In Michael Heilemann's essay, Do Androids
Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner, he makes the claim that no one is
blameless in the Android world. He states, "even though the majority of
characters in Dicks novels are depicted as pieces of a puzzle they do not
themselves understand and master, you shouldn’t draw from that that they are
innocent victims. Though all are victims, at the same time almost everyone is
guilty as well" (Heilemann 10). I would argue that while everyone may be
somewhat guilty, their societal structure directly causes some to be guilty in
the way that Heilemann argues. A society’s collective attitude toward a person
or group of persons can severely affect the group’s actions and their attitude
about themselves. Our completely fabricated idea of social stratification and
hierarchy affects our cognition. This inherent affect on the thought process
will even cause negative stereotypes to become self-fulfilling prophecies. If
someone hears himself or herself being called something negative about him or
her enough times, even they will start to believe it. I find that Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is attempting to prove this point,
that those of lower societal status are put at a disadvantage right off the
bat. More specifically, the androids are guilty simply because society deems
them as such. A quote from the novel illustrates this point,
“Evidently
the humanoid robot constituted a solitary predator. Rick liked to think of them
that way; it made his job palatable. In retiring — i.e. killing — an andy he
did not violate the rule of life laid down by Mercer. You shall kill only the
killers, Mercer had told them the year empathy boxes first appeared on Earth.
And in Mercerism, as it evolved into a full theology, the concept of The Killers
had grown insidiously” (Dick 31).
In this passage, the negative attitude towards the
androids is validated through the religion of Mercerism. Deeming the androids
as “Killers” serves to further prove society’s idea that the androids are these
savages, not capable of human empathy. “But then I realized how unhealthy it
was, sensing the absence of life, not just in this building but everywhere, and
not reacting—do you see? I guess you don’t. But that used to be considered a
sign of mental illness; they called it ‘absence of appropriate affect.’ So I
left the TV sound off and I sat down at my mood organ and I experimented.
And I finally found a setting for despair” (Dick 5).
Perhaps the people in this post-apocalyptic world are not meant to know the
difference between the living and the non-living. Peharps they all are androids.
Works Cited
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep? New York: Ballantine,
1996. Print.
Heilemann, Michael. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner”. 2001. Blackboard. Web. 13 Mar 2014.
1996. Print.
Heilemann, Michael. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner”. 2001. Blackboard. Web. 13 Mar 2014.
Zoe Hall
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that one of the functions of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is as a commentary on the way that society perpetuates a collective idea not only of the society as a whole, but also towards individuals. As communal creatures, humans have always targeted a center of blame as a way of deflecting, understanding, and condoning their actions. The androids are the obvious example of this in the novel, but I think you could have strengthened your argument by looking at the character of J.R. Isodore. I don't think our class has given him enough credit as a character.
He is the poster child for your argument as he is constantly putting himself and his actions down. Not only do his peers at his job question his abilities as a human, even the androids (Pris especially) see him as an inferior life form. This degradation of his character is made even more poignant by the fact that he can be considered the most empathetic character in a book. He possess the most valued, sought for characteristic in the time of W.W.T., but no one (including himself) recognizes his value because of the niche in which society has placed those categorized as "chicken heads."
I absolutely agree with your assertion that the societal structure in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is the reason for the treatment of androids in the novel. I believe that the book acts as a proper parallel to human society across the ages, where treatment of humans that are considered "lesser" has occurred. However there is an important concept that I think the class has largely ignored. That is how people are considering androids to be humans. Yes they have a consciousness that can communicate with humans, yes they can think and reason much like humans do, but that does not make them human themselves. I think that in a science fiction universe, it is important to treat androids as non-human, as if they were an alien race. Yes they can communicate with us, and they can have dreams and desires, but that does not make them human. Various species of monkey's and apes have been shown to be able to communicate with humans, but does that make them human?
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect universe, androids would be given the same rights as any species that has the ability to communicate intelligently with humans, but that ability to communicate on a similar level does not make them human. What I'm trying to get at is that I believe that the treatment of androids is relatively understandable. While they shouldn't be used as slaves, many of the characters of the book don't consider them to be human, and I agree with that. There are many qualities that humans have, that androids do not, and cannot possess. The sole presence of intelligent consciousness does not make something human.