Narrative and Technology

Questions on Gibson/Marcuse

2012-02-12T22:16:00.001-05:00

Post your questions/thoughts as comments to this thread.

Prompts for Thursday, February 16

2012-02-12T22:15:00.002-05:00

Option #1: Use a concept from Marcuse's third chapter (I almost simply required you to use "The Great Refusal", and I'd be fine if everyone used that concept, but I figured - why be unnecessarily restrictive?) to make an argument about the role or meaning of Neuromancer. For instance: does Neuromancer engage in the "The Great Refusal" or participate in (a synonym, or near synonym) the "rationality of negation"? Or does it participate in the one-dimensional society. Use passages from both texts!

1a: You might argue that Marcuse's concepts simply don't apply well to Gibson - which would presumably result in at least a limited attack on Marcuse. If you want to make an argument along these lines, you should use Gibson to expose a particular flaw or limitation in Marcuse's thought.

Option #2: Using Dreyfus, investigate the role of embodiment in Gibson's vision of cyberspace, using particular passages from both texts, very likely in relationship to the internet as we know it. You should, as usual, at least move toward a clear argument. Possible approaches: you might argue that Gibson presents a vision of the internet which includes embodiment (and thus, risk, the possibility for true learning, etc.) - or you might take the opposite approach, and argue that Gibson (or Case in particular) falls into the trap of aspiring to escape from the body which Dreyfus discusses especially at the end of the book.

Revision on Blog #3, Topic 1 - Kira Scammell

2012-02-11T07:59:00.002-05:00

What Do Humans Dream Of?

In a setting where the world appears to be ending it’s kind of silly to think that anyone would be spending nearly all of their income on pets. This is the premise of Rick Deckard’s life in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? If we look at this situation through Marcuse’s idea of true and false needs, brought up in chapter one of One Dimensional Man, we can get a better understanding of Deckard’s obsession with having a pet to call his own and the repression associated with doing such. However, labeling a need as true or false is not always so black and white.

Marcuse describes a false need as one that is “superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice”(Marcuse, Chapter One). He does not give a definition for true needs, but alludes to the fact that true needs do not perpetuate such feelings but do the opposite.

Thinking of today’s society, especially since we live in what is somewhat considered a free market, I have to wonder how much of our needs are monetarily driven. We are consumers, we buy things to feel fulfilled, it is part of our culture as Americans. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? exemplifies how the need for something can drive us to extreme measures. Rick Deckard, the main character of the novel is a bounty hunter, “retiring” androids so that he can make a living. However living in the post World War Terminus era, where everything including the people is being consumed by radioactive dust, leaves much of humanity dead or fleeing to Mars. There is little competition on Earth for means of survival (not including androids in this particular thought), meaning many of the vital components of life, such as housing, are drastically less expensive than in today’s world.

Even in this post apocalyptic setting, there is still a great deal of commercialism, partially driven by Mercerism, and in turn pressure to buy what could be considered luxury items to portray status and to make consumers happier. In the novel, the main consumer good is animals. In fact, Mercer advocates the keeping of animals because having empathy for an animal is a main part of being a human being.

In the most simple terms a false need is one that is not necessary for survival, but one that is desired for happiness or fulfillment. The desire to own an animal could be considered a false need. Thinking of Deckard’s character in the novel, we see from the very first chapter that he is tormented by the fact that he does not own a real animal, but instead owns an electric replica of a sheep.

Deckard’s ersatz animal spawns jealousy toward his neighbor that owns a horse. At first this envy seems to be driven by societal pressure to own an animal, but Deckard has a thought that indicates this desire runs deeper than a status item would ordinarily provide. “It’s a premium job. And I’ve put as much time and attention into caring for it as I did when it was real. But--” (Dick, 10) His neighbor finishes his sentence saying “it’s not the same.”

It is evident throughout the novel that Deckard has some opposition to using the empathy box. One explanation could be because he does not feel that he can really “fuse” with Mercer effectively because his sheep is fake, therefore devoid of the capability of feeling empathy for Deckard. If we think of true and false needs in this particular context, it becomes a little more difficult to diagnose Deckard’s desire to own an animal as strictly a true or false need. Mercerism is almost the religion of the post World War Terminus era, and how do you diagnose a religion? Is religion a tool to feel that humanity is not lost? And in this way, how can we say that animals, a very important part of Mercerism, are not included in these feelings of hope, something that is arguably very vital for the survival of humanity.

Marcerism is not the first religion to put animals on a pedestal. Think of the Ancient Egyptians. Cats were regarded as a sacred animal because of their protective skills, primarily killing vermin (which sometimes included poisonous snakes). The Ancient Egyptians were one of the first if not the first society to domesticate cats and give them a place in their own homes. According to Pitt River’s Museum, cats became associated with gods like Bastat, a god linked to childbearing and fertility. Mummified cats were considered a great offer to certain gods.

Although a completely different situation and context, it is easy to see that animals can play an important role and society and cannot simply be written off as a false need. However, it is also hard to argue that owning animals, especially in Deckard’s situation, can be strictly classified as a true need.

Many times throughout the novel, Deckard directly translates his salary to that of which he can spend on a new animal. “I could get lucky in my work again. As I did two years ago when I managed to bag four andy’s in one month” (11). An andy is equivalent to a thousand dollars, and throughout the novel Deckard uses andy’s themselves to indicate salary. Retiring five andy’s means he can afford a horse, a little morbid isn’t it?

Throughout the novel, Deckard indicates his dissatisfaction with his job. In a way, his job represses him as he needs to kill for it. Andy’s are only detectable as being an andy through a bone marrow test, indicating that they are very close, at least anatomically, to humans. In the description of their “retirement” Deckard often uses words like “brain box” instead of head (91), probably to make his job more palatable. While Deckard stays on earth because he has his job, and therefore a sense of purpose, his job is also something that causes him much grief in the sense that he is killing something that looks like a human.

In fact, Deckard becomes unsure that he can continue working as a bounty hunter as the novel progresses. Thinking of the situation with Luba Luft and bounty hunter, Phil Resch, we come back to the idea of empathy. The reciprocity of empathy is vital for both human-human relationships and human-animal relationships. Androids are a threat because they are devoid of empathy, and because of this, could ruin humanity.

The scene that takes place in the museum with these three characters is a complex one. Resch and Deckard find Luft in front of a painting called “Puberty,” which is interesting considering Luft herself never experienced puberty. Luft swiftly admits to being an android, and while doing so, accused Resch of being no more human than she is (130).

Deckard finds himself in an unusual position. He can’t imagine being a bounty hunter in the manner that Resch is a bounty hunter. He can’t be that devoid of feeling to do what Resch has done. Resch does not just kill for the money, but the pleasure associated with it. “But to retire it, because it’s needling you--” (132). Deckard has to constantly convince himself it is okay to kill. Resch does not.

While Deckard’s negative feelings toward Resch are growing stronger, his empathy towards Luft is also growing stronger. A complex situation that Deckard himself does not know how to classify. While Resch is human like Deckard, his harsh demeanor comes off as more cold and robotic than Luft, the actual android in the situation.

Empathy towards an android. This could change the entire dynamic that Deckard has with his career, his reason to stay on Earth. If Deckard is unable to maintain his job as a bounty hunter, and in turn be unable to afford an animal, would it be so bad? Would it mean that Deckard is free?

Considering the end of the novel, it is hard to put a finger on what liberation means for Rick Deckard. He is considered the best bounty hunter to ever live, and does not appear to want to give up his job. He is content in owning an electric toad. Even things with his wife, Iran, appear to be running more smoothly. If we considered owning animals to be a false a need, then it could be argued that after all that has happened, Deckard could quit his job and be liberated of the responsibility of killing androids to pay for pets. But even in what seems like content, Deckard does not quit his job. Is Deckard’s job a true need? Is it something that he needs to feel fulfillment? Does he want to be liberated from killing androids?

Sometimes things are obvious, but in most cases, at least in this novel, ambiguity reigns. The idea of repression, especially when framed by Marcuse’s true and false needs is about as clear trying to identify a Nexus-6 without a bone marrow sample.

Academic Source:

Dick, Philip. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballatine Books, 1968. Print.

Douglas, Ollie. "Pitt Rivers Museum - Animals and Belief – Ancient Egypt." Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford. University of Oxford. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

Marcuse, Herbert. "Introduction, Chapter 1." One-dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon, 1964.

Print.

Revision 1

2012-02-11T07:39:00.004-05:00

Scott Sauter

ENGLIT 0399

2/11/12

Professor Johns

Revision #1

“Such a society may justly demand acceptance of its principles and institutions, and reduce the opposition to the discussion and promotion of alternative policies within the status quo” (Chapter 1 Marcuse).

When I began reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, I found myself fixated on the Herbert Marcuse quote listed above. While Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep presents the reader with a futuristic earth void of all we as humans currently take for granted, namely animals and non-toxic air, it also presents but another “status quo” (Chapter 1 Marcuse). As accepted by its inhabitants as our current earth is by us, it perfectly illustrates the human tendency to follow the instructions of those people or institutions superior to us as individuals. It seems in our very nature to adapt to whatever situation we find ourselves in. Rather than changing, or adapting our societal hierarchies to fit our will, we change ourselves.

The first few pages of Dick’s novel confronts the reader with a reality in which one’s very mood is able to be manipulated to suit any particular circumstance that presents itself. While the concept of owning a “Penfield” mood enhancement device sounds like a dream come true, it also seems to perfectly illustrate the aforementioned quote (1 Dick). The character Rick Deckard and his wife have forgone emigrating to another planet along with the majority of the human race, and instead remain on earth, dependent on artificial mood enhancement devices to keep themselves from feeling the crippling despair that goes along with living on a ruined earth. Despite the crumbling, nearly abandoned city surrounding them, despite the toxic dust that threatens their very lives and sanity, Rick and Iran remain on earth rather than simply changing their, “status quo” (Chapter 1 Marcuse). More appalling still is Rick’s reaction to his wife’s admittance of feeling, “hopeless about everything, about staying here on earth after everybody who’s smart has emigrated” (4 Dick). Rather than sympathize with her, or even admit any understanding of such feelings, Rick merely suggests that she adjust her “Penfield” (1 Dick).

A government employee fully capable of garnering work on another planet, he decides instead to stay captive in a dust-bowl ghetto of a city, more content to bask in the simulacra of a “Penfield” than to enact real change (1 Dick). He is happier to seek, “ alternative policies within the status quo”, than to rise above it (Chapter 1 Marcuse). What does this indicate to us on a broader scale about the nature of similar-minded societies? Within such a society, in which the only way to fit in is to carefully regulate one’s emotions via technology, why do members not recognize its obvious failures and scrap it for an alternative society?

Such behavior on the part of Rick indicates a pattern of stagnation, and it seems that such a pattern of stagnation is not an exception to the human experience, but a standard. How many years did it take for women to stand up for themselves and demand the same rights as men? How many years did it take for African-Americans to do the same? How many years did apartheid stand? How many years of tyranny were endured before the French Revolution finally began? History is full of indications that the human race is content to endure a great deal of suffering and stagnation before standing up for themselves in an attempt to create more ideal circumstances. Within the context of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Rick distracts himself from the lonely nature of life on a ruined earth by dialing idealized moods into his brain, and window-shopping, “in front of one of San Francisco’s larger pet shops” (25 Dick). A government employee fully capable of garnering work on another planet, he decides instead to stay captive in a dust-bowl ghetto of a city, more content to bask in the simulacra of a “Penfield” than to enact real change (1 Dick). He is happier to seek, “ alternative policies within the status quo”, than to rise above it (Chapter 1 Marcuse). Why?

One major factor attributing to this trend seems to be the ability of such a society, “of satisfying the needs of the Individuals through the way in which it is organized” (Chapter 1 Marcuse). In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, the society is “organized” around the invention of the mood organ (Chapter 1 Marcuse). However, it is merely the placeholder of any number of devices which could be implemented by a modern post-Industrial society in order to control its citizens. One such organizational form of technology in our present age is the Internet. The Internet, while far from being capable of preventing us from feeling, “hopeless about everything”, is a powerful organizational tool which allows one to feel detachment from oneself by freeing he or she from the physical world (4 Dick). Without attachment to the physical world, one is free from poverty, pollution, and in some sense: pain (4 Dick). Just as with the mood organ, by using the Internet as a means of sustaining stagnation, “no one is trying to look ahead to what, if anything, we will lose by limiting ourselves to disembodied interactions” (50 Dreyfus).

While the Internet allows us to connect with friends and family even oceans away, it does not come close to challenging the “status quo” (Chapter 1 Marcuse). It reinforces the “status quo” by giving consumers the opportunity to boost the economy from home with access to shopping on a global scale (Chapter 1 Marcuse). It is in this, “rising standard of living, non-conformity with the system itself seems to be socially useless” (Chapter 1 Marcuse). By both giving people the ability to communicate spend money quickly on a global scale, the Internet has appealed to nearly every demographic possible with its promise to, “bring a new era of prosperity” (2 Dreyfus). It has thus become to be thought of not as a luxury, but as a necessity for those in the work-force to utilize. In response to the pervasive nature of it, “the Internet, like the car, will have huge consequences both for good and ill that we cannot foresee” (124 Dreyfus).

Just as the mood organ present in Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep became the only means through which Rick could manage the surrounding world, so too the Internet has managed to become just another aspect of the, “status quo” of our world (Chapter 1 Marcuse). Rather than challenging the Internet, modern society has accepted it with open arms. Just as Rick blindly buys into a mood organ, telling his wife to adjust her “Penfield” when she says she feels depressed, the public has accepted the Internet (1 Dick). Despite its promises to allow us to, “transcend the limits imposed on us by our body”, it has proven just as ineffective at changing reality as the mood organ (4 Dreyfus). Is there the possibility of a real upheaval of, “alternative policies within the status quo” (Chapter 1 Marcuse)? Can we move beyond the current trend of stagnation? As two studies, “suggest that living through the Net leads to isolation , and one of these surveys, in addition, that use of the Net leads to loneliness and depression”, can we call it out (136 Dreyfus)? Can we call it the “electric sheep” it is (Dick)? If so, it is possible for citizens to challenge the “status quo”, rather than playing into it (1 Marcuse).

Bibliography

Dick, Phillip K.. Blade runner. Reissue. ed. New York: Balllantine Books, 1990. Print.

Dreyfus, Hubert L.. On the internet. Second ed. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.

Marcuse, Herbert. One-dimensional man; studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Print.

Revision 1- Margaret Julian

2012-02-11T03:46:00.001-05:00

Margaret Julian
February 11, 2012
Revision 1

Throughout Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Philip K. Dick describes a world in which the government and its affiliates, have, in effect, taken over all aspects of the human, and humanoid life. Herbert Marcuse in his One Dimensional Man lays out his description of a “one-dimensional man,” in Dick’s novel we see a world in which the characters are, in many ways, the perfect prototypes for Marcuse’s vision.

First of all, as a society Marcuse believes that at some point in the future we will find ourselves completely dependent on the government and massive corporations (probably controlled by the government) for everything. “The government of advanced and advancing industrial societies can maintain and secure itself only when it succeeds in mobilizing, organizing, and exploiting the technical, scientific, and mechanical productivity available to industrial civilization.[1]” We see that this has already happened with the characters of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, “the government in Washington, with its colonization program, constituted the sole sponsor which Isidore found himself forced to listen to.” [2]

Deckard is also subject to the whims and regulations of the government. As an employee of the Police Force his livelihood on Earth is directly related to how well the government is willing to pay him. Adding another layer of government control, androids and their makers solely exist for the purpose of enticing people to emigrate to Mars, and live in the government settlement there. (A corporation existing only for the benefit of the government, which can only enforce its agenda through the success of the corporation.) Therefore we see the full realization of Marcuse’s fears.

Marcuse also defines the “needs of the “one-dimensional man” in terms of the real or “true” needs of humans “nourishment, clothing, and lodging,” [3] and false needs. As far as true needs are concerned in the book, we don’t see any struggle at all to find lodging. With the abandonment of so many houses and apartments on Earth, you could basically move to any place you choose and find a suitable residence to live in with little effort, and clothing seems to not be a problem either. Nourishment however is a struggle that is almost completely ignored, but the glimpses we get of the food in this reality are dismal. Isidore mentions that the comestibles he collected for he and Pris were difficult to come by and Deckard looks out onto fields at one point and reminisces about how the Earth must have been different with all the plants and fields. Interestingly enough, it is the false needs and their fulfillment that seem to occupy most of the characters time.

The false needs as Marcuse sees them are, “to relax, to have fun, to behave and consume in accordance with the advertisements, to love and hate what others love and hate.”[4] The acquisition of animals is the largest example we have of this. They are the ultimate commodity and the driving force behind commerce. The characters desire them for social status, religious purposes, and self-fulfillment, strictly because they were told to do so by a religious figure that works for the aforementioned establishment.

The ability to “dial-up” one’s emotions and moods is another large example of this in the text. It could be argued that this kind of mood and emotion regulation is akin to our treatment of depressives, and it seems the people in this abysmal place would have a lot to be depressed about, but not only is this kind of emotional regulation standard, it is a huge commercial venture that one can judge their position in society from. If you do not have a Penfield Mood Organ you are the lowest on the totem pole and probably an “anthead.” It is the ultimate way to homogenize society into a force of almost pure commercialization.

Marcuse’s discussion of the freedom a one-dimensional man experiences is also something that can easily be applied to the culture in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? . He discusses “freedom” in terms of the system. In order to truly be free there must be a complete subversion of the traditional cultural and political structure in place i.e. “ economic freedom would mean freedom from the economy.” [5] Iran is the template for “unfreedom.” She is in some ways subverting the systems when she dials her mood organ to feel despair, but she is still acting within the confines of the structure that was put in place. She may be different in many ways from people who choose not to feel this at all, but she is still a victim of the powers that be.

The androids are also sad victims of the government’s regime. These humanoid creatures were created for the sake of the government’s relocation and emigration program. They are in fact commodities that people desire to fulfill his or her every whim; akin to slaves androids are trapped in a four-year life of servitude. They have fewer rights than any other living (they do breathe and eat) thing on either Mars or the Earth. The argument here is not between human and android, but how the android industry contributes to the flattening and de-dimensionalizing of the culture in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? .

In an essay by Timothy W. Luke, he raises a question, “how can an economy and a society create attractive forms of freedom in which the “unfreedom” of humanity and nature are preconditions for its success?”[6] Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? provides an answer to this question through its commercialization. People feel free, like today, to choose the products, or animals they wish to possess. They feel free to change the dial on their mood regulator or to emigrate to Mars. In actuality they are not free to do anything but choose from a fixed set of options that the establishment has given them. Luke goes on to say that “Everything in society should be judged by how much actual freedom from material want and arbitrary control is becoming realized as an everyday possibility.”[7] As a society today the solution is so far from reality that we in the words of Marcuse we are, “approaching the stage where continued progress would demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction and organization of progress.”[8] In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? we find that the process has advanced so far that they have reached the tipping point Marcuse lays out. He says that when “material production (including the necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can be satisfied while necessary labor is reduced to marginal time. From this point on, technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity.” [9]

To fulfill the requirements of a one-dimensional man society has to have devolved (or evolved) so far that all of these contributing factors are true. Deckard, Isidore, Iran, and the androids are products of the consumer driven reality they live in. The future is grim given the apocalyptic perspective from which the book is written. They are stuck figuratively and in some cases literally chasing material and technological happiness in a world where a nuclear haze has set over the planet and an emigration to Mars seems tenuous at best. The question then is; is there still some hope for the world in which we inhabit or are our consumer driven lives going to run us into the ground?

Marcuse might point out that we have not reached the stage in which people in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are living so we can still change the system, albeit still by some major acts of subversion. But, unless we realize this and change quickly we will be heading in the same direction as Deckard and his companions. I would point out that there are some people who have chosen to abandon the system in a sense and “go off the grid.” They haven’t escaped from the physical bounds of the government but are able to live and sustain lives in which technology in the modern sense plays little to no part in their lives. They are not a large subset, but it can still be done. Within the reality of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? it is impossible to do this because reliance on the system is too great, you can’t grow your own food, the nuclear haze destroyed that idea. You can’t live in just any part of the country or world because the haze has become too dense. They are doomed in ways we have yet to be.

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 1968. New York: Del Rey

Books, 2007. Print.

Luke, Timothy W. “One-Dimensional Man : A Systematic Critique of Human Domination and Nature-Society Relations.” Organization and Environment. 13:95. (2000).

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. Chapter 1. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.Print.

[1] Marcuse

[2] Dick (Chapter 2 paragraph 10)

[3] Marcuse

[4] Marcuse

[5] Marcuse

[6] Luke

[7] Luke

[8] Marcuse

[9] Marcuse

Revision 1

2012-02-11T03:44:00.002-05:00

Technology and Social Isolation in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

In Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, different forms of technology take on the forms of being necessary, evil, or a combination of necessary evils. World War Terminus not only destroys the world, but also civilization. In the first chapter of Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, “One-Dimensional Society,” he discusses advanced industrial civilization. Specifically, he addresses the concept of alienation that can be the product of technology creating a sort of societal control. In today’s culture, technology also plays a role in isolating individuals from reality when they become dependent on them, such as different forms of social media or alternate reality games. So maybe society now is not so far from the future of Dick’s novel. Marcuse’s conclusions about how technology can result in an advanced form of alienation when they lose their identity and just blend in with society resonates with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, with characters immersing themselves in technologies that force a control upon them that they have difficulty connecting with the reality of other humans.

A prime example is J.R. Isidore, a special, or genetically damaged being who cannot leave earth, who lives alone in his apartment. His story is interwoven with Rick Deckard’s. When Isidore turns off his television, he experiences an overwhelming silence that “supplants all things tangible” (Dick 18). The silence for him, which is something that also covers the earth now, consumes him.

