In both novels, it is not only individuality that is suppressed. Controlling bodies in both societies have in fact placed a limitation on knowledge. Ignorance is also encouraged or even enforced to create a stability of mind and therefore a general stability is also built. Characters such as that of Parsons and Lenina are created, where there is a full acceptance of, and trust in, the regimes.
Soma contributes to this objective very successfully in 'Brave New World', alongside hypnopaedia. People of the World State are conditioned to believe that:
"A gramme in time saves nine" and "A gramme is better than a damn."
Huxley describes this to us, sarcastically, as a "bright treasure of sleep-taught wisdom". Here we can see that people have been fooled into seeing the artificial high given to them by soma as true happiness. Therefore, they have become emotionally blank, with the only escape from anything out of the ordinary being a trip of false happiness. This dependence of the whole society on soma creates a false pretence of absolute satisfaction throughout the world, which, as if it were true, creates a fully stable society.
Similarly, doublethink serves as a measure in '1984', through which emotional obscurity, which is a necessity in this totalitarian society, can be reached. Doublethink is a form of forced ignorance, where the mind must be able to believe two contradicting facts at the same time. In fact, doublethink can be linked as an almost direct parallel to soma. In both cases, the people find them absolute requirements for survival and they both serve the same function for the governments; ignorance, regularity and stability.
Both societies recognise the need for contentment to ensure a stable environment. By limiting the civilians’ knowledge of the past, this is recognised by both civilisations, leaving no comparisons that would make them look bad.
In 'Brave New World', people are taught that "History is bunk". The saying is actually described as "inspired and beautiful" by the World Controller, Mustapha Mond. Even when the few, such as Mond, who have knowledge of the past, refer to it, they do so with disgust in a manner to turn others away from trying to investigate further. It easily possible that they would find individuality, monogamy, family and the lack of soma ridiculous and would look on our culture as critically as Huxley appears to look on theirs. However, they are given no chance to compare the times, and therefore remain convinced that the age in which they live is far superior. Hence they are content with their lives. This acceptance of their environment induces further stability.
'1984' exhibits the same ideas, although historic sources are available to the civilians of Oceania. In this case, history is altered to create a similar effect. The Party wants to claim all of mankind's successes and discredit anything else as proof of the world's problems in pre-Party days:
"In the late 'fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane"
The Party wants its members to ‘love’ and appreciate it and Big Brother in order to maintain stability; this alteration of the past is one of the many ways they achieve this. The Party not only controls and adjusts past events from times before the regime but it does so to historical facts from the previous day. Everyday events are affected in this way to improve peoples' perception of Big Brother's intelligence and to keep up their confidence in him. Orwell gives us a full insight into this, as it is Winston's job at the Ministry of Truth to alter newspaper articles that have "malquoted" Big Brother or that contain information on persons that have been vaporised, people who according to the Party have never existed. Early on in the book we follow Winston on a typical working day and witness some of this 'rectification' when a paper had;
"published the official forecasts of the output of… consumption goods… The forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."
Once the figures are changed, it will seem that Big Brother has correctly predicted everything, leaving people at rest and most likely in admiration for their figurehead. Hence, stability will be reached.
Another limitation of mind induced by both societies is the prevention of free thought. By teaching the inhabitants of the World State through hypnopaedia, people already have their opinions before they are of an age where they can understand them. Similarly, the vocabulary of the Oceanic citizen is restricted in order that the ability to form disagreeable opinions is abandoned. This is done through the introduction of Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is discussed in the appendix at the end of the book where we are told that once Newspeak has been accepted and 'Oldspeak', that is English, is forgotten;
"a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable."
By introducing Newspeak as an apparently more efficient language, it becomes easily accepted. Simple alterations such as the use of 'plus' as a prefix rather than 'very' or any other such word give the illusion of merely simplifying the language while the word 'free' is removed of its grammatical sense when used in the sense of 'politically free' or 'intellectually free'. Once the language has reached its final version, any 'heretical thoughts', that is thoughts against the Party, do not exist and it is impossible for inappropriate opinions to be formed. Once again, as in 'Brave New World', the governing body has formed universal opinions for their society. This is another constituent of giving the government a totally stable position, as nobody will be able to disagree with them and will only be able to oppose anybody who does. Thus their minds are controlled and power is fully imposed.
Both authors are wary of the uses of technological advances. There are many examples of them satirising science and innovation, especially how they can be put to different uses with darker motives than originally intended.
Huxley seems to be opposing a principle epitomised in H.G. Wells' 'Men Like Gods', called eugenics, where technology is used to create a race of perfect humans. We are shown how that good intent is used almost as a cover for creating humans that know and accept their roles in society and will never rise above this. Essentially, such technology is used to enforce power and control over the constituents of the World State. The State also utilises soma and hypnopaedia to ensure that everybody remains happy and understanding of their society. In fact, the controller establishes this for us when he tells the young students of;
"'The primal and ultimate need. Stability. Hence all this'… he indicated the…Conditioning Centre."
The technology that has developed is the foundation for ensuring a stable society.
Orwell, similarly, proves how a development of technology with seemingly good intent, can also be used to establish further power over subjects. In the case of '1984' it is surveillance that is the matter of debate. Being wary of cameras and other such equipment, Orwell shows how they can not only watch and protect you but also help keep track of you and your actions. In '1984', even on posters;
"the eyes follow you about when you move."
