Selected Snobberies

Aldous Leonard Huxley (1894-1963)

An Analysis by Dr. P. Dalai
Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Banaras Hindu University, India
[Huxley describes about the rise of numerous snobberies in modern times. Citing
examples of these, he diagnoses the reasons and ways of birth and growth of such
snobberies in our times. As we read, most of these snobberies are outcomes of the
rise and predominance of capitalism and industrialism. The wide presence of
snobberies, however, has generated social anarchies where individuals are caught in
a fix, whether to solicit or discard snobberies. Huxley suggests that, since we cannot
escape or condemn all snobberies as evil for society, we must take a middle position
and use our conscience to decide-- whether to believe, tolerate or complete discard
a snobbery. Nevertheless, each snobbery attempts to enjoy the highest position in
the hierarchy of snobberies by making more devotees to it. Following is a close
analysis of the compete essay ‘Selected Snobberies’, broken into convenient
paragraphs.]
1. “ALL men are snobs about something. One is almost tempted to add: There is
nothing about which men cannot feel snobbish. But this would doubtless be an
exaggeration. There are certain disfiguring and mortal diseases about which
there has probably never been any snobbery. I cannot imagine, for example, that
there are any leprosy-snobs.”
Explanation: All men are snobbish about something or other. Therefore, one can always presume
that there is nothing around us that modern men do not feel snobbish about it. This may sound as
an exaggeration, as no one feels snobbish about that disfiguring and picturesque disease called
Leprosy. It is outlandish to think that there are any leprosy-snobs.
2. “More picturesque diseases, even when they are dangerous, and less dangerous,
diseases, particularly when they are the diseases of the rich, can be and very
frequently are a source of snobbish self-importance.”
Explanation: No one feels snobbish about the picturesque diseases of poor, such as leprosy. But
the picturesque diseases of rich, whether they are more dangerous or less dangerous, can be a
great source of snobbish-importance. That is, to have a rich men’s disease is a sign of placing
oneself into their high social status. That is how snobbery is a paradoxical feature of modern
society.

1
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Note: Huxley is ironical of such modern mentalities, pertaining to snobberies and social status.
For him, snobbery is a paradoxical feature of modern society. He was very much apocalyptical
about the dystopic brave world of modern men. Read his Brave New World (1932) for his
concern with the modern ailments, of which snobbery is just one.
3. “I have met several adolescent consumption-snobs, who thought that it would
be romantic to-fade away in the flower of youth, like Keats or Marie
Bashkirtseff. Alas, the final stages of the consumptive fading are generally a
good deal less romantic than these ingenuous young tubercle-snobs seem to
imagine. To anyone who has actually witnessed these final stages, the
complacent poeticizings of these adolescents must seem as exasperating as they
are profoundly pathetic.”
Explanation: Huxley tells he has met several young men who considered it romantic to be
consumption-snobs and die young, and justified their snobbery with the examples of Keats and
Bashkirtseff who too died young due to consumptions. Unfortunately, contrary to their romantic
idea, the final stages of these consumption-snobs are indeed very tragic. Anyone, who has ever
witnessed their deaths, would definitely find these young snobs’ poetic conceptions of
consumption as pretty repulsive and pathetic.
Note: Huxley is hinting at the bohemian post-industrial culture in Europe, particularly amongst
the young generation. The Post-Depression and Post-World War period had set in a psychopathic
trend amongst the youths. Science and technology also added to this. All three words in the title
Brave New World would clarify these modern complexities.
4. In the case of those commoner disease-snobs, whose claim to distinction is that
they suffer from one of the maladies of the rich, exasperation is not tempered by
very much sympathy.
Explanation: Huxley says that those commoners/poor, who differentiate themselves from other
poor fellows and boast of having rich men’s disease, cannot expect our sympathy but annoyance.
One cannot substitute one’s anger for commoner-disease-snobs with sympathy.
5. People who possess sufficient leisure, sufficient wealth, not to mention sufficient
health, to go travelling from spa to spa, from doctor to fashionable doctor, in
search of cures from problematical diseases (which, in so far as they exist at all,
probably have their source in overeating) cannot expect us to be very lavish in
our solicitude and pity.
Explanation: Similarly, rich people, who have ample time, wealth, health and keep on changing
spas and doctors for remedies to their fanciful diseases, cannot expect us to be too liberal with
our concerns and sympathy for them. It is also wise to learn, if at all their problematic diseases
exist, as these diseases have their source in rich men’s excess comfort and consumptions. Why
should these obese then need our care and kindness from others?