He wondered, then, if the others who had remained on Earth experienced the void this way … He lived alone in this deteriorating, blind building of a thousand uninhabited apartments, which like all its counterparts, fell, day by day, into greater entropic ruin. Eventually everything within the building would merge, would be faceless and identical, mere pudding-like kipple piled to the ceiling of each apartment. And after that, the uncared-for building itself would settle into shapelessness, buried under the ubiquity of the dust. By then, naturally, he himself would be dead, another interesting event to anticipate as he stood here in his stricken living room alone with the lungless, all-penetrating, masterful world-silence.

Isidore’s passage notes that the silence is entropic. In the novel, the characters sense the entropy of the earth as they almost destroy all of humankind. After World War Terminus, silence consumed the world, resulting in a heightened alienation as people found themselves without human connections. Marcuse calls alienation “questionable” a few times because it’s a more elaborate concept. The reality of alienation is at a further stage, one in which the subject is “swallowed up by its alienated existence” (Marcuse 6). It’s during the silence that Isidore recognizes his loneliness, so he clings to his empathy box to combat the silence.

Isidore’s attachment to technology is his empathy box, which connects the people into a collective consciousness that shares the pain of Wilbur Mercer, who took an infinite walk up a mountain as people cast stones at him. Marcuse, before his conclusion about the definition of alienation, says when people are confronted with the advanced industrial civilization, they tend to “recognize themselves in their commodities” and that is how social control is anchored (Marcuse 6). In the year 2012, people are dependent upon their computers and televisions among others, which they function as a form of escape from physical human beings. Isidore, who is not by choice isolated from humans, avoids the anxiety of the silence in his deteriorating apartment by resorting to his empathy box. “As it did for everyone who at this moment clutched the handles, either here on Earth or on one of the colony planets. He experienced them, the others, incorporated the babble of their thoughts, heard in his own brain the noise of their many individual existences. They — and he — cared about one thing; this fusion of their mentalities....” (Dick 20). According to Christopher Sims in his essay “The Dangers of Individualism and the Human Relationship to Technology in Philip K. Dick’s ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’” humans use technology to merge their experiences with the consciousness of Wilbur Mercer by using the empathy box. “Mercerism fills the void of religion because, while it provides a source of comfort to isolated individuals, it also supplies a moral framework for humans to live by in the wake of the disintegration of former religious and governmental institutions” (Sims 82). Marcuse discusses the concept of introjection within his discussion of alienation. He talks about the way that “introjection” is perhaps not the best description of how people perpetuate society’s controls. Because Isidore, and others, are consciously using the empathy box, maintain their own awareness, but are also aware of others. So it would be fitting to conclude that introjection is not the correct term to use because, like Marcuse says, Isidore does not have an inner dimension that is separate from the behavior of the rest of the people.

Iran, Rick Deckard’s wife, is one person immensely attached to technology – especially the empathy box. She knows how to trick the box to make it elicit other emotions (Dick 4). She’s become dependent on the empathy box, like so many others, which has led them to become detached from reality with other humans. Rick, who doesn’t want to use the empathy box, also feels a sort of detachment then from those using the empathy box. At one point, “Rick stood holding the phone receiver, conscious of her mental departure. Conscious of his own aloneness” (Dick 174). By not using the empathy box, Rick is not melding with society. When people today don’t embrace technology, they are left out of the loop. We all collectively use social media websites such as Facebook not only as a form of sharing emotional ties, but also as a form of advertising ourselves. By using the empathy box, Iran is not alone, like Rick when he doesn’t use the empathy box. “This is what the experience of fusion docs for the practitioners of Mercerism; it creates an empathetic synthesis of every human mind. From within this synthesis each individual has the knowledge that he or she is not stumbling through reality alone, that there is in fact an "other" with whom we can actually connect and commiserate” (Sims 80).

However, whenever Rick Deckard engages with Mercerism the first time comes after Buster Friendly blows the lid off the practice, which lends itself to an interesting segment of the novel about how Mercerism and Buster Friendly interact. They compete with one another as they continue vying for the control of the people. Not only are people relentlessly attached to their empathy boxes, their eyes are also glued to the screen when “Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends” is on for 23 straight hours. So the people are being controlled by this show, and it also fosters isolationism as people are obediently watching the show. Buster Friendly debunks Mercerism by exposing that all of the scenes and suffering are artificial, thereby throwing out Dick’s religious solution to capturing the essence of humanity following World War Terminus. Rick Deckard decides at this time to use the empathy box, to connect with the rest of society through the box. But when he does so, he fuses in a sense with Wilbur Mercer, not receiving the intended results from the box. “‘It’s strange,’ Rick said. ‘I had the absolute, utter, completely real illusion that I had become Mercer and people were lobbing rocks at me. But not the way you experience it when you hold the handles of the empathy box. When you use an empathy box you feel you’re with Mercer. The difference was I wasn’t with anyone; I was alone” (Dick 232). Instead of sharing emotions with others, he feels alone. Yet, he still fuses to Mercer because, even though Buster Friendly says he is a fraud, Rick believes that Mercer is reality (Dick 232). Religion was developed as a physical object, but the novel takes this a step further in saying that it’s not just an artificial object, but it’s also something being embedded into the followers.

While the technology created is meant to establish a connection between individuals to develop empathy, effects of the technology create an alienating effect. Rick Deckard, Iran Deckard, and J.R. Isidore each experience loneliness at some point in the novel. The alienating effect makes them want to form a social collectiveness. “The manifold processes of introjection seem to be ossified in almost mechanical reactions. The result is, not adjustment but mimesis: an immediate identification of the individual with his society and, through it, with the society as a whole” (Marcuse 5). World War Terminus was the product of a lack of social collectiveness, with humans behaving toward one another as predators. But the technology that destroyed the earth now contributes to an alienation effect that Mercerism tries to solve by providing a void to isolated people. A failure to identify with others will mean that people will suspect one another of being androids.

Works Cited

Dick, Philip. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballatine Books, 1968. Print.

Marcuse, Herbert. "Introduction, Chapter 1." One-dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon, 1964.

Print.

Sims, Christopher. “The Dangers of Individualism and the Human Relationship to Technology in

Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Science Fiction Studies 36.1

(2009): 67-86. Online.

Revised Essay #1: Heidegger and Frankenstein

2012-02-11T03:09:00.001-05:00

In Frankenstein, there is a passage in which the monster questions the reason for his existence. He asks “My person was hideous and my stature gigantic. What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination?”(Shelley, 143). According to arguments present in Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology, these questions can be answered through the “four causes: the causa materialis, the material…the causa formulis, the shape, the form of which the material enters…the causa finalis, the end…the causa efficiens, which brings about the effect that is the finished”(Heidegger, 3). All of the monster’s questions can be answered using three of Heidegger’s four causes, and this, in turn, can provide not only a variety of viewpoints on the monster’s existence and essence, but even one of mankind in its current, modern state.

The first cause, the causa materialis, has been left a mystery by Mary Shelley and thus would be misleading to discuss, but the final cause is deceivingly simple. It could easily be claimed that the monster’s causa efficiens is simply Victor Frankenstein, but this claim ignores an important part of the essence of the monster. The monster is not simply a physical object created by a scientist; rather, he is an amalgamation of a myriad of life experiences that have established who he is as an individual. His first experience is that of his creator running down the stairs in fear from him, but at this point, he has the mentality of an infant and cannot yet fully comprehend his master’s mental state. He simply picks up a jacket with the plans for his creation and walks for a long period of time, cluelessly, until he finds the De Lacey house. At some point, he realizes that his appearance will be of significant hindrance to any sort of acceptance, but still desires to be a part of the De Laceys’ lives. And he has no negative feelings for humanity as a whole, regardless of how he feels about Victor Frankenstein due to a lack of interaction with humans. During his initial observation of Felix De Lacey and the old man, he notes that “Nothing could exceed the beauty of the two creatures. One was old, with silver hairs and a countenance beaming with benevolence and love: the younger was slight and graceful in his figure…”(Shelley, 118). This view changes drastically after his first experience with humans, which is overwhelmingly negative compared to the view he held previously, now “[declaring] everlasting war against the species…”(152). However, he still holds onto the idea that there is some change he can integrate into society, “…[resolving] to return to visit the cottage, seek the old man, and by [his] representations win him to [his] party”(153). He simply blames human fear, and knows that as long as his appearance is not a factor, there is a chance he can befriend the old man and gain a companion. But further negative experiences with mankind make him more enraged until his views change and he gives up entirely on any hope of being accepted. Victor Frankenstein may be one causa efficiens, but all he created was the physical aspect of the monster’s being. The true shapers of this being are the emotionally traumatizing experiences from his time spent around humans.

However with regard to humans and identity, the causa formulis raises another interesting question. What is Frankenstein’s monster? He cannot be a simple piece of technology, as modern technology “puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such”(Heidegger, 8), and the monster is not a physical reserve for energy like an oil well or a coal mine. However by Heidegger’s summation of mankind’s relationship with technology, he is human. According to Heidegger, humankind’s relationship with nature is to reveal its hidden purposes in order to exploit it for whatever it may provide, which is exactly how the monster spends the beginning of his life. He mentions how he “…found a fire which had been left by some wandering beggars, and was overcome with delight at the warmth [he] experienced from it” and shortly afterwards, how “…the fire gave light as well as heat; and that the discovery of this element was useful to me in my food…”(Shelley, 112-113). The monster initially recognizes the fire as a means of providing warmth to protect him from cold, and later, on his own, discovers that the same thing can be used to provide a second purpose, much in the manner that Heidegger describes man’s poiesis of technology. Both man and monster gradually explore the natural world and find ways to use it for each’s respective needs. The monster, as an individual with primitive and unmaterialistic needs, does not use nature to provide the quantities of energy required for the production of firearms or textiles, but rather to provide a tiny enough amount for the survival of a single individual. The monster, in a way, is like early man who discovered the use of fire, the most primitive of technologies, discovering more and ways to exploit nature for the benefits of humankind.

But even if it helps to view him as “human”, the monster’s identity can be viewed from many other perspectives, including one that explains the nature of his hideousness. In his book Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity, author Andrew Feenberg argues that “[technology] is not essentially destructive; rather its significance is a matter of design and social insertion”(Feenberg, 24). For Frankenstein, this significance implies that the monster’s inherent hideousness and social isolation is not because of his humanity (or lack thereof), but because he was poorly designed by Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein complains numerous times about the imperfection of his design, noting how “…the materials at present within [his] command hardly appeared adequate to so arduous an undertaking; but [he] doubted not that [he] should ultimately succeed…[his] operations might be incessantly baffled, and at least [his] work be imperfect…Nor could [he] consider the magnitude and complexity of [his] plan as any argument of its impracticability”(Shelley, 48-49). By putting the desire for faster results above the desire to create a perfect being, Frankenstein allowed his impulsiveness to cause him to build a hideous creation whose appearance prevents his from attaining true happiness. This is a massive design flaw. The monster is capable of virtually anything, moving at the speed of an eagle and learning how to read Milton, speak, and survive on his own by the age of two, but his appearance prevents any possibility of normal integration with human society. It leads to his initial abandonment by his creator, alienation by the de Laceys, and his willingly-destructive behavior after the killing of William and eventually, to the deaths of most of the major characters in the novel. Under a Feenberg-supplemented Heidegger-based interpretation, the monster does not cause destruction simply because he is an artificial being created out of tampering with nature, but rather because his master impulsively overlooked his hideousness as a finished product due to his rabid desire to create his own human being. The resulting design flaw leads to a total inability for the monster to socially insert himself and emotional distress. The monster is not just a human being: he is an imperfect attempt at a perfect human being and his appearance is both the proof and the reason for this.

While Heidegger’s second cause deals with the monster’s biological and physical identity, his third cause, that of the causa finalis, relates the monster’s final goals and destiny to Victor Frankenstein’s. At the beginning of the novel, Frankenstein imagines that “A new species would bless [him] as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me”(49). The monster’s initial reason for existence is to be the first being in an army his creator desires for the purpose of ruling a race of beings as God. In contrast, throughout the second half of the novel, his self-guided existence revolves around two things: hunting down those associated with Victor Frankenstein and killing them, and gaining a female companion. These goals are what Heidegger would refer to as the “correctness” of his purpose, as the monster’s physical goals are not the same as their essence, of which he is well aware. He shows this awareness at the end of the novel when he tells Robert Walton about his true motives, crying about how upset he is that “the author at once of [his] existence and of its unspeakable torments…accumulated wretchedness and despair upon [him] he sought his own enjoyment in feelings and passions from the indulgence of which [he] was for ever barred, then impotent envy and bitter indignation filled [him] with an insatiable thirst for vengeance“(255). The truth of his nature is that of a justifiably-jealous individual who pains at not being able to partake in normal human emotions, which encompasses the essence of his desire for a female creature, as said creature would provide philosophical proof to him that he deserves the same happiness as any human being. This truth complements the goals and desires he mentions to Frankenstein in the mountains, which represent the “correct.” Both in combination eventually lead to the destruction of the half-finished female creature and complete emotional collapse by both creator and creation at the end of the novel. The correctness of the monster’s physical actions and desires is encompassed by the truth of his emotional trauma and jealousy, providing the creature with a dual-layered relationship with Victor Frankenstein.

Heidegger’s four causes provide an explanation as to the nature of the monster’s existence. And it is through the monster’s questioning of this existence that allows it to be investigated further and for the true nature of he and his fellow man to be revealed. But what exactly is revealed? To investigate, let us consider one final Heidegerrian view of the world using a notable contemporary example.

In a recent New York Times article, two journalists, Charles Duhigg and David Barboza expose recent practices of technology giant Apple Inc. Apple has recently angered many labor rights organizations due to hiring Foxconn to manufacture its expensive goods. Foxconn is infamous for labor practices deemed exploitative in Chinese factories, where employee suicides are so common that the company was recently forced to install safety nets outside its windows as a prevention tactic. Workers toil for more than twelve hours a week for miniscule wages in working conditions reminiscent of the early Industrial Revolution.

In a Heideggerian sense, Apple’s goods have multiple purposes. They reveal themselves to be not simply tools for individuals, to access the internet or to place phone calls, but as devices to supply Apple with as much money as possible, even if it results in the destruction of the humanity in humanity. Swollen limbs, exposure to dangerous chemicals, and endless, relentless shifts that overwork employees to the point where suicide is a reasonable alternative are cost-cutting measures, all of which contribute to this almost-mechanization of mankind.

In a sense, it is highly ironic that in this Heidegerrian viewpoint of man, Frankenstein’s monster becomes more human than this segment of humanity, as he has the freedom to explore nature and to reveal the purposes of objects, whereas Foxconn’s employees are treated as standing-reserve, being “ordered to stand by, to be immediately on hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering”(Heidegger), in contrast to the traditional, naturalistic form of revelation that the monster practices. Like the creation of the monster, this virtual mechanization of humanity is caused significantly by human impulse, as Apple consumers, Foxconn, and Victor Frankenstein desire results as quickly as possible to the point of potential consequences becoming entirely secondary, and like the monster’s own experiences, the indifference of society to ailing conditions leads to negative changes in the essences of the oppressed.

Heidegger’s causes and the monster’s questions allow for exploration of many simultaneous states of being. And these states of being, as evidenced above, can all lead to important revelations about the current state of man. Frankenstein’s monster’s final question is “What is my destination?”. At the end of the novel this question is answered when the monster determines that his actions have been too destructive and leaves Walton’s ship to end his own life. With the impulsive, overexploitative, dehumanizing nature of mankind in its current state, are we on our own identical path?

Works Cited:

Feenberg, Andrew. Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2010. Print.

Heidegger, Martin. "The Question Concerning Technology." The Question Concerning Technology. Trans. William Lovitt. Wright State University. Web.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Lynd Ward. Frankenstein: The Lynd Ward Illustrated Edition. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2009. Print.

Duhigg, Charles, and David Barboza. "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad." The New York Times. 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.

"'Mass Suicide' Protest at Apple Manufacturer Foxconn Factory - Telegraph."Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph Online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.

Carpey Revision #1: Frankenstein Essay #2

2012-02-11T01:17:00.001-05:00

Julia Carpey

Adam Johns

Narrative and Technology

11 February 2012

Revision #1 from Essay #2

Feminism and Sexuality through the Male Gaze in Frankenstein

“If it's true, as Longfellow said,

that a man must be either anvil

or hammer,

too much remains unseen to say

what a woman is,

or a beloved

or even the object--

agent, actor, act,

the scene itself unfolding

toward catastrophe--or if this is all

as bad as it sounds: to be rapt,

or objectified,

or if bringing back is the action

that connects us

to what, together, we perform. And of course it's not true.

Forgive me my unchaste eye.

I'd ask to be unfastened from

this tyranny of relation, but care of the body is referred (if any)

to the soul.

We fill pre-existing forms, and when we fill them, change them and are changed” (Estes)

John Estes wrote this poem in relation to the male gaze. The last four lines most aptly portray the notion of the male gaze from the most unbiased perspective I’ve read thus far. It essentially states, that we make attachments and set roles for all which surrounds us. They, in turn, as individual entities are altered by the society which sets these expectations. Consequently, some of these entities which have been altered over time to fit in these boxes can as well shape the society which molded them.

To ground this abstract concept we can look specifically at the male gaze in relation to the object most commonly of the men’s affection: women. Women have always been valued primarily one thing: our fertile childbearing abilities. Over time, this translated into valuing our curves because at the most basic, primal level, curves meant wide hips, and wide hips, in turn, meant apt ability to produce children and survive childbirth, ultimately allowing the mother to raise the child post birth. This, in turn, allowed the man to go out and hunt, and as society progressed work, fundamentally to provide a living for the family which the woman produced.

Regardless of how society continues to change, curves have remain constant in the stream of female body parts which are objectified. Cameras pan over them in films, TV shows and advertisements. Advertisers capture small snapshots of women in positions that persistently highlight the thighs, hips, breasts, and butt. Even in literature, certain diction can be labeled as feminine or masculine based on the “rounder” or “edgier” connotation they might have. This, is what is typically labeled as the “male gaze,” as the man’s gaze is generally drawn to the curves rather than any other part of the woman’s exterior. Edward Snow, of Theorizing the Male Gaze: Some Problems once stated in relation to men and the male gaze, “It is clear that the superego is in control, enacting at the level of analysis in the aggression and desire for mastery it seeks to criticize the subject.” (Snow, p. 31) I am not arguing that Mary Shelley attempted to break the stereotype of the male gaze, but rather that she used it to her advantage to give a voice to the feminist movement in a time of female opposition in literature and submissiveness in public. While it may not come across this way given her portrayal of the passive females in Frankenstein, she does so by using female roles within male homosexuality to attempt to break this mold. First, we need to look at the role of the passive female and follow it up with the role of the homosexual male in relation to the passive female.

While Shelley paints the female characters as being passive, I don’t necessarily think she paints the female role as being completely passive. The distinction between the two, the role versus the character, is slight and borderline trivial, but there is enough of a distinction to comment on it. The characters themselves, Justine and Elizabeth specifically, do submit themselves to the male’s dominance. They cook, clean, tend to the house and the needs of the members of the household in the absence of a female with more of a hierarchy. They are gratuitous towards Victor and Victor’s father for taking them in and essentially submit their ability to think for themselves by allowing the men to make the decision for them. This is most obviously seen in Elizabeth’s resignation to Justine’s innocence as soon as Victor proclaims it so. Everything about this screams passivity.

Yet the female role Shelley paints in other characters varies from this. Victor is painted as a feminine, motherly figure. While Victor is the creator, and we can only assume he intends to nurture the creature like a mother as well, he quickly shies away from this classic feminine role as his disgust for the creature grows. Yet, he reverts back to this at times, one of which is most clearly seen on page 109 when Victor and the creature meet on the mountain, “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and I thought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness,” (Shelley p. 109) While this feeling was fleeting, it was a motherly feeling nonetheless. This can be viewed as passive because he is submitting himself to his child, essentially. Yet, Victor’s role in the creature’s life remains fairly masculine, at least for the time period in which this was written. In the 18th and 19th centuries (and for most of history for that matter) it was considered the woman’s duty to raise the child into adulthood and the man’s job to work outside of the house to cover the family’s living expenses. Shelley comments on this with Victor rejecting his child and refusing to raise it. He, in turn, is faced with an internal conflict of whether to support it in any way whatsoever, including creating a mate for the creature, or to ostracize the creature even further.

Although not named and studied until the 20th century, we additionally see the “male gaze” at multiple points throughout the novel. Edward Snow states about the male gaze:

“Masculine vision is almost invariably characterized as patriarchal, ideological and phallocentric......at times it seems, as Gaylyn Studlar has observed, that the female can function for the male only as an object of sadistic spectatorial possession.” (Snow p. 30)

As we noted in class, Walton’s obvious affinity for Victor Frankenstein is most noted through the description of Frankenstein. We can imagine Walton slowly panning over Victor’s body to describe him, as we often see in media with the male gaze towards the object of the man’s affection. However, the fact that R. Walton’s object of affection is Victor Frankenstein alludes to the upper hand women can have and their control in sexuality simply due to his pure captivation with Victor and his eagerness to be near him. This gives power to the individuals in a patriarchal and largely chauvinistic society whom would otherwise be mocked and placed in a box. In turn, the uncommon distribution of power and social discussions allows for homosexuality to be observed, even if it is done so subtly, as it is in Frankenstein.

It can potentially be seen that Shelley intentionally chose not to use female characters to represent the strength in females and the feminist movement. Rather, she uses the subtle presence of homosexuality in the novel to point to the power the female can have. She was wrapping the controversial individuals in society in a masculine package, while using literary techniques to make them appear to the reader to be looked at in a feminine light despite the knowledge of the gender of the characters in the book. This is done so simply outside of the manner of deep description, but rather the continuous heavy description of Victor. Walton characterizes both Victor and the creature, both the most prevalent male roles, throughout the novel. However, he does so starkly differently for each character. For the creature, he allows his actions and his most factual relaying of his story to characterize him. On the other hand, for Victor, he perpetually uses heavy descriptive details to describe his actions, his feelings, his appearance, his innermost thoughts, and his dialogue. When R. Walton relays Victor’s story, he characterizes Victor and his actions and dialogue with more adjectives, whether they are endearing or neutral. However, when relaying the monster’s story, even though it was also relayed by Victor, he uses bland adjectives, if any at all. It’s obvious simply by his actions and the Shakespearean style in which he speaks that the monster is an intelligent creature, particularly given his age. But it’s interesting that the reader can only pick up on the monster’s virtues by the most basic retelling of his story, that there are no adjectives or endearing sentences written about him by Walton. The mere frequency in descriptive characterization points to a more masculine perspective of Victor as Walton objectifies Frankenstein for affection simply because heavy descriptions typically are paired with a female more often than they are with a male character.

