Myths in Societies

Well... Why do societies create myths?

Myths are an ancient and not so ancient way of explaining the unexplainable; for example, when the Norse god Thor was at is forge and shaping his metal with his mighty hammer, the ringing would come to Earth and cause thunder. Of course, in our society today, we the scientist know that thunder is not cause by Thor, but by superheated air and electrons in the atmosphere. But what is more important: the scientific answer, or a story past down from generations past?

The creation of myths is important for a society to found a common language between its members. Without the popular narratives of Thor, Kari, Loki, and the like , the Norse people would be left without words to describe the natural world and human behavior. They would have no way to communicate their emotions or fears, but be left with the incommunicable unconsciousness. "The unconscious mind is...visual and figural..." (20) and because is it unique to each individual, structure, like language, is needed to describe what is going on in the unconscious mind. But sometimes the scope of emotions, the shock value, the disbelief that an event creates cannot be described but a linear language. None the less, stories are useful in providing a bases for a culture's language, a foundation for a community's discourse: "The myth defines what has the right to be said and done in the culture" (25). In today's world, a popular myth of America is achieving the "American Dream" and overcoming a large obstacle in life; this drives many Americans to achieve material wealth and a few to reaping spiritual wealth. This hope, created by the American myth, is embedded in our society and defines the nation as a whole and gives its members a common ground. It allows people to hope and work for better quality of life, and rise above problems surrounding their lives. The narrative of hope and endless possibilities found in America is very similar to the Norse gods-it provides a foundation for society to thrive and grow on and to describe commonalities between its members.

Now, science cannot be considered a narrative because "it cannot legitimize itself" (25) by using only scientific ideas and procedures. Instead, it also relies on stories represented by theories, like the Big Bang Theory. There is no way to definitely prove the theory, so it becomes a story, something with a grain of truth but stands without much validation-you cannot disprove something you are no sure of in the first place. Science needs narrative to describe its purpose in society. It cannot stand alone, and prove itself; it must have a story or a theory to prove itself. Because it cannot stand without story, science cannot be the ultimate foundation of society; even in Brave New World, "generalities are intellectually necessary evils" (4) in a society based on science and consumption. The story of how children are conditioned and why "History is bunk" (34) is necessary for the working masses to understand the general process of society. Stories are needed to provide foundation for communication in society and validation the scientific process.

Huxley's New World

I'm trying to think of what to write and there are only two things from the first four chapters of Brave New World that remain in my mind: morality and the conditioning children go through.

Huxley imagined a world were today's values were exchanged for their "sinful" counterparts in the name of "Community, Identity, Stability" (1), and abiding by the now outdated morals was "abnormal". For example, monogamy for any length of time was a horrendous thought, and today (for most of us) anything but monogamy is frowned upon. The reasoning behind the switch of morals defines this new world: "Family, monogamy, romance...[are] narrow channel[s] 0f impulse and energy" (40) with only "a single outlet" (41), but when "every one belongs to every one else" (40), a community gains stability. No more strive over loved ones, or feeling strongly about anything, but stability in society with "sane men, obedient men" (42) to tend the wheels and cogs of society's machine. By exchanging today's morals for their more unconventional standards, life in general is all about pleasure and zero strife. This lack of strife is also important in society's working machine--without full concentration on a job, mistakes can be made, and without strife more focus is devoted to a singular job. But without monogamy and families and homes, there is nothing to cause problems in a person's life. Even when things get frustrating, soma, the drug of choice, is always available for a short "vacation". Life is perfect for the majority of the population, and it is all due to the switch in morality and the special conditioning given to each caste.

