“Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley (post 2): Makes no sense as either totalitarian or anti-war, but raises issues central to multiple personality

Halfway through the novel, I am impressed by the very peculiar use of ectogenesis (in vitro fertilization and artificial wombs), cloning, and indoctrination. They are not used the way totalitarian regimes would have used them. And if this society was formed in reaction to a catastrophic war, why would they want to create a passive, sitting-duck population?

The major totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century would have used these technologies to produce exceptional people (scientists, athletes, etc.), who would be seen as demonstrating the glory, and increasing the power, of the leader. They were happy to have intimidated and patriotic parents raise their children to be loyal to the regime. But the society of Brave New World is designed to eliminate exceptional achievers and parents. Why?

Totalitarian regimes like its people to have anxiety. It is a principal weapon of control. Brave New World does everything it can to eliminate anxiety, including the easy availability of its happiness drug, Soma.

But the society of Brave New World seems to have been designed not simply to create happiness and nonviolence, but to eliminate trauma and individuality. Why might parents be considered horrible? They might, through abuse or failure to protect, cause childhood trauma (a cause of multiple personality). What is a society with no individuals? It is one huge person with multiple personality.

The scene where they put young children on an electric grid to shock and terrorize them, plus the absence of parental love, describes a society that would increase the prevalence of multiple personality disorder.

In short, the design of the society in this novel seems to make no sense, except that it seems to raise issues—trauma and identity—central to multiple personality.

Perhaps the second half of the novel will make everything clear.