Shelley’s decision to portray the characters in the novel as she did, through the male’s perspective could be seen as acute commentary for how she viewed her society, with the women passively fawning at the men’s feet and the men egotistically inflating themselves. Additionally, in the way men typically then, and still do now for that matter, physically externalized the role of women to point to their affection for the woman. This was radical, for a woman to be noticing the injustices, commenting on them, and furthermore making somewhat of a mockery of them.

The novel initially leads the reader to believe that the creature is an evil monster meant to destroy the society, which the readers' society mirrors. Yet, when looking into the story, one begins to question who the real monster is: the society which paints the creature this way for lack of knowledge about it and thus fear of it, or the creature for not being integrated into society on somebody else's accord and thus unintentionally wreaking havoc? While my question was obviously biased, so was Shelley's novel, which in turn, would have created more controversy and potentially had cultivated a completely different tone had she written it in a female voice. She had a particularly interesting perspective as she was not immersed in that culture the way society aimed for her to be, and instead laughed at it with plain disgust. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is satyrical commentary on how she views her society, but it is certainly teetering that border. Estes stated in the poem above, “We fill pre-existing forms, and when we fill them, change them and are changed.” Shelley broke the mold of the pre-existing form set for women, allowing other female writers, to do so and ultimately provided an example for many women in other professions to do so as well. She used the implications of the male gaze which were typically set aside for women, in the novel for homosexual men to give an unexpected voice to the effects the male gaze can have. She broke the mold for what the male gaze was used for, and she broke the mold for how to relay her liberal thoughts. Shelley was changed by the feminist movement, she then helped change the pre-existing form for women, and helped change the pre-existing form for society.

Revision 1 (Marcuse and Dick)

2012-02-11T00:49:00.002-05:00

Dana Edmunds

Social Distraction and One-Dimensional Societies

Marcuse describes a one-dimensional society characterized by the elimination of choice, in which the social and economic structure, a “product of a sophisticated, scientific management,” forces the individual to accept the oppressive nature and “repressive power of the whole” (Marcuse). The role of technology in Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? thoroughly depicts a one-dimensional society in the future in which different forms of social control indoctrinate the masses with a “false consciousness” that perpetuates a totalitarian system of capitalism, closely resembling both Marcuse’s predictions and the flattening out of political and financial options for modern consumers facing a widening income gap and monopolistic industry armed with government support. Marcuse and Dick would view the pressure from today’s consumption-based media (social distraction heavily biased by government influence), as a one-dimensional structure “in which advanced industrial society silences and reconciles the opposition” (Marcuse).

A striking similarity between Dick’s one-dimensional, post-apocalyptic society and our own global economy is the social status distinctions that arise between citizens with access to technology and those that experience “a loss of livelihood” from a system that prospers as social division grows between those who can afford the technology that will satisfy the needs of the society, and individuals that cannot. Society then shuns these individuals because they lack an “overriding interest in the preservation and improvement of the institutional status quo” (Marcuse). For example, not every citizen is eligible and can afford to emigrate: “That had been the ultimate incentive of emigration: the android servant as carrot, the radioactive fallout as stick. The U.N. made it easy to emigrate, difficult if not impossible to stay…once pegged a special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history” (Dick 13). Here we see how a society run by one dimension of thought, one objective, leaves individuals unable to distinguish between their needs and the needs of their society (or race), to progress. Of those on Earth, not every citizen can afford a Penfield Mood-Enhancing machine or own an animal, but by attaining these objects, or symbols of status, one gains both class distinction and distraction from the imminent death of radiation poisoning.

The only character we see defy this desire to do what is normal is Iran at the beginning of the novel, who would rather “feel hopeless about everything, about staying here on Earth after everybody who’s smart has emigrated” (Dick 3). Although she has the means to afford a mood-enhancing machine, she chooses to experience the reality of her situation as an individual, opposing the needs of the society and the normalized behavior of the affluent class. In a country whose citizens indentify with their material possessions, their type of car, brand of computer, size of house, Iran is an anti-consumer, and she embodies Marcuse’s negative thinking, the only rational defense against the false consciousness perpetuated by the societal need for constantly-growing economy or emigration to Mars. Iran would have boycotted Black Friday this Thanksgiving to exercise her individual needs, and she also calls her husband a “murderer hired by cops,” a jab at his profession. Deckard, who hunts androids to avoid the title of chickenhead, works to maintain his place in society, so that he can buy a real animal and participate in society, but in order to do this, he must kill androids. My father, who worked for himself for years taking over his father’s heating and air conditioning company, recently sold his truck and took a job working at the lower level of a corporation. He traded his freedom as an individual worker making his own hours to working overtime for financial stability, the ability to send his children to college, and to keep up his Apple fan boy image. When I see my father looking into the Apple store window, I see Deckard drooling over the last ostrich in San Francisco’s largest pet shop. Still, it should be noted that when Iran calls her husband a murderer, she considers androids human and therefore rebels against a system that views androids as slaves. In a society that uses android slavery to convince humans to emigrate, Iran seems to retain her individual thoughts in the face of the “repressive whole,” at least in the beginning of the book.

The commercialism that drives this economy is influenced by two forms of social distraction: Mercerism and Buddy Friendly. The availability of empathy boxes and televisions allow most citizens on Earth and in the colonies to satisfy their “need for modes of relaxation, the spiritual, metaphysical… [b]ut such modes of protest and transcendence are no longer contradictory to the status quo” (Marcuse). Both Mercerism and Buddy Friendly serve government agenda that could only be accomplished through mass indoctrination and the perpetuation of a “false consciousness” that confuses the individual’s understanding of his or her own needs. Mercerism gives meaning to a miserable existence by urging followers to protect buy and protect animals, increasing the cost of the ostrich in the window and making it more wanted. Mercerists must buy and own an empathy box, and share their love for their animals, which works like advertisement, convincing more people to circulate money into the system. Animals, a sign of social status in Dick’s world, are now the form of currency, valued more than “specials” (who are, by the way, still human beings), and androids (who, let’s face it, are basically human beings). The hierarchy of living things in this society is based on Mercer’s teachings, which is essentially based on principles that keep society moving, spending money, working, and most importantly feeling so content as a consumer that individuals can no longer pose the threat of social change. Marcuse calls this “deceptive liberty,” when “one-dimensional thought is systematically promoted by the maker of politics and their purveyors of mass information” (Marcuse). Jill Galvin explains that “Mercerism and the ideology of empathy that is its mainstay, far from appealing to innate human characteristics, function merely as the means by which the government controls an otherwise unwieldy populace” (Galvin 416). Repressed individuals like Isidore, and Deckard in the beginning of the novel, live in an illusion of contentment where there is only one dimension of thought driving society and it involves the need to feel empathy, which can only be attained through the purchase of animals and an empathy machine, rather than any kind of social agency.

Although they appear to oppose each other, Buddy Friendly’s endorsement of emigration also hints to television media as a major influence in the structure of post-colonial Earth, a mode of manipulation for the society to introduce its own needs. Buddy Friendly airs twenty-three hours a day urging listeners to emigrate, bribing them with a slave that “duplicates the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states! Either as body servants or tireless field hands, the custom-tailored humanoid robot—designed specifically for YOUR UNIQUE NEEDS, FOR YOU AND YOU ALONE—given to you on your arrival absolutely free…” (Dick 14). Along with the repulsive rhetoric that fantasizes slavery, the advertisement is also capitalizing on the social division between humans and specials, as well as humans and androids. The ad even makes the listener feel like they are supporting their own needs by seemingly focusing on the individual, but in reality, the colonies are just even more technologically-structure societies run by mechanized slavery and capitalism (resources derived from manufacturing on Earth). They will only consist of superior members of the human race, but who will all accept the consciousness perpetuated by society: mass media and the devaluing of the special and android. The need to do what is normal seeps into the “mind and body of the individual,” and through indoctrination and manipulation, the repressed class fails to realize the totalitarian tendency to use technology as a mode for social control (Marcuse Prologue). At the highest levels, Mercerism and Buddy Friendly aim to bate consumers, and although they appear as though they oppose each other, they both ultimately intend to keep the masses focused on society’s needs. Marcuse and Dick would view the increase of industry lobbyist involvement in politics as a serious example of a society purposefully confusing consumer needs for society’s needs, campaigning to leave all who are already in power, in power by influencing voters with material contentment. Take the Super Bowl commercials, which are made to drive not only consumption, but also a pride for, or consciousness of consumption. The corporations and government/political identities that use wildly expensive forms of communication to gather support and money have no real interest in the consumer, only in the collective, hegemonic need for control. They want citizens to talk about the advertisements the next day with only positive feelings, and purposefully leave out this agenda.

In the same way we see Iran rebel momentarily against the economic social control of the Penfield Mood-Enhancing machine, we see her sucked back into the system through Mercerism and the goat. The androids, however, are affected neither by the mood machine nor Mercerism, and as exiles from the colonies, they know that the propaganda broadcasted on Buddy Friendly’s show is sensationalized and inhumane. Essentially, the androids are non-consumers, seen when Pris refuses Isidore’s food, but society portrays them as if they have no emotion. In this same scene, we see Pris feeling empathy for her own android friends and Isidore. Androids refuse to buy into a system that views them as inferior, despite their matched intelligence and at least somewhat-developed emotions. Reason, in fact, acts as the powerful alternative to the “false consciousness” perpetuated by the technology seen in Dick’s world, and we see the transformation in Deckard as he uses deductive reasoning to question the humanity of the androids that the system—his job and only form of livelihood—forces him to kill. The androids utilize Marcuse’s negative thinking, working against the system blatantly inside the system in the same way that society retains control of the individual in a one-dimensional society through mass media—secretly and out in the open. Only through a refusal to participate in the system of global consumption can one concentrate effectively on his or her own needs, the way Iran switched off her mood machine and the androids escaped the confines of slavery by living in isolation on Earth. Even so, we see the overwhelming power of social control, of a system that sends out bounty hunters to destroy voices of social transformation, in the same way that lobbyists targeting congressmen deny people like my father a voice in economic policy. In the same way, Mercerism and the media industry work together towards the same end, a one-dimensional society in which there is no other acceptable way to live. One must buy into the system to survive, to pay for the affordances of a modern industrialized society even if it means giving up a personal endeavor like my father, killing androids to pay for a goat, or buying an education in government loans that does not guarantee a job, the individual cannot escape society’s needs. Social control makes individuals think the industry cares about them, and in the end, the repressed class cannot rise up because stuck an altered form of consciousness. Marcuse had it right. Negative thinking is the only way to rebel.
Works Cited

Dick, Phillip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine Books, 1968.

Galvan, Jill. Entering the Posthuman Collective in Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Science Fiction Studies , Vol. 24, No. 3 (Nov., 1997), pp. 413-429. Published by: SF-TH Inc. Article Stable URL: https://sremote.pitt.edu:11017/stable/4240644

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon, 1964.

Robin Revision 1

2012-02-11T00:49:00.000-05:00

Througha gap of almost 200 years and around the barrier between literary and life, thelink between the Victorians and prostitution can be found between the humansand androids in Phillip K. Dick’s DoAndroids Dream of Electric Sheep? This is an ideological link. These two societies may seem drasticallydifferent on the surface—lace doilies and curios compared to penfieldmachines and hovercrafts—but they are really quitealike; both are technological societies, for example. It is important to note that ideologies arenot EXPRESSIONS of beliefs—such as, Iagree with this, but not that; this is opinion—but are instead a set of beliefs that acts as a way to ORGANISEone’s thinking about one’s social system or way of life. These beliefs are anchored by core valueswhich, in turn, structure other ideas. If one does not have strong core values, oneis not particularly ideological. Also,ideologies ‘carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits, certainintellectual and emotional reactions.’[i] However, Dick’s fictional world isfairly flat, especially compared to real life, but there are many writings,both primary and secondary, about the Victorians. By using the Victorians and their views onprostitution, with the Contagious Diseases Acts as a frame of reference, andcomparing it to Dick’s humans and androids,—prostitution and androids being the Great Social Evil of their respectivetimes— it is possible to postulate on thedriving forces creating the ideology behind the life of Dick’s Americans of2021.

THE THREE PILLARS OFVICTORIAN IDEOLOGY: Empire, Class, and Morals—All Intertwined

Beforelooking at the Dickisian Americans, it is necessary to first understand thebasis of the Victorian ideology. TheVictorian era was one of great change. To fully understand all that was going on, it is important to start inthe middle of the 18^th century with the beginning of the IndustrialRevolution. A direct result of theadvent of industry was the creation of two new social/economic classes. The first, and more influential, was more ofan expansion. Since the early modernperiod, there have been ‘middling sorts,’ but with the Industrial Revolutioncame the industrial middle class, and, as the country became more industrial,this group, too, became stronger and stronger. The second class that was created was the working class. It is these two classes that are importantfor this analysis.

Thecore of the British national identity is made up of two ideas, the first ofwhich is Empire. Empire has been part ofthe cultural ideology since Britain started to colonise India and the Americasin the 17^th century, the First Empire. This cultural ideology only strengthened withthe Second Empire and the colonisation of Africa, the creation of the EastIndia Company, and the loss of the American Colonies. The Empire was at its height in the earlyand mid 19^th century, but by the second half of the century, itstarted to gradually lose power and control of its colonies. Despite that, the British Empire was stillthe hegemonic power of the world, and the years between 1815 and 1914[ii]are referred to as the Imperial Century.

Additionally,to understand British culture, it is imperative to remember that class plays alarge role. However, around the time ofthe Industrial Revolution, the Aristocracy, which relied on agriculture for itsmoney, started to decline. At this timein history, one needed a large amount of property to vote, and thus thegovernment was run by those who had a vested interest in agriculture. Because of this, the Corn Laws were passed,causing the price of grain to rise, putting more money into landholders’pockets. The practical effects of thevarious incarnations of the Corn Laws[iii]were that food—mainly bread, thestaple of the diet—became quiteexpensive, especially if one lived in the city and was not able to supplementone’s diet with vegetables grown in a small cottage garden. Most of the day’s pay went to housing, andthe rest went to food, neither of which was cheap in the cities. This created a poor working class, and it wasfrom this group that the majority of prostitutes came.

TheVictorians are stereotyped as being sexually repressed; however, this is notentirely true. One way of thinking aboutsexuality is that it is a social construction. Seeing Victorian culture through this ideology, Michel Foucault seesthat Victorian society did not repress sexuality, but instead regulated it intomodes or practices that were seen as respectable and non-respectable.[iv] The pure woman and the fallen woman; theMadonna and the Magdalene; the worthy and the unworthy.

‘Moralsare for the middle class,’ someone once said. ‘The poor can’t afford them and the Aristocracy doesn’t care,’ and theBritish middle class loved its morals. Theconstruction of a public morality was a large part of Victorian culture. This was done by shoving the women into theCult of Domesticity. It was seen asproper for her to care for the men in her life: husband, son, and father—actions that Marcuse would see as being ‘prescribed attitudes andhabits.’ One reason morality was soimportant to the Victorians is tied up with the idea of Empire. The Empire was what made Britain great, andthe threat of its total decline was traumatic for its citizens. The Victorians decided on a bottom-upcampaign to strengthen the Empire, believing that, with a strong foundation,the Empire would continue to expand and reflect the inherent greatness of theBritish people. For this, their strongfoundation was the family. A moral,upstanding family will perpetuate the Empire, they thought, and it was thewoman’s role to impart morals to her family.

Inthis time, prostitution was seen as prolific and as a threat to domesticityand, thus, the Victorian middle class and ultimately the entire Empire. However, it was not the only threat to themiddle class, but because of its visibility, it was a scapegoat of sorts; allof the fears and anxieties of the British middle class were tied up together inthe idea of prostitution, the thinking being that, with prostitution gone, thethreat to middle class moralities would disappear. From this thinking comes the idea of theGreat Social Evil.

THE CONTAGIOUS DIESEASESACTS: What they were

Thisanalysis will focus on the Contagious Diseases Acts (1864, 1866, 1869) and themotivations surrounding them and how this relates to Philip K Dick’snovel. The Contagious Disease Acts weredesigned to control the spread of venereal disease among enlisted men in portsand garrison towns. With each successiveact, more parts of the country were under the jurisdiction of the acts and by1869 there were eighteen districts in the country thusly affected. Under the acts, any woman could be identifiedas a ‘common prostitute’ by plain-clothed police officers, and once soidentified, she had to submit to a biweekly internal exam[v]. If the woman was found to have gonorrhoea orsyphilis, she would be admitted to a lock hospital—a special hospital for those with contagious diseases with lockedwards to prevent the spread of disease. The acts had a broad, very vague, definition of what a ‘commonprostitute’ was: basically, any woman who had sex outside ofmarriage was considered a prostitute according to the C.D. acts.

The womenwho were accused of being prostitutes were able to refuse the examination, but shewould then have to prove to the magistrate that she was not prostitute, which,because of the vague definition used in the acts, meant that she had to provethat she was virtuous and did not go with men, paying or not. One reason thatthis was a next-to-impossible endeavour was because of the stigma associatedwith prostitutes, and the poor working class in general, as beingunrespectable. The working class wasdescribed as ‘residuum’ and the ‘Great Unwashed.’[vi] Not only were theC.D. acts an outward portrayal of the Victorian’s opinion of a group of womenreferred to as, in a general sense, fallen women, but it ‘crystallised andshaped many...social views’ towards prostitutes and prostitution,[vii]says Judith Walkowitz

ACTON AND THE VOIGT-KAMPFFTEST

Thepolicy put forth in the acts was influenced by findings from William Acton inhis study titled, in short, Prostitution.[viii] William Acton claims that thepurpose of Prostitution is to provethat most prostitutes manage to escape and to better themselves and thoseexperiencing degeneration and death are exceptions. However, his work insteadconveys ‘Beware the Prostitute.’ Initially, Acton admits to the Prostitute is a ‘bogie’ man—somethingmeant to incite myth-based fears in outsiders—which he claims arose from Puritanthought’s driving of prostitution underground and an unwillingness to address theproblem. [ix] Whatever the reason for Acton’s biases, heargues that disease is not the large cause of death which it is believed to be,and that despite myths surrounding prostitution, it is possible for a woman toescape the world of prostitution. However, this writing has overtones of religious disapproval and ageneral wariness towards prostitutes.

Inthe early part of the Victorian age, there was a craze for collectingstatistical and empirical research, and Acton was a part of this movement. This type of work was social science andActon was a social investigator. Acton,as a later social investigator, still saw prostitution as a ‘social evil,’ butone that could be contained by a system of police and medical supervision.’[x] Acton’s findings, in effect, influenced, andacted as a type of litmus test for the police officers enforcing the acts: Thiswoman is out on the streets alone; she is gaudily dressed; she must be aprostitute.

InVictorian England, ‘recognition entailed a social identification of theprostitute,’[xi] andthe Voigt-Kampff test is Deckard’s way of identifying androids in Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The test is used to test the empathy of anandroid and, although it is not as much a social identification as racial one,the lack of empathy in a creature enables Deckard to recognise an android whenhe applies the test. To Deckard, thelack of empathy is the only way to visually asses if that person is a human oran android.

TheVoigt-Kampff test is sufficient to segregate the T-14 androids from the humans,but it is not as effective with the Nexus 6’s. Deckard, while talking about the Nexus 6, says, ‘we had better justaccept the new unit as a fact of life...every police agency...clamoured that notest would detect [the T-14’s] presence’[xii]However, the Voigt-Kampff test did detect the T-14, just as the C.D. acts ‘detected’prostitutes. Both the acts and theVoigt-Kampff test act as a way to segregate and fix the problem of their time’sgreat social evil.

DECKARDAND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE: The Implementations

Deckardand the police are an obvious connexion. Both are police, and yet, not. Also, bothare responsible for dealing with the problem group, the people involved in theGreat Social Evil. The plain clothedpolice officers were actual police; they were part of the metropolitan police,but were working outside of their usual geographic jurisdiction. This is because the C.D. acts came from theAdmiralty—the acts were originallyfor port and garrison towns—and in due tothe 1960 Metropolitan Police Act the metro police had jurisdiction of Portsmouthand Devonport, England’s two naval bases. Therefore, these new police officers did notbelong to the local police organisation; they were outsiders. Deckard, as a bounty hunter, is also anoutsider in his police department. Theypatrol the same areas, but have different jobs and are part of differentinstitutions, if it can be said that the bounty hunters have aninstitution.

Additionally,there are similarities in the ways, the metropolitanpolice and Deckard, and bounty hunters in general, enforced their rules. While Deckard is talking to Rachael, shementions police dragnets[xiii],out to catch androids. This is similarto what the metro police did. As plain-clothedofficers, they would roam the streets prostitutes were likely to be, and ifthey saw someone suspicious, that person would be arrested. However, as mentioned before, the definitionof what a prostitute is was very vague and often women who were not prostituteswere accused of this crime, just as the Voigt-Kampff test can identify humans with‘underdeveloped empathetic abilities,’[xiv]as androids who are then killed, Eldon Rosen says.

Also,Eldon says that the police and bounty hunters’ are ‘morally bad,’[xv]which is a similar accusation hurled at the C.D. acts which were condemned for beingmorally unfair.[xvi] The condemnation was partly because of theinvasiveness that characterised the physical exams. These exams can be compared to the bonemarrow tests used to definitively determine the status of a being as human or android. If a woman was said to have a venerealdisease of some sort, it was assumed that she was a prostitute. This is because of the belief that ‘excessivesexual intercourse’[xvii]caused syphilis, and therefore, if one had a venereal disease, one wastherefore a prostitute. However,according to a one Mr. Moore—a medicalofficer in the Plymouth magistrate court— and many others in society, when queried as to whether venerealdiseases can exist in couples who are faithful, yet have ‘excessive intercourse,’the answer is ‘I should not think it probable.’[xviii] These medical diagnosis, just like the Voigt-Kampfftest fears, are not particularly reliable.

