Satirizing Capitalist Optimism in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

**This was written for a class assignment**

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is a dystopian novel published in 1931. It follows first an outcast named Bernard Marx, then another outcast named John the Savage, as they try to understand the reality of the warped world they live in. Looking at the text in the present day, one aspect is clear. Aldous Huxley sought to parody increasingly popular social and economic ideas of the 1920s. [In Brave New World, Huxley takes extremes to satirize capitalist optimism, as seen in the symbolism of Henry Ford and the character of Mustapha Mond.]

The early 20th century was a capitalist boom, encouraging the optimism that would come. The 1920s was a time of social change. It was then, according to Daniel Bell, that “The real social revolution…” began — “… the rise of mass production and high consumption” (Bell 32–33). This “revolution” aligned with a rise of a one-percent that controlled about a quarter of all wealth in the U.S, and similar numbers worldwide (Alvaredo 1). This “materialistic hedonism”, as Bell put it, aligned with an optimism about the future of capitalism and human progress.

According to the novel’s antagonist, Mustapha Mond, the 1920s was a time when, “…the emphasis [shifted] from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness…” (Huxley ch. 16). This shift was “demanded” by “mass production”. One figure Mustapha Mond cites in making this shift happen is “Our Ford” — Henry Ford. Spierlings writes that “In writing Brave New World, Huxley was inspired by the changes of the time… mass production… and modern capitalism (i.e. Fordist mass-production)” (Spierlings 1).

Henry Ford, a capitalist figurehead in his time, believed progress would never stop. In his autobiography, My Life & Work, Ford proclaimed that “everything can always be done better than it is being done” — in other words, progress will never stop because there is always room for improvement (Ford ch. 6). Ford lived in a time where people “seemed to have imagined that [scientific progress] could be allowed to go on indefinitely” (Huxley ch. 16). This same optimism becomes a rule in Huxley’s dystopia — “the machine turns… it is death if it stands still” (Huxley ch.3) As Miller writes, the Brave New World “… has one goal: technological progress. The morals and aspirations of the society… are focused around… technological growth and improvement” (Miller 1). “The mentality of the society”, he adds, “is that progress… is the key goal of mankind”.

Other figures, like Alfred Mond and H.G. Wells, also had optimism about the future of capitalist society. According to Sexton, “the economic, esthetic blueprint for Brave New World” was this same optimism — “H.G. Wells, Alfred Mond, progress, consumerism…” (Sexton 99–100). H.G. Wells is a central figure of parody in Brave New World. He was a figure who, according to Beauchamp, believed in “the superiority of the artificial to the natural” — idealizing “pro-utopian” thought (Beauchamp). The discussion between the Savage and Mustapha Mond at the end of the novel, according to Beauchamp, “[offers] the ideological point-counterpoint of the novel… the confrontation between Wells’ pro-utopian narrator and the oppositional Voice of Nature in a modern utopia” (Beauchamp 15). He adds that “Brave New World… in great part”, is a “satiric response the Wellsian model of a machine-dependent utopia… Brave New World is wholly Wellsian…” (Beauchamp 91). Huxley started out writing the novel specifically as a parody of Wells’ Men Like Gods (Beauchamp 13). He, in letters, showed “contempt” and “frequent jabs” at “the bright H.G. Wellsian future” (Meckier 234). “The original plan”, writes Meckier, “was to show hentics revolting against an insufferable Wellsian system” (Meckier 103).

Wells was one who believed in “this romantic idea of having … movers and makers of business and politics combine to seize power and create the World State…”, according to Filchow (Filchow). According to Matter, he “speculated upon a world-wide utopia forged from Science’s successful confrontation with the enemies of progress… Huxley… strongly opposed the belief that progress… would bring about a perfect world” (Matter 147). Wells himself criticized Brave New World by calling it “that Bible of the impotent genteel” and proclaiming that “[Huxley] had no right to betray the future as he did in [the novel]” (Beauchamp 13). In spite of this, he would likely agree with Mustapha Mond that “sane…obedient men” should tend the wheels of the societal machine (Huxley).

Brave New World satirizes the ideas of these capitalist cheerleaders, turning their optimism into a late capitalist dystopia. Defining features of late capitalism can be seen throughout the text. According to Jameson, late capitalism can be seen in “computers and automation… the crisis of traditional labor… and gentrification on a now-global scale” (Jameson). Mustapha Mond worrying that “it would be sheer cruelty to affect [workers] with excessive leisure”, the existence of the Reservations, the Bulvanoski process — these elements align with the features of late capitalism as defined by Jameson (Huxley). The Reservations, specifically, are one of few places untouched by the capitalist society of the Brave New World. Jameson described how “multinational capital ends up penetrating and colonizing those… precapitalist [sic] enclaves…” (Jameson 48). This can be seen in the outburst of John the Savage at the end of the novel — he rejects this “multinational capital” by literally emptying a “cash-box” full of soma (Huxley ch.15). John the Savage is a “precapitalist” figure who refuses to succumb to the Brave New World, unlike those around him.