2
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Note: Huxley is hinting at the bourgeois and proletariats culture of his times. He is critical of
snobberies as a product of this bourgeoisie culture.
6. Disease-snobbery is only one out of a great multitude of snobberies, of which
now some, now others take pride of place in general esteem. For snobberies ebb
and flow; their empire rises, declines, and falls in the most approved historical
manner. What were good snobberies a hundred years ago out of fashion. Thus,
the snobbery of family is everywhere on the decline.
Explanation: Huxley says that disease-snobbery is just one example out of multitudes of modern
snobberies, which appear and enjoy their predominance in a society every now and then. From
this, Huxley observes that snobberies ebb and flow; they come, reign and then fade away, after
marking an indelible mark in human history. Also, what emerges as the most fashionable
snobberies in the past become out of fashion in present. The decline of the snobbery of family
or dynasty everywhere is a fine example of this. Nobody feels snobbish about his clan or ancestry
in a modern industrial society anymore.
Note: The rise of nuclear family and self-independence during the industrial period was a threat
to traditional ideas of ancestry and kinship. Read Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Ernest
(1895) to understand the importance of family-snobbery.
7. The snobbery of culture, still strong, has now to wrestle with an organized and
active low-browism, with a snobbery of ignorance and stupidity unique, so far
as I know, in the whole of history. Hardly less characteristic of our age is that
repulsive booze-snobbery, born of American Prohibition.
Explanation: After elaborating on the topic, Huxley now cites examples of a newer snobbery,
‘culture snobbery’, to which ‘Booze Culture’ born of American prohibition has barging into. He
explains what was once accepted as a culture has now to fight with another new snobbish culture-
‘Booze Culture’. Culture is now wrestling with an organized low culture, i.e., crude drinking,
which is actually the culture of stupid and ignorant.
Note: Due to this, there is a deliberate general doubt regarding what is good and bad culture.
Rise of peculiar modern snobberies were threat to general culture. Matthew Arnold calls the
‘anarchy of culture’ in his essay “Culture and Anarchy” (1869)
8. The malefic influences of this snobbery are rapidly spreading all over the world.
Even in France, where the existence of so many varieties of delicious wine has
hitherto imposed a judicious connoisseurship and has led to the branding of
mere drinking as a brutish solecism, even in France the American booze-
snobbery, with its odious accompaniments—a taste for hard drinks in general
and for cocktails in particular—is making headway among the rich.
Explanation: The dangerous influence of such stupid booze snobbery is spreading into the entire
world. Even in France, where there are connoisseurs of excellent varieties of wine and where

3
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
mere drinking is considered as a barbaric act, American booze snobbery of love for hard drinks
in general and cocktails in particular has found wide circulations, particularly amongst the rich
class.
Note: France is known for art/s and ethics of drinks and drinking. But the American Prohibition
on wine forced people to drink for crude pleasures, devoid of any social etiquettes and ethics.
Booze Snobbery here is a threat to people, culture and society here.
9. Booze-snobbery has now made it socially permissible, and in some circles even
rather creditable, for well-brought up men and (this is the novelty) well-brought
up women of all ages, from fifteen to seventy, to be seen drunk, if not in public,
at least in the very much tempered privacy of a party.
Explanation: Here Huxley projects booze snobbery as a distinct snobbery. He observes that
boozing has manifested as a permissive practice in modern society now, and in some social
circles, it is even a matter of credit to be seen drunk. Well brought up men and women of all
ages, from fifteen to seventy, prefer to be seen drunk either in public or private parties.
10. Modernity-snobbery, though not exclusive to our age, has come to assume an
unprecedented importance. The reasons for this are simple and of a strictly
economic character. Thanks to modern machinery, production is outrunning
consumption. Organized waste among consumers is the first condition of our
industrial prosperity. The sooner a consumer throws away the object he has
bought and buys another, the better for the producer.
Explanation: Next to the Booze Snobbery, Huxley informs us about another snobbery-- the
‘Modernity Snobbery’. According to him, modernity snobbery, which is not specific to our
twentieth century only, has gained an unprecedented significance in contemporary times, whose
origin actually is in economy or industrialism. Due to modern machineries of production,
production has exceeded demands, catering more alternatives to consumers. More alternatives
have given birth to more willful wastes. For Huxley, this waste is a systematically organized one
executed by the producers, and has been laid as the first principle of industrial prosperity. The
sooner a consumer throws his old object and buys a new one, the better it is for the producers.
Note: Huxley is unearthing the connection between industrial principles and modernity cultures.
11. At the same time, of course, the producer must do his bit by producing nothing
but the most perishable articles. “The man who builds a skyscraper to last for
more than forty years is a traitor to the building trade.” The words are those of
a great American contractor. Substitute motor-car, boot, suit of clothes, etc., for
skyscraper, and one year, three months, six months, and so on for forty years,
and you have the gospel of any leader of any modern industry. The modernity-
snob, it is obvious, is this industrialist’s best friend. For modernity-snobs
naturally tend to throw away their old possessions and buy new ones at a greater
rate than those who are not modernity-snobs.

