계몽과 멋진 신세계 -아도르노의 헉슬리 다시 읽기-

이하준 ( Lee Ha-jun ) 한국동서철학회 2016 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.81

헉슬리와 아도르노는 도구적 이성의 부정성을 소설과 철학이라는 언어적 문법을 통해 보여준다. 이들의 문명비판에 대한 문제제기와 내용의 상당한 근친성에도 불구하고 양자의 논점들을 면밀하게 비교·분석한 연구결과들은 거의 찾아 볼 수 없다. 이논문은 아도르노의 시각에서 헉슬리의 『멋진 신세계』다시 읽기를 검토한다. 아도르노와 헉슬리는 지배이념과 지배방식을 구현하는 사회적 메커니즘의 분석, 지배의 심리학, 자유의 상실에 대한 비판에서 상당한 유사성을 보여준다. 그러나 계몽의 계몽, 문명의 독을 해결하는 방식은 사회의 구조변화와 개인적 탈주 및 부분적 개선이라는 상이한 전략을 취한다. 아도르노의 헉슬리 ‘다시 읽기’는 자신의 철학적 관점에서 수행되기 때문에 명료성과 난점들을 동시에 갖는다. 헉슬리에 대한 아도르노 비판의 주요내용은 보수주의적 색채, 정신문화에 대한 관념론적 동경, 실증주의적 성격, 무정부적 개인주의, 지배의 공고화를 위한 암묵적 기여, 사회적 해방을 위한 실천적 계기성의 결핍으로 요약될 수 있다. 아도르노의 헉슬리 다시 읽기는 이데올로기적 차원에서 수행되는 난점과 다시 읽기의 텍스트적 근거의 제한성에서 오는 한계가 있다. 헉슬리의 포드 사회에 대한 선취적 비판과 아도르노의 헉슬리 다시 읽기의 논점들은 알파고 시대를 비판적으로 인식하는 데 하나의 길을 제시한다. Huxley and Adorno show the negativity of instrumental reason by taking linguistic grammar of novel and philosophy. Although there is a considerable similarity in the way of raising questions and its contents on their criticisms of civilization, it is hard to find out any carefully examined comparative analysis of both Huxley’s and Adorno’s arguments of the above issues. This paper aims to examine Huxley’s Brave New World from Adorno``s perspective on Huxley, namely Rereading Huxley. There seems considerable familiarity in both Adorno’s and Huxley’s analysis of social mechanism, the realization of ruling ideology, and the criticisms of the loss of freedom. But their ways to solve the problem of enlightenment of enlightenment, namely the poison of civilization, seems to be a different strategy that would show ‘changing the social structure’, ‘individual escape’, and ‘partial improvement’ under the existing social conditions. Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’ seems to have both clarity and difficulties simultaneously because it starts from only Adorno’s own philosophical perspective. The main contents of Adorno``s criticism on Huxley could be summarized in the following words: conservative color, idealistic yearn for spiritual culture, a positivistic character, anarchic individualism, implicit contributing to consolidation of domination, and the lack of practical force for the social emancipation. It seems quite certain that Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’ reaches the limit caused by the matter of ideological aspects and the application of the limited text. This paper finally opens up the way of critical understanding of the era alpago throughout the examination of Huxley``s preceding criticisms of Ford Society and the issues of Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’.