The conditioning that children undergo through embryonic development and childhood firmly plant the new age philosophy and morals, and "pre-destines" them to a certain class. During fetal development, most female fetuses are given "a dose of male-sex hormone" and "Guaranteed sterile" (13); others may be deprived of oxygen ("the lower the caste, the lower the oxygen level" (14)) or "slacken off circulation when they're right side up...[so] they're only truly happy when they're standing on their heads" (17); however this system of pre-destining children does not allow for growth in the mind-it caps the amount of potential even before a baby is "decanted". When set in a caste or class, children are taught "moral" lessons during sleep-hate the lower classes because they "are too stupid to read or write" and "I'm so glad to be a Beta" (27). This sleep teaching forces the classes to stay apart, preventing class conflict and making life so much easier for the controller. When the "child's mind is these suggestions" (28) they no longer learn from others; they stick to what they subconsciously learn over their childhood. Alpha-pluses do not socialize with Deltas, because they wear a "beastly colour" (27) , and believe they are too lowly for their intelligence. But why are they so stupid? Because they are pre-destined to be stupid, and sleep teaching enforces the stereotype. The new world system does not give freedom to develop normally or a chance of a different life; instead it limits human capacity. This new society is no better than Orwell's 1984; its evil lies in taking away awareness of life quality and making you happy with drugs and unlimited sex partners. The "stability" provided can only last until some one falls in love, or when conditioning fails.

That's enough....

History and 1984

History can never be recorded accurately. Why? Because there is no such thing as an objective viewer. Example: a sports writer summarizing a recent football game will ALWAYS put an emphasis on their team's strengths, triumphs, and the like. Why? They want them to succeed and support his or her team to the fullest, and even when that particular team doesn't, that writer will ALWAYS be kinder than another who roots for the opposing team. It's the truth. In 1984, history is written and rewritten to promote well being of the party, much like today's footballer journalist who will one day say 'This team sunk', then revise his view to make himself seem like a creditable source after that team wins the Super Bowl. Now, this may seem like a change opinion, which in a way it is, but it's a self-sustaining change, like doublethink found in 1984. A person can really believe that that team sinks, but also like them because they are winning. (Teams that come to my mind are the Raiders and the Panthers... :) But bringing this back to the manipulation of history...) This expression of conflicting viewpoint with personal belief, like who has always been our ally in the war between Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia or who is a good team, is self-serving to the healthiness and well-being of the Party or some one's ego and finances (if they bet on teams. I suggest that no one bet on the Raiders. Ever.).

So, since history is clouded by opinions and personal and public beliefs, history can never be pure. Interpretations can change due to life experience and the discovery of new "facts" (more like truths). It can change depending on location, time, opinion, and new theories and beliefs. But history, pure history, can never change. Cold hard facts. Timelines. That is 'real' history, pure fact, and everything else is color. Diaries, accounts, and historians' views are opinions on the times. Newspapers are attempts to be objective, but are still opinions on current events. Who ever won the battle, reports that view point and for the most part the world will accept it (save for the more recent wars). The losers, who have a different standpoint on their loss, will not object to being further trampled on. They no longer have the power or standing to stop anyone from believing anything else. And this is why, in several cases, minorities' want their history heard in public school curriculum. They have had their own battles, triumphs, but because they haven't been heard before people ignore their role in society. They are pushed over for the general white politics. Now, it's been argued that you cannot include everything in state standards, which is a fact (history is a vast, unending subject, as we all know), but it doesn't mean that a little color on pure history, a little different emphasis would be a bad thing. Any extensive in depth look would probably serve someone better in college, but introducing different cultures into our primarily white history wouldn't be terrible. Even though those minorities lost the battle against the white European-Americans, doesn't mean that their viewpoint is worthless.

So, to recap. History is never objective because of the opinions of the time period and what we think in the present. The ongoing creation of history is also not objective despite the attempts of journalists, because we are all biased. This football team is better than this one; this country in better than that one. But minorities should have their histories shared. Without even the littlest knowledge of their role in the modern history of a community, their worth is overlooked. In 1984, everyone is the same in uniform, at home, and situation. There is no worth in a society without variation. Without our little color in history, every one's views would be the same, and there would be little difference from country to country in this regard. Pure history will not change (hopefully), but our opinions will. Is this terrible? Not as long as we have the freedom of individuality.