Isolation and Mistreatment of “The Other”
In the past few years, in a variety of courses, we have examined the Other in multiple settings. I’ll refer throughout this paper to the Other in identifying a suppressed and abused minority within their own society. The Other can be defined or identified as ‘they who are not like us’. These individuals and groups within a larger population are often ostrasized, mistreated, persecuted and had their rights either denied or taken away. In this course focused upon speculative fiction we have examined constructed worlds and societies in which the Other is a frequent, perhaps, consistent theme. In each case these individuals are subject to mistreatment, often horribly so.
Examples of mistreatment of the Other abound in our modern societies. In the US it is Blacks, or Hispanics or perhaps Asian populations. Looking a bit deeper, in the recent American past, all immigrant groups have experienced some degree of abuse. Irish and Catholics in the 19th century were considered sub-human by the predominant protestant middle class…’no Irish need apply’ were signs that persisted early into the 20th century. Later decendants of these poor and poorly educated Irish immigrants became police and politicians and had more prominat roles. They in turn exerted the very same mistreatment on later immigrant groups, often from southern Europe. Of course the Black population continued to recieve the most serious abuse ranging from rights denial to murders and lynchings. Chinese laborers were mistrusted, beaten, murdered and cheated of citizenship and other rights. In recent years immigrants from Latin America fleeing both political and economic mistreatment have recieved more of the same in full measure upon arriving in ‘the land of the free’. Name a group in this melting pot of peoples and they have their own story of predjudice…Native Americans and Jews are prominently singled out in turn. The examples are endless.
It appears that it is human nature to foist mistreatment or worse on anyone not from one’s own clique or group. This is true across the globe. Consider Muslims persecuted by Serbs or Hindus or Jews; Koreans and Chinese at the hands of Japanese; the Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda or the Uyghurs in China. All these examples have an underlying fear and misunderstanding of the Other which turns abusive or violent.
One form of mistreatment of the Other which is both common in America and elsewhere is racism. Racism may be overt and shockingly offensive or it may be subtle and equally offensive but harder to identify at first view. It is an identifying of one group, usually at an economic or social disdvantage, and not treating them as the racist abuser would want to be treated. In these times, there a certain societies which have been broadly categoirized as racist. In the past century Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and aparthied South Africa were considered in this camp. The United States, despite it’s reputation as ‘the land of the free’ has also been and still is recognized as harboring and manifesting excessive racism.
Many other democracies have exhibited and still retain qualities of social exclusivity if not bald racism; Spain, France and Great Britain along with their former colonies come to mind. There are other democracies who, on the surface seem to have avoided such a reputation in the recent past. In Europe these include nations like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland. However, reflection suggests most of these to be small, homgeneous populations where there are or have been virtually no peoples who might easily have been considered the Other. There are also smaller nations who on first reflection seem to not have overt racism or mistreatment of the Other within their borders such as Belgium and the Netherlands, but who have racist history in their former colonies. The United States is not small and additionally has a history of being the melting pot for the Other from many lands. It has been the place to which the abused have fled. This certainly doesn’t excuse bad behavior braodly spead throughout our history, but recognition may help the understanding that is needed to attempt to overcome the worst characteristics exhibited.
It is notable that the moral ideals of all large societies that come to mind, be they Christian, Islamic, Budhist…religious or secular…make it a point to treat the stranger with respect and hospitality, essentially to avoid abusing the Other. Would that we is western and other socieites would adhere more closely to these well recognized ideals. It’s interesting to consider exactly why human populations so commonly develop hatred and predjudice against the downtrodden or foreign in close proximity. Is it something that is in-born? Is it fear and mistrust of those not understood? Rogers and Hammerstein provided their opinion:
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, You’ve got to be taught from year to year, It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear— You’ve got to be carefully taught!
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid Of people whose eyes are oddly made, And people whose skin is a different shade— You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, Before you are six or seven or eight, To hate all the people your relatives hate— You’ve got to be carefully taught! You’ve got to be carefully taught!
I was cheated before And I’m cheated again By a mean little world Of mean little men. And the one chance for me Is the life I know best.
To be on an island And to hell with the rest. I will cling to this island Like a tree or a stone, I will cling to this island And be free—and alone.
This song was controversial when South Pacific was first performed in the US in the 1950s. There were legislative challenges that threatened the success of the show, asserting a Communist agenda. In Georgia one legislator said,”a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life”.