풍자소설과 세계문학: 식민지 시기 올더스 헉슬리의 수용 양상

김미연 한국비교문학회 2023 比較文學 Vol.- No.90

This paper analyzes the pattern of Alders Huxley’s acceptance in colonial Joseon in the 1930s. Although Huxley is now known as a ‘scientific novelist’, the discussion began with the question of whether it would have been the same way when it was first introduced. To analyze this, the following contents were reviewed. First, this paper confirmed that Huxley’s discourse occurred in the academy. The first people to introduce Huxley were English literature majors. Among them, Choi Jae-seo and Kim Young-seok were particularly prominent. The two presented academic reviews beyond introduction. Many contemporary studies were reflected in the two’s reviews, and in-depth analysis was attempted than in the previous era. The interest of English literature majors was similar in Japan. This meant that Huxley’s literature was immediately approved as ‘world literature.’ Secondly, this study scrutinizes the contextual circumstances in which Huxley was designated as a ‘satirical novelist.’ The introduction of Huxley’s literary works accentuated the post-World War I epoch, wherein cynicism and skepticism, characteristic of post-war literature, were prominently discernible in Huxley’s writings. Choi Jae-seo interprets these features as manifestations of Huxley’s ‘self-satire.’ Thirdly, the research analyzes Point Counter Point and Brave New World from the vantage point of ‘satirical novels.’ The former actively introduces a character archetype embroiled in a conflict between ‘reason’ and ‘instinct.’ Choi Jae-seo perceives the portrayal of the wandering intellectual type as reflective of ‘crippled humanity’, thereby broadening the scope of understanding English literature during the 1920s. The latter work is classified as both ‘science fiction’ and ‘satirical fiction.’ Operating on the premise that scientific progress does not guarantee human happiness, it is regarded as a cautionary tale against homogeneity and the erosion of individuality. Consequently, this study holds the significance of reconstructing the discourse that took shape within the colonial shipbuilding milieu, capturing Huxley’s arrival to critique the prevailing zeitgeist through the technique of ‘satire.’ 이 논문은 올더스 헉슬리가 1930년대 식민지 조선에 수용된 양상을 분석한 것이다. 헉슬리는 현재 『멋진 신세계』의 ‘과학소설가’로 각인되어 있지만, 처음부터 과연 동일한 호명 방식이었을지에 대한 문제의식에서 시작하였다. 이를 분석하기위해 다음의 내용을 검토하였다. 첫째, 헉슬리의 수용은 아카데미의 자장에서 발생하였다. 수용 초기의 주축은 영문학자였다. 그 가운데 특히 두드러진 인물은 최재서와 김영석이다. 두 사람은 소개 차원을 넘어 학술적인 평론을 발표하였다. 두 사람의 평론에는 동시대 영미문학 연구서가 다수 반영되어 있었으며 앞선 시대보다 심층적인 분석이 수행되었다. 일본의 영문학자들 역시 상당한 관심을 가졌고, 번역과 평론이 다수 발표되었다. 결과적으로 아카데미의 조명을 바탕으로헉슬리의 문학이 곧장 ‘세계문학’으로 승인되었다. 둘째, ‘풍자소설가’로 호명된 맥락을 분석하였다. 헉슬리의 문학이 유입되며 강조된 것은 1차대전 이후의 시대적 상황이다. 헉슬리의 초기 문학에는 1차대전 후의 냉소와 회의가 점철되어있었고, 자신이 속한 지식인 계급의 무력감과 퇴폐를 집중적으로 비판하였다. 최재서는 이러한 헉슬리의 ‘자기 풍자’를 각별히 주목하였다. 셋째, 『연애대위법』과『멋진 신세계』를 ‘풍자소설’의 관점에서 살펴보았다. 전자의 경우 ‘이성’과 ‘본능’ 사이에서 갈등하는 인물 유형이 적극적으로 소개되었다. 최재서는 방황하는 지식인 유형을 ‘불구의 인간성’으로 해석하여 1차대전 이후에 창작된 영국 문학의 이해를 넓혔다. 후자의 경우 ‘과학소설’과 ‘풍자소설’로 명명되었다. 과학의 진보가 인간의 행복을 보장해 주지 않는다는 전제하에, 획일화된 사회와 개성의 절멸을 경고하는 소설로 독해된 것이 핵심이다. 이 연구는 ‘풍자’의 기법으로 시대를 비판한 헉슬리가 도착한 장면을 포착하여 식민지 조선에서 형성된 학술적인 담론을 재구성해 보았다.