4
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Explanation: In addition, producers as promoters of modernity snobbery play a significant role
by producing easily perishable goods, so that consumers are forced to buy next. Huxley quotes
the American builder who suggested for building perishable houses. Similarly, one can think of
deliberate productions of other perishable goods such as motor-cars, boots and clothes, etc.
Modernity snobs, who frequently shifts to the new products, are producers’ best friends.
Modernity snobs are those who dispose their old possessions and buy new ones, and those who
do not do this are not modernity snobs.
Note: Huxley reveals the nexus amongst a chain of activities that snobberies generate in our
society. It is also worthwhile to ponder over how snobberies help in productions and progress of
any society. Husley would discuss this later on in this essay.
12. Therefore, it is in the producer’s interest to encourage modernity snobbery.
Which in fact he does do-on an enormous scale and to the tune of millions and
millions a year—by means of advertising. The newspapers do their best to help
those who help them; and to the flood of advertisement is added a flood of less
directly paid-for propaganda in favour of modernity-snobbery. The public is
taught that up -to- dateness is one of the first duties of man. Docile, it accepts
the reiterated suggestion. We are all modernity-snobs now.
Explanation: Huxley reveals that besides producing most perishable goods, producers also
foster another means of promoting modernity-snobbery. This he does by means of
advertisements in newspapers, molding millions into modernity snobs. Newspapers help those
modern-snobs who buy and read newspapers; in fact, to read newspapers is to be modern. The
numerous propagandas and advertisements regarding modern goods, services, benefits in
newspapers thus update and instigate modern men. Through these, the public is taught that to
up-date oneself is one of the first duties of a modern man. And as docile and innocent, modern
men easily fall prey to these repeated propagandas. This is how we have all become modernity-
snobs now.
13. Most of us are also art-snobs. There are two varieties of art-snobbery- the
platonic and the unplatonic. Platonic art-snobs merely ‘take an interest’ in art.
Unplatonic art-snobs go further and actually buy art. Platonic art snobbery is a
branch of culture- snobbery. Unplatonic art snobbery is a hybrid or mule; for it
is simultaneously a sub-species of culture-snobbery and of possession snobbery.
A collection of works of art is a collection of culture symbols, and culture-
symbols still carry social prestige. It is also a collection of wealth symbols. For
an art collection can represent money more effectively than a whole fleet of
motor- cars.
Explanation: Next, Huxley cites the example of Art-Snobs. He says, there are two types of art-
snobs in our society: the ‘Platonic ones’ who love art but never/cannot invest money in buying,
and the ‘Un-platonic ones’ who never understand art but buy it just to possess and flaunt of their
wealthy status. These un-platonic art-snobs are hybrid snobs, as by possessing a costly cultural