EMPATHY AND MORALS

Empathyand morals play the same role in both Dick’s 2021 American society and that ofthe Victorians. These entities are avital part of their religions, Mercerism and Evangelical Christianity. Mercerism, through the empathy box, creates asocial consciousness and those without the ability to join in, those withoutempathy—androids — are theother. Deckard says that, according toMercerism, there exists ‘an absolute evil [that] pluck[s] at the threadbarecloak’ of society and that ‘a Mercerite is free to locate’ that evil other andkill it.[xix] Evangelicalsbelieved in the patriarchal society in which men and women occupy differentspheres. The cultural mores associatedwith these spheres are expressed by the morals which are being embraced andpracticed.

The Evangelicals held very moralistbeliefs. One such belief was in thesanctity of marriage, and they saw the prostitute as a threat to this. Because of the high importance placed on thesanctity of marriage, ‘their demand for the purity of sexual relations wasuncompromising.’[xx] Anyonewho threatened this was considered to be evil. Additionally, because this is a patriarchal society,—and therefore, menare so obviously of a higher importance—the woman is blamed for being a ‘sourceof pollution and a constant temptation to the middle class sons.’[xxi]

WilliamTait, and evangelical writer, would fully support Deckard in his quest tobanish androids from Earth. He, andwriters like him, branded prostitutes as ‘public enemies, criminals, andoutcasts’[xxii] and used Parent-Duchatelet’s phrase withwhich he described Parisian prostitutes as women who ‘“abandoned the prerogativesof civil liberty”’ to classify prostitutes, indicating that they were less thanhuman. Similarly, Deckard believes that,since androids are evil according to Mercerism, they do not need to beconsidered in the same way that humans are: to Deckard, androids are not partof productive society; they are evil and thus he is following Mercer thought whenhe kills them.[xxiii] In Dick, androids are simply a threat tohumans, Earthlings, a general threat. Butfor the Victorians, prostitution was a more specific threat, both to the familyand to the individual. Empathy andmorals, set in their respective religions form the societies’ Great SocialEvil.

CONCLUSION

Do Androids Dream ofElectric Sheep? is only 220 pages of a fictional world, and because of this, we, asreaders, do not know much about the society and culture therein. The one fact that links the together theVictorian and Dickisian societies is that they are both industrialised nations,and this industrialisation created both the android and the prostitute. Both societies’ Great Social evil is anaffect of the Industrialisation. Becauseof the similarities between Dick’s 2021 America and the Victorians, we can usethe later as a pattern card for understanding Dick’s society. As mentioned before, the three pillars ofVictorian ideology are Empire, class, and morals. These do not line up exactly with Dick’sAmericans, but they are still valid.

Empireis not important to these humans, but colonialism is. This is because America is no longer thepower; it, and the entirety of Earth is on its way to becoming completelyobsolete and extinct; the real power centre is on Mars—presumably. However, in adesire to compel people to emigrate to Mars, the government provides androidservants as incentives for picking up and leaving Earth. If it were not for the androids, there wouldnot be this social evil plaguing the country. For this reason colonialism, which is tightly associated with the ideaof Empire, forms an important aspect of Dickisian American Ideology.

Asexplained earlier, morals, in the guise of empathy, shape how these androidsare viewed. It is through this lens, andMercerism, that Deckard knows how to deal with androids...kill them—think Marcuse and prescribed actions. Just as morals dictated that prostitutes werea threat to the family, empathy, and the fact that androids do not have any,dictates that they are evil, not human and must be removed.

Class,while important to Victorian ideology, is not a major influence of theDickisian ideology in regards to androids. All that is important is that humans areabove androids in the cultural hierarchy. However, this does not invalidate the other two aspects as importantfoundations of the Dickisian ideology. Empathy and Colonisation have ‘prescribed attitudes and habits,’ andthese are shown through Deckard’s actions and thoughts. By finding similarities between two cultures,it is possible to extrapolate aspects of the more well-known one to deducefacts about the second. However, issuesarise when the biases and prejudices of one of these societies, or in thiscase, a third, society is falsely attributed. Because this is fiction, and there is no definite answers as to thenature of the ideology, this is just one possible explanation behind thebeliefs expressed in Philip K Dick’s DoAndroids Dream of Electric Sheep?

PrimarySources:

Acton, William, ‘The Career of Prostitutes,’Prostitution, Considered in Its Moral, Social,& Sanitary Aspects, In London and other Large Cities. With Proposals for the Mitigation and Prevention of its Attendant Evils. (1857).

Dick, Phillip K., Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York 2007).

SecondarySources:

Foucault, Michel, Hurley, Robert, Trans, The History of Sexuality: Vol 1, (NewYork 1978).

Walkowitz, Judith, Prostitutionand Victorian Society, Women, Class, and State, (Cambridge1980)

[i] Herbert Marcuse, OneDimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society,(Boston 1964). Chapter 1

[ii] These years, betweenthe end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Great War were years of peace inBritain, however, not so much for the colonies. The closest problem was Ireland and its fight for Home Rule. Despite this, the peace on the island made itpossible for the Industrial Revolution to fully take hold in the cities creatinga metropolitan society, as opposed to an agricultural one.

[iii] First enacted in1815. Incidentally, it was not theworking or middle classes that enacted the repeal of these laws in 1847, despitethat many of the middle classes men became enfranchised in 1932, but the Faminein Ireland. However, it was a case oftoo-little-too-late, because even with cheap grain being imported, the Irishhad no money to buy the grain.

[iv] Michel Foucault, Hurley, Robert, Trans, The History of Sexuality: Vol 1, (New York 1978). p 10

[v] Earlier, before theacts, an attempt was made to require the men to undergo scheduled exams, butthe officers feared it would ‘lead to the demoralization of their men.’ However, it was ok to do this to prostitutesbecause they, obviously, had no selfrespect. Judith Walkowitz Prostitution and Victorian Society, Women,Class, and State, (Cambridge 1980) p4

[vi] Walkowitz (Victorian Society) p 3, 4

[vii] Ibid

[viii] The entire title is Prostitution, considered in Its Moral, Social, & SanitaryAspects, In London and other Large Cities. With proposals for the mitigation and prevention of its attendant evils.

[ix] William Acton, ‘The Career of Prostitutes,’ Prostitution, considered in Its Moral, Social, & Sanitary Aspects, In Londonand other Large Cities. With proposalsfor the mitigation and prevention of its attendant evils. (1857) Excerpt 1

[x] Walkowitz (Victorian Society) p 32

[xi] Walkowitz (Victorian Society) p 44

[xii] Phillip K. Dick, Do AndroidsDream of Electric Sheep? (New York 2007). p 25

[xiii] Dick, (Do Androids?). p 46

[xiv] Dick, (Do Androids?). p 48

[xv] Ibid

[xvi] Walkowitz (Victorian Societly) pp 40

[xvii] Walkowitz (Victorian Societly) p183

[xviii] Ibid

[xix] Dick, (Do Androids?). p 27

[xx] Walkowitz (Victorian Societly) pp 33

[xxi] Walkowitz (Victorian Societly) pp 34

[xxii] Walkowitz (Victorian Societly) pp 39

[xxiii] Dick, (Do Androids?). p 27

Revision #1 Ben Fellows

2012-02-11T00:09:00.003-05:00

Ben Fellows
Narrative and Technology
Revision #1
2/11/12

Understanding the Empathy Box as a Marcusian False Need

“The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete forms of the struggle for existence”(Marcuse, Chapter 1). Herbert Marcuse differentiates these implanted needs as “false needs” as opposed to true needs; the need for food, shelter, and clothing. Marcuse further states, “[most] of the prevailing needs to relax, to have fun, to behave and consume to accordance with the advertisements, to love and hate what others love and hate, belong to this category of false needs”(Marcuse, Chapter 1). Of these false needs, the most striking false need is that of needing “to love and hate what others love and hate.” It is this false need that imprisons individuals the most, defying free thought.

In Phillip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the empathy box serves to link oneself to the feelings of others, allowing all who connect to share the same feelings. As such, this device directly breaks with free thought, casting individuals into repression. Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man helps readers of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? identify the empathy box as a false need that serves to inhibit an individual’s liberty. It does so by imposing itself as a highly personal object, assimilating individual beliefs into one, and lessening feelings of accomplishment.

John Isidore refers to the empathy box as, “the most personal possession you have! It’s an extension your body; it’s the way you touch other humans, it’s the way you stop being alone”(Dick, 64). The empathy box is vital to Isidore’s existence, or at least he believes so, as he is astonished that another being could have possibly left hers behind. An empathy box is not a true need; however John Isidore has been indoctrinated into the belief of the opposite. As Ross Fitzgerald says, “no matter how much she/he identifies her/himself with them and finds her/himself in their satisfaction, they continue to be what they were from the beginning—products of a society whose dominant interest demands repression and domination”(Fitzgerald, 89). This personal feeling Isidore has for the empathy box is not unnatural to the repressed society Dick presents, however it is certainly not how a truly free person would behave. As a “special”, Isidore is already the underdog in this futuristic society. He is looked down upon by others; however the empathy box is there to fill a void created by society itself. One cannot blame Isidore for his pathetic attachment to the empathy box, as the only alternative is complete isolation. Although this may seem to be somewhat paradoxical—Isidore must choose between repression from the empathy box or absolute loneliness—it is society itself that presents both of these options. Society’s labeling of antheads and chickenheads creates this situation. Therefore, the empathy box’s forced repression due to its being highly personal is an inescapable fate for John Isidore. As such, John Isidore will never be able to transcend this repression, leaving him to a fate of unconscious slavery.

The empathy box not only burdens its victims with intimate feelings, but also assimilates the different beliefs its users have into a “one-dimensional universe of thought,” as Marcuse would say. The purpose of the empathy box is to collect the thoughts of all of the simultaneous users and transform them into one shared consciousness. Dick states, “[they]—and he—cared about one thing; this fusion of their mentalities oriented their attention on the hill, the climb, the need to ascend”(Dick, 20). One might think that a shared belief could be a beneficial thing to society. This shared goal, however, has no important purpose. This collective individual is brainwashed into believing that walking up this hill is the sole thing that they should strive for. This has no outcome which could possibly benefit these individuals, yet the machine tells them they should do so, and they do. I find the passage that follows soon after even more telling, “Who? he wondered, peering to see his tormentor. The old antagonists, manifesting themselves at the periphery of his vision”(Dick, 21). As this collective being is advancing towards the top, closer every day, some “enemy” injures this being. I can’t help but understand this passage as Dick stating that those who go against the popular belief can only be considered enemies. This only contributes to the one-way thinking established by the collective group. This belief is summarized down to: climb up the hill, advance more every day, be like Mercer, any other belief is an antagonist. I wonder, how long have these people been climbing towards the top, with the belief that they will someday achieve this feat? Will they ever reach the top? If they do reach the top, then what do they do? These questions do not plague those who employ the empathy box, as the box is designed to never bring these questions up. I cannot think of a better way to repress the people in a society. When their sole goal is one that will never be accomplished, they will never develop thought of rebellion. This ultimate control causes any advancement to be stagnant. An empathy box serves only to create a false need and to leave its users unconscious of their slavery.

Finally, the empathy box represses the individual by lessening the feelings of joy and accomplishment. In the society of future Earth, it is practice to use one’s empathy box at your peak good feelings. In doing so, you share this feeling with the group consciousness. This sharing does not multiply this good feeling, however, but divides it amongst all of the users. After Rick Deckard purchases his goat, his wife is overjoyed. Instead of cherishing this good feeling after her slump of depression, she instantly declares that they should share the feeling through the empathy box. Iran states, “It would be immoral not to fuse with Mercer in gratitude…I want you to transmit the mood you’re in now to everyone else; you owe it to them. It would be immoral to keep it for ourselves”(Dick, 171). The repetition of the phrase “it would be immoral” is unsettling. In our current society, we do not feel the need to sacrifice our good feelings to others. Generally, such good feelings are treated as rewards, and as such, they urge us to be more productive, in order to produce similar results in the future. In Dick’s society, however, these feelings of joy must be crushed almost instantly. One might think that this is contrary to Marcusian belief, as less satisfaction could potentially cause an empathy box user to stray away from use. It is in fact the contrary, as the users enjoy lessening their experience with the belief that it is their duty to do so. As such, they gain a certain kind of satisfaction through sacrificing their joy. As Fitzgerald states,

A fundamental thesis of One Dimensional Man is that by producing material affluence, the technology of advanced industrial society has the effect of eliminating protest and dissent, and at the same time fostering identification with the established order. As Marcuse says, “If the worker and his boss enjoy the same television program and visit the same resort places, if the Negro owns a Cadillac, if they all read the same newspaper, then this assimilation indicates not the disappearance of classes, but the extent to which the needs and satisfactions that serve the preservation of the Establishment are shared by the underlying population (Marcuse, 1969, p.8) (Fitzgerald, 89-90).

The empathy box fits this to a T. The box causes all people to share the same beliefs, “eliminating protest and dissent” and simultaneously causes everyone to agree with set beliefs, such as “you owe it to them” and “it would be immoral”. This agreement amongst all users does exactly what Marcuse means by “serving the preservation of the Establishment.” This assimilation of thoughts can only serve to limit the creativity of individuals and cease any forward movement in the direction of the people.

The empathy box in Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? presents a perfect example of a Marcusian false need, according to One-Dimensional Man. This device is one which is imposed upon the individual as necessary for life, although it is in fact far from it. Marcuse states, “Their satisfaction might be most gratifying to the individual, but this happiness is not a condition which has to be maintained and protected if it serves to arrest the development of the ability…to recognize the disease of the whole and grasp the chances of curing the disease”(Marcuse, Chapter 1). The humans in Dick’s novel have no chance of transcending the need to use the empathy box if they never realize that the empathy box is in fact, not necessary to sustain life. The empathy box is in fact the very disease of the whole Marcuse speaks of. Such false needs are what could bring mankind to the end of ingenuity and into severe repression. Philip K. Dick’s novel is a scarily accurate, although perhaps exaggerated, representation of what society could become if humans subject themselves to similar false needs.

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print.

Fitzgerald, Ross. “Human Needs and Politics: The Ideas of Christian Bay and Herbert Marcuse.” Political Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 87-108. Web. Feb. 10 2012.

Marcuse, Herbert. "Intro/Chapter 1." One-dimensional Man; Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon, 1964. Print.

Revision: Prompt 1B - Women In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

2012-02-10T23:19:00.003-05:00

Studying the roles which the women play in Mary Shelley’sFrankenstein can prove to be adifficult and frustrating task. Indeed,the unsuspecting reader would likely be surprised to discover the rigidpassivity and uninspired nature which nearly all of the female characters inthe novel display, especially considering that Shelley herself is considered tobe one of the most popular and influential early feminist writers of the 19^thcentury. Yet, the male characters of thenovel provide the framework for the narrative, are almost constantly the focusof that narrative, and their sex is nearly exclusive in their possession ofindividuality, intellectual capability, and independence within Shelley’snovel. On the other hand, provided oneexception, the women in the novel seem not only to serve deliberate functionswhich further progress the narrative, but also are devoid of much of thecreativity, zeal, and ambition displayed by their male counterparts.

VanessaDickerson, in her article “The Ghost of a Self: Female Identity in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” seconds this sentiment,noting that the women of Frankenstein are“present but absent, morally animate angels, but physically and politicallyinanimate mortals,” (80) and “so apparently devoid of impurity, flaw, and will,that they hardly seem important or visible” (82). It is true that the significance of the rolesplayed by Shelley’s women in the novel generally lies beneath the main plot ofthe story, which focuses almost exclusively upon Walton, Victor, and themonster. The framing and context of thenarrative itself is an example of the utility provided by Frankenstein’s females to serve a greater function within the grandscheme of the novel. Robert Walton’scharacter provides the starting point for the entire narrative through hiswritten letters to his sister, Margaret Saville. While Walton embarks on a perilous journeythrough the high seas, pursuing “[his] ardent curiosity with the sight of apart of the world never before visited,” (Shelley, 2) his sister remains boundup in England receiving Walton’s letters throughout the book, never making anappearance or uttering words of her own, thus signifying her passivity. Ironically, while Margaret only exists in thenovel through Walton, she is also therecipient and inspiration for the entire narrative as it is presented. Without Margaret to write to, Walton hascannot relay the story of Victor and the monster to the reader.

Elizabeth, Victor’s fiancée, and Justine Moritz alsoexhibit the same sort of passivity and utilitarian purpose as Margaret, as eachof them suffer death as a result of Victor’s neglect for the monster. Their deaths serve to drive Victor furtherinto insanity, and their lives provide the tools by which the monster tormentshis creator. They, like Margaret arealso lacking distinct voices or personality traits, and are usually portrayedby the males in the novel as angelic, virtuous, morally innocentcharacters. Elizabeth, originally givenas a “pretty present for…Victor,” is constantly described by suchcharacteristics as her “saintly soul…sympathy, soft voice, the sweet glance[of] her celestial eyes, [which] were ever then to bless and animate us.” Victor himself explains how he “looked uponElizabeth as [his]… All praises bestowedon her, [he] received as made to a possession of [his] own” (Shelley,26-29). Elizabeth’s voice and actions inthe novel offer little towards building her character, as she spends most of hertime waiting patiently (for years) for Victor’s return, where their weddingwill allow her to fulfill the domestic duties of a 19^th centuryhousewife. For Victor, Elizabeth is oneof the last remaining links to a society which he is slipping away from, anexample of the purity and innocence which dwindles from his world as themonster exacts his revenge. Justine,like Elizabeth, also displays the same sort of passive, saintly charactertraits, as she selflessly gives up on maintaining her innocence in the face ofaccusations of murder. She chooses deathover life, “[punctuating] the condition and fate of Caroline and Elizabeth whonurture and love unto death” (Dickerson, 85). Justine merely becomes an added hindrance and instrument ofpsychological torture to Victor, who holds back evidence which may haveacquitted her from her fate. Justine’squasi-martyrdom further displays the spiritual role that the women of Frankenstein play, as their angelicpersonalities as a result of Victor’s technological innovation.

All of the women in Shelley’s novel are the objects ofthe males’ affection and their gentle, forgiving nature provides a sharpcontrast from the adventurous, impulse-driven passions exhibited of the malecharacters in the novel. The monster isable to recognize the blissful ignorance and immature innocence of human naturethrough the character of Agatha. Themonster often emphasizes her kindness and generosity, making reference to “thegentle words of Agatha,” (Shelley, 133) or “Agatha, the ever-gentle Agatha” (129). For the monster, the women of the novel showhim the sensitivity of human nature and also are the window through which he iseducated. However, Agatha provideslittle to the story other than to provide the monster with this newfounddiscovery of the beauty and angelic demeanor which Frankenstein’s women possess.

When the peasant family whom the monster observes allowsan Arabian woman, Safie, to stay with them, however, these genericcharacterizations of the novel’s females do not apply so effortlessly. Safie is a completely unique character in thenovel because she is a woman who wishes to gain independence and intellectualfreedom: “[Safie’s mother] instructedher daughter in the tenants of her religion, and taught her to aspire to thehigher powers of intellect, and an independence of spirit, forbidden to thefemale followers of Mahomet” (Shelley, 136). One could argue, as Dickerson does, that Safie’s introduction midwaythrough the novel marks an important turning point. Safie ultimately saves the DeLacey familyfrom their extreme misfortune and poverty, as she grants Felix a companion,while simultaneously easing the burden of the family’s impoverished and exiledcondition with money which she brings to the household. Still, it is worth noting that Safie’scharacter does display some striking similarities to the other females in thenovel, notably through the spiritual aura which she possesses in accordancewith the other female characters: “herpresence diffused gladness through the cottage, dispelling their sorrow as thesun dissipates the morning mists” (Shelley, 128-129). Another peculiarity present in Safie’scharacter can be exhibited through the monster, who brags that he “improvedmore rapidly than the Arabian, who understood very little, and conversed inbroken accents, whilst I comprehended and could imitate almost every word thatwas spoken” (Shelley, 130). Thisparticular quotation is interesting, as the female is not able to keep pacewith the learning capabilities of the monster, whose “humanity” is a subject ofdebate. Also, while Safie embodies muchof the independent and character traits present in Frankenstein’s men, it is important to realize that she, likeMargaret, Elizabeth, Justine and Agatha, provides specific utility towardsprogressing the main plotline involving Victor and the monster. Upon acquiring language through Safie, themonster begins to make his own decisions of independence. He begins to seek revenge against Victor, anddemands that he makes him a mate. Thus,though completely unique among the women in her display of spontaneity andambition, actively seeking to improve her position by fleeing her homeland,Safie still fulfills the common female traits of utilitarianism and divinityfor the males of the novel.

Nearing the end of the book, when Victor is constructinga female companion for his monster, Shelley’s novel displays more anti-feministsentiments through the viewpoint of a male narrator. Victor ponders with abhorrence thepossibility of the two beasts reproducing, resulting in “a race of devils…[being] propagated upon the earth” (Shelley, 189). He then tears his creation to shreds beforethe monster’s eyes, destroying the monster’s hope of enjoying companionship. This is very significant because Victor’sfear of woman’s ability to reproduce effectively leads to Elizabeth’sdeath. Victor is faced with the verydifficult decision of repeating his creation, or sacrificing the safety ofthose dearest to him, and his choice to scrap the female monster ultimately guaranteesElizabeth’s doom, a gruesome death which befalls nearly all of the novel’sfemales.