『멋진 신세계』에 나타난 진보된 과학과 인간의 자유의 문제

노동욱 ( Dong Wook Noh ) 21세기영어영문학회 2012 영어영문학21 Vol.25 No.3

Scientistic utopian novels originating from the idea of “New Atlantis” in the 17th century have expressed the desire to change people`s lives into a more developed and advanced state by borrowing the power of science as the 18th and 19th centuries progressed. However, it is notable that Aldous Huxley`s novel Brave New World (1932) started off from a totally different context than prior utopian novels. Unlike writers such as Francs Bacon who dreamt of realizing a utopia, Huxley considered the problems that could occur when the utopia they dreamt of became reality, and planned his novel Brave New World with the aim of guarding against the realization of a utopia. In other words, the fantasy dreamt up by Bacon, that is, the fabrication of science against human life and nature was a nightmare to the 20th-century Huxley, and the great pains of dreaming up a scientific utopia was ironically reversed into the toil of preventing the utopia from happening and returning to a non-utopian society. In his foreword of 1946, Huxley established the nightmare he depicted in Brave New World as occurring 600 years later, but he predicted that the horror of this nightmare would actually be realized within a hundred years while warning against the rapid advance of scientific technology and its side effects. We who are living in the modern day of the 21st century are witnessing a much more rapid advance in scientific technology than what Huxley had experienced in the 20th century, and therefore, we need to pay attention to the voice warning against its side effects. Huxley`s novel Brave New World contains the humanistic self-examination that questions whether the ideal we aspired to is heading in the right direction and is significant in that it involves the serious introspection reflecting on how the human race may be in the state of heaven or hell due to the power of science. The epigraph of Brave New World hints at Huxley`s desire to return to a world less perfect but more free, while the foreword to Brave New World Revisited (1958) explores what he terms “the subject of freedom and its enemies.” This paper addresses this problem of human freedom in a scientifically advanced society. In Brave New World, Huxley is in a certain way projecting the side effects that occur when science is combined with totalitarianism while pointing out the prices paid for the advance in science and the gains made within society, or in other words, the individuality, freedom, independence, humanity, and various human emotions lost in the name of advancement and security. By contrasting the ideological language of Brave New World with Shakespearean language, this paper reveals that Huxley cautions against the disciplinary power of language that is concomitant with scientific advancement. The paper also examines in Brave New World the process in which human beings are denied free will and existential worth as a result of the sole pursuit of security in a society and community through advanced scientific technology.

