“Choice Without Choice”: Aldous Huxley on Future Dictatorships

In 1949, Aldous Huxley wrote a letter to George Orwell explaining why he believed that future dictatorships would more closely resemble the vision of blind servitude in Brave New World than the harsh repression of thoughtcrime depicted in 1984. Later, in 1958, Huxley gave an interview to Mike Wallace, where he further clarified his concerns about the future, puppet politicians, the dark side of technology, and new methods of propaganda. Below, we present Huxley’s letter and excerpts from his interview.

Two Models of Dystopia: Orwell and Huxley

George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World are two of the 20th century’s most influential dystopian novels, each depicting different models of future dictatorships and total control over public and private life. Both works were born from the authors’ grim reflections on the political upheavals of their time and their concerns about the future of society and the individual.

Orwell focused on the potential extremes of authoritarianism, enforced through violence and crude propaganda. Huxley, on the other hand, explored the dangers of capitalism, democracies obsessed with entertainment, comfort, and consumerism, and the human tendency to sacrifice much for these pleasures. In Orwell’s Oceania, the masses are kept in fear through endless war, historical revisionism, punishment for “thoughtcrime,” and pervasive state surveillance. In Huxley’s World State, the elite control the masses by distracting them with trivial entertainment, the drug “soma” to eliminate anxiety, and a carousel of easy sex—subtle control through “encouraging infantilism and narco-hypnosis.”

Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931, before Orwell’s 1984 was published in 1949. After reading Orwell’s novel, Huxley commented on it in a personal letter (Orwell had once been Huxley’s student at Eton College). Today, debates continue over whose vision of the future was more accurate. The sad truth may be that both were right: new regimes may combine features of both Orwell’s Oceania and Huxley’s World State, perhaps in unexpected ways—if this hasn’t already happened.

Aldous Huxley’s Letter to George Orwell

Wrightwood, California
October 21, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to have your publishers send me a copy of your book. It arrived while I was immersed in work that required a lot of reading and reference checking; and since my poor eyesight forces me to limit my reading, I had to wait quite a while before I could get to 1984.

Agreeing with all the critics have written about it, I see no need to tell you once more how fine and how profoundly important the book is. Instead, may I speak about the subject of the book—the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution—a revolution beyond politics and economics, aimed at the total subversion of psychology and physiology—can be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in 1984 is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. It seems to me that the “boot-on-the-face” policy cannot go on indefinitely. I believe that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and that these will resemble those I described in Brave New World.

Recently, I have been studying the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and others. Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of respectability, philosophers and scientists of the nineteenth century were not willing to investigate the odd facts of psychology as applied to people like politicians, soldiers, and policemen, so as to use them in government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the ultimate revolution was postponed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his later disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism in psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psychoanalysis is being combined with hypnotism, and hypnotism is being made easier and more widely applicable by the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state even in the most recalcitrant subjects.

I believe that in the next generation, rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of 1984 is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large-scale biological and atomic war—in which case we shall have nightmares of another and scarcely imaginable kind.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,
Aldous Huxley

Excerpts from Mike Wallace’s Interview with Aldous Huxley (1958)

On the Enemies of Freedom

Wallace: Mr. Huxley, who or what do you see as the enemies of freedom in the United States?

Huxley: I don’t think there are sinister people deliberately depriving others of their freedom. But I do think there are impersonal forces pushing us toward less and less freedom. There are also technological devices that anyone can use to accelerate this process of control. There are two main impersonal forces: the first is overpopulation, the growing pressure of people on existing resources. For example, between the birth of Christ and the arrival of the Mayflower, the world’s population doubled—from about 250 million to 500 million. Today, the population is growing so fast that it will double again in just fifty years. In underdeveloped countries, the standard of living is actually falling, and as their economic situation becomes more precarious, governments must take on more responsibility to keep things afloat. This creates conditions ripe for social unrest and central government intervention, which can push societies toward totalitarianism. Unfortunately, in many of these countries, the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, so they may inherit power as a result.

The second force is what I call over-organization. As technology becomes more complex, we need more complex, hierarchical organizations. More and more people live as subordinates in these bureaucratic systems, whether in big business or government.

On Technology and Propaganda

Wallace: Are there specific devices or methods of communication that reduce our freedoms?

Huxley: Absolutely. Take, for example, the incredibly effective propaganda used by Hitler. He used terror and brute force, but also very effective propaganda, using all the modern devices of his time—especially radio—to impose his will on millions. Even highly educated people were not immune.

Wallace: Do you see a parallel between Hitler’s propaganda and how propaganda is used in the United States?

Huxley: Not in the same way, but I worry that new methods, even more effective than Hitler’s, could be used in a crisis. Technology can catch us off guard, and people may find themselves doing things they never intended. Today, television is mostly harmless, but imagine if it were used as a tool for constant, targeted propaganda, as in some communist countries. Technology itself is morally neutral—it can be used for good or ill, just like atomic energy.