When recalling all of the female characters in the novel,the reader discovers how strikingly similar almost most of the women of Frankenstein really are. They are devoid of just about any sort ofpsychological independence, and seem to depend on the men in their life for council,information, protection, or survival. All of the main female characters close to Victor are killed as a resultof his creation. Safie, the Arabianwoman, is one of the only examples in the novel where a woman finds inspirationor freedom which would distract her from misery, and acts according to her ownpersonal will. Even though she is uniquein her ambitions, she seems to only exist as a character so that the monster maylearn through her and Felix. She is alsodescribed in a somewhat objectifying manner in the text, much like Elizabeth,Victor’s “pretty present.” When Felixattempts to rescue Safie’s father, he notices the girl, and “[cannot] helpowing to his own mind that the captive possessed a treasure which would fullyreward his toil and hazard” (Shelley, 135).

In accordance with this, I have found that thesignificance of the other female characters within the novel is importantinsofar as they help to develop the storyline between Victor, the monster, andWalton. These women have great worth withinVictor and Walton’s hearts and minds, and provide Frankenstein the utility heneeds to find vengeance. Indeed, asVictor loses the women most important to him, his obsession with revenge andridding himself of the monster’s burdens grows, and the monster uses the womenin Victor’s life to add to the tragedy of his situation. Yet, with the exception of Safie, Shelley’sfemale characters in Frankenstein steadfastlyportray the quintessential passive female; moving “decidedly into the shadowrealm…a realm wherein the potential or real power of women is notcharacteristically sustained, recognized, or effective in a world ofmonster-men” (Dickerson, 90).

*Additional Source:

Dickerson,Vanessa D. “The Ghost of a Self: Female Identity in Mary Shelley’sFrankenstein.” Journal of Popular Culture 27.3 (1993): 79-91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8Feb. 2012.

Revision: Blog #3, Prompt 1

2012-02-10T23:15:00.000-05:00

Marcuse focuses a fair section of the first chapter of One Dimensional Man to describing an individual’s needs in a modern, mechanized society. He sums up his perspective on modern needs by saying:

“We may distinguish both true and false needs. "False" are those which are superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice.” (Marcuse 1)

Prior to this conclusion, Marcuse presents an argument that if society continues down the path currently set, our needs will no longer be the basics of food, water and shelter because all of these things can be handed to us through our mastery of delegating tasks to automated means. Our true needs will be to free ourselves from the political, economical and social machines that come from these great luxuries. He shows concern that simple freedoms like freedom of thought and freedom from government oppression may be lost because of our complete dependence on the machines provided to us. It is almost a sleight of hand by society; while we accept the benefits of our technology, the technology creates new problems and stress such that we are no more satisfied than when we were before. These problems, while certainly not as detrimental as dying from starvation, still create a riff in our own inner beings. An individual may feel isolated or inadequate due to the social pressures we now have time to implement.

This relates well to the near-futuristic society portrayed in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” This world has been ravaged by another, and likely final, world war. Nuclear fallout sweeps across the land and exposure to the surface over time transforms humans into “special” undesirables. The world is barely inhabitable, so a colonization of Mars occurred to save us as a species. Those who remain on the surface face consequences, be it small inconveniences such as wearing a lead penis sheath to walk outdoors or the real and ever present threat of becoming a mutant – and less than human – through radiation.

To our protagonist, Rick Dekard, these issues do not create stress in his life. The most important thing to him is to own an animal, most specifically a large animal, as everybody has one in this society and it is a sign of status. It is so important to him that he even has a fake, robotic sheep made after his real sheep dies so that he fits in with his neighbors. To no longer have a sheep would be a crippling point of shame for Dekard. As Marcuse wisely predicted, having enough food to eat, or a job, or surviving after a nuclear war or even a mood-enhancing machine does not satisfy Dekard. He can only be vindicated through animal ownership, because that is the common social pressure in his time and place. The precedent of owning a large animal as a status symbol is a completely unnecessary. It is not a true need, as Rick could survive without it. However, the social pressure and the issues that stem from it, such as disappointing his wife or being thought less of by his neighbors, cause him more misery and is a driving force for the narrative.

Most alarming about Marcuse’s predictions is that we as readers may not continually question Dekard’s motives because we are driven by superfluous greed. As Dekard risks his life during his dangerous mission to retire seven androids to collect the bounty to afford an animal, we never stop and ask “Why?” Why must he kill all seven? It’s understandable that Dekard needs a job to provide for himself and his wife, but why the excessive work? Does this really bring him joy or does his lust for an animal only “perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice?”

However, the implications of Marcuse’s truths are severe when applied to our society today. Dekard may yearn for an animal while his world is physically falls apart in a nuclear wasteland, but overall, we are worse off today than Dekard. He has exactly one economic vice. I, and many others, have many which lead me to be overworked and stressed. I want a big house. I want an Aston Martin so I can be like James Bond. I only play Fender guitars because they are the gold standard. The list goes on and on. We are all indoctrinated with these false needs. Douglas Kellner in “Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism,” warns against a monopolistic capitalist society where our desires are presented as needs and power is held by an economic-government elite. While he was warning about the theoretical dangers of extreme political systems, we are already at this point past competition. We are no longer a society based on needs or even desires, we are a society based on Marcuse’s definition of the word “consumer.” We have lost our identity in things and only exist to create and have bigger and better things. If it’s not the newest or the best, we look down upon it. Things no longer serve our needs, they are our needs. We are now working for the technology instead of the technology working for us.

Due to our growing application of technology, it’s getting harder and harder to keep up as well. For instance, I recently got rid of television that was only 7 years old. It was a flat screen and had a 480p resolution. When we bought it, it was amazing. The screen was so clear and it was a point of pride for me. However, it wasn’t a thin television, it had the boxy back part to it. Moving it to college was a pain and I wanted a new one with HDMI ports and 1080p resolution. My old television worked fine, I just wanted a new one. My 3 year old, $2000 Macbook Pro is already behind the latest specs for their $1000 model and is slowly turning into kipple with a broken disc drive and busted frame. This is more than just “keeping up with the Jones’s,” this is a consumerism plague.

Just like Dekard, the pure act of owning something is not our motivation for this unchecked materialistic attitude. It’s the social pressures that accompany these things that lead us to want. As I’m writing this, I’m questioning myself as to why I want the things I do and why I do the things that give me stress. I think college, and more specifically being a chemical engineer, is not only the greatest stress in my life, but also me bowing to social pressure. I was always told I was a smart kid and my parents and family pushed me to apply myself so I could “have a good job someday.” But what purpose does this serve? Is having a high paying job a need or a want? For me, an engineering degree is just an enabler. Like Dekard, I’m doing something I don’t want to do because it fulfills my extraneous wants. But it’s more than that. I don’t want to disappoint my family because they expect a lot from me. The bar is set high, so my need for things I don’t need is even higher. My false needs have dictated my life’s path to this point. There are jobs that don’t require a college degree that someone could work, but no one is willing to stoop to that lower class. I cannot free myself from my Mercusian false needs because of the social pressures that come with that decision, which in fact may make me less human in a nonphysical sense.

Through Marcuse, an analysis of Dekard’s false needs in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” reveals that he may indeed be less human than the robotic androids or the mutated “specials.” He is a product of a society that values certain vain goods over societal needs, such as a surface that can sustain natural life. Although his desire for an animal is intense, it pales in comparison to the materialistic, economically controlled, “Marcusian consumer” society that we exist in today.

Works Cited
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print.
Kellner, Douglas. Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California, 1984. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert. "Intro/Chapter 1." One-dimensional Man; Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon, 1964. Print.

Patrick Kilduff Revision

2012-02-10T21:35:00.002-05:00

Patrick Kilduff

After reading Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, I have deduced that the monster, no matter how gruesome or ugly his outward appearance might be, is undoubtedly human. The most evident and obvious examples of his humanistic characteristics are when he observes the family living in the shack. We can see his human distinctiveness while he picks up details on how this family lives, their daily chores and issues, and also the emotions he encounters from certain circumstances he experiences while observing them. To give this monster the title of human, one must define humanity, the essence that makes us as a species the way we are.

Humanity might not be an easy thing to define and put into words, but after some research I found a very interesting article called Humanity 2.0 by Sarah Chan, a writer for EMBO Reports. In this article, Chan discusses how humans are constantly reinventing themselves, therefore reinventing the overall definition of humanity, as well as the ethics of enhancing humans as a species. The opening to this paper is very interesting, and I would like to share it, because it applies to the monster’s being very nicely. Chan states: “Humanity is constantly reinventing itself. From the earliest days of our species, when one of our ancestors picked up a burning stick and kindled it into a fire, to the present day, when we search for the ‘God particle’ and clone sheep, cats, dogs and more, humans have been altering their environment and shaping the world around them. The history of our species is a stream of discoveries—major and minor—which have allowed us to progress and direct, to some extent, the course of our evolution.” (Chan, Humanity 2.0)

With this quote in mind, we can look at Victor’s decision to create the monster, as well as the monster’s essence as a human, to give some reinforcement to the idea that the monster is in fact human. To begin, with Chan’s work in mind, lets begin with Victor Frankenstein, and his view of humanity. We know that Victor was a brilliant man with all sorts of ideas, but he had one idea that would reinvent science as we all know it. Throughout the process of his creation, one definitely questions Victor’s ethics, even condemning him for the atrocities that he has done, but was he just trying to reinvent humanity? Initially when I was reading Frankenstein, I automatically labeled Victor as a madman with the gall to defy God. He tested the boundaries and crossed them, forever sealing his fate into the realm of insanity. However after reading this article, I have a different viewpoint. As we know, Victor had no negative intent on creating this monster, his ego just got in the way, treating the monster as his “child”. After realizing what he had done, Victor immediately withdrew is statements of “beautiful” and changed them to “horrific”. So to comment on Victor’s view of humanity, we can see that he wanted to progress and change what the definition of human was, but altering and changing his environment to benefit himself ultimately led to his demise.

Frankenstein’s monster does not directly deal with humanity as much as he does with the overall definition of human. After researching and looking through various texts, an interesting definition of human comes from The World of Psychology textbook, written by Samuel E. Wood. While there was no direct definition of human in this text, there is a branch of psychology called humanistic psychology. This branch of psychology is defined in this text as: “The school of psychology that focuses on the uniqueness of human being’s capacity for choice, growth, and psychological health.” (citation) Although this is an accurate definition, it does not encompass what a human really is, and what a human experiences throughout life. Human is not something that you can put into an encyclopedia, not something defined in a dictionary. To me, there are two aspects that comprise being human. The first is emotion, and emotions only felt by a human. The second and final aspect is experience. In an abstract way, you can only be human, and know what its is like to be a human, through experience, trials and tribulations. As blatant as that sounds, it is key. My support will make this more evident.

The first key to being human is emotion. Yes, the physical aspect of being human is evident and is a strict requirement, but the emotion is what really encompasses a human. These emotions are complex, not simple emotions (if one was to define an emotion as simple) such as happiness or sadness, but emotions like empathy, anger, stress, revenge, wonder, and beauty. Now, not all “complex” emotions are negative, but you could say that they are the most “controversial”, meaning they are emotions not easily understood unless experienced and truly felt. Now one can argue that animals, such as primates, are capable of some of these emotions in the real world, but in this story, what the monster feels and attributes to certain situations, can only be attributed to humans.

While Frankenstein is on the run, exploring his new world around him, what caught my attention, and indicated an interesting emotion, was his interest and fascination with the outside physical world. What I first thought to be a mindless, gruesome beast was captivated by snow. As a little kid does on their first snow-day, playing in the snow, wondering what it is and where it comes from. Now, obviously we cannot picture the monster frolicking in the snow, but the same principles apply.

Now for the observation of the family, which supports the monster’s overall being as a human. The first emotion that I found interesting was ambition, which we can clearly see when the monster wants to master the language of the family. The monster tried so hard and watched for countless hours to master a language that was very foreign to him. It was not an instinct, such as a bird learning to fly. An attribute such as this (a bird learning to fly) is bred into an animal’s DNA, an attribute necessary for survival. This was something out of the ordinary. Although learning to speak the native language was probably the best for the monster’s own good, it was not an instinct or necessity, this was on his own merit. Striving to achieve is an emotion that is so unique to humans, and the monster wanted to approach the family after learning that they were harmless. It seemed like a goal to him, an achievement that would bring fulfillment to himself.

The next emotion that I found important in the monster’s journey was empathy. Yes, we see empathy in the animal kingdom, but not the empathy that the monster feels. In the animal kingdom, on rare occasions, we might see animals of the same species, from the same herd, help another if in distress, but this is a very extreme case. In the animal kingdom, we know that it is all about survival of the fittest, as Darwin coined a long time ago. The empathy that the monster shows is something only native to a human. Abstractly speaking, we can consider the monster to be a different species than a human. He is comprised of human structures, but was not born from human parents. When the monster watches the humans perform their daily chores, speak amongst themselves, and even argue and become upset, the monster sympathizes with them. We can even recall one instance in the story where the monster performs chores for the humans at night while they were asleep, because he recognized the struggle and distress that they felt everyday. As the monster states during his retelling of his journey to Victor, we can see his display of empathy. He states on page 121, after he witnesses the son and daughter give their portion of food to the old man: “This trait of kindness moved me sensibly. I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my own consumption; but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained, and satisfied myself with berries, nuts, and roots, which I gathered from a neighboring wood.” (Shelly, 121) Just as humans will sympathize for a hurt animal or a distressed comrade, the monster showed his empathy for the human family.

Another example that shows his human characteristics is the feeling of imperfection that he feels toward his outward appearance. We can look at a passage on page 124 when he is looking into the water at his own reflection. The monster reflects: “I had admired the perfect forms of my cottagers-their grace, beauty, and delicate complexions: but how was I terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool! At first I stared back, unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror; and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification. Alas! I did not yet entirely know the fatal effects of my miserable deformity.” This utter disdain that he has for himself and his appearance shows self-consciousness. Imperfection is felt my no animal, (in the normal sense of the word, humans not included) no inanimate object, no being other than a human.

The last and most important human emotion experienced by Frankenstein’s monster is beauty. When Frankenstein’s monster hears Agatha sing and the father play his instrument, he actually experiences and recognizes the beauty of an instrument and voice. As the monster states on page 117 of the text: “He raised her, and smiled with such kindness and affection that I felt sensations of a peculiar and overpowering nature: they were a mixture of pain and pleasure, such as I had never before experienced, either from hunger or cold, warmth or food, and I withdrew form the window, unable to bear these emotions.” (Shelly 117) These sensations were not dire instincts, such as he stated about coldness and hunger. These feelings were real, grounded emotions that he had never felt before, and was in shock when he felt them. Humans are the only species to actually appreciate something that is beautiful.

The next and final aspect of being human is experience. Now as obvious as it seems that you need to experience being human to be human, the monster is a perfect example of how experience shaped his philosophy and his actions that he took. Imagine, composed of human parts, born from a spark, and entering an unknown world. Exploring and experimenting made the monster as human as he is. The emotions mention earlier also shaped him as well to make him human. Experiences such as observing the humans, getting the stones hurled at him, and murdering William gave him the experience to shape him as a human.

All in all, the Frankenstein monster is indeed human. Through the emotions that he felt, and the experiences that he goes through, we can see that he is in fact human. We can sympathize with his struggles, even though he is the monster of the story. His composition may be untraditional, his values unorthodox, but he is, in fact human.

Bibliography

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1934. 117. Print.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1934. 121. Print.

Chan, Sarah. "Humanity 2.0." EMBO Reports. (2011): 2. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. .

Wood, Samuel, Ellen Wood, and Denise Boyd. The World of Psychology. 5. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2011. 10. Print.

Revision on blog 3

2012-02-10T20:46:00.001-05:00

Jacob Pavlovich

Narritive and Technology

2/10/2012

Throughout Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, we are presented with several ways of looking at the novel. Whether it is at face value of a man trying to capture and “retire” androids or a more philosophical reasoning. During chapter 1 of Marcuse’s text, he says “intellectual freedom would mean the restoration of individual thought now absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination.” This can easily be used to develop a better understanding Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

The first sign of intellectual oppression and the fight that is waged on throughout this novel is in the first chapter when Iran scheduled “a six-hour self-accusatory depression.” (p.2). This is a rebel act because they have the power to just skip emotions, and “dial” whatever feelings they wanted to enjoy. Iran, in contrast to the women of Frankenstein, is active in the process of rebelling against the societal norms. She recalls hearing “the emptiness intellectually”, when talking about turning on the television. This is critical in Marcuse’s thought that to obtain intellectual freedom, you must fight off the “mass communication and indoctrination” of our time. Once she felt this emptiness, she rejects the thought to use her “Penfield mood organ” to adjust how she is feeling(p.3); instead she decides to do something unheard of, she scheduled her six-hour depression session. Her rebelliousness startles Rick, for Rick himself is at this point completely enveloped in the indoctrination. He decides to “dial” her setting that indoctrinates her to have “pleased acknowledgment of [her] husband’s superior wisdom in all matters.” (p.5). So right from the beginning, the novel is started off in a war for intellectual freedom. As I mentioned before, Iran is not just a passive woman, she is willing to fight for what she believes is right for her. She clearly is on her way to becoming free, if not on the threshold already, for on page 83 when Rick phoned Iran, she was experiencing the “six-hour self-accusatory depression which she had prophesied”. This confused Rick, as he is not accustom to this rebelliousness that his wife is displaying. The beauty of this is not the fact that she is depressed, because that in itself is sad, but the fact that she is achieving freedom. If she wants to be depressed she is allowed to be depressed, she isn’t just going to be happy all the time, because that is not truly normal.

Even though she has started to rebel in one part of the novel, as the book progresses we become aware that she in fact goes through the much needed cycles of rebellion. At one point slipping right back into following what Buster has to say. She asks her husband for confirmation on the subject, unaware of his undergoing change with Mercer, which shows a light relapse back under Buster’s control. However with all changes in life, when a strong person tries to rebel, there will be setbacks. In Iran’s case, hers was not a full set back because she still has the presence of mind to question Buster, “Do you think it could be true?” (p.201). Talking to Rick about Buster’s assault on Mercerism. Her full coming of complete rebellion is in her indecision in the last chapter. She sits at the mood organ, and just like an addict, toys with the thought of using it. Relapsing back totally to the beginning, before the novel. The only thing is she cannot make up her mind, subconsciously she understands that it is inherently “evil” to her. This much we can tell from her total hesitation on using it. She thinks about using it as a substitute to make her feel better because her love, Rick, is in an unknown location. The transformation comes when she hears him, “a knock sounded at the apartment door,” this shows that intellectual freedom does not come solely by yourself. You need others to help you make it the whole way, just like anything else. Rick comes in, as her savior, as her Mercer, and just like that she doesn’t need anything other than him. She “already [has] it” in Rick (p.213). Her fight of mass media, and intellectual rebellion was only able to be completed with the help of her husband.

Isidore is someone else who is not quite along the road to freedom that Iran is. In fact Isidore, starts his journey during the beginning of the novel. In the first few chapters while he is still alone, we learn just how confused he is, because of indoctrination and mass media. He believes in a religion of sorts called Mercer. Where he is connected with everyone, but because he is connected with everyone, he is in fact at a loss of intellectual freedom. We are introduced to him as a “chickenhead” or a “special” (p.15), which means his IQ is not very high. However, that is what makes him so impressive of a character. Throughout the novel, we see him very little, but every time we do he is making great strides toward breaking through the bonds of intellectual oppression. Isidore is a tool for us to see into the indoctrination of mercer, and the fight that mercer is having with Buster, the universal television broadcaster.Isidore provides us an interesting insight to how there is a war between the two when he has a conversation with his boss Mr. Sloat. Isidore believes, with good reason that “Buster Friendly and Mercerism are fighting for control of our psychic souls” (p.67). This is a direct relation with what Marcuse is saying about breaking free from the people trying to control you. At the end of their discussion, they come to a consensus that “Buster is immortal, like Mercer” and in fact, “There’s no difference” (p. 67). They are immortal, because they are trying to control the people of earth, and thus will continue on forever until the people of earth are able to liberate themselves from that bond they have created with Mercer and Buster.

Without Isidore, we lose sight of how bad it really has become on Earth and how much he is able to change in a short amount of time. As he is a chickenhead, the general populous feel as though he truly is below them. In fact when Mr. Sloat wants Isidore to phone the owner, even Isidore believes that he can’t do it because he’s “hairy, ugly, dirty, stooped, snaggle-toothed and gray” (p. 69). The thought of having to deal with someone outside of his normality, scares him into feeling like he is “going to die” (p.69). This is why he is so sensitive to the indoctrination of Mercer and Buster, however we see that once he calls the owner and doesn’t make a complete idiot out of himself that he gains confidence in himself. He then takes semi-charge and decides to “call them now before it starts to decay” (p.73). This confidence only continues on his way home from work when he buys Pris food, and approaches her door. As of right now we can only assume that his new found confidence is not only a result of talking on the vidphone but also that of no longer living a life of solitude. At this point Mercer takes a back seat in his life, as he can fully focus on his “romance” with Pris. However this all starts to crumble when the two are no longer alone, that is when Baty and Irmgard show up. Baty now becomes the alpha male in the group, even though he is not a human. Isidore is once again on the outside of the box, but even though he still not totally lose his faith and courage in himself yet. “Isidore spoke up, summoning courage,” this is where we can draw that he is starting to lose his confidence (p.137), for he has to summon the courage, it is no longer available outwardly. After this the group of three androids thus starts to talk down upon him and thus continue the slow progression of destroying his new found courage. “I’m not going to live with a chickenhead,” Pris absurdly remarks when the idea of her moving in with him is suggested (p.137).