Huxley himself criticized some of the capitalist optimism of the period, writing perceived late capitalist excesses into Brave New World. In a retrospective, Huxley wrote that “In a capitalist democracy… the Power Elite… influences the thoughts, the feel-ings [sic] and the actions of virtually everybody” (Huxley). They “directly [employ] several millions… [control] many millions more by lending them money to buy [their products]…”. Huxley’s definition of “capitalist democracy” — “such as the United States” — overlaps with Jameson’s late capitalist definition, and clashes with the optimism of Ford, Wells, and Mond.

“In a world of mass production and mass distribution”, according to Huxley, “more and more economic power comes to be wielded by fewer and fewer people”. Mustapha Mond rhetorically asking if workers could ask for more than “seven and a half hours of mild, unexhausting [sic] labor” symbolizes Huxley’s criticism — the efficiency and stability dreamt of by Ford, Wells and Mond is now a cudgel against the people living in the Brave New World (Huxley). Spierlings agrees, explaining that the society of the Brave New World “is based on the economization of human life — the principles of assembly line mass-production introduced by Ford” (Spierlings 1). This can be seen in the scene at the hatchery, where “The principle of mass production [is] at last applied to biology” — “Liners” standing next to “Matriculators” standing next to “labellers” in a “slow interminable procession” (Huxley ch. 1).

Throughout the novel, Henry Ford is built up as a symbol of capitalist extremes. The lack of individuality in Brave New World is reflective of Henry Ford’s own ideas. Henry Ford proclaimed in his autobiography that “A great business… grows so large as to supplant the personality of the man… the employee is lost in the mass” (Ford). All members of an organization should be “bent… to get along towards the objective”. The orgy-porgy chants of “Ford, we are twelve / oh, make us one, like drops within the Social River…” come to mind when looking at Ford’s own ideas (Huxley). As Mustapha Mond asked, “after all, what is an individual? We can make a new one with the greatest ease…”

The refrain of “When the individual feels, the community reels” is symbolic of this communal idealism — or as Sexton put it, one link of many between “Fordism and socialism” that “Huxley saw” (Huxley ch. 6/Sexton 88–91). This also extends to Ford’s ideas involving human relationships — that “it it is not necessary for people to love each other to work together” (Ford Ch. 6). This is reflected during John the Savage’s outburst at the death hospital — the nurse is shocked that one could think “…death were something terrible, as though an one mattered as much as that!” (Huxley ch.14) As Mustapha Mond explained earlier, “…no wonder those poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked… they were forced to feel strongly”, through “monogamy” and “romance” (Huxley ch.3) Later on, Mustapha Mond says that “The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving an one too much. There’s no such thing as a divided allegiance…” (Huxley ch.17). The only allegiance is to the community.

Henry Ford’s authoritarian ideas match up with those that are core to the Brave New World. In Henry Ford’s opinion, “no word is more overworked nowadays than… ‘democracy’… I am always suspicious of men who speak glibly of [it]” (Ford int.). He wondered if those promoting democracy “want to set up some kind of despotism” or simply use other people’s labor for their own benefit. Ford even insisted that there is “no greater disservice to humanity… to insist that all men are equal”. Mustapha Mond similarly scoffs at the idea that “…men were more than physico-chemically equal” in describing democracy (Huxley ch.3). Ford’s own factories, “the work… [was] classified according to its desirability and skill into classes ‘A’, ‘B’ and “C”…” (Ford Ch.70 He believed that “The vast majority of men… want to be led”. (Ford ch.6) Ford would likely agree, if he lived in the Brave New World, that “Epsilons… don’t need human intelligence” (Huxley). He would also agree that “An Alpha…. would go mad if he had to do Epsilon Semi-Moron work…”. After all, if all men aren’t equal, why would they do the same work? Ford’s attitude towards the “don’t care classes” is furthered when he says that “it is for their own benefit” if “an organization makes it [so the classes] do better than they naturally would” (Ford ch.19). In his mind, “A man ought to… live on a scale commensurate with the service that he renders” (Ford int.). Ford likely would think that the organization of the Brave New World, because of its ability to make this happen, would be a satisfactory one.