토머스 헉슬리와 자연에서 인간의 위치

김기윤 ( Kim Ki-yoon ) 호남사학회(구 전남사학회) 2016 역사학연구 Vol.63 No.-

토머스 헉슬리의 『자연에서 인간의 위치』는 현대 체질인류학의 정립에 중요한 이정표가 된 책이며 찰스 다윈의 진화이론을 인간의 영역으로 확장하는데 결정적인 역할을 한 문헌으로 잘 알려져 있다. 이 책에서 헉슬리는 인간의 진화는 분명한 사실이며, 이를 설명하려는 자연선택이라는 다윈의 가설은 종교적 또는 사변적 신념에 기대지 않는 가장 훌륭한, 아니 유일한 이론임을 설득력 있게 주장했다. 생물학적 자아란 인간의 형상이 신보다는 동물을 닮았다는 깨달음을 뜻하는 것이었고, 그 생물학적 자아의 존재를 깨닫게 하기 위해 헉슬리는 자신을 ‘다윈의 불독’으로 자칭하면서 윌버포스 주교와 같은 당시의 종교인들과 ‘격돌’을 벌였으며, 진리의 확신에 찬 ‘과학인’을 자처하면서 리처드 오웬과 같은‘아마추어’와 싸움을 벌였다고 이해되어 왔다. 그리고 『자연에서 인간의 위치』는 이 격돌의 결정(結晶) 으로 해석되어 왔다. 하지만 그 논쟁의 실제 상황을 복원해 보고 또 헉슬리 자신의 삶을 영국빅토리아 시대의 맥락 속에서 살피는 역사적 분석은 전혀 다른 해석의 가능성을 보여준다. 그 분석에서 헉슬리는 자신과 아마추어 과학자 사이에, 그리고 자신과 종교인들 사이에 공론장을 만들기 위해 전투적인 수사를 동원하고 있었다. 그렇게 ``보여주기 전투``를 통해 만든 공론장을 통해 헉슬리는 당대의 종교인들이나 여타 지식인들과 함께 사회의 질서를 버텨 주는 문화적 권위를 만들고 지키려했다. 그리고 그 전투의 배경에는 당시의 문화와 과학은 물론 헉슬리 자신의 개인적 삶과 신념의 그림자들이 선명히 스며들어 있었다. Thomas Henry Huxley``s Man``s Place in Nature has been known well as important literature initiated modern physical anthropology. More famous image attached to the book has been its author``s role as an advocate of Charles Darwin``s theory of evolution; and indeed, in the book, Huxley claims the plausibility, if not veracity, of Darwinian theory of evolution. Through his convincing argument in the book, Huxley carved out man``s biological self as a physical entity; and such image of man came to be the basis of our own modern self. According to the traditional image of Huxley as Darwin``s bulldog, he embarked fierce battles against religious establishment represented by Bishop Wilberforce and against aristocratic scientific community represented by ``British Cuvier`` Richard Owen, in order to let them recognize that man is closer to the beasts than to the God. Furthermore, according to Huxley, man of science was truly qualified authority on the discussions about man``s place in nature, which had been known as the question of questions which had been the territory of religion and philosophy. Yet, Detailed analysis on the background and circumstances around the publication of his book provides us of a surprising new perspective on the issue: Huxley was one of the public moralists who tried to reestablish cultural authority of the society working with, as well as fighting against, the other formerly established religious and aristocratic establishments. And during the process of his struggle to get such a goal, his personal experiences as well as his contemporary culture provided him of significant insights on his contemplations about man``s place in nature.

대위법적 문명의 의미 탐색 : 헉슬리의 『멋진 신세계』

추재욱(Choo, Jae-Uk) 문학과환경학회 2014 문학과 환경 Vol.13 No.2

This paper aims to explore the meaning of "civilization" often addressed in the Brave New World. It is not until one understands the writer"s point-counterpoint narrative that the re/discovery of the civilization in the new world is fully made through a step-by-step approach to the text. Accordingly, the past and present historical meaning of the New Mexican Reservation should be first reviewed to know why Huxley foregrounds the reservation along with the brave new world in the text. Secondly, two episodes will be compared; the past historical episode that Gorillas were exhibited in London in 1861 and the present fictional one that John the Savage from New Mexico Reservation is experimented with as an ape in the zoo. Creating the point-counterpoint narrative quoting or using many of the historical or fictional characters in the novel, Huxley has implicitly led us to rediscover what the real civilization should be like in the future unlike that depicted in the dystopian novel. Huxley seems to suggest the attitudes that T. H. Huxley and Matthew Arnold should have had in their argument as to which one is superior to the other, science or culture/literature; T. H. Huxley should have more valued the culture and literature, and Matthew Arnold the science. In brief, Aldous Huxley argues those two should be integrated into the social and cultural society. Finally Huxley seems to say that it is only when both humanity and science are reciprocally respected that human society would prosper without losing the value of humanity even in the scientific world.