As his courage starts to take hits left and right from the new found “friends” he is still willing to make himself useful by “making [their] stay here on Earth pleasant” (p.146). As he starts to move Pris’s things into his apartment, he amazingly finds a rare wild spider. This excites him enough to make his “heart pound” and give him “difficulty breathing” (p. 181). Unfortunately for him this is the beginning on his total relapse back to mass media. The Androids are so curios to why the spider has eight legs, they decide it would be best to experiment and see if it could survive with four. Irmgard wants to “cut four off and see” if it can still survive and move (p. 181). This strikes a “weird terror” into Isidore, for he cannot bear to see his precious spider destroyed (p.181). After the spider has had its four legs cut off they torture it more by lighting a match and holding it “near the spider, closer and closer, until at last it crept feebly away.” (p.185). This combined with the thought that Mercer was just a swindler put him over the edge and threw him right back to Mercer. He subconsciously grabbed the handles of the empathy box, and came face to face with the mass media “god” Mercer. The weird thing is, if we look how Mercer is, we almost feel that he is not at all a mass media man, but a literal “god” of some sorts, appearing when needed and helping those who need him. Mercer tells Isidore, that yes “I am a fraud” and that “they’re sincere” (p.189). This is exactly what Isidore needed to fully break the chains of the “intellectual oppression” that Mercer and Buster bring about. In the end, after his new found “friends” were killed off, he realizes that he needs to “live deeper in town where there’s more people” (p.199)

The final person that is able to break the bonds of society and gain “intellectual freedom” is Rick himself. As we recall at the beginning of the novel, he is heavily reliant on the mood organ. He talks about how his wife is going to “defeat the whole purpose of the mood organ” when she is scheduling her depression (p.2). His character is one of the most dynamic, because thought the whole novel he is continually changing, becoming confused with himself and questioning the world around him. At one point he gives himself the Voigt-Kampff test, just to understand the changes he is going through. As it turns out he has got a soft spot for attractive female androids. He starts to feel horrible about killing androids such as Luba, and soon to be Pris. This is when we first get to see his encounters with Mercer. His conversation with Mercer in their first interaction is a very interesting one, for Mercer tells him to “go on as if [Mercer] did not exist” (p.156). But this is a time of trial for Rick, so he has fallen to Mercer asking for help, which Mercer gives him a simple and vague answer for Rick. This leads to Rick getting a bit frustrated, and then getting hit by a rock which is the norm for the empathy box. As Rick is about to “retire” the last of the androids, Mercer shows his full potential and comes to Rick not through an empathy box, however he does it in real life, right before Rick’s eyes. Mercer “inhabit[s] this building because of Mr. Isidore” (p.195), and he speaks to Rick to help and give reassurance to what Rick is about to do. Rick now has no problem retiring the last of the androids, however when he goes home he finds out that his someone “dragged [the goat] to the edge of the roof” and threw it off (p.200). This pushes him over the edge and forces him to go out in to the wilderness and become and transcend Mercerism. This is the final change that he makes, after toiling up the rocks for so long, he comes to the realization that he is Mercer. How can this be we wonder?

It is simple because it happened with two of the three characters that I talked about in this essay. Mercer and Mercerism was in fact not completely just mass media as I have hinted at throughout my essay. However it is a mass media tool created by Mercer to help people realize and overcome mass media. Mercer as a person might have been a fraud, however if you think more abstractly about what Mercerism is exactly, we find out that it truly helps people overcome the hysteria of living in times people live in isolation. Mercerism is a thought, a religion, a transcending quality that one must work at to achieve rest and peace of mind, not by gaining empathy, but by realizing that being connected to others in the world is what will keep you alive and happy. Rick and Isidore both finally achieve this near the end of the novel, with the help of Mercerism. Iran gains this knowledge with little help of Mercer, she develops this on her own and because of her love of her husband. Iran rebels against the mass media and the social norm by refusing to use the mood organ for its intended purpose throughout the novel. The similarity between the three is that they rebelled by using, and with help from, what they were rebelling against. Rick and Isidore was mass media, Mercerism, and Iran with the mood organ. In the end, it was the ability to realize that being connected with people, whether it is friends (Isidore) or your spouse (Iran and Rick), that will keep people sane and give them their “intellectual freedom” in a world desolated and filled with mass media.

Richard McKita - Revision #1 - Shelley and the Monster of the Enlightenment

2012-02-10T20:12:00.002-05:00

Richard McKita
Narrative & Technology
Revision #1
2/11/2012

Early in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the titular doctor describes the depths of his obsession with the project of creating a new form of living creature. He withdraws completely from all social activity, and fails to respond to the regular letters he receives from his family. He claims that his father would be justified in becoming angry with him because of the break in communication, even though it happened because of Frankenstein’s involvement in his work, because:

... A human being in perfection ought to always pursue a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say: not befitting the human mind. If this rule were always observed, if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru would not have been destroyed. (Shelley, 51)

I find this passage extremely revealing to the point that it complicates the typical reading of the novel as exclusively a morality tale about the dangers of technological progress and unlimited scientific inquiry. I think the issue that Shelley is bringing to us is much more specific, namely a theory of human nature that places the human race's faculties as a social animal before all else. Shelley has therefore created a novel which serves as a vehicle for her critique of the proposed utopia of Enlightenment individualism.

At the end of the passage, Frankenstein claims that interference with the "domestic affections" (familial love and community) of man, through obsession, greed, or other consuming distraction, has led to a great number of the major catastrophes throughout history. But it is obvious that Frankenstein's downfall has a modern character: it comes about through the rationalist individualism of his day; his attempt at conquest of the natural world is scientific rather than imperial. Shelley's placement of the rationalist man of the post-Enlightenment world within, rather than above or beyond, the history of human folly and downfall is quite radical considering the political atmosphere of her times, which was extremely optimistic about the future of scientific man in the wake of the American and French revolutions. That her criticism, here, is in fact grounded in the Enlightenment is clear from the references she incorporates into her novel. Rousseau in particular is alluded to heavily. Diana Reese, in her essay “A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” insightfully points to the remarkable similarity between the following passage from Rousseau’s autobiography The Reveries of A Solitary Walker and the style Shelley uses in the monster’s, as well as his creator’s, soliloquies:

So now I am alone in the world, with no brother, neighbor or friend, nor any company left me but my own. The most sociable and loving of men has with one accord been cast out by all the rest. With all the ingenuity of hate they have sought out the cruellest torture for my sensitive soul, and have violently broken all the threads that bound me to them. I would have loved my fellow men in spite of themselves… (Reese, 60)

Rousseau shares major autobiographical details with Victor Frankenstein as well: both Genevans, both haunted by the early deaths of their mothers, both fascinated by the solitude of the state of nature. In connecting him so strongly with Rousseau in her allegory, Shelley paints Frankenstein as the ultimate, emblematic man of the Enlightenment.

I think that this view of the novel gives a more meaningful role to the monster, as well. The monster is created at the height of Frankenstein's obsessive solitude, and appears to him definitively once more when he is totally alone in the dizzying landscape of the winter mountains. Further, the monster's major crimes – the murders of William, Justine, Clerval, and Elizabeth – all occur just as Frankenstein himself is neglecting those very individuals he is supposed to love. He abandons his family, including his brother, to create the monster, which he immediately rejects as horrific, leading directly to the murder of William; he is too obsessed with his own misery to put in any reasonable effort to save Justine; he leaves Clerval in his travels in order to brood on the monster's demand for a mate, allowing the monster ample opportunity to kill his best friend; and finally, he leaves Elizabeth alone immediately after marrying her in order to settle his score with the monster, leaving her completely vulnerable. Now we can see that the monster is, truly, the child of Frankenstein's self-obsession, and all the havoc it wreaks is a direct result of its creator's withdrawn ego.

The monster’s origin story, in fact, closely mirrors the account of human history found in Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (Reese, 51). Rousseau claims that human beings in the state of nature possess a faculty for self-love and compassion which is warped by entrance into society. The monster's tale contains a description of the innate kindness he feels toward other living beings: “This trait of kindness moved me sensibly. I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of [the Delacys'] store for my own consumption; but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained, and satisfied myself with berries, nuts, and roots...” (Shelley,121). Rousseau holds that human beings acquire self-love and compassion before the ability to reason, though he also believes that humans naturally develop the latter as well. Like Frankenstein’s monster, who acquired profound disgust for his own body after encountering humans who feared and abused him, a human being who becomes civilized inevitably begins to compare himself to others and develops tendencies toward hatred, jealousy, and competition. Rousseau views incorporation into society as something which makes men dependent on one another, and debases them.

However, even as Rousseau decries civil society as a negative influence on man, he recognizes the possibility of reforming it through the creation of universal equality and human rights: “Reason, then, is set the task in the discourse of reestablishing, through its own methods, a prior state of affairs that the very progress of reason, as Rousseau maintains, has destroyed” (Reese, 51). For Rousseau, a rationally derived system of human rights would allow man to regain the total independence which incorporation into society took from him, even as society itself remains intact, and therefore return to man his original qualities of compassion and self-love. Here is where we begin to see the monster as a living embodiment of the problems and hypocrisies found in the utopian claims of the Enlightenment. The monster developed in a manner described by Rousseau, but its salvation at the hands of his Enlightenment is not to be found. Frankenstein is terrified of granting the monster human rights as a rational being, because this would necessitate that he accede to its demand for a mate, to become part of a community, to pursue its own happiness. “By insisting that he be granted the rights attendant to human freedom, […] the daemon emphasizes and corporeally reiterates the disavowed physicality of the political subject of the Enlightenment and signals toward the ‘private sphere’ of female nonsubjects, slaves, and servants…” (Reese, 58). In other words, the monster is a physical being which, in part, represents the individuals who are left out of the public or political sphere of civilized life while simultaneously being trapped within a post-Enlightenment world which attempts to abstract their individuality from the human community in which it exists. Rousseau’s vision of man as a solitary being who desires freedom from what he views as dependence on other men is shown to be doubly dehumanizing to those who are inevitably left out of the public sphere, which has now taken complete precedence over the private sphere and therefore atomized human beings’ ability to relate to those immediately around them.

So here we find that the Enlightenment, for Shelley, cannot solve through its own methods the problems it creates in severing man from his community or social relations, pre-empting her contemporary critics who might claim that the Enlightenment institution of universal human rights would prevent such a catastrophe of atomization as that outlined in Frankenstein. However there are those who see the post-Enlightenment rationalist-individualist man less cynically and in fact claim that modernity has granted us even more ways to connect with other humans than ever, including, by the 21^st century, the ability to communicate with others instantaneously at great distance through the Internet. However, we find that modern communication technology has almost the exact opposite effects than those predicted by futurists. In the introduction to his book On the Internet, philosopher Hubert L. Dreyfus cites research by Carnegie Mellon University which found that “greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness” (Dreyfus, 3). Later, he cites another study by Stanford University which suggested that the internet was “creating a broad new wave of social isolation in the United States, raising the specter of an atomized world without human contact or emotion” (Dreyfus, 50). It is the ironic fact that even as we appear to be more and more “connected” by communication technology, we in fact place less and less emphasis on actual communication with and emotional investment in other people and suffer real negative consequences from that state of affairs. If we expand its scope from simply a son's separation from his family to the relationship between individuals in society as a whole, we could easily see the paragraph quoted at the beginning of this essay as an indictment of the modern suburb, which physically distances neighbors from one another, replaces family bonding with television, videogames, and the Internet, nullifies community and interdependence by requiring car travel to big box grocery stores, etc. while prioritizing pursuit of personal wealth, perpetual entertainment, and a hollow "American Dream." This reading, it seems, has a great deal more modern resonance than simply the vague idea that technology, generally, may be bad for us if we happen to broadly go "too far," however far that might be. Instead Shelley is presenting us with the possibility of a genuine social tragedy: that the children of modernity may find themselves entirely without a place within any human community, severed entirely from their nature as social beings.

Bibliography

Dreyfus, Hubert L. On the Internet. London and New York: Routledge. 2009. Print.

Reese, Diana. “A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights.” Representations. Vol. 96, No. 1 (Fall 2006): pp. 48-72. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.

Shelley, Mary and Ward, Lynd. Frankenstein: The Lynd Ward Illustrated Edition. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 2009. Print.

Revision

2012-02-10T17:44:00.010-05:00

Caia Caldwell February 10, 2012

Narrative and Technology

Societal Control: Distractions and False Needs

In Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, he discusses how “products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood. And as these beneficial products become available to more individuals in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity; it becomes a way of life” (Marcuse 12). When read through Marcuse, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep presents numerous examples where products in the fictitious novel socially control society and regulate the population through “false needs” as identified by Marcuse, and distractions (Marcuse 4). Yet when we go even further and apply Marcuse and Dick to society today, we come to understand that these musings on societal control are not antiquated, or relegated to a past era or fictitious world, but are relevant and vital to examining the society we live in.

Marcuse was concerned with analyzing a “society that finds people distracted by sports, fun, and technology, and pursuing the ‘false needs’ generated by advertisements for consumer goods, and settling into the Happy Consciousness that no longer wonders whether there are alternatives to the status quo” (Box 173). This leads directly to the TV/radio show prevalently mentioned throughout the first half of the book: “Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends.” Extremely popular, the show is watched religiously by humans and androids alike, providing asinine amusement, un-stimulating, stupid humor, but most importantly a distraction for the masses. If the population wasn’t entertained, maybe they would begin to question the appalling conditions they live in (the radio-active dust, for example), and how miserable their lives really are.

The same asinine entertainment is found in society today. From reality shows to sitcoms, television draws in and mindlessly entertains billions of people. We can compare “Buster…” to a show like The Jersey Shore. We find the same silly prattle, inconsequential issues beings discussed, but also audience appeal, and effective distraction techniques. It is unimportant to know whether Snooki is going to break up with her boyfriend after he found out she cheated on him, but the masses want to know. This distraction technique is a form of societal control because “a sense of well-being is fostered by the media and consumer goods” (Box 174). Just like the characters in the novel, we’re comforted by the normalcy of stupid entertainment. Earth may be falling apart, devastated by World War Terminus, however its inhabitants can still always turn to “Buster…” which gives their lives a sense of normalcy and well-being.

Another consumer good found in Dick’s novel is the Penfield. The device allows inhabitants of Earth and Mars the ability to “dial” their moods, letting them change, choose, and regulate how they feel. When Iran, Rick’s wife, wakes up grumpy, he tells her to “dial” to a better mood. This device is not only abnormal and creepy, but also a perfect way for the Government of Other Entity to control the population. The use of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, and other pharmaceutical drugs to regulate moods is a common practice in current society. Drugs like Prozac, Xanax, and Zoloft allow their users to “swallow” their moods and change the way they were feeling before in an effort to escape.

An interesting similarity between the Penfield and these specific pharmaceutical drugs is that they are both status symbols. The Penfield is expensive, and only a certain economic class of people can afford it. This is also true of anti-anxiety/anti-depression medicines. If your insurance does not cover the medicine, than the consumers must be able to pay out-of-pocket for it. The homeless man on the street is not taking Xanax, the middle to upper class suburban soccer mom is. This again is a demonstration of ‘false needs” its “productivity and efficiency, its capacity to increase and spread comforts, to turn waste into need…” (Marcuse 9).

Animals in Dick’s novel are also viewed as status symbols, especially when the owner is in possession of a genuine creature that is not mechanical. “Sidney’s catalogue” gives the value for animals, and people feel proud owning one, such as Rick’s neighbor: “ ‘My horse,’ Barbour declared beamingly, ‘is pregnant’ ” (Dick 7) Animals are also directly linked to empathy, and feelings of being human. The human population has shrunken tremendously after World War Terminus, and the population clings to anything that reminds them of the old world (an alternative example of this fixation is “pre-colonial fiction”). But in addition to being linked to empathy, animals once again display a “status.” If a person is wealthy, they might own a real sheep. If a person is poor, they might own a cricket if they’re lucky. This is proportional to someone who owns a brand-new Mercedes, to someone that owns a 1985 Chevy Astro van in our world. In the novel, animals have replaced the prized commodity of cars.

An ironic thing to note is that in the promoting of cars today, or any other such advertised “false need" the commercials commonly use animals. Just sampling the Super Bowl commercials, viewers see huskies in promoting Suzuki, a golden retriever with a Volkswagen, and polar bears as the furry lovable icon of Coca-Cola. What can we learn from these observations about our society? “Can one really distinguish between the mass media as instruments of information and entertainment, and as agents of manipulation and indoctrination?” (Marcuse 8). The media has somehow taken the image of animals and exploited the empathy bond found them and human. This manipulates the viewer in the novel to obtain animals as possessions, or in present day, be persuaded to buy the product.

The final product to discuss is the androids themselves. But instead of viewing them as a product, we’re going to view them as Rick does--as a threat, job, war. As Marcuse puts it, “Mobilization against the enemy works as a mighty stimulus of production and employment, thus sustaining the high standard of living” (Marcuse 21). The Government uses the idea of a common enemy to mobilize the people in a way that does not undercut the government. “Fear has become a primary tool of distraction from such characteristics of one-dimensional society…” (Box 180). In the novel, it is Rick’s job to hunt down and “retire” androids that have escaped to Earth and are attempting to pose as humans. This fear (though seemingly unjustified) has created employment for Rick, as well as bounty hunters and policemen alike. This highly visible “war” on androids provides a distraction from other issues and allows humans to bond and unite in the fact that they are human. The U.S. also uses war a tool for "production and employment” as well. America’s “trend toward aggressiveness and violence does not lack apparent functionality or usefulness. Instead, what might be thought of as a set of randomly occurring characteristics in society can be redescribed in sociological terms as functional support for a system organized around commercial and financial benefit” (Box 177).

Using Marcuse, we can see that the societal controls using false needs and distraction techniques found in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be found equally in society today. The idea of viewing our world through the lenses of Marcuse, juxtaposed with Dick’s novel is not to start a panic, or rejection of our government, but to be aware of our society. We have become, in many ways, similar to a “one-dimensional” society Marcuse so vehemently warned against, as demonstrated by the similarities found between Dick’s fictional world, and current society. We must always remember ideas put forth by Marcuse are just aimed a past time in history: they directly relate to society today.

Works Cited

Box, Richard C. “Marcuse Was Right: One-Dimensional Society in the Twenty- First Century.” Administration Theory and Praxis. Vol. 33 (2011). pg. 169- 191.

PittCat: Ebscohost. Web. Feb. 9 2011.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 1968. New York: Del Rey

Books, 2007. Print.

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.Print.

Links & Quotes for Today

2012-02-09T17:17:00.000-05:00

Extended Sequence of Quotes from "The Age of Missing Information", published in 1992, with an afterword in 2006

Much came across the cable in my endless day .... the most important message is one that really occured to me somewhat later ... You are the most important thing on earth. You, sitting there on the sofa, clutching the remote, are the heaviest object in the known universe. Around you must everything orbit. This Bud's for you.

[McKibben argues that this form of radical individualism is a new stage in human history, which has benefits as well as detriments. While he is neither a philosopher nor a Marxist, his argument probably would at least echo Marcuse, for people in this class]

We have become, in the TV decades, not just individualistic but hyper-individualistic, a nation of people who sit alone in big cars, who build ever bigger and more isolated houses (even as the size of our families shrinks).

[McKibben discusses the show Survivor, as being emblematic of the direction of American culture]

Here's the premise: You are stranded on a desert island, and the way to win is to force everyone else to leave. And if you can manage that, you'll get a lot of money. In healthier cultures, the response to being stranded is to work together - but "together" is a tough sell for Americans.

[On the internet, how it is like and unlike television]

Most important, it works both ways - you send and receive. Thus it allows one to form communities, the very thing that TV has undermined so effectively.

These communities have their flaws - they can be essentially anonymous, some of the relations fraudulent. More to the point, they don't resemble human communities in that they assemble themselves by shared interested instead of shared geography. You can spend a lifetime on the Web with people Just Like You, which is a kind of solipsism not that far removed from the hyperindividualism I've been describing.

If this new screen can wean us back in the direction of reality (as opposed to "reality") it will have done a useful service.

[Links regarded online education redacted]

Essay Links

http://pitt-narr-and-tech.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-3-prompt-1-ben-fellows.html
http://pitt-narr-and-tech.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-2-heidegger-frankenstein.html

Youtube

Go to google, and search for "fat kid almost struck by lightning"

SEO

http://www.artinstitutes.edu/pittsburgh/design/graphic-design-bs-93812.aspx?showrw=true

Questions/Comments on On the Internet

2012-02-06T20:55:00.001-05:00

Post your questions/ideas as comments to this thread.

Really good Article about Philip K. Dick

2012-02-02T19:24:00.000-05:00

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/philip_pr.html

Pitt Chronicle Article

2012-02-02T18:01:00.000-05:00

Weird anthropomorphizing of consumer technology.

http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=10273

Links for today's class

2012-02-02T16:48:00.004-05:00

http://pitt-narr-and-tech.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-3-prompt-1.html

http://pitt-narr-and-tech.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-2-heidegger-frankenstein.html

Chapter 2 from Marcuse

Munch's Puberty

Munch's The Scream

Reflections on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

2012-02-01T23:37:00.004-05:00

While reading, the spider scene stuck out heavily at me. I think it represents mankind's treatment of the world. Man mutilates and mutilates the world, assuming that there's nothing wrong with the mutilation because it keeps spinning and there are no immediately noticeable effects. But after a certain point, the cumulative effects (the cut legs) lead to a "full stop", which in the case of the spider would be the elimination of its ability to walk and in the case of man, would be full-on nuclear war as a result of hoarding nuclear weapons.

But the mutilation isn't malicious or done with any malintention. Irmgard Baty is clearly just curious about whether or not the spider will continue to walk and due to her innocence and overall curiosity (and possibly inability to experience empathy), she simply cuts the spider's legs off while being completely oblivious to its suffering. The experience heavily parallels mankind's experience with nuclear weapons – man foolishly developed massively-powerful weapons partially out of scientific curiosity, leading to the highly unfortunate (understatement of the century) situation that occurred on Earth prior to the events of the novel.

Ironically, Isadore, the "idiot" of the novel is the only one to point out exactly what will result from Irmgard's mutilation of the spider, but due to his perceived idiocy and the general obliviousness of the three androids he lives with, he is unlistened to. I wonder what kind of commentary Dick was trying to imply. Does society label those who know what's right as "idiots?" Or do idiots sometimes provide some kind of insight that a more analytic or rigorous mind cannot bring?

