Henry Tam’s Anti-Con novels – 'Kuan's Wonderland'; 'Whitehall through the Looking Glass'; and 'The Hunting of the Gods' – explore how tricksters and ideologues can con people into submitting to their callous rule, and why we must make the case for a better future. Each has its own distinct setting. While some of the characters appear in one or more of the novels, the stories are largely self-contained.
Tam’s fiction has been praised in diverse quarters: “An unmissable page-turner” (President, the Independent Publishers Guild); “Simply a tour de force” (Director for Education, WEA); “Original and very engaging” (Fantasy Book Review); “The ending is tense, unexpected and powerful” (Economics Editor, The Independent newspaper); “A sharp satirical look at life inside the corridors of power” (Chief Executive, Civil Service College); “Beautifully, deftly written” (Dame Jane Roberts, NLGN); “An important reminder of the risks of crude neoliberal ideology” (General Secretary, TUC); "It's a cautionary tale and a call to action, but also a gripping read" (Director, Speakers’ Corner Trust).
• Kuan’s Wonderland
In this allegorical story, a young boy, Kuan, is taken against his will to the mysterious realm of Shiyan, where nothing is as it appears. He hopes his reclusive father will come to his rescue, not suspecting that both father and son may be the target of a dark conspiracy. In his attempt to escape from Shiyan, where the lower order routinely pledge to give more of their time to do the bidding of the ruling elite, Kuan encounters a host of enigmatic characters, from the unseen Curator to Dr Erica Lee, to whom the motherless boy develops a deep attachment. In the end he has to face up to a painful secret from his past and make the ultimate sacrifice to save his own world from annihilation.
(Find out more about: Kuan’s Wonderland)
• Whitehall through the Looking Glass
This satirical tale begins with a group of powerful corporations known as the Consortium, working in cahoots with multi-billionaire monarch, George VIII, coming to rule over both Britain and the US. In this timid new world, civil servants jostle to be of the greatest service to their new political masters, except for Philip K. Rainsborough when he learns of the Consortium’s real agenda. Alas, the Consortium has on its side the Super Utility Network, the most advanced opinion manipulation technology in the world. Rainsborough gets a chance to bring down the government when Chief Supt Carrie Edel asks for his help in charging the Prime Minister with murder. But who can he really trust?
(Find out more about: Whitehall through the Looking Glass)
• The Hunting of the Gods
The technologically advanced inhabitants of Earth accept beyond all doubt that life on the planet was created by the gods 500 years ago. In that time, all racial differences have merged into homogeneity; gender discrimination has vanished; the poor die young; and the elite prosper and live very long indeed. There is nothing beyond the grasp of the gods except how to make peace with each other. From the beginning, the two immortal rivals have divided the world into interminably warring realms. But during the latest conflict, rumours start to circulate that the reign of the gods must be terminated. Amidst the revolutionary intrigues stands a recently resurrected man whose past has long been forgotten by everyone. Rebels turn to him for help, but his second coming may soon be over.
(Find out more about: The Hunting of the Gods)
The Author
In addition to his novels, Henry Tam has had many books and articles published on social and political issues. These include Time to Save Democracy; Communitarianism, which was nominated by New York University Press for the 2000 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order; and a global history of the progressive struggle, Against Power Inequalities, which has been acclaimed on both sides of the Atlantic. He has also been a senior adviser in the UK Government; lecturer at Cambridge University; Visiting Professor at Birkbeck, University of London; and a speaker at key events on democracy and governance around the world from Washington and Warsaw to Oxford and Strasbourg.
(Learn more at: Henry Tam: Words & Politics)
24 January 2018
01 January 2018
The Politics of Control: Huxley, Orwell, or Burdekin?
Talk about writers of dystopian novels, and the two names that come up most will be those of Huxley and Orwell. And there’s the perennial debate about which out of ‘Brave New World’ (1932) and ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1949) gives the more prescient warning.
Over decades much has been made of the contrast between the Huxleyan vision of control through artificially induced contentment, and the Orwellian nightmare of control through fear and surveillance.
In ‘Brave New World’, a stratified society ensures the lower classes are systematically disadvantaged and kept from rejecting their station in life by a false consciousness generated by a supply of cheap pleasures. It is so inescapable that the rebel in the story gives up all hope of defying it and commits suicide. In ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, a rigid hierarchy diverts the masses with sensationalist media stories and jingoistic propaganda, while intrusive surveillance and psychological torture combine to crush the spirit of the would-be insurgent.
