catch on with them in time, and if it doesn’t then c’est la vie. I do believe however, our society would benefit from a more eclectic and encompassing education system, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen anytime soon
Steve
I take issue with the statement:
“In a democracy, voters have a duty to educate & inform themselves.”
In a free country you should have the right to simply not give a toss. I don’t like the Australian model, being duty bound to cast a vote or ruin your paper on election day. If we are to live in a truly free society then you must be free to have no interest in politics whatsoever.
For this country to function a large proportion of the population must be satisfied with a mundane job, and lowly aspirations. Maybe in some far flung futuristic utopia mankind can become free of all menial tasks, and can spend their entire waking hours contemplating philosophy or drawing pretty pictures, but for now people have to be willing to be Postmen.
It is a great mistake of this government to drive incessantly towards increasing University numbers, it takes people out of the workplace for 3/4 years, while driving the aspirations up of people who are frankly thick. Meanwhile they are not paying taxes and the overall quality of the Universities is driven down.
You’ve made a great post blue eyes, but when confronted with the pig ignorance of the docile masses it would be wiser to turn the other cheek and recognise them as a necessary evil.
Largely agree with both the post and the majority of comments, however at the risk of polluting classics with cinema I get the feeling we’re sliding toward a Rollerball society with the elite becoming the illusionist, continually distracting the population with all the shiny flashing lights of whatever strictly big x brother pap idol dancing they can. All the easier to convince you this is not the scandal you were looking for, whilst they maintain the important thing, their grip on power.
Sounds like what we need is a proper nutter in power for a bit. Just long enough to remind people that while government is all about tricky subjects, most of which you don’t get much of an introduction to in the basic education system, apathy is not a long-term survival strategy.
You can see how it might look like one, given how much it would take to research even one issue in depth and be in a position to weight *all* the evidence, or even just most of it. How temping it is to look at the procession of utter showers that end up in power (getting caught fiddling your expenses? Tragic) and decide that the risk of one of these muppets actually managing to change something of substance is heavily outweighed by the effort required to keep an eye on them.
Except when you remember that ultimately, these guys can give orders to Men with Guns. Then it’s not so funny anymore.