Questions/Comments on Dick/Marcuse (2)

2012-02-01T21:46:00.003-05:00

The more I read Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the more I began to question the symbolism behind the "Buddy Friendly" character. In the not so distant future, will our television and radio personalities be replaced with fictitious, ever energetic characters? As one considers the present picture manipulation technology currently utilized in professional photo shoots, is it too much a stress to consider the possibility that celebrities won't merely be photo-shopped, but created?

2012-02-01T21:33:00.002-05:00

The idea of empathy is something that I have been questioning this whole time. Identifying a human on the basis of very subjective criteria means consequences that are completely unintended. Pris is a really interesting example of the kind of "lack of affect" that we see in some people with emotional disorders. I also find it very strange the the people who have been identified as Pris's familiars do not have the same problems adjusting to their lives on Earth. I think the android's preoccupation with the pre-war literature is also something that I can't quite wrap my head around.

questions/comments concerning dick/marcuse week 2

2012-02-01T21:09:00.003-05:00

Like Caia, I too, thought that the scene with the spider towards the end of the novel was deeply disturbing. As Pris exemplifies the lack of empathy and thus lack of a conscious in androids, it leads also leads me to question the validity in what the government in Dick's novel labels as "human." This is because of the lack of pure empathy they seem to display and are able to turn on and off, as well as alter with the touch of a switch and a dial on their empathy boxes. It's all very robotic, even that which is meant to seem the most organic. The government is out to "retire" what they deem as robots, while they are convincing the citizens of Earth that regulating their emotional output with the dials, knobs and switches is perfectly and organically human. One of the things that I found was most interesting about this is that in our society, it is largely socially acceptable to regulate what we label as mental illnesses with medications in the form of pills. While I'm not opposed to this when it is necessary (as my family has a long genealogical history of a select few mental illnesses, primarily depression), reading this book made me question the difference of medicating with pills and medicating with knobs and dials. One seems more concretely robotic, but at the core, is there a difference? Now, this could be me justifying the use of pills for the sake of the continuation of my acceptance of it, but I truly believe that when they are actively partnered with therapeutic measures with a trained professional, they can be effective and more pure because they are working to solve a problem, they are working towards fixing the chemical imbalance in somebody's brain. On the other hand, the switches used to regulate or deregulate a human in Dick's novel is, and always has been, part of these citizens' lives. They know no different, as opposed to medication for mental illnesses which are detected at any point in a person's life, but always after a period of time without the medication. The boxes, as Isadore puts so perfectly towards the beginning of the novel, are "an extension" of each citizen's body. They rely on these boxes not to fix anything but rather to mask something by using a robotic device the government has convinced every one of them they are 100% reliant on to function. Which leads me back to my original question: what truly constitutes something as an android and as a person when they are both inorganically and robotically regulated?

Questions/Comments on Marcuse & Philip K. Dick, Part 2

2012-01-30T23:26:00.002-05:00

After finishing "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I cannot get the spider scene out of my mind. The scene I'm referring to takes place on page 204 when the android Pris, decides to cut off the legs of a spider Isidore found.

"Pris glanced up inquiringly.

'Is it worth something?' '

Don't mutilate it,' he said wheezingly. Imploringly.

With scissors, Pris snipped off one of the spider's legs."

This scene goes on for several pages and I believe it is vital to the story Phillip K. Dick is trying to tell. Here we have a clear example of the ways in which androids are devoid of empathy. Isidore is horrified, and lapses into a weird fit of rage mixed with (what appear to me as) hallucinations. Isidore puts the spider out of its misery by drowning it, and then leaves the apartment. As a human being with empathy, I cringed as I read this. Unnecessary cruelty to any living being seems barbaric, and I loathed Pris as I read this unfolding scene. Is this what Phillip K. Dick wanted? Was he conducting some sort of thought experiment to see if the reader had this element of human empathy towards animals? I don't know. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but this is the question I am posing.

Dr. Bronner's Rant

2012-01-26T19:24:00.001-05:00

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/FIST2000-4/kooks/X0002_BRONNER.txt.html

keep in mind that this is all on the packaging for a bottle of soap.

and, God help me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Bronner

The Century of the Self documentary

2012-01-26T18:39:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM

Links for class today

2012-01-26T17:30:00.000-05:00

Plagiarism and Citation: my summary

Plagiarism: Pitt's English department

MLA Citation: Purdue's Page

MLA Bibliography: via Ebsco

prompt #1

2012-01-26T17:01:00.001-05:00

Julia Carpey

Adam Johns

Narrative and Technology

26 January 2012

The parallels between Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man and Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? smack you in the face within the first four pages of Marcuse and the first three chapters of Dick. The most basic parallel of which being set with the statement that Marcuse makes is on page xli of the book, and the second paragraph of the introduction for anybody else. Marcuse states that “the political needs of society become individual needs and aspirations,” (p. xli, Marcuse). Whether or not I wholeheartedly agree with this is another question (which I will get to later on in this entry), but what we’re looking at in comparison to Dick’s novel lines up almost directly. The government on Earth and of the new colonies on Mars is trying to convince the citizens of Earth and the new citizens of the new colonies that Mars is the place to be. That if one does not inhabit Mars, then you are considered a “special” citizen, and not in the glittering way we typically associate with the word, “special.”

They invest in media outlets covering this in big, frontline articles and features on the news, in advertisements on every TV channel and billboard, and even in the manner in which they “allow” their citizens to manifest artificial animals. They do the latter since the real animals are dwindling with the toxins that now blanket Earth, but more subtly as a tactic to get the citizens to think and believe that they belong in the colonies. In doing this, they are forcing the citizens to live vicariously through the colonized citizens which, in theory, do have the real animals. In doing this, the government is in turn forcing the Earth citizens to recognize that they “belong” in a colony. Yet, they make these thoughts and notions seem as though they are purely conceived individually and altruistically while they are 100% intentionally planted, almost akin to the manner in which The Matrix lays things out for the viewer.

Another thing to look at here is the manner in which they label the Earth citizens as “special.” The government does so in a way that forbids the men and women from emigrating to a colony even if they wanted to. This is made obvious in chapter 2 of Dick’s novel as John Isadore describes his existence as a “special.” The forbidden emigration in turn only makes the emigration more desirable as the victim can no longer attain the hard-to-reach as it has now become the absolute unattainable. It is a tactic also done completely intentionally by the government to make the rest of the citizens on Earth desire the government’s band-aid for a mistake even further. And through the right amount and right mediums of advertising and propaganda, they can effectively get their message across that, in this situation, emigrating to the Mars colonies is naturally (I say that word, “naturally,” laced with sarcasm) every citizen’s wants, hopes, dreams, desires and more importantly, an absolute necessity to survive.

As stated above, whether or not I believe this notion of politics and society which Marcuse lays out to be absolute is another story. I think that many times the society makes their wants, needs and aspirations into what the government works for. Or maybe that’s what they want us to believe.

Prompt #1.a.

2012-01-26T17:00:00.001-05:00

Blog #3, prompt 1

2012-01-26T16:40:00.001-05:00

*note that my page numbers are slightly different than those we use in class*

Blog 3 Prompt 1- Margaret Julian

2012-01-26T15:40:00.001-05:00

Margaret Julian
January 26, 2012
Blog 3, Prompt 1

In Chapter one of Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man he talks about a time in which “continued progress would demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction and organization of progress.” He goes on the say that, “This stage would be reached when material production (including the necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can be satisfied while necessary labor is reduced to marginal time. From this point on, technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity.” In Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? we find our characters have already reached this point in history, even their mood is programmed for them through their personal “mood organs”. (Chapter 1 paragraph 1) This lack of the basic human emotion is important because through the book it is hard to imagine these people as real because they “dial up” their emotions at will. They seem to lack the ability to conjure motions of their own because they are always reliant on a machine to do so. That would in my opinion constitute technology that is “transcends the realm of necessity.”

More importantly than that we see these “dialed-in” humans, that indeed are controlled to some degree by machines, hunting human-like machines. Who is to say that had Rick not dialed in the will to perform his job well, that he would even bother trying to remedy the problem. Had the androids been given a mood machine maybe they would be capable of feeling empathy, or in reverse people without the machines would find it hard to feel empathy at all.

Rick and other characters exhibit a lot of the qualities that Marcuse says defines a “one dimensional” person. For example they are completely dependent on the government as the sole provider of nearly everything. They have even taken control of the media “the government in Washington, with its colonization program, constituted the sole sponsor which Isidore found himself forced to listen to.” (Chapter 2 ~ paragraph 10) Rick works for the government and follows their orders to hunt and kill these androids, regardless of whether or not they are currently causing any harm.

Throughout Marcuse’s piece we also see a lot about this homogeneous society in which “The more rational, productive, technical, and total, the repressive administration of society becomes, the more unimaginable the means and ways by which the administered individuals might break their servitude and seize their own liberation.” Isidore is a prime example of this kind of thinking, he spends his time doing what it is the government has deemed him worthy of. There is even a “minimal mental faculties test,” (Chapter 2 ~paragraph15) that people are required to take that determines their worthiness based on intelligence that the prevailing government has decided is important.

(my apologizes for the odd citation I have an e-copy of the book right now and it does not have page numbers.)

Blog #3 Prompt #1- Ben Fellows

2012-01-26T15:13:00.002-05:00

In Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man he states, “The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete forms of the struggle for existence.” (Marcuse, Chapter 1) These material and intellectual needs are classified by Marcuse as “false needs”. As I understand it, what Marcuse is saying is that one’s belief that they require things other than the most basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing, is a belief brainwashed upon them by society itself. Although this concept was established by Marcuse in 1964, I believe it still holds true both today and in the future setting of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I find it interesting that Philip Dick’s novel was published only 4 years apart from Marcuse’s and, as such, it would make sense that concepts from One-Dimensional Man apply to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and help the reader to understand the Philip Dick’s novel in a clearer way.

The false needs that Herbert Marcuse refers to in One-Dimensional Man are “needs to relax, to have fun, to behave and consume in accordance with the advertisements, [and] to love and hate what others love and hate.”(Marcuse, Chapter 1) In my opinion, the most striking of these false needs is that of needing “to love and hate what others love and hate.” It is this false need that imprisons humans the most, rebelling against free thought. These false needs are what could bring humans to the end of what makes us human, and I believe that Philip Dick’s novel is a scarily true, although perhaps exaggerated, representation of what society could become if humans subject themselves to these false needs.

What I have identified as false needs presented in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are the material possessions of an empathy box, a mood organ, and animals, whether real or synthetic. None of these items qualify as “true needs” according to Marcuse’s definition. In fact, all three of these possessions relate to the primary examples of false needs described by Marcuse.

The mood organ is a particularly disturbing device in the novel, as it shows that society has gone even further beyond strangling free thought, and has entered the realm of allowing humans to sacrifice their own emotions in favor of selecting an emotion one believes best suits themselves at that particular moment. The creation of this device creates a new false need for humans, one that has the potential to completely manipulate people into being satisfied with how things are at any point in time, regardless of the actual circumstances. The need for such a device is yet another perfect example of one which “perpetuates toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice,” in almost perfect representation. This device literally can perpetuate such things via its control of emotions. However, I believe there is hope for the humans in Dick’s novel. After Rick successfully “retires” Polokov, he is capable of feeling positive emotions without the use of his mood organ. He is capable of slipping into “hungry, gleeful anticipation.”(Dick, 94)

Animals can certainly be considered as a false need in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. In this novel, everyone is familiar with their “Sidney’s Animal and Foul”, a monthly subscription to the costs of owning an animal. Owning an animal has become less of a privilege, and more of a need in this modern society. This is so true, that it is embarrassing to not own one, to the point that there is a major business in creating false animals that are designed to pass off as real ones. Rick’s neighbor Barbour explains how important it is by saying, “But they’ll look down on you…You know how people are about no taking care of an animal; they consider it immoral and empathic.”(Dick, 11) Barbour is a perfect example of a human that oppressed by his false needs, so much that he feels the need to explain to Rick that it is important that no one else knows about Rick’s artificial sheep.

The concept of an Empathy Box in the first place screams false need, as it is a commercial item that is used to link oneself to the feelings of others. This directly correlates to the false need of loving and hating what others love and hate. In possibly an even more blatant example of how One-Dimensional Man can be used in conjunction with this novel is that Marcuse states that false needs are “the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice.”(Marcuse, Chapter 1) The fact that this machine has the capability to physically harm those who use it, even occasionally to the point of death is mind-blowing, considering how John Isidore swears by it. Isidore claims, “an empathy box…is the most personal possession you have! It’s an extension of your body.”(Dick, 64) This excitement that Isidore has for the machine is even further explained by Marcuse when he states, “Their satisfaction might be most gratifying to the individual, but this happiness is not a condition which has to be maintained and protected if it serves to arrest the development of the ability…to recognize the disease of the whole and grasp the chances of curing the disease.”(Marcuse, Chapter 1) This practice of relying on the empathy box in order to feel these emotions IS this disease Marcuse speaks of. The humans in Dick’s novel have no chance of surpassing the need to use the empathy box if they never realize that the empathy box is in fact, NOT necessary in order to sustain life.

Blog 3, Prompt 1

2012-01-26T12:07:00.004-05:00

There is a huge emphasis on "empathy" in the world of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The pseudo-religion of Mercerism, which has become the dominant form of spiritual belief in 2021, places extreme importance on fostering and constantly expressing this "empathy." But we can see, very early on, that the way empathy is practiced in this dystopia is somehow false, almost pornographic. It is found through Penfield mood organs, which articifically instill emotions in the user, and "empathy boxes" which somehow create a virtual reality experience in which the user undergoes the birth-and-death cycle of Mercer himself, experiencing all his pains and joys firsthand. It is also expressed in the constant, consumerist obsession with owning more and better animals, which operate as a kind of status symbol, proof that the owner of the animal possesses great enough empathy to sacrifice time, money, and effort in caring for the animal.

This desire to foster and express a shallow "empathy" in order to gain social status is a clear example of what Marcuse, in The One-Dimensional Man, calls "false needs." He defines false needs as "those which are superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his
repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and
injustice." The false need to constantly express the outer signs of empathy keeps the members of Dick's society, first, working endlessly in order to afford new and better animals, and to maintain the ones they have. Second, contrary to the genuine emotion of empathy which the false empathy of Mercerism serves to replace, it actually instills aggressiveness by increasing the population's disdain for androids and schizophrenic "specials" who are incapable of expressing this kind of conspicuous empathy, due to their own biology or lack therof. Third, and most insidiously, it keeps the government's program of eugenics - the labeling, sterilization, and binding to Earth of specials - unquestioned. It does this through Mercerism's proud claims to include even specials into its fold, quieting any rebellious attitudes they might have by instilling in them a feeling of gratitude for being able to follow Mercer's messianic journey through their empathy boxes. This is made clear when Isidore accidentally reveals himself as a special to Pris:

"But an empathy box," he said, stammering in his excitement, "is the most personal possession you have! It's an extension of your body, it's the way you touch other humans, it's the way you stop being alone. [...] Mercer even lets people like me--" [...] "I'm not very special, only moderately. Not like some you see. But that's what Mercer doesn't care about." (p.64)

The average person on Earth in 2021 has such a deteriorated inner life that interacting with the empathy box seems more genuine an expression of empathy than actually interacting with other human beings. Rather than actually encouraging understanding and devotion toward the people around them, this pornographic experience of empathy turns people completely inward. And this turning inward accomplishes exactly the goal Marcuse gives to false needs: "to arrest the development of the ability (his own and others) to recognize the disease of the whole and grasp the chances of curing the disease. " There is no resistance in the world of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep because there is no genuine connection between other human beings which might allow people to actually compare and understand their mutual inner lives and thus identify the source of their own turmoil.

Marcuse describes "false needs" as having "a societal content and function which are determined by external powers over which the individual has no control." This is absolutely true for the world Dick has created in his novel. The characters are bombarded, constantly, with media imploring them to move offworld, to practice Mercerism, and to care for animals. Buster Friendly's comedy program, which broadcasts 46 hours of content per day including both its radio and television broadcasts, is obviously not made by a real human being. Besides his impossible level of productivity, his recurring guests seem to have no other lives except to return to his program again and again. Mr. Sloat, the owner of the electric animal repair company, speculates on pagen 74 that this is possible because Buster Friendly is a superior lifeform from another galaxy. The more likely answer, of course, is that Buster Friendly is simply a name used by several actors (or androids) who produce the show under government direction (the government being the last remaining producer of media on Earth) for the purpose of instilling the mass of listeners with false needs via advertising and ideologically biased content.

Dick's book, therefore, takes Marcuse's vision of a world dominated by false needs to an absurd extreme through science-fiction technology, and presents to us some of the clear dangers of allowing our emotions and our inner desires to be governed entirely by external, mechanized forces.

Blog #3, Prompt #1 Marcuse and Dick

2012-01-26T10:58:00.000-05:00

Patrick Kilduff

When reading the Marcuse text, I came upon a quote on the very first page of the introduction I thought to be very interesting that could be applied to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The quote stated: “And yet society is irrational as a whole. Its productivity is destructive of the free development of human needs and faculties, its peace maintained by the constant threat of war, its growth dependant on the repression of the real possibilities for pacifying the struggle for existence-individual, national, and international. “ With this quote, I feel that it sort of perpetuates societies’ post apocalyptic attitude on life it self, even though it mostly describes war. I feel that it also reflects on how terrible life is on earth, a place once abundant with life and buzzing with entertainment, now desolate and depressing.

Applying this quote to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, one takes a look at now the post-apocalyptic Earth while reading and can see how it affects each person’s/character’s attitude and outlook on life. We see Rick in the very beginning of the story, using a mood simulator to make himself feel better and prepare himself for the day ahead. Now his wife had one as well, but these machines help the characters simulate behavior, thus simulate their own attitudes for the day. We also see his wife simulate depression for the day. Why would one want to simulate depression when they have this technology at their disposal? This to me shows the decline in attitude of all the characters in the novel.

One other aspect we can see when it comes to interesting, possibly negative attitude is Rick and his obsession with wanting a real animal. Rick prided himself on having a real sheep in the past, but now tries to pass off his mechanical one as a real one. The obsession with animals in this book fascinates me, and it just shows that even though some people might be fortunate enough to have animals (Rick, Barbour), some crave for more, or for real animals. One would think that in a post-apocalyptic society that the factor of a pet wouldn’t really make too much of a difference, but Rick is willing to pay for a horse, one of the most expensive animals to buy, just to “fit in” or satisfy his desire. He could afford a house pet, such as a cat, but as stated on page 12: “I don’t want a domestic pet. I want what I originally had, a large animal.” Is it greed compelling him to want more? Is it just madness? An interesting point to think about per say when reading more of the book later on.

I like how Marcuse talks about “individual”, “class”, “private”, and “family”. He uses these in quotations because these do not exist in his “society” that he describes; they only “become descriptive, deceptive, or operational terms”. I agree with this statement, along with the declining attitudes in this story, we do not see any of these in the story, except the “individual”. I would not consider Rick and his wife to be a family, they are so distant and their relationship so “simulated” that I would just consider it to be Rick and Rick alone. I would say this contributes to Rick’s attitude greatly. He is alone on a planet that is almost inexistent, a world consumed by fallout, androids, and danger at every corner.

Another interesting proposition of the quote stated above about the “individual” or the “family” is could one say that there is even a “society” on Earth at the moment? We can clearly see on the colony planets that there is a booming and intellectual society, but can we say the same for earth. Of course there are jobs, and economy, and individuals to participate in all of them, but can we really call it a society? This society is comprised of normal humans, “chickenheads” (mentally deficient humans), and androids. Humans participate on earth, trying to live as normal as possible, earning a living and so on, but he other 2 categories of this society really have no other purpose to this society. The androids are in constant hiding, and the “chickenheads” are mentally insane. Sure, we saw the one example of John Isidore, a “chickenhead” who holds his own, but he is still an outcast, just like the other ones, not acceptable by any means. This “society” or the lack of would forcefully contribute to a declining attitude about life.

When reading the Marcuse text and applying it to our novel, we see many good applications of his theories. Marcuse knew what was going that occur before any of us, and we still have much more to go. As for the attitude of characters in this book, we can see that the first quote is a good representation of how the characters live. They are constantly in fear, stricken with grief, and hoping for a better tomorrow, although this is highly unlikely.

Blog #3, Prompt #1

2012-01-26T04:38:00.001-05:00

Ideology and the Penfield: An example of how ideology manipulates and forms society

2012-01-26T03:36:00.000-05:00

When one stays within his or her own society, one is not likely to think about ideologies. They just exist and are present in life. However, when one looks at a new society, such as the one in Phillip K Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? one can see ideology clearly. It is important to note that ideologies are not EXPRESSIONS of beliefs—such as, I agree with this, but not that; this is opinion—but are instead a set of beliefs that acts as a way to ORGANISE one’s thinking about one’s social system or way of life. These beliefs are anchored by core values which, in turn, structure other ideas. If one does not have strong core values, one is not particularly ideological. Also, ‘the goods and services [of an ideology]...carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits, certain intellectual and emotional reactions, which bind consumers to the whole. The products indoctrinate and manipulate.’[1] Additionally, ‘non-operational ideas,’ ideas which are in opposition to the prevailing ideology, are seen as ‘non behavioural and subversive,’[2] and thus, bad. This idea of ideology, and, more importantly, the role that these ‘goods and services,’ produced by the prevailing social ideology, play in Dick’s Do Androids Dream About Electric Sheep? brings up the interesting dichotomy of following societal norms and breaking away from them and how this is perceived.

