So far, when trying to compare the two dystopian novels that we've read so far, there are few similarities other than a general lack of happiness for the members of the two societies. However, one thing that was in both of the novels was religion. Both novels portray religion in very different ways than it is usually portrayed in our society. In Brave New World, religion is completely separated from the World State (the society about which the novel was written) and is portrayed as something obsolete, irrational, and restrictive through its appearances in the reservation and John's thoughts. Conversely, in The Handmaid's Tale, religion is an integral part of the Republic of Gilead and shows itself as the justification for many of the republics policies and actions. Religion in the Republic of Gilead is also portrayed as restrictive, closedminded, and unforgiving. This was pretty interesting to me because while both of these portrayals of religion are very negative, they seem to be conveying very different messages about the importance of religion in our society.
Looking deeper into what the portrayal of religion in Brave New World could actually mean reveals two possible views: either religion is primitive and obsolete, or the World State is an example of why we need religion in our society. However, considering Huxley's conflation of basically all religion into one thing that only the "savages" believe in and the way its reduced to human sacrifice and repression of desire it makes more sense to think that Huxley is portraying religion as something primitive. While most of us were probably upset with the way Huxley portrayed the "savage" reservation in general, for me one of the worst parts was his portrayal of the human sacrifice that occurred while Lenina and Bernard were at the reservation. Additionally, this portrayal of the "savage's" religion makes it seem senseless and irrational. His portrayal reminded me a lot of the way many of our movies portray Native American religion in such a stereotypical way and primitive way. On the other hand, this was kind of interesting to me because I had never really thought that this kind of portrayal would be applied to something associated with Christianity (like the religion of the "savages"). This primitive portrayal of religion made me think a lot about what primitive actually implies. To me, it implies two main things: it implies that something is lesser in some way, and it implies that something is obsolete. However, more than obsolete, Huxley tries to portray religion as irrational as well making it seem almost inconsequential.
Instead of dismissing religion, Atwood seems to be warning her readers about religion. The way the "Sons of Jacob" take over the US and completely destroy society is Atwood's way of trying to show the dangers of what she thinks religion can be. On the surface, this kind of takeover might seem really far fetched. However, when thinking about the history of the way Christianity was spread to most of the world (in particular the Americas where it was usually forced on Native Americans and slaves who were forced to work for Europeans no matter what they wanted), there might be at least some kind of parallel with the Republic of Gilead and the history of the Americas. Additionally, the way the "Sons of Jacob's" policies and actions were justified by their religion reminded me a lot of the way some people will claim God told them to murder someone as a defense or how some wedding companies won't serve LGBTQ+ people because they say it's against their religion. Especially considering how terrible most of us agreed these two societies are its kind of scary to see how many similarities they seem to have with ours (even just about one topic like religion). What do you guys think? Am I reading into the meanings of the books too much or are there genuine similarties between the two dystopias and our world?
I think this is a really interesting comparison to make. I might be reaching a bit far here but perhaps a way to explain the differences of the two societies' relationship to religion could be the countries the authors are from and where the books are set. While Huxley is English and BNW is set in England, Atwood is Canadian and THT is set in America. It could be that the "religious dystopia" of England is this completely non-religious society, where religion is seen as "savage", where the "religious dystopia" of America is an oppressively religious society, where religion is used to explain extreme human rights violations.
ReplyDeleteI think the old religions in brave new world such as Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism are all banned as it would serve as something other than the "Ford" Ideology that could potentially attract people too, and undermine society. This is also seen in Handmaid as the government enforces a belief system onto its people to maintain order and control. I don't think this translates directly to our world, as there are still a variety of beliefs, and none of them are being forced upon us.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I really like how the bible is woven and manipulated into something that supports the society in The Handmaids Tale. I also really like how a lot of the quotes are derived from writings of Marx or sayings popularized by Marx. It is really cool to see just how big of a role religion plays in both of the utopias we have seen so far.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect of this conversation is the role of Fordism in Brave New World. In some ways Fordism functions very similarly to religion. Ford is revered and worshipped, and his work is used as the foundation for the entire society. That seems a whole lot like religion to me. I'm not really sure what to make of it though - why is Fordism okay, but Christianity and Native American religions are primitive?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Fordism is okay because it is a state-sponsored religion that strengthens BNW's society. I think that the creation stories in Christianity and Native American religions would only inspire people who already don't fit into the society to act instead of waiting for a transfer to an isolated outpost.