Orwell has created a society where all the technology that was developing at his time has been taken and applied to ulterior motives. Technology spreads stability by spreading fear and watchfulness where humans’ eyes cannot normally reach.
Hence, both authors have noticed important technological advances of their time and presented them as tools that could easily be used wrongly. By using technology to exert further power over their people, both societies are increasing their stability.
The social organisation of both societies is also important in both novels and their presentation of power and stability. Both authors look especially at hierarchy and social status in the two worlds.
Something both authors do is to put the people with the most similarities to us at the bottom of the social ladder, hence give them the least power. The Savages of Malpais and the Proles both live in unregulated worlds where the lifestyle from our times has remained relatively untouched. In both cases, our way of living is looked down upon by members of the modern societies, while most readers of the books would view the lives or values of these castes as superior to the higher classes surrounding them.
In the case of the Savages, their lifestyle may seem slightly primitive to the reader. This is probably done to create a stronger contrast between the two civilisations. When Bernard and Lenina first arrive at the reservation, the inhabitants are described as "inhuman" and "naked". The mention of "dirt", bad smells and "snakes" suggest an uncivilised society to us. Through this Huxley warns us how developing in the direction we have since living like the Indians may very well take us towards living like the residents of the World State.
Despite the rigid social structure of both worlds, power remains incredibly equal between people, as nobody appears to have any power over their governing bodies. In '1984', the proles make no contribution to society and although members of the Outer Party do this, they have much less freedom. Despite the advantages that both classes have, they have equally little power. If any signs of treachery are shown by anyone, they are vaporised and the same occurs if they appear too clever. Winston notices this fact while talking to his friend, Syme:
"Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent… It is written in his face"
By understanding doublethink and the society, Syme is clever enough to notice the wrongdoings of the Party and by passing his deep understanding of doublethink to others; he is helping them to notice. It is possible to argue that intellectuality does not contribute necessarily to observance, nevertheless the Party is obviously aware that knowledge is power, and for a stable society, power below the high ranks must be kept to an absolute minimum. It is also arguable that, under the watchful eyes of the telescreens, Party members are given less ability to partake in any leisurely activities, and hence have less capability to rebel than the proles do. This is recognised by Winston as he writes;
"If there is hope… it lies in the proles."
However he also admits that;
"Until they become conscious they cannot rebel".
Here we see that by detaching the proles from the Party community may give them freedom, but essentially removes their consciousness, and therefore their power.
By programming the civilians of the World State, a similar objective is reached. Every citizen is only conscious of his or her own role in society, and are totally content with whatever that is. We see this as the Director shows us the Elementary Class Consciousness hypnopaedia lesson. The Beta children are being taught to think that;
"Alpha children… work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta"
By reducing the troubles and worries of people, the social structure is solidified, as everybody is satisfied. However, creating humans with different physical and intellectual attributes for each rank creates no power difference between them as the process also controls their thoughts. Therefore, as in '1984', the introduction of solid social structure is used to actually make the lack of power equal between all members of society and hence give this power to only the highest ranks in order to maintain stability.
Gender issues are important particularly in creating stability in the societies. Again, although these are not always identical, the aim and effect of the different ideas are incredibly similar. Both worlds for example have in some way begun to lose the distinction between sexes. In 'Brave New World' a third sex known as 'freemartins' has been introduced who do not have either male or female sexual organs. In '1984' the Party members all don the same uniform of blue or black overalls. Make up and other such commodities that give women today a particular differentiation from men are disallowed. These details again contribute to the loss of individuality that the societies are trying to encourage in order to reinforce stability. This leads to no love or relationships in Oceania, which leaves citizens with more energy to put into society, hating the enemies of the country and loving Big Brother. The Party also disagrees with marriage or sex for love. Julia explains her theory for this sexual Puritanism to Winston:
"When you make love you're using up energy… They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother… and the Two Minute Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?"
The reason is that the Party wants everybody's energy put into society to ensure stability. Similarly, the contrasting sexual promiscuity in 'Brave New World' leads to little or no love and long term relationships, thus putting peoples' main attentions into supporting society and hence creating further stability. A feature of both novels that has attracted criticism, especially since the 80s, is that both societies are very paternal. The faces of Big Brother, O’Brien and Goldstein are those which represent power in Oceania, similarly to Ford and Mustapha Mond in the World State. The women we meet in both stories, although often important to the plot or for giving insight into the worlds, do not assume the leading roles. This is open to many interpretations. Many feminist critics have claimed that the books both endorse patriarchal society, however, as both books are intended to satirise the environments of the authors, the fact that the societies are patriarchal may be because such civilisations are being satirised. Another possible reading of this might be that either author did not see the equality of women as a problem, therefore not including it within satirical writing as to avoid confusion. However it is seen, such subordination of women to men can be seen to contradict the loss of gender identity that both authors employ. In fact, it can also be seen as to contradict the unseen equality that spreads throughout the hierarchical system of both worlds. Such a small detail, which both authors seem to have missed, may easily lead to a lack of stability in a society, and hence a loss of power. Therefore, we seem to have found a mis-presentation of power and stability that runs through both books.
In conclusion, Orwell and Huxley create very contrasting societies; one being dark, depressed and tyrannical, while the other is oppressive yet seems to have a very pleasant environment. However, through many similar and different ways the governments of the worlds achieve very similar goals of controlling their constituents through their power, thus strengthening their power and maintaining long-term stability.