However, one key aspect of the politics of control that neither Huxley nor Orwell dealt with is that which was the subject of the novel, ‘Swastika Night’ (1937) by their contemporary, Katherine Burdekin (who wrote under the name of ‘Murray Constantine’). In her novel, Burdekin depicted a world in which the Nazi Party not only won the Second World War but went on to keep control of its oppressive empire for centuries by means of a dehumanising hierarchy. Under this system, gender and ethnic differences are turned into markers for separating the privileged upper class Germanic males from non-Aryan males, who were treated with disdain; and women, who were deprived of all respect and used to breed labourers for the working class, and heirs for the elite.
Instead of crowning Huxley’s or Orwell’s as the definitive vision of dystopian politics, we should consider them alongside Burdekin’s. The three together provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how the nightmare of oppressive control may come about. All three set out a callously demarcated system wherein the few at the top can do as they wish, and the lower down you go, the more you have to do as you are told – no question asked.
But each of the novels elaborates on a different approach the powerful uses to maintain their hegemony over others. Huxley highlights how superficial pleasures can divert rebellious impulses into mindless indulgence. Orwell draws out the systematic deployment of fear as a weapon to eradicate dissent. Burdekin shows us how a myth of superiority/inferiority can be inflated by stoking latent prejudices until it becomes a key lever to deepen submission.
Oppressive regimes that endanger society will not exclusively take just one of these dystopian forms. They will almost certainly combine elements from all three. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with whether someone is wearing a keffiyeh or a suit. Just look out for those espousing such views: preserve privileges for the lucky few and deny them to the majority; deregulate the market for cheap pleasures irrespective of the consequences; expand mass surveillance without any corresponding increase in public accountability; prolong detention without trial; bring in ever harsher punishment; demonise ethnic minorities; deprive women of equal respect and control. They are the ones we must guard against.
Over decades much has been made of the contrast between the Huxleyan vision of control through artificially induced contentment, and the Orwellian nightmare of control through fear and surveillance.
In ‘Brave New World’, a stratified society ensures the lower classes are systematically disadvantaged and kept from rejecting their station in life by a false consciousness generated by a supply of cheap pleasures. It is so inescapable that the rebel in the story gives up all hope of defying it and commits suicide. In ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, a rigid hierarchy diverts the masses with sensationalist media stories and jingoistic propaganda, while intrusive surveillance and psychological torture combine to crush the spirit of the would-be insurgent.
However, one key aspect of the politics of control that neither Huxley nor Orwell dealt with is that which was the subject of the novel, ‘Swastika Night’ (1937) by their contemporary, Katherine Burdekin (who wrote under the name of ‘Murray Constantine’). In her novel, Burdekin depicted a world in which the Nazi Party not only won the Second World War but went on to keep control of its oppressive empire for centuries by means of a dehumanising hierarchy. Under this system, gender and ethnic differences are turned into markers for separating the privileged upper class Germanic males from non-Aryan males, who were treated with disdain; and women, who were deprived of all respect and used to breed labourers for the working class, and heirs for the elite.
Instead of crowning Huxley’s or Orwell’s as the definitive vision of dystopian politics, we should consider them alongside Burdekin’s. The three together provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how the nightmare of oppressive control may come about. All three set out a callously demarcated system wherein the few at the top can do as they wish, and the lower down you go, the more you have to do as you are told – no question asked.
But each of the novels elaborates on a different approach the powerful uses to maintain their hegemony over others. Huxley highlights how superficial pleasures can divert rebellious impulses into mindless indulgence. Orwell draws out the systematic deployment of fear as a weapon to eradicate dissent. Burdekin shows us how a myth of superiority/inferiority can be inflated by stoking latent prejudices until it becomes a key lever to deepen submission.
Oppressive regimes that endanger society will not exclusively take just one of these dystopian forms. They will almost certainly combine elements from all three. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with whether someone is wearing a keffiyeh or a suit. Just look out for those espousing such views: preserve privileges for the lucky few and deny them to the majority; deregulate the market for cheap pleasures irrespective of the consequences; expand mass surveillance without any corresponding increase in public accountability; prolong detention without trial; bring in ever harsher punishment; demonise ethnic minorities; deprive women of equal respect and control. They are the ones we must guard against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)