To address this question, focus on the Penfield and how both Iran and Rick interact with it in the opening scene. Dick sets his past setting C, the point at which the Penfield ‘overcomes the threshold barring consciousness,’[3] i.e. the point at which it can create emotions, and wakes up happy. Iran, however, sets hers on a weak setting causing her to wake up grumpy and out of sorts with the world. Dick offers to reset her Penfield, but she wants to wake up grumpy. The difference in how the two set their Penfields is the spark that sets of the argument about the uses of the Penfield. Rick believes wholeheartedly in the use of the mood organ: when slightly mad, he ‘hesitates between dialling’[4] for a stimulant to make him mad, or a suppression to calm him down. He hesitates not in regards as to what he is feeling or what his wife is feeling, but instead on what he wants to feel. While he may not be able to control the emotions that he produces naturally—‘He felt irritable, now, although he hadn’t dialled it’[5]—he can program the Penfield to make him feel anything—‘I’ll dial what is on my schedule’[6]— manipulating both himself and his situation. Conversely, while Iran believes in manipulating both herself and the situation—‘ If you dial for greater venom, then I’ll dial the same...you’ll see a fight that makes every argument we’ve had up to now seem like nothing’[7]—she also believes in not using the Penfield at all: In response to her desire to not dial at all, Rick tells her to dial 3, to which she responds that dialling to make her want to dial is the ‘most alien drive’ she can imagine. She wants to be depressed and look at the floor.[8]

Rick cannot imagine why one would not use the Penfield. This idea is as alien to him as the idea of dialling to make oneself want to dial is to Iran. He accepts the positive and the angry emotions—ones that are well known—and the Penfield, as technology is an agent of an ideology, in the case of Do Androids? that of a highly technological society, because these are well known emotions they can be regarded as ‘prescribed attitudes and habits.’ However, despair which Iran found by ‘experimentation’[9], thus it is not common, is not a part of the emotional lexicon belonging to the societal ideology in which influences her life. Rick keeps pushing Iran until she stops being ‘non-operational,’and 'subversive,' and enters back into the culture by programming an emotion that is well known. Iran tries to subvert the system, but at this time is unable to due to a lack of resolve. For a time, she resists, but the indoctrination, and manipulation, from the societal ideology, is too strong to win out over. When one is so imbued to the societal expectations it is difficult to not be a part of it. Pressure is applied by others, in this case Rick and his pestering, and by one's self— 'Ok, I give up; I'll dial... I feel so bad,'[10]—making one feel as if he or she cannot escape. (word count 787)

[1] Herbert Marcuse, ‘Chapter One,’ One Dimensional Man, (Boston, 1964).

[2] Ibid

[3] Phillip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York, 1991)pp 1.

[4] Dick (Androids) pp 2.

[5] Dick (Androids) pp 1

[6] Dick (Androids) pp 2

[7] Ibid

[8] Dick (Android) pp 4

[9] Dick (Androids) pp 3.

10] Dick (Androids) pp 5.

Blog #3, Prompt #1

2012-01-26T00:19:00.000-05:00

True and False Needs: Humans vs. Androids?

Let us cross examine Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” with Phillip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Looking at both of these works, we see that they both take a good look at society, Marcuse examining systems like capitalism and topics like societal control, while Dick projects into the year 2021, examining human life in a post war climate where the earth itself is currently becoming less and less sustainable.

In Chapter One of “One Dimensional Man,” Marcuse introduces the idea of “true and false needs.” True needs being those that are absolutely essential to life, and false needs are those which are “superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice”(Marcuse, Chapter One). We can use the idea of false needs to examine some of the societal elements in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”

The keeping of animals immediately springs to my mind. Because of the almost apocalyptic conditions of this nearly post-earth, many animals are rare or even extinct, and owning one becomes a status symbol. As early as the first chapter of Dick’s novel we see one of the main characters, Rick Deckard, fretting over owning an electric sheep rather than a real living animal. His jealousy over his neighbor’s pregnant horse is obvious, and while he is ashamed of owning a electric animal, he attempts to guilt his neighbor into selling him one of his horses since owning more than one animal would be considered a violation of the principals of “Mercerism.”

These false needs repress Deckard, trapping him and leaving him unbalanced in societal expectations. “The prevalence of repressive needs is an accomplished fact, accepted in ignorance and defeat, but a fact that must be undone in the interest of the happy individual as well as all those whose misery is the price of his satisfaction” (Marcuse, Chapter 1).

We can construe the desire of owning an animal as a mere “false need” but the underlying issue at hand very much has to do with the true human need of affection. Rick craves a real animal because his electric sheep is incapable of reciprocity, incapable of empathy. According to Mercerism, empathy is what separates humans from androids, true life from false life.

However, the once black and white line between humans and androids becomes skewed as the story develops. There are characters like John Isidore who are considered “chicken heads,” humans that do not have the same mental capabilities as other humans, and are therefore lesser beings. Then there is Rachael Rosen, an android nearly capable of passing for a human being.

This is where the human idea of empathy becomes muddled. Although Rachael failed questioning from the Voigt-Kampff scale, her simulated responses were close to actual human responses. As part of the questioning, Rick tells Rachael his briefcase is made of babyhide. Her response is intriguing: “He saw the two dial indicators gyrate frantically. But only after a pause. The reaction had come, but too late” (Dick, 59). At this moment, Rachel herself finds out she is an android, and seems unsure of how to process the new information. She resists the comforting touch of Eldon, which can either be taken as a human or inhuman reaction. She is a new breed, a Nexus-6, one which at this point in the story we are incapable of fully discovering.

Perhaps in the coming chapters, as we examine Rachael in fuller detail, we can see if she is purely androidal, without desire of false, repressive needs, or if androids dream of their own repressive needs, maybe even electric sheep.

Blog 3, Prompt 1

2012-01-26T00:08:00.001-05:00

So Lonely: Technology Fostering Loneliness in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

After World War Terminus, it’s hard to imagine that people would be able to bounce back to normal in society. In the first chapter of Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, “One-Dimensional Society,” he discusses advanced industrial civilization. Specifically, he addresses the concept of alienation that can be the product of technology creating a sort of societal control. Marcuses’ conclusions about how technology can result in an advanced form of alienation when they lose their identity and just blend in with society resonates with Philip K. Dick’s Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, with the best example being J.R. Isidore, whose story is interwoven within Rick Deckard’s.

J.R. Isidore is a special, or genetically damaged being who cannot leave earth, living alone in his apartment. When he turns off his television, he experiences an overwhelming silence that “supplants all things tangible” (Dick 18). The silence for him, which is something that also covers the earth now, consumes him.

He wondered, then, if the others who had remained on Earth experienced the void this way …He lived alone in this deteriorating, blind building of a thousand uninhabited apartments, which like all its counterparts, fell, day by day, into greater entropic ruin. Eventually everything within the building would merge, would be faceless and identical, mere pudding-like kipple piled to the ceiling of each apartment. And after that, the uncared-for building itself would settle into shapelessness, buried under the ubiquity of the dust. By then, naturally, he himself would be dead, another interesting event to anticipate as he stood here in his stricken living room alone with the lungless, all-penetrating, masterful world-silence. (Dick 20-21)

Silence is something that will eventually take over all of humanity left on earth. Isidore’s passage notes that the silence is entropic. In the novel, the characters sense the entropy of the earth as they almost destroy all of humankind. The silence that represents the alienation that people experience will prevent the organization of the chaos that resulted after World War Terminus. Marcuse calls alienation “questionable” a few times because it’s a more elaborate concept. The reality of alienation is at a further stage, one in which the subject is “swallowed up by its alienated existence” (Marcuse 6).

Dick’s presentation of Isidore presents the idea that technology has an alienating effect that causes humans to want to create a form of social collectiveness. “The manifold processes of introjection seem to be ossified in almost mechanical reactions. The result is, not adjustment but mimesis: an immediate identification of the individual with his society and, through it, with the society as a whole” (Marcuse 5). World War Terminus was the product of a lack of social collectiveness, with humans behaving toward one another as predators. But the technology that destroyed the earth now contributes to an alienation effect that Mercerism tries to solve by providing a void to isolated people. A failure to identify with others will mean that people will suspect one another of being androids.

Prompt #4: Dick and Marcuse

2012-01-25T21:30:00.001-05:00

In the prologue of Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse makes a particularly interesting argument, claiming that modern technological society, which demands rationality, is in fact irrational. He then goes on to note that “...The distinction between true and false consciousness…still is meaningful…Men must come to see it and to find their way from false to true consciousness, from their immediate to their real interest. They can do so only if they live in need of changing their way of life, of denying the positive, of refusing. It is precisely this need which the established society manages to repress to the degree to which it is capable of ‘delivering the goods’ on an increasingly large scale, and using the scientific conquest of nature for the scientific conquest of man”(Marcuse, Introduction). The statement explains a considerable portion of Phillip K. Dick’s San Francisco in his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; specifically, the nature of man’s relationship with technology.

Throughout the entire novel, animals are a recurring motif, with real animals being significantly more valued than their mechanical counterparts. Deckard notes how “…The electric animal…could be considered…a vastly inferior robot. Or conversely, the android could be regarded as a highly developed, evolved version of the ersatz animal. Both viewpoints repelled him”(Dick, 40). He views the living as having a kind of having a kind of quality that the “nonliving”, even when otherwise identical, does not have, reflecting the meaningfulness Marcuse claims with regard to living and nonliving consciousnesses. Deckard views the nonliving consciousness as lacking this quality, which leads to his complete and utter contempt for androids and providing him with a reason to hunt them down and terminate them. “…an escaped humanoid robot, which had killed its master…which had no regard for animals…epitomized the killers”(30).

The aforementioned quality that the novel explicitly states in its distinguishing between human and android is empathy. The Voigt-Kampff test relies on this important factor, as empathy, which is strictly in the domain of the living consciousness Marcuse describes, prevents androids from experiencing the same kind emotion a human being feels when increasingly-scarce animals are being placed in harmful situations. Empathy is both a natural and a human quality, like all other emotional experiences. Or so it seems.

Even if it may be explicitly “human”, Dick makes it absolutely clear within the first pages of his novel that emotions have become increasingly more artificial with the invention of the mood organ, which allows an individual to control feelings with the pressing of three buttons. Iran, Deckard’s wife notes at one point how she “…was in a 382 mood”, but “…how unhealthy it was, sensing the absence of life…and not reacting…that used to be considered a sign of mental illness; they called it ‘absence of appropriate affect.’ So [she] left the TV sound off…and [she] experimented. And [she] finally found a setting for despair”(3). The Penfield mood organ serves two purposes for Iran: it allows her to experience emotions at any point in time for any reason and acts as a coping mechanism to help remind her of normal human emotions that have been lost or damaged due to desensitization created by a post-apocalyptic society. She represents the “bridging of the gap” between human and android emotions, disproving any distinction in feelings between the true and false consciousness that Marcuse’s treatise describes as unproven.

Marcuse’s concept of irrationality in an increasingly-more-technological world becomes obvious when considering that humans created androids after an act of man, nuclear war, devastated the world and destroyed most of nature. They responded to the realization that technology can be powerful beyond the limits of human control by creating technology that could easily threaten the entire dominance of the human species. Then once governments realized that the new technology, androids, could pose this extreme danger, they ordered bounty hunters like Rick Deckard to hunt down the consequences of their failures. The complete and utter inability for humanity to learn from its mistakes casts extreme doubt on the idea of mankind as a rational species and heavily supports the notion that the more man is exposed to technology, the more he seeks to conquer nature, with disastrous results ensuing.

Marcuse’s ideas of real and false consciousness and humanity’s irrational relationship with technology can be applied to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in many ways. And in these ways the novel reflects the most important parts of this increasingly-important relationship as time goes on.

Blog #3 Prompt #1

2012-01-25T17:44:00.002-05:00

Forms of Societal Control

Caia Caldwell

Marcuse wrote a brilliant passage three-quarters of the way through chapter one of One Dimensional Man. In this passage he discusses how “products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood. And as these beneficial products become available to more individuals in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity; it becomes a way of life.” This idea of people as consumers who unthinkingly indoctrinate themselves into a certain lifestyle is scary- products become a means of control that prevent “against qualitative change.” In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? there are numerous examples of products that socially control society and regulate the population.

Almost immediately the reader is introduced to a technological product that acts as a societal control. The inhabitants of Earth and Mars have the ability to “dial” their moods. The device, a Penfield, allows people to change, choose, and regulate their moods. When Iran, Rick’s wife, wakes up grumpy, he tells her to “dial” to a better mood. Instead, she tells him how she was finally able to find a setting for “despair.” This device is not only abnormal and creepy, but also a perfect way for the Government or Other Entity to control the populations.

For most humans, it seems simple. Why would you want to be unhappy if you could simply dial a three-digit code and you would feel any other positive emotion you wanted? Although it doesn’t specify, I think the reader is to assume Iran is an aberration, and most use their Penfield to avoid depression or unhappiness. But by never being unhappy, humans have never any reason to evaluate their current situation or life and decide to make a change. There is even 888- a setting that makes the individual desire to watch TV.

This leads directly to the TV/radio show prevalently mentioned throughout the first half of the book: “Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends.” Clearly extremely popular, Isidore is perplexed when his new neighbor does not know it. Even in the real world, TV has been analyzed as using mindless entertainment as a tool for population control. The book states this it no uncertain terms. The population, drugging itself on artificial happiness, tunes into un-stimulating, stupid humor that provides asinine amusement. A curious element to this entertainment is that “Buster” and his guests are obviously not human. The author gives us a hint when Isidore notes “How did they keep talking… their remarks always witty, always new, weren’t rehearsed. Amanda’s hair glowed, her eyes glinted, her teeth shone; she never ran down, ever became tired…” (pg.72). In a world where Androids are hunted down and “retired” it seems odd to be showcasing them.

But again, this is another form of control. Control is achieved by using products like the Penfield, the TV, and the very Androids themselves to create a society where people are at least content. If people are controlled in causal ways that seem harmless, society is less likely to question the future, or demand change in their lives. As Marcuse states, “It is a good way of life--much better than before--… [however] Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior” (Chapter 1). It is within this one-dimensional behavior that we see a general “false consciousness” exhibited by the characters in the novel.

Marcuse on Dick’s Post-Apocalyptic World (Prompt 1)

2012-01-25T17:40:00.002-05:00

Marcuse on Dick’s Post-Apocalyptic World

The one-dimensional society that Marcuse describes in the first part of his book lacks liberty, a “product of a sophisticated, scientific management,” in which reason and rationality are “the ideological counterpart[s] to the very material process in which advanced industrial society silences and reconciles the opposition.” This reliance on positivism, adopted by the affluent class, quickly becomes “a way of life” (Marcuse Chapter 1). For Deckard and Isidore, society on Earth after WWT becomes as mechanized as androids, a miserable structure lacking empathy with an emphasis on total empiricism and technological progress.

Modern readers have trouble swallowing the post-apocalyptic world: How could certain humans actually be left to die? Isidore, unable to colonize because exposure to genetically altering, radioactive dust has lowered his IQ, and deemed him unworthy of reproducing, an undesirable left in complete isolation. “That had been the ultimate incentive of emigration: the android servant as carrot, the radioactive fallout as stick. The U.N. made it easy to emigrate, difficult if not impossible to stay…once pegged a special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history” (Dick 13). Here we see how a society run by one dimension of thought, one objective, leaves individuals unable to distinguish between their needs and the needs of their society (or race) to progress. Essentially, we see a “social division of labor” and a “loss of livelihood” among individuals swept up in the promises of industrial society, the “false consciousness” that fosters “the possibility of new forms of existence” (Marcuse Chapter 1). A technologically structured society existed on Earth that destroyed most life, and then that same society capitalized from that destruction through colonization and the production of android slaves. Earth, used to harbor “specials” and for corporations to produce and make profit, is now for kipple. A new, even more technologically-structure society run by mechanized slavery and capitalism (resources derived from manufacturing on Earth), will flourish on Mars and Proxima. It will only consist of superior members of the human race, but who will all accept the consciousness perpetuated by its society: mass media and the strict rationality of technological progress seeps into the “mind and body of the individual,” and through indoctrination and manipulation, the repressed class fails to realize the totalitarian tendency to use technology as a mode for social control (Marcuse Prologue). I Isidore, a “chickenhead,” has no choice but to abide by the laws of a society already in place. The individual must accept the oppressive nature and “repressive power of the whole” (Marcuse Chapter 1).

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, there are a few forms of media that give insight into Dick’s one-dimensional society: the mood-enhancing machine, Buddy Friendly, and the empathy box. The mood enhancing machine works like a happy helmet, keeping individuals content with their imminent death to radiation poisoning, which we see doesn’t work with Iran, who would rather “feel hopeless about everything, about staying here on Earth after everybody who’s smart has emigrated” (Dick 3). Society has alienated Isidore in a different way, “stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity” (Marcuse Chapter 1). He repairs electric animals that were literally built to keep up a ruse of social importance, to make people look human and empathetic, but which serve no greater purpose. Isidore does a futile job, and as Marcuse suggests, realizes “the need for modes of relaxation, the spiritual, metaphysical…[b]ut that such modes of protest and transcendence are no longer contradictory to the status quo” (Marcuse Chapter 1). We see Isidore’s “need” for entertainment satisfied by Buddy Friendly, and spiritual need satisfied by Mercerism and the empathy box. He says: I think Buster Friendly and Mercerism are fighting for control of our psychic souls…Buster is immortal like Mercer. There’s no difference” (Dick 67). This quote embodies what Marcuse describes as “false consciousness,” the manipulated ideology—with ethical permission based on pure reason, rather than empathy—could only be perpetuated by a society that prospers from its acceptance by the individuals that make up that society. Buster Friendly, who Isidore explains airs twenty-three hours a day must be an android, meaning that technology, created by a technocratic society to serve as information and entertainment for humans, is meant to represent the objectives of that technocratic society, and does so by monopolizing the broadcast. Mercerism, a type of religion that emphasizes human empathy by telling the story of a type of post-apocalyptic Christ character through an empathy box, allows viewers like Isidore to feel the same humiliation and pain as this central “outcast” character. Rachel Rosen/Pris tells Isidore that she’s never heard of Mercerism, but implies that its acceptance of “specials” is “it’s only objection” (Dick 59). As an emotional outlet for disabled human beings or outcasts, the empathy box and Mercer’s story give eternal hope to individuals, or what Marcuse calls “harmless negation,” when “one-dimensional thought is systematically promoted by the maker of politics and their purveyors of mass information” (Marcuse Chapter 1). The manufacturers of the empathy box fuel the contentment of a repressed class of citizens, allows them to accept the “cycle of life” and the restrictions imposed by a technologically obsessed society. “Deceptive liberty,” as Marcuse calls it, causes repressed individuals to mistake the society’s needs for their own, accepting the oppressive circumstances. For Isidore, who lives in an illusion of contentment, “there is only one dimension, and it is everywhere and in all forms.” It is the same dimension of thought, propelled by scientific rationality, that catapulted the Rosen Corporation into wealth, destroyed all hope for life on Earth, and left individuals like Isidore without any kind of social agency. The world Dick describes in his novel seems to depict a textbook example of a one-dimensional society.

Questions on Marcuse and Philip K. Dick

2012-01-22T11:15:00.000-05:00

Post your questions, etc., as comments to this thread.

Reminder: I am looking more for quality than for quantity here, and this is only one form of class participation. You are not under any obligation to write at length for these, although if you feel like your actual in-class participation is weak, you probably want to write more than some others would.

Prompts for Thursday, January 26th

2012-01-22T11:10:00.002-05:00

Prompt 1: Clearly quoting or citing a location in Marcuse's text (just citing the chapter number, or prologue, is fine for Marcuse, since we all have access to the electronic text), identify an idea or concept, used by Marcuse, which you believe can and should be used to better understand some aspect of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Then, do exactly that: show how and why that concept from Marcuse can be used to understand the novel. Be sure to show and understanding of, and cite material from, both texts.

Prompt 2 (Research): Using academic sources only, probably from Pitt's library (that is, an actual book, or an article from a peer-reviewed journal), present research relating to Marcuse that you think would help the class, and that is at least moving towar and argument. To put it another way: it's fine to spend most of your space simply presenting one or several interesting sources, but you need to also, at the very least, show us the beginning of an argument, or to pose a question or series of questions which would lead to an argument. A 75%/25% division between research and argument would be fine, although I'd be skeptical of a 90%/10% division.

Your sources should be obviously serious and substantive - at least 20 pages of academic writing, and probably more. If you're using a book, you shouldn't necessarily read the whole thing, but read at least the introduction, and whatever material deals with a topic of interest to you.

Example topics: how was Marcuse's work received and used when it was published? How did Marcuse use, and react against, Heidegger? How can/should we understand Marcuse using either the history of philosophy, or the history of technology? What was the role of Marcuse's thought in American politics of the 1960s? Etc.

Recommended book: The Catastrophe and Redemption of History, which relates Heidegger and Marcuse, and is even available as kindle book, if you're too lazy to go to the library.

Blog 2 Prompt 1 a.

2012-01-21T12:58:00.000-05:00

Blog #2 Prompt 1a

I find the question of Shelley writing from a woman’s perspective really interesting because all of her narrators are men with the exception of the ghostly sister “Margaret” who the sea captain is writing to. Because we don’t know what angle this is all coming from that makes the narrator confusing and almost androgynous. It is clear from the discussion we had in class last Thursday that there are some underlying homosexual currents and I think this has just as much to do with Shelley being a woman as it does with the character of the captain. On page 171 he talks about his aversion to marrying Elizabeth. ‘Alas! to me the idea to me of an immediate union with my Elizabeth was one of horror and dismay. He also talks about his promise to his mother. Shelley being what we can assume as a heterosexual woman would indeed find the idea of marrying a woman repulsive and therefore we see her main character exhibit this aversion as well. He puts off this union by deciding to take this trip with Clerval, a male companion. Upon his return he is to marry Elizabeth, a reunion which never happens.

Had Shelley been writing a female character from her perspective it is most likely that this departure would be one of tearful sorrow and a reunion would be a joyful thing not something to be dismayed about.

Later we see Shelley say, on page 173 that Frankenstein is looking forward to his reunion so he may forget his past. Shelley’s upbringing would have been conducive to the idea of being different. Wriitng from a male perspective may have even been encouraged because it would promote the feminist agenda, but it seems to me that despite a good intention Shelley just ended up writing a more homoerotic piece than she was intending. She allowed her more traditionally female writing and feelings shine through in Frankenstein and it ended up being less about Frankenstein and his God-complex and more about this odd relationship between Elizabeth, a woman who is like a sister, Frankenstein who does not want to marry her, and his odd relationship with The Captain.