On the “Brave New World” and Political Manipulation

Wallace: In your essays, you say that the “enemies of freedom” are pushing us toward a real “Brave New World.” What kind of life do you fear in such a world?

Huxley: I think the dictatorship of the future will be very different from those of the recent past. Orwell’s 1984 was written at the height of the Stalin and Hitler regimes, and he foresaw a dictatorship based on terror and physical violence. But in the future, dictators will realize that you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. To maintain power indefinitely, you need the consent of the governed, which can be achieved partly through drugs, as I predicted in Brave New World, and partly through new methods of propaganda. These methods bypass rational thought and appeal to the subconscious, to deep emotions and even physiology, making people love their servitude. The danger is that people may be happy in situations where they shouldn’t be. That’s why it’s important to think about these issues now and not be caught off guard by new technologies—whether drugs or propaganda. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

On Political Campaigns and Advertising

Wallace: In your essays, you write about American political campaigns: “All you need is money and a candidate who can be trained to look sincere; political principles and concrete plans have lost much of their importance. The candidate’s personality, as presented by advertising experts, is what really matters.”

Huxley: During the last campaign, party advertising managers often said that candidates should be marketed like soap or toothpaste, and that we should depend entirely on their personality. Personality is important, but there are very attractive personalities—especially on TV—who may not be good at politics.

Wallace: Do you think people like Eisenhower, Stevenson, or Nixon deliberately tried to mislead the public?

Huxley: No, but they were advised by powerful advertising agencies running campaigns very different from those in the past. We’ll likely see new methods, such as subliminal technologies—images, sounds, or messages that target the subconscious. Right now, this isn’t a threat, but as soon as something is shown to work, you can be sure the technology will improve rapidly. It may be used a little in the 1960 campaign, but much more effectively by 1964, given the pace of technological development.

Wallace: So we could be persuaded to vote for a candidate without knowing we’re being persuaded?

Huxley: Exactly. It’s a disturbing picture—being persuaded not on the level of choice and reason.

On Advertising, Children, and Democracy

Wallace: In your work, you criticize Madison Avenue, which controls much of our TV, radio, and newspaper advertising. Why do you attack advertising agencies?

Huxley: Advertising plays a necessary role, but the danger is this: democracy depends on the individual voter making a rational choice in their own enlightened interest. But advertisers and propagandists try to bypass rationality and appeal directly to unconscious forces, undermining the democratic process, which is based on conscious, rational choice.

Wallace: You also write about how children today walk around singing beer and toothpaste jingles, and you link this to the danger of dictatorship. Can you explain?

Huxley: The issue of children is crucial—they are much more suggestible than adults. If all propaganda is controlled by a few agencies, it becomes a powerful force shaping children, who will soon become adults. This isn’t an immediate threat, but it’s a possible one. In Europe, children were called “cannon fodder”; here, they’re “TV and radio fodder.” Industry journals talk about the need to capture children as loyal brand buyers. In political terms, a dictator would see them as future buyers of ideology.

On Brainwashing and Power

Wallace: We hear a lot about brainwashing by communists. Do you see any brainwashing in the United States?

Huxley: Not in the form used in China or Russia, which involves harsh propaganda methods on individuals. Advertising is not a shotgun—it’s a way to play on both physiology and psychology until a person breaks down and accepts a new idea.

Wallace: Politics, TV, atomic energy—they’re not evil in themselves. Why do you fear they’ll be used for evil?

Huxley: Because these are tools for gaining power, and the passion for power is one of the strongest in humans. Democracies are based on the idea that power is dangerous and must be limited. The British and American constitutions are mechanisms for limiting power, but these new devices are extremely effective tools for imposing the will of small groups on large masses.

On Preserving Individuality and Freedom

Wallace: In your essay, you ask: “In an age of increasing overpopulation, growing over-organization, and ever more effective mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reaffirm the value of the human individual?” How would you answer?

Huxley: First and foremost, it’s a matter of education. It’s important to insist on individual values. There’s a trend toward group morality, as described in William H. Whyte’s book The Organization Man, but this contradicts what we know about human genetics—each person is unique. The idea of freedom is based on this uniqueness. We must emphasize this in education and teach people to be alert to verbal traps and to analyze what they’re told. Education is key to strengthening people and making them more aware of what’s happening.

On the Necessity of Freedom

Wallace: Is freedom necessary?

Huxley: As far as I understand, yes.

Wallace: Is it necessary for a productive society?

Huxley: Yes, I believe so. You can produce a lot of goods without much freedom, but true creative life is impossible without a significant degree of individual freedom, initiative, and creativity—all the things we value, and rightly so.