Rogers and Hammerstein persisted and included the song in the show, believing the song to be their central message.
Treatment of The Other in Speculative Fiction
Speculative fiction introduces characters and groups that are not or not quite human. The Other is prominent in such stories. Or the Other may be human but have had something occur that makes them different in some way that appears significant.
A significant number of stories in speculative fiction have as a major theme the mistreatment of subpopulations. In Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro it is the clones. They may have human DNA, but are they human? In Bladrunner it is replicants and in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley it is the monster and the wife he requested (but terminated before vitalized). In each case the reader is presented with a person or group, not born in the usual understanding, not having a mother, but assembled by man.The relationships between the created and the human creators in each of these stories is different in detail but in each case the purpose behind the act of making or creating. Frankenestein’s monster thinks of Dr Frankenstein as his god while the clones and replicants don’t has such a mystical view.
Essentially all the scenes in the film production of Never Let Me Go were quiet, peaceful on the surface. The most horrifying scene for me, as a physician, was so quiet and quick as to be almost not noticed. When Ruth is subjected to her final organ donation and she has been killed on the operating table, the scrub nurse collects the equipment and leaves, turning out the light and leaving the corpse to the janitors; just some detrious to be dumped in the trash. This event is witnessed by Cathy, another clone, who makes no comment! No clearer representation of the disregard by apparently rational and caring humans (as well as another clone) of what is perceived of the clone. Of course the entire story conveys the same message. Still, this scene is profoundly shocking.
The sole purpose for engineers of the clones is to have a source for organ donation. The reason replicants are engineered is to have a collection of slave workers for the harsh environments on other planets. Dr Frankenstein asserts his pupose is the betterment of mankind, though in actuality it is more likely support for his own ego. The reason for engineering all these copies of humanity seems never to be altruistic, for the good of the potential beings. It is always selfish. Perhaps that is not surprising since they don’t exist before they do. In the planning stage imagining the perceptions of a not yet existing being would not likely be something an engineer would consider. They are built and enlivened purely to provide a predetermined solution to a percieved shortage or need.
From the human perspective as described in Never Let Me Go, humanity had a problem, the exisitence of fatal or crippling dieseases. There was no ethical evaluation of what the coming to life might mean to the clones. The ethics would most likely be straightforward…’we have diseases that are killing people, therefore we need a source of organs for transplantation that would cure the diseases.’ If an engineer even considered later repercussions it would be something they could sort out later on, if and when an issue (ethical or otherwise) arose.
How would clones experience being alive, with feelings and all that it means to occupy a human body. Would they have a soul? In Never Let Me Go the human benefactors of organ donation overwhelmingly ignor these ehtical challenges. Yet a few, Miss Emily and Madam among them, do wonder if clones have a soul and endeavor to make observations and collect supporting information. Can the clones create art? These two go to great lengths, presumably raising funds to support and operate a laboratory (Hailsham, presented as a boarding school) on a decades-long basis in order to observe the development and artistic activity of many clones. Yet, in the end they apparently draw the wrong conclusions and shut down the experiment, shut down Hailsham school. It is not clear in the narrative whether they simply missed the obvious or if, out of fear of fellow humans, they supressed the truth. One suspects the latter.
In Bladerunner the world is portrayed as a much darker place than what Hailsham appears on the surface. Scenes of the near future are cold, dark, impersonal and terrifying. Unlike the clones who are raised/bred to accept their fate without question, replicants or at least some replicants are rebellious and make regular efforts to return to earth and perpetrate violence on their slave-masters. Decker, as a Bladerunner, is employed to hunt and kill such rebellious slaves. He and the rest of society accept this as a honorable mission in protection of human society. The outcome for the Other in both stories is similar, murder at the hands of sanctioned societal representatives, either law-enforcement or medical personnel.
Dr. Frankenstein’s monster rebells against humanity in a manner not dissimilar to the replicant. He receives terrible and inhumane mistreatment but actually survives his pursuer, though his promised wife does not.
There are strong similarities is these three tales regarding the Others, and their relationships to humans from whom they received life. The clones of Never Let Me Go resign passively to their fate and allow their bodies and organs to be used to save the lives of their ungrateful human owners. The replicants, or at least those to whom we are introduced, are angry because they understand their mistreatment. But their primary motivation for forbidden travelling to earth is to try and extend their own lives. And yet, two of five replicants act to save Deckard’s life during his pursuit of them. One might even consider the replicants, particularly Rachel and Roy, to be the heroic figures in the tale, since Deckard as the central character is really only a functionary, given a mission to kill. Roy’s most reprehensible acts are to kill the two creators of his tortured existence. So too, Frankenstein’s monster’ first motivation is to fit in to human society but is thoroughly rejected by all to the point that his anger rises and becomes irrevocable when his request for a wife with whom he could slip away from soceity is denied. Still, despite being hounded by Dr Frankenstein across the globe to the frozen north, in the end when he has an opportunity to torment the Doctor he instead bids his corpse farewell. In all three tales the hated, feared and mistreated Others show much less animosity to humans than they receive. These tales lay bare the tendency of humans to be cruel and unwelcoming to the Other.
Commentary in Chinese Literature
There is a notable interest in Kazuro Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go among Chinese academics. This may be partially due to the recent development in cloning that have been made public by certain Chinese scientists who reported efforts at human cloning. Publications focus on the ethics of cloning, but there is also treatment of the problem of humans relating to the results of cloning and the potential for poor behavior toward the future clones.
Zhiwei Tao notes that Ishiguro, a resident of the United Kiingdom since the age of 5, adopted a Japanese narrative style to tell his tale. He first emphasizes that Cosmopolitanism (his characterization) is an out growth of Capitalism. Having established his credibility in his own communist society, he later states,
“the novel shows the tragic fate of human cloning suppressed by human society, and aims at the value of human thinking on whether to carry out cloning technology, but behind is Kazuo Ishiguro’s consciousness expressed to us. This is a world-wide social problem that can be emphsized by al mankind.”
He is, I believe, reflecting somewhat obliquely an ongoing concern about human cloning in China as well as an acknowledgment that it’s an ethical issue for all societies. Zhiwei Tao emphasizes the unequal treatment of the clones by those who engineered them, referencing Liu. The two populations are inextricably linked by organ transplantation, producing oppression and exploitation. Further, he comments that though the first impression might suggest Hailsham provided a ‘protective umbrella’ from a cruel society for the clones, actually Hailsham is an ‘organ factory’. This is a sophisticated manipulation and abuse of the Other, the clones.
With the emergence of the scientific scandal in China in 2018, when He Jiankui described his ‘gene-edited babies’ there was a widespread global condemnation including a statement by over one hundred Chinese scientists. All felt that a clear boundary is needed between science and bioethics since a threat exists to the moral and ethical values of human beings. Wei Li & Yuan Jing-jing analyzed the arrival of posthumanism/transhumanism, the publication of Never Let Me Go and the implications of what it means to be human. Among several commentaries they cited Max More who noted “we have already taken our first steps along the road to posthumanity…we are not the zenith of nature’s development”. The authors consider the identical nature in Never Let Me Go of clones and humans and decry the mistreatment of clones who we can clearly identify as the Other:
In Never Let Me Go, all clones living in Hailsham are depicted as human beings, possessing emotion and self-awareness, and being educated and empowered artistic creative abilities (in the novel, the clones are required to draw paintings in class). Are clones in Never Let Me Go human or nonhuman? Regarding the physical constitution, the body of a clone is identical to that of a human being. They have sensitivity and intelligence as ordinary human beings. If we cannot totally tell the differences between human and human clones, then human’s replicating and controlling of clones would definitely run counter to the concept of human civilization. Human clones serve for human beings’ interests (in the novel, the clones are created to donate vital organs to humans), but are treated as slaves and the objects of exploitation. They serve and sacrifice wholly for the benefits of human beings. This undoubtedly violates the bioethical principles…from the moment of being cloned and being created, their bodies and lives can not belong to themselves.
They further observe, “clones are alienated as the counterpart of human beings -the other”.
Yingxuan Zhang also explores the posthuman perspective in Never Let Me Go. He first reviews published comments including Justin Burley who “believed that the human-dominant society in the novel enslaves, menaces and massacres clones with coercive force”. Henrietta Roos observes that organ transplantation “reveals the confrontation and conflitct between dominant power and the other”. Yingxuan Zhang distinguishes between western views of human rights as encapsulated in the United Nations definition (without distinction as to race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion or any other status) having the individual and self as the center while China’s human rights are more about “benevolence”, that is, “consider others in one’s own place”. He then refers to Kant’s view to treat humans, whether self or any Other, never as only a means but also as an end. Human cloning technology should never be utilitarian, as depicted in Never Let Me Go, as that would produce a serious ethical crisis.
The class discussion of Bladerunner was interesting. A majority of the class did not consider replicants to be human. We did discuss Koko, the gorilla with apparent a range of emotions as well as understanding of an impressive vocabulary, and also favorite pet dogs as worthy of respect and perhaps love; emotional ties seemed important but neither were thought to be persons or human. I suppose that does make a diffrence when deciding if replicants can be identified as the Other when considering their treatment by humans. For me the replicants in Bladerunner qualify as human. These fictional characters are portrayed as possessing human DNA. Despite the views of the humans portrayed, they appear to show emotion more than humans of their era and environment. They are smarter and stronger as described. Deckard, the hunter of replicants, may well be a replicant himself. The narrative is unclear on that point. If he is, he is a replicant with more human qualitiies than any other character in the tale. The replicants have the same desires as a human in their situation would have, a desire to live longer and probably to not be enslaved. They are at least comparable to humans. I believe they are portrayed to be worthy of being looked upon as the Other. And as that are certainly being severely discriminated against by their opposing population.
Dr. Frankenstein’s monster also manifests many human-like characteristics. He shares the same DNA as humans (even if Mary Shelley did not know about DNA - she could imagine the sameness of the tissue stolen from human corpses). He wants companionship. He wants to fit into the society around him. He holds his maker in deep respect if not awe. He observes those humans around him and learns to behave like them to the best of his ability. He is angered by the unremitting shunning, fear and hate he receives in return.
Conclusion
Its an indecipherable question as to whether these fictional characters are human, that is left to the audience in each story. But they all display an abundance of human qualities. From that I argue they should be thought of as persons treated unjustly, as the Other within their human setting. Speculative fiction is no different than the wider field of fiction when its focus is mistreatment of the Other. In that regard, it is comparabe to South Pacific, The Merchant of Venice (where Shylock the Jew, the defeated villian in Elizabethan eyes is the Other), or any portrayal of class hatred and discrimination.
It’s a deeper question to try and explain why this human behavior is so universal. Literature, including speculative fiction, probably can not come to a solution on that. However, its important to recognize the problem and specualtive fiction can assist. Speculative fiction does have one characteristic that should be helpful in addressing mistreatment of the Other. The stories cited here and their like remove the reader just a bit from the question of people mistreating individuals identical to themselves, and so may provide a perspective that allows helpful reflection on the challenge.
Bibliography
1. Dick, Philip K., Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Bladerunner directed by Ridley Scott, 1982)
2. Ishiguro, Kazuo, Never Let Me Go (www.intexblogger.com)
3. Liu, T., “Cosmopolitanization of the Body: Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go (Studies in Literature and Language, 25(2) pg 80-73, 2022)
4. Li, Wei & Jing-jing, Yuan, “Alienation and Existential Predicaments of Clones: Interpreting Never Let Me Go in the Context of Posthumanism” (Journal of Liteature and Art Studies, May 2019, Vol. 9. No. 5. 455-63 doi: 10.17265/2159-5836/2019.05.003)
5. More, Max, “On becoming Posthuman”(Free Inquiry, 14(4) 1994 pg 38-41)
6. Most, Andrea, "‘You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught’: The Politics of Race in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s South Pacific", Theatre Journal 52, no. 3 (October 2000), 306-7.
7. Rogers, Richard & Hammerstein, Oscar, “You’ve got to be carefully taught” (musical South Pacific, 1949)
8. Roos, Henrietta, “Not Properly Human:Literary and Cinematic Narrative about Human Harvesting” (Journal of Literary Studies, 35, 2008) pg79-85
9. Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein: abridged & adapted by T. Ernesto Bethancourt (David S. Lake Publishers, ISBN 0-8224-9357-1, Belmont CA, 1986)
10. Tao, Zhiwei, “Identities of Clones: Cosmoolitan Ethics in Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let me Go’” (SHS Web of Confrences 159, 01021(2023) ICLCC 2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20231590ICLCC 2023
11. Zhang, Yingxuan,“Human Rights of Cloning in Never Let Me Go - A Posthuman Perspective (International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies, Vol 8, Iss 2 2021, pp 31-38/ ISSN;//doi.org/222259/2694-6296.0802004)
This page has paths:
- Otherness and Ethical Dilemmas Adelmar Ramirez
- Otherness and Ethical Dilemma in Utopian society Bukola Abiodun Ossai