헉슬리의 "진화와 윤리": 시대의 초상

김기윤 ( Ki Yoon Kim ) 한국과학사학회 2006 한국과학사학회지 Vol.28 No.1

Thomas Henry Huxley`s Romanes`s Lecture, "Evolution and Ethics," has been read as a document advocating the autonomy of ethics from the evolutionary science of man. As a matter of fact, in "Evolution and Ethics," Huxley argued that the ethics, the engine of social progress, meant resolute fight against the cosmic evolutionary process; and it appeared that he was also warning not to exercise evolutionary idea on ethical issues. Yet in his lecture, especially in his "Prolegomena" added to his lecture, he also insisted that the human ethics itself must be the product of evolution. This seemingly contradictory arguments caused considerable confusion among his posterities in general, and historians of ideas in particular. During the Nineteenth-Century England, both conservatives and radicals actively used biological theories, especially evolutionary ideas, as scientific principle bolstering their respective ideologies. Huxley himself made it clear that his "Evolution and Ethics" which he dubbed an "egg dance," was an outrightly political document. Nevertheless, historians have paid little attention to Huxley`s public and private motivation in his "Evolution and Ethics." This essay tries to explicate the society in which Huxley was living as well as his personal motivation delivering the lecture. His "Evolution and Ethics" turns out to be a vibrant document picturing complex and skewed ways an evolutionary idea has been read, interpreted, and used. Most posterities saw his "Evolution and Ethics" as a proclamation of the disassociation between evolution and ethics. But close reading of his lecture, and recent reconstruction of his biographical resource demonstrate that through this lecture, Huxley was trying to repudiate Spencerian individualism and Wallacean socialism, both ideologies he considered as threat to the late 19th century British society.

과학의 고전읽기 교육사례 연구 ― 토머스 헉슬리의 로마니즈 강연 「진화와 윤리」를 중심으로

이경희 한국교양교육학회 2017 교양교육연구 Vol.11 No.1

This study proposes an education example for reading science classics focusing on Thomas Huxley’s Romanes lecture, “Evolution and Ethics”. “Evolution and Ethics”, which Huxley proposed in his later years, opposes the thoughts of the intellectuals and laborers at the time who proposed radical social reformation applying the evolution theory of the nature to society. Thus, what can be clearly recognized from his work is Huxley's thought that the progress of human society cannot be interpreted based on the evolution theory of the nature. By emphasizing on the law of the survival of the fittest as the principal of the natural evolution, Huxley asserts that the evolution of the nature cannot coexist with ethical principles of human society. In contrast, he delineates that the social progress was achieved through the progress of not only technology but also ethics and the purpose of social progress is the realization of ethical process. The central educational methods for studying “Evolution and Ethics” are putting forth questions about the work and group discussions, utilizing video material, and implementing writing assignments. First, the instructor presents questions so that students may have group discussion about comprehending the text and main ideas, and how the content of the work relates to contemporary society. Second, to examine limits to Huxley’s thoughts, presentations and debates on a movie about the animal world in which community is maintained not through competition but cooperation are proceeded. Third, to intensify students’ comprehension ability and extend their thoughts, academic writing assignments on various topics related to the text are implemented. Huxley’s “Evolution and Ethics”, which deals with various thoughts such as science, society, ethics, etc, is an effective work to educate not only scientific knowledge and thinking but also convergence thinking in liberal arts courses for students from various majors. 본 논문은 토머스 헉슬리의 로마니즈 강연 진화와 윤리를 중심으로 진행한 과학의 고전읽기 교육사례를 제시한 것이다. 헉슬리가 만년에 발표한 진화와 윤리는 당시 영국의 지식인과 노동자들이 자연세계의 진화론을 사회에 적용하며 급진적인 사회개혁 사상을 주장한 것에 반대하는 입장을 담고 있다. 그러므로 작품에서 명료하게 인식되는 것은 인간사회의 진보를 자연의 진화이론에 입각하여 해석할 수 없다는 헉슬리의 사유이다. 헉슬리는 자연의 진화 원리로서 무엇보다 생존경쟁의 법칙을 강조함으로써, 자연세계의 진화는 인간사회의 윤리적 원리와 양립할 수 없다고 주장한다. 반면 인간사회의 진보는 기술문명 뿐만 아니라 윤리의 발전과 함께 이루어진 것이며, 인간사회 진보의 목적은 윤리적 과정의 실현이라고 기술한다. 작품 고찰을 위한 주요 교육적 방법은 발문제시와 조별토의, 영상자료의 활용, 글쓰기 과제의 실행이다. 첫째, 교수자는 발문을 제시하여 텍스트 읽기와 주제 이해, 작품내용과 현재 사회의 연관성에 관한 학생들의 조별토의를 시도한다. 둘째, 헉슬리의 사상적 한계를 살펴보기 위해 경쟁이 아니라 협력에 의해 공동체를 유지하는 동물세계의 영화 관련 발표와 토론을 진행한다. 셋째, 학생들의 작품이해 능력을 심화시키고 사고를 확장시키기 위해 텍스트와 관련된 다양한 주제의 학술적 글쓰기 과제를 실행한다. 과학, 사회, 윤리, 종교 등 여러 분야의 사상들을 다루고 있는 헉슬리의 「진화와 윤리」는 다양한 전공생을 대상으로 하는 교양수업에서 과학적 지식과 사고 교육을 넘어서 융합적 사고교육을 실행하기에 효과적인 작품으로 여겨진다.