5
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
art, they belong both to the category of ‘Culture-Snobbery’ and ‘Possession Snobbery’. Because,
collection of art is also a symbol of wealth and social prestige, as a work of art is a wealth
symbols. An art can represent wealth more opulently than a fleet of cars can. This is how Art-
Snobbery has emerged in our society.
14. The value of art-snobbery to living artists is considerable. True, most art-snobs
collect only the works of the dead; for an Old Master is both a safer investment
and a holier culture-symbol than a living master. But some art-snobs are also
modernity-snobs. There are enough of them, with the few eccentrics who like
works of art for their own sake, to provide living artists with the means of
subsistence.
Explanation: Art-snobbery has a different significance for both living and dead artists. It is true
that most art-snobs feel safe to invest money in buying the arts of dead artists; because old artists
are time tested, famous and therefore established culture-symbols than the younger artists who
have not yet proven themselves as masters of art. Yet, there are some modern art-snobs, who like
the arts of younger artists just for the sake of liking, and invest money on them to enable them
to survive.
15. The value of snobbery in general, its humanistic ‘point,’ consists in its power to
stimulate activity. A society with plenty of snobberies is like a dog with plenty of
fleas: it is not likely to become comatose. Every snobbery demands of its devotees
unceasing efforts, a succession of sacrifices. The society-snob must be
perpetually lion- hunting; the modernity snob can never rest from trying to be
up- to- date. Swiss doctors and the Best that has been thought or said must be
the daily and nightly preoccupation of all the snobs respectively of disease and
culture.
Explanation: Contrary to the general perceptions, snobbery harbors humanistic qualities in it
to foster creations and activities in a society. But a society having plenty of snobberies is like a
dog having plenty of fleas, which never allow the dog to rest or stand still. It is also true that
each snobbery expects continuous commitments and sacrifices from its devotees. A society-
snob, much conscious of his status, would always run after one or another snobbery; this is like
a perpetual lion-hunting which is often dangerous and unattainable. Similarly, modernity-snobs
can never stop from updating themselves. From their examples, it appears that, when it comes to
the case of disease-snobs and culture-snobs, Swiss doctors and best psychiatrists should be
employed to cure their snob-maniac mentalities.
16. If we regard activity as being in itself a good, the we must count all snobberies
as good: for all provoke activity. If, with the Buddhists, we regard all activity in
this world of illusion as bad, then we shall condemn all snobberies out of hand.
Most of us, I suppose, take up our position somewhere between the two
extremes.

6
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Explanation: Huxley formulates a proposition that if snobberies provoke activities, and
activities are good for society, then snobberies must be considered good. However, if the
Buddhists consider all activities as bad, then we should condemn all snobberies. Society will
then come to a standstill. That is why, Huxley observes that most of us take a middle position
between these two extremes, i.e., to have snobberies, or to discard snobberies.
Note: Huxley here hints at ‘conscience’ as the solution to our snobbish predicaments. Snobbery
is almost unavoidable; therefore, to avoid any cultural anarchy and anxiety we must depend on
our conscience to take a side. Robert Lynd suggest so in his essay ‘The Money Box’ where he
considers conscience as our best magistrate. Remember, ‘psychic turbulence’ and
‘indecisiveness’ are constant themes of modern literature.
17. We regard some activities as good, others as indifferent or downright bad. Our
approval will be given only to such snobberies as excite what we regard as the
better activities; the others we shall either tolerate or detest. For example, most
professional intellectuals will approve of culture-snobbery (even while intensely
disliking most individual culture-snobs), because it compels the philistines to pay
at least some slight tribute to the things of the mind and so helps to make the
world less dangerously unsafe for ideas than it otherwise might have been.
Explanation: Taking a middle position, we use our conscience to consider some
activities as good, others as out rightly bad. We approve those activities, which stimulate
good activities, others we either tolerate or completely reject. For example, intellectuals
will approve of culture snobberies, realizing that this culture snobbery would educate and
reform the uncultured. By educating these uneducated and uncultured people through
promotion of culture, we can reform many social ailments and make our world safe from
cultural anarchy.
18. A manufacturer of motor cars, on the other hand, will rank the snobbery of
possessions above culture-snobbery; he will do his best to persuade people that
those who have fewer possessions, particularly possessions on four wheels, are
inferior to those who have more possessions. And so on. Each hierarchy
culminates in its own particular Pope.
Explanation: Huxley summaries his essay by saying that each snobbery attempts to enjoy the
highest position in the hierarchy of snobberies in a society. It is like, every single snobbery trying
to Pope/boss over others. For example, producers of cars will work hard to put culture-snobbery
at the top; and this is, by instigating the public that less possession of cars is a sign of
cultural/social inferiority. This is how snobberies are steered wide into modern societies.
The End!
Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India