Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip Dick fits into the genre of
science fiction according to Brian Aldiss’ definition that it “is the search
for a definition of mankind and his status in the universe which will stand in
our advanced but confused state of knowledge, and is characteristically cast in
the Gothic or post-Gothic mode”. The focus of the book is trying to decipher
humans from androids and in doing so it begins to define humanity. Defining humanity, in relation to the
ever-changing landscape of the universe, is absolutely vital for the post
“World War Terminus” earth in which, a radioactive dust settles over everything
(Dick 15).
In the novel, this
definition is constantly evolving, marked by the constant stream of new tests
needed to differentiate the human from the android. Early tests focused purely
on the physical differences. After those were no longer able to detect
androids, new intelligence tests were implemented. Once the intelligence tests
failed, they turned to the Voigt-Kampff test measuring last remaining
difference, emotion, in particular, empathy (Dick 30). This progression of
tests represents the attempt of the society in the novel to define mankind,
just as Aldiss suggests is central to all works of science fiction. It is not
just the physical that makes a human a human, nor is it purely intelligence or
even, as Rick finds out, emotion. Aldiss’ definition also proves correct in the
sense that the state of knowledge is “advanced but confused” (Aldiss). The
technology of the androids, like the Nexus-6, is amazing but confusion comes
along with it. “Since the initial release of its specifications and performance
charts back in August of 2020 most police agencies which dealt with escaped
andys had been protesting” (29). After
the release of a new android, there is a scramble to find a test capable
capturing it. The technology advances and with that confusion ensues the police
agencies must redefine humanity with every new advancement in technology. In
this sense, Aldiss describes science fiction perfectly.
The empathy test
runs into trouble because there is “a small class of human beings could not
pass the Voigt- Kampff scale. If you tested them in line with police work you
would asses them as humanoid robots” (38). This possibility greatly blurs the
line between human and android. Does this tested lack of empathy make the
specials unhuman? This question does not even occur to Deckard or Bryant but
rather they are concerned they may kill a human. If the andys can be so similar
to humans, then should they be considered human? They look like humans, think
like humans, are apparently capable of all human emotion except empathy, just
as the specials are. What is the difference between the two? This question is
probably one that Deckard will be forced to ask in the coming chapters and
finding the fine line between human and not human is central to the novel. To
make these questions even more important, the antagonist and all of those left
on earth are constantly in danger of becoming special (8). At any given moment,
the dust could turn a perfectly functioning man on earth into a special. At the
same time, a man can be completely convinced of his humanity and turn around to
find out that he is in fact an android “impregnated with a false memory system”
(127). The inner experience cannot even define what it means to be human
anymore. This exact situation is demonstrated with Paul Resch. Dick even has
the reader questioning Deckard’s humanity at points throughout the novel. This
doubt in the definition of humanity lends itself to Aldiss’ definition of
science fiction. It is a constant struggle to define humanity and the
technology in the novel only confuses that definition even more. False memory
systems, brain units with “ten million separate neural pathways” and extreme
intelligence make androids more human while humans rely on mood organs,
codpieces, empathy boxes and are in constant danger of becoming less
intelligent due to the dust (28). The humans in this novel are certainly
searching for their place in a constantly changing universe completely in line
with Aldiss’ definition of science fiction.
As for the later part of the definition, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Probably
wouldn’t fit into the characteristic idea of a Gothic story. The setting is San
Francisco of the future rather than a typical gothic setting. Also, while the
idea of undetectable human robots is terrifying for some, it is not quite the
element of horror needed to be considered gothic. So far in the novel, it does
not have the romantic piece needed to be considered gothic, either. Despite
this small incongruity with Aldiss’ definition, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is still classifiable as a
science fiction novel.
Sources:
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids
Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print.
1 comment:
"Defining humanity, in relation to the ever-changing landscape of the universe, is absolutely vital for the post “World War Terminus” earth in which, a radioactive dust settles over everything (Dick 15)." - this seems like a productive and fairly specific way to begin your essay. Good.
You do a good job of showing how within the world of the novel the definition of human is under tremendous pressure. One thing I'd encourage you to consider is that how the *novel* (or, if you prefer, Philip K. Dick himself) defines humanity is not necessarily the same as how the characters within the novel define it - that is, the overall understanding that we take away is likely to be a composite, or to exist in contrast to, how the characters understand it.
The long paragraph following is good, too. You're using the text well and thinking clearly. Again, my main comment is to encourage you to think of how the novel itself (or you in response to the novel) define humanity, rather than to stop with how humanity is defined by particular characters at particular moments of the plot. Good moment: "At the same time, a man can be completely convinced of his humanity and turn around to find out that he is in fact an android “impregnated with a false memory system” (127)."
Your discussion of the Gothic doesn't have much merit, although that's as much a fault of my prompt as anything - see my comments on Adam's essay from this week if you want more details.
Overall: This is a strong *reading*, especially of individual moments of the novel. I've already made my main criticism (or my main interest, if you should revise), clear.
Post a Comment