DeleteI agree that these societies definitely don't have big religious components by accident--I guess the authors envisioned that being part of a controlling society. So yeah, I had never though of this comparison, but the authors are definitely warning us a bit here, although I think they'd both agree that religion, to this point in our history, has had a net positive impact on humanity.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think this post highlights is the fact that people reading the same book can have different opinions based off of their environment. I would assume that people who read BNW at Huxley's probably saw the lack of Christianity as a bad thing, and also saw the religion of the "savages" as even more horrific. However, a reader in 2019 secular America will probably read BNW thinking that it is supporting the argument that any religion in society is a bad thing. All in all, I don't think one POV is concretely right or wrong. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting to think about. In Brave New World Mond calls Soma "Christianity without tears", now Mond is part of the ruling class of this society so I don't know if we are supposed to assume Huxley agrees with this but, it does seem like Soma and Ford-ism are a religion in Brave New World. I'm not really sure if this is a critique of religion that really emphasis the "opiate of the masses"or if its a critique of how some people twist religion. Interesting Post!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Huxley is opposed to religion at all actually. I'm not sure if Huxley believes that religion is necessary to have a good society, but I certainly think that he believes that the World State's suppression of religion is wrong. John seems to me to be the character that we're supposed to identify with, and he likes his religion, while Mustafa Mond's attempts to portray religion as unnecessary and obsolete come at the same time as he attempts to dismiss literature, history, and everything else that Huxley seems to want to preserve.
ReplyDelete-Sasha
I think what the role of religion in both books highlights is what happens when people abuse their belief systems and try to place themselves above others because of them. The World State's suppression and/or removal of people who are not secular enough results in an extremely oppressive society. Likewise, Gilead violently prevents anyone who isn't christian from expressing it (specifically their version of christian). Interestingly, both novels seem to point to dystopias occuring not because of one person trying to gain too much power, but from a group of people who are too entrenched in their beliefs and force them on others.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that religion is powerful. Throughout history, and even around us, we can see examples of religion facilitating human good, but also used as a justification for atrocities. The two books we have read provide an interesting comparison for me; one in which religion does not play a role, and one in which religion does. We recognize both societies as dystopian. The common thread between them, then, is humanity itself. Perhaps there will always be an element of humanity that pulls us towards evil, whether we exist in a space permitting religion or not.
ReplyDeleteReligion is an extraordinarily powerful concept. Although it can benefit society by giving hope and purpose, it can also be used to keep people under and content in an abusive regime. Additionally, It can be used to justify some pretty horrifying crimes. I think it's interesting that in both these novels, a group's ideology is forced on the general population, and pretty much used to keep them under.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely parallels between religion in the books and in our world, and this is largely due to the fact that both authors were creating social commentary on our world. So it's no mistake to point out that Atwood is warning us about the dangers of fundamentalist religious justifications. I think you make a fair argument for Huxley presenting religion as primitive, but I think there's also an argument to be made that Huxley is saying that religion is needed. The World State has sort of taken the traditions of Christianity without the moral teachings of it, and perhaps Huxley is saying that the absence of morality in the World State is a major problem.
ReplyDeleteThe level of dependence on religion is one of the main differences between Brave New World and Handmaid's Tale. It's interesting to see the religious stories that relate to the stories in Handmaid's Tale. On the other hand, Brave New World views religion as useless and ineffective. The lack of importance of religion in Brave New World, I believe, contributes to the dystopian state of the World State.
ReplyDeleteI think in order to understand religion, we need to boil down what religion actually is. Essentially, it is used as a way for us mortals to come to terms to our own mortality. When the society eliminates the necessity for that, it no longer exists. The lack of religion is not the cause of the World State. Rather, it is the symptom of it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Margaret Atwood and Huxley did intend to criticize religion. I think that religion is easily used to justify hateful actions and it makes sense that both authors would include it in their writing. After all in creating dystopias they have highlighted the worst of today’s societies and religion is one of those things that can be used for bad reasons. Generally, I think that when any dystopia is created there will be elements of current society within it and I think you did a good job of highlighting the similarities in your post.
ReplyDeleteI think that BNW is less dependent on religion because all of humanities more ancient problems, such as food and disease, have been solved so there is no need to depend on a higher being. On the other hand, the Handmaid's Tale is an extremist version of religion and the entire society is based around it. It's one thing for a society to have a religion and another thing for a society to embody a religion, which is why the Republic of Gilead doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting to think about. I think the Handmaid's Tale and Brave New World present two different extremes, where one uses religion as a base for their society, while the other considers religion obsolete and does not consider it at all. Ideally, I think American society attempts to implement a middle ground, where there is no one religion that is specifically prioritized in the government, but people also have the freedom to practice their own religion as they choose.
ReplyDeleteReligion as the basis of society as depicted in the Handmaid's Tale demonstrates the misuse/abuse of religion by certain groups to carry out their agenda. They basically give religious justification to their actions by interpreting religion to suit their needs. I would much rather have a society where people are respectful and caring towards each other than a religious society that exploits others in the name of religion.
ReplyDelete