Huxley paints a portrait of people enslaved to a drug, where there are clear social classes with the illusion of equality, where people avoid pain and pursue pleasure, and where innovation and ideas are regulated by what will make people happy. This is definitely the late capitalism we know today. We use the myth of the 'self-made man' to justify the status of those at the top, many are dependent on our income to provide stability in our lives, and is it not true that human beings regulate their emotions by avoiding unpleasant experiences?

Of course hedonism is hardly unnatural and some evolutionary psychologists have suggested the evolutionary role of the orgasm was to promote reproduction. Then again, it still remains a mystery since the sexual act is not performed for mere pleasure in most other species. I am also reminded of a classic experiment where researchers connected an electrode to the pleasure centre of a rat's brain, which would be triggered by pressing a lever. After the rat discovered this, it pressed the lever repeatedly before collapsing from exhaustion.

The novel also emphasizes the way that pleasure acts as a reward for the services that maintain stability. It is because of the addiction to pleasure and soma that people go to work; it is through conditioning that they act in this way. This reminds me of Henry Ford's idea about industry and binding workers to their jobs through consumer lifestyles.

Some have suggested soma is a prophetic image of Prozac, as noted by Raj Persaud in his speech at the London School of Economics (Transcript courtesy of Background Briefing). Of course I hardly think we can see soma as being like a traditional drug. Most drugs taken over long periods of time tend to have the body develop a resistance, thanks to the opponent process, and this leads to a need for increasing doses and withdrawal symptoms. Soma merely serves to regulate emotional experiences and calm nerves. It works against anxiety and is probably a lot closer to a depressant than an anti-depressant.

This leaves us with a question of whether happiness is more important than freedom. In dealing with this puzzle, Huxley selects the most suitable character to champion the cause of the latter. John is a chronically depressed masochist. Although he succeeds in acquiring his freedom, his misery is ultimately his undoing; yet the story leaves us with a big question about who is responsible for this end: Is it the emotions, or is it his situation? Biology or Behaviourism? Nature or Nurture?