Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
An important term
Motif Before I go into the use of animal imagery in the text, its worth talking about this key term. I will be discussing the development of an animal motif, which means the repeated use of a style imagery across the text as a whole. By discussing it as a motif, you are essentially claiming that Huxley is consciously building a pattern by using the same kind of imagery throughout his text. You should be using this word in your essays, i.e. There is a motif of animal imagery across Brave New World, suggesting a desire on Huxleys part of connect the citizens of the World State to animals. This motif is introduced when... Markers like essays that sound intelligent and literary and well-informed. Using the proper word for the idea is a great way to lift your writing in the eyes of a marker who is getting bleary eyed having just read 90 essays in a single sitting before getting to yours - its about strategy.
Immediate impact
By describing someone using animal imagery, you effectively deny their humanness and debase them by turning them into some kind of sub-human. Shakespeare used a lot of animal related imagery in his insults. But its also why things like calling someone an ugly dog remains particularly effective. Its the reference to something non-human that is so insulting - or at least thats the idea. An insult is designed to make someone feel inferior, so what better way to do that than to deny them their connection to you on a fundamental human level. So, Huxley is, to a large extent, denying or debasing the humanity of these he describes with his animal images. What we need to consider though are Huxleys choices of animals. He uses a lot of insects (generally considered creepy and crawly), as well as chickens (generally pretty stupid and lacking in personality) and maggots (self-explanatory in its disgustingness). The push is towards animals that have negative connotations and that tend to lack any individuality or personality. Its difficult for us to see individuality within a colony of ants or maggots and so the imagery does a good job of expressing the World States ultimately personality destroying structure.
Wider Implications
Control/Stability One way of looking at the way the use of Huxleys imagery is to see it as reinforcing the controllability of the citizens of the World State. We see animals as comparatively controllable; they are essentially the pets of the World Controllers, which Mustapha Mond pretty much states when he calls the citizens under his control nice tame animals. People have lost control of their own existences, they are simply tamed animals at the mercy of their owners. Civilisation The World State is meant to be the height of civilisation. It is constructed in direct contrast with the Savage Reservation and is sold as a the culmination of science and technology (the tools of civilisations progress). However, Huxley directly undermines this suggestion by painting its inhabitants as animals. There is irony at work here - the representation of civilisation is populated by chickens, horses, ants, aphids, maggots, etc. This is simply Huxley undercutting everything the World State claims as refined humanity and exposing it for its fundamental inhumanity. Humanity And John is the counter-point. He is meant to be the Savage, but as we read it, he is the most civilised individual in the text. This is perhaps why people throw peanuts at him - they cant see him as the same/equal. This begs the question, who is more human? And does the fact that John is willing to suffer in honour of his soul prove that he is more human than the rest of the World State?