멋진 신세계의 기술정부의 권력의 작동

김현숙 水原大學校 2015 論文集 Vol.29 No.-

This essay explores how the power of technocracy operates in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Though it is regarded as the first representative distopian SF fiction, Brave New World is based on Huxley's critical insights into the condition of Europe of the 1920s. In Brave New World Huxley foretells the establishment of technocracy based on tremendous development of science and technology. Huxley is mostly concerned that the immoderate advance and the side effect of science and technology might threaten human life all over the world, when especially combined with Fascism. Therefore Huxley warns the possible exercise of violent and dangerous power of technocracy in controlling citizens. Unlike the totalitarian state led by Big Brother in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, the new world, led by seemingly gentle and comprehensive controllers like Mustapha Mond, seems to guarantee happiness and comfort to all citizens. However, this technocracy also uses violence in order to sustain its control over citizens. Furthermore, most citizens brainwashed by the government don't realize their own oppression, even though some sensitive citizens are conscious of the potential violence and oppression of the technocracy. In this way Huxley successfully reveals critical insights into the technocracy government combined with Fascism in Brave New World.

현재와 미래에 대한 유토피아적 혹은 디스토피아적 상상: 조이스와 헉슬리 이어서 읽기

김경숙 한국제임스조이스학회 2023 제임스조이스저널 Vol.29 No.2

Although James Joyce and Aldous Huxley wrote novels in the similar period, there has been no study proving interrelationship or inter-influence between them. However, Joyce’s Ulysses and Huxley’s Brave New World demonstrate similarities in a number of aspects including thematic and stylistic innovations. Joyce, through Bloom’s fantasy in the 15th episode of Ulysses, presents utopian imagination in which everyone is happy and equal without any demarcations in gender, race, and class. Huxley, through Brave New World, paints a bleak picture of future in which human beings are manufactured and engineered much like machines in a tightly controlled process. In spite of seemingly contrary points of view between the two texts, this essay aims to prove that Joyce’s Ulysses and Huxley’s Brave New World, read and analyzed in juxtaposition, can provide a complementary vision even toward our own society when the real meaning of human beings are questioned ceaselessly along with technological advancement.

동아시아 사회진화론의 선구자, 엄복의 사상적 지형도 -『천연론(天演論)』을 중심으로-

윤태욱 ( Tae Wook Yoon ) 연세대학교 의과대학 의사학과 의학사연구소 2009 연세의사학 Vol.12 No.2

After China had suffered the ignominy of defeat by Japan at the Sino-Japanese War (of 1894-5), Yan Fu (1854-1921) began to worry about the future of China. He attempted to modernize China by introducing western thoughts. In 1898, he translated “Evolution and Ethics”, and published “Tianyanlun”. Through this book, he earnestly introduced Social Darwinism to China for the first time. In “Evolution and Ethics”, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) stressed the need for humane interventions to combat the cosmic process. However, at the same time, he maintained a seemingly contradictory opinion that humane interventions such as ethics were still subordinate to the cosmic process. On the vague theory of Huxley, Yan Fu``s stance was ambiguous. On the one hand, he came around to Huxley’s theory but, on the other hand, he criticized it. The basis of his criticism was the theory of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Spencer had underlined the individualistic liberty, but Yan Fu regarded the liberty as a way to found a rich and powerful country. Yan Fu thought that Spencer``s reasoning had a stronger base than Huxley``s and Spencer haunted his mind. Eventually, “Tianyanlun” could be considered as an attempt to spread the theory of Spencer through a translation of Huxley`s book.