The body is seen as “a networked common good, a public property” (Diken 2). Put into Diken’s perspective, networking is an essential element of Huxley’s novel. Diken also links the capitalist west to the “former totalitarian society of the East” stating that the iron laws of the market are homologous to “the iron laws of Stalinist ‘history’” (Diken 5). He is a “law beyond the law”, a classic case of sovereignty. However, restriction can still be found in the novel as sovereign through Mond, as he believes that since he makes the laws he can also break them. Here Diken points out that both worlds “take themselves for granted and only know of one enemy - fundamentalism” (Diken 1).ĭiken identifies the “brave new world” as totaliristic in that citizens are controlled by reward, instead of the standard punishment and fear. The only defense the novel provides is through John the Savage, who presents a fundamentalist view point. Happiness is a mask for consumerism, just as politics only exists to keep up conformism. In addition, the novel’s relevance and even similarities to our own world are discussed.ĭiken analyzes Huxley’s world as one that is rendered frozen in time by the supposed “happiness” of the citizens, as change is “not only impossible but also undesirable” (Diken 1). Even though Huxley sought to critique Stalinism in Brave New World, Bülent Diken explores in his essay “Huxley’s Brave New World and – Ours” how the novel reflects “democratic totalitarianism.” His essay criticizes that Huxley did not follow through on his critique and examines the consequences himself in terms of biopolitics, nihilism and network society.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |