In chapter one of his book “One-Dimensional Man,” Herbert
Marcuse points out that the social hierarchy of modern society has become
defined by technology. “The people recognize themselves in their commodities,”
Marcuse writes. “They find their soul in automobile, hi-fi set, split-level
home, kitchen equipment.” He essentially is arguing that in today’s society we
find happiness in how advanced our lives are, and we tend to look down upon
people who have less technological instruments in their lives.
This pretty fair statement by Marcuse leads nicely into a
completely different world that author Philip K. Dick portrays in his novel “Do
Androids Dream of Sheep?” From the beginning of Dick’s science-fiction novel,
which is set in 2021, the very opposite of Marcuse’s claim seems to be true:
The characters value the lives of real human beings and animals much, much more
than they value androids and electric animals.
In the opening chapter of Dick’s book, this concept is
introduced when one of the main characters, Rick Deckard, is with his electric
sheep when his neighbor Bill walks out to see his real horse. The two begin
having a conversation about how Bill’s horse is about to have a baby and Rick
offers to buy it. Bill, who believes that Rick’s sheep is real, seems confused
why his neighbor would want to buy a second animal. But then Rick reveals that
he doesn’t own a real animal, and Bill is too shocked to answer at first.
“You poor guy,” Bill eventually says, setting a tone for the
entire book that technology is looked down upon in this world compared to the
reverence the people have for humans and real animals (Dick 9). This tone
continues with much of the storyline of the book following the characters as
they try to determine who is real and who is an android, all while
contemplating the possibility that maybe they are in fact androids.
By creating a world so respectful towards real, living life,
Dick may be pointing out the lack of respect towards nature and humanity that
we display in our current world. I believe Dick would probably agree with
Marcuse’s assessment that “the prevailing forms of social control are
technological in a new sense” and that those who refuse to live by these
standards are simply left behind and scoffed at, or as Marcuse says, “The
intellectual and emotional refusal ‘to go along’ appears neurotic and
impotent.” (Marcuse Ch. 1)
The fact that in Dick’s novel there’s even such as thing as Sidney’s Animal & Fowl catalogue
emphasizes this parody of modern society with how we look with pleasure at advertisements
in magazines and catalogues for televisions, cell phones, cars, and much more,
but for the most part, we ignore commercials about helping animals or starving
children in third-world countries.
Understanding that these moments in “Do Androids Dream of
Sheep?” where life is valued over technology and those who are human and posses
living animals are viewed as being apart of a higher social class is important.
Dick didn’t include these storylines and information just to keep the plot of
the story going. They’re included because he is trying to make the exact same point that Marcuse argues in
Chapter One of his book. While one is a novel and one is a book containing a stream
of psychological thought, they both bring the same point about to perhaps get
the reader to rethink what he or she values in life.
1 comment:
Roger -
Good start, although you blunt Marcuse's point a little bit. He argues that we find our very *identities* (not just happiness) in our possessions. People find their identity in a pickup or a hummer, in an iphone or a galaxy III, in a house in good suburbs (or a hip loft). Happiness is almost beside the point in his argument.
I like the opposition you set up in the 2nd paragraph. This isn't usually how I think of it - but that makes it all the more interesting.
Near the end, you argue (correctly) that PKD parodies our concern with material things through the animal catalogue, etc. But where does this take you? Is this ultimatley a parody of who we are, or is a critique of our lack of concern for "real" things, living things. As in many parodies, maybe it's really both, but you ought if you revise to move beyond seeing the element of parody and the element of critique - there should be an element of synthesis here, showing how those aspects of the book work together...
Your final paragraph is a kind of placeholder, I think. It's not bad, and the way you relate Marcuse and Dick is a good starting point - but yet it's not much more than a repetition of what you started with. I'd like to see this argument *advance* more. Show us, in other words, what it means or why it matters that there is a deep similarity between the agendas of the two authors.
Post a Comment