Henry Ford’s ideas about consumption being an ultimate good can be seen in Brave New World. Henry Ford claimed that “we have [never] had an overproduction”, just possibly “too much of the wrong types of goods” (Ford). In other words, all production is good production. “In an age of machines”, Mustapha Mond explains, it is “a crime against society” to not consume — and this idea is the logical conclusion of believing that unlimited production is unlimited good (Huxley ch.3). “…the conscription of consumption… in the interests of industry” is something Ford would likely promote. As Bell explains, “The claim of the American economic system” — which Ford was symbolic of — “was that it had introduced abundance, and the nature of abundance is to encourage prodigality rather than prudence”. Ford wrote that “the only true labour leader is the one who leads labour to work… whose interests are altogether dependent on the usefulness and efficiency of the service they render…” — in other words, resistance to the machine is futile, and society should focus on how to increase production. (Ford ch.18) In Ford’s mind, “the natural thing to do is work… human ails flow largely from attempting to escape from this natural course” (Ford ch.1). One ail, according to Mustapha Mond, was “A love of nature” — it “keeps no factories busy” (Huxley ch.2). In conclusion, Ford’s ‘My Life & Work’ is a blueprint for the society of the Brave New World, and many of his ideas led to its late capitalist dystopia.

Mustapha Mond is — to use Aldous Huxley’s own terminology — a “power elite”.

Mustapha Mond is a Ford-like figure, as seen in the ideas shared between the two. Mustapha Mond is introduced as “Our Fordship “ early in the novel (Huxley ch.3) Beyond that, the ideological similarities are significant. Mustapha Mond explained that “all conditioning aims at… making people like their unescapable social destiny” (Huxley). As Ford explained, there is “no greater disservice to humanity… to insist that all men are equal”. It is no logical leap, then, to conclude that Mustapha Mond’s idea takes Ford’s to its logical extreme. (Ford) Mustapha Mond hears John the Savage’s request for “freedom” as “claiming the right to be unhappy… to grow old and ugly… to have cancer… to have too little to eat…” (Huxley ch. 17) This mirrors Ford’s insistence that assembly-line work is necessary, regardless of its monotony, by asking if “[letting a worker] starve” is preferable. Finally, the fact that Ford’s autobiography is described as lying outside Mustapha Mond’s office in chapter 16 suggests an appreciation of Ford by Mond (Huxley ch. 16)

Mustapha Mond’s namesake, Alfred Mond, was a “power elite” in his own right. Meckier writes that “Huxley believed [Mustapha Mond] … be a caricature of either Sir Alfred Mond or Henry Ford… by the time [he] enters the novel… he is… both… “ (Meckier 101–102). According to Filchow, H.G. Wells also “had a man like Alfred Mond in mind” when designing the leaders of his utopias (Filchow). This is the same Wells who as previously discussed, had a belief in a utopian autocracy. Sexton writes that, as “…a form of state capitalism in Brave New World …it is clear that the world controllers are representative of a world economy based on rationalized, amalgamated economic units… “ (Sexton 88).

Mond was a man who believed in “rationalization” of production — in his own words, “the application of scientific organization to industry” (Sexton 93). This can be seen in all throughout the strict guidelines of the Brave New World. — as Sexton explains, “Huxley satirizes… rationalization… man is deliberately moulded to fit the machine” (Sexton 88–91). In the Brave New World, according to Birnbaum, “Everything has become standardized… all problems have been assumed by the directors…” (Birnbaum 160), Mond’s “ability to make his workers believe that his interest was also their own” can be seen in his Brave New World counterpart. Mustapha Mond explains that “people were ready to… [be] controlled [after the Nine Years’ War]. Anything for a quiet life…” (Huxley). Like a Wellsian utopian leader, like Alfred Mond, like Huxley’s idea of a ‘Power Elite’, Mustapha Mond helped take control of society, and pushes his anti-science, anti-truth ideas as beneficial for the people he controls. In summary, Mustapha Mond is a blend of extreme capitalist ideas that serves to personify them.

Aldous Huxley blended the ideas of capitalist cheerleaders to make Brave New World’s late capitalist dystopia — and to warn us about our own world. Huxley was clearly concerned about the path our world was heading. Huxley compared the spread of Ford’s factories worldwide to “the spread of cancer” (Meckier). In a paper in Inquiries Journal, Miller again explains that “the mass production of human life is key to the economic structure” of the Brave New World — “… the workers [are] created for… a simple life of servitude… they are content” (Miller Inquiries Journal 1). Sexton writes that the ideology of the dystopia is “…to serve production and consumption — in short, to serve the ethic of the machine” (Sexton 98–100). He adds that Huxley was afraid of “the ineluctable triumph of the machine over human individualism. With the triumph of the machine ethic, man is reduced to a mere aspect of the productive process…” (Sexton 91). The constant refrain of ‘stability’ in the novel, is used as a form of controlling the populous. As explained by Moller and Deci, these approaches “…are often used to keep individuals in line… to create a safer, more civilized society” (Moller/Deci 1). This is what John the Savage thought about as he asks those in the hospital: “… do you like being slaves?… Don’t you even understand what manhood and freedom are?”

These sentiments align cleanly with Huxley’s description of a “capitalist democracy” — and as Huxley explained, “We are far… from… a genuinely free society”. Benjamin Barber, in Con$umed, agrees with this sentiment: “The victory of consumers [in capitalism] is not synonymous with the victory of citizens… today [capitalism] is aligned with vices which — although the serve consumerism — undermine democracy, responsibility, and citizenship” (Barber 4–5). Bell explains that “the glorification of plenty… becomes the justification of the [capitalist] system” (Bell). This “new capitalism” desires a “[stimulation for] a demand for pleasure and play in the area of consumption” — the conscripted consumption of the Brave New World come to life. Miller writes that “Consumerism and productivism are the purpose of live in Huxley’s industrial utopia” (Miller 1).

As Elsbree writes, Brave New World “…is a study of mass culture and industrial technology in a world state where economic and social stability compensates for… the absence of political responsibility” (Ellsbree 159). Schien expanded on this, adding that “Huxley agrees that… modern society undermines inner security, individual reason, and the capacity to form close personal relationships, leading the individual into… the illusion of individuality and freedom” (Schein 432). Mustapha Mond says that “[the civilization of Brave New World] has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness” — but contends earlier that it has “none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune” (Huxley ch.16–17) After all, “nobility [and] heroism… are symptoms of political inefficiency” — and inefficiency is unforgivable.

It is easy to be starry-eyed at the prospect of unlimited progress. However, Huxley, throughout Brave New World, expresses that we must be cautious, or, before we know it, we may be stuck in out own late capitalist dystopia.

Works Cited

Barber, Benjamin R. Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole. W. W. Norton & Company, 2008.

Beauchamp, Gorman. “All’s Well That Ends Well: The Anti-Wellsian Satire of Brave New World.” Utopian Studies, no. 2, 1989, pp. 12–16, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Bell, Daniel. “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 6, no. 1/2, Apr. 1972, pp. 11–38, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Birnbaum, Milton. Aldous Huxley’s Quest for Values. U of Tennessee P, 1971.

Ellsbree, Langdon. “Brave New World: History, Science and Dystopia by Robert S. Baker.” Utopian Studies, vol. 2, no. 1/2, 1991, pp. 159–161, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 21 Apr. 2019.

Firchow, Peter. “Wells and Lawrence in Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 5, no. 2, Apr. 1976, pp. 260–278, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Ford, Henry, and Samuel Crowther. My Life and Work. 10th ed., 1922. Project Gutenberg. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. 2006, huxley.net/bnw-revisited. Accessed Apr. 2019.

— -. Brave New World. HarperCollins, 1998.

Infobase Learning. Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations: Brave New World — New Edition. Infobase Learning, 2011.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. 7th ed., Duke UP, 1991.

Matter, William W. “The Utopian Tradition and Aldous Huxley.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, July 1975, pp. 146–151, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Meckier, Jerome. “Brave New World and the Rationalization of Industry.” Critical Essays on Aldous Huxley, 1996, pp. 88–100.

— -. “Prepping for Brave New World: Aldous Huxley’s Essays of the 1920s.” Utopian Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2001, pp. 234–245, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Miller, D. D. “Brave New World and the Threat of Technological Growth.” Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, vol. 3, no. 04, 2011.

Moller, Arlen C., and Edward L. Deci. “Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective.” Group Processes & Interpersonal Relations, vol. 13, no. 1, 2009, pp. 41–53, SAGE. doi:10.1177/1368430209350318. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Schien, Edgar. “Brainwashing and Totalitarianization in Modern Society.” World Politics, vol. 11, no. 3, Apr. 1959, pp. 430–441, JSTOR. jstor.org. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.

Spierlings, Bas, and Henk Van Houtum. “The Brave New World of the Post-Society: The Mass-Production of the Individual Consumer and the Emergence of Template Cities.” European Planning Studies, vol. 16, no. 7, 7 Aug. 2008, pp. 899–909, EBSCO host. doi:10.1080109654310802224702. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.