Speciesism and Species Being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Abstract

Criticism on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? has focused on androids and ignored animals. The novel's ethical concerns are best understood through animal studies, revealing political deployments of boundary to disenfranchise certain humans. The novel suggests another model of subjectivity best understood through Marx's species ********** Central to Philip K. Dick's fiction is question of what it means to be human, a question generally explored through opposition between authentic human beings and various artificial beings made to imitate humans. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, whose popularity perhaps derives from wide influence of film Blade Runner which it inspired, is his best known novel in this mode. Similarities and differences between two texts have been discussed at length and it is not my purpose to rehearse or contribute to those arguments or to engage with scholarship on these differences. Rather, I want to focus attention on an aspect of original text neglected in both film adaptation and criticism: importance of animals, electric and real. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? develops its ideas about being human through two comparisons: animals and androids. Dick's novel is set in a future earth that has been devastated by nuclear war. Most of population has left planet, a colonization effort aided by free labour of androids. Those left are either too poor to emigrate or else are designated specials, a category denoting decreased intelligence and hence ineligibility for emigration. Androids are illegal on earth, although some have escaped slavery in colonies and try to pass as human. They are hunted down and killed--retired--by bounty hunters such as protagonist Rick Deckard. The remnants of human culture are held together by a religion called Mercerism, which is practiced through empathic fusion with others via a technology called empathy box. Animals, almost or perhaps actually extinct, are sacred to religion of Mercerism and culture in general. Owning and caring for an animal is a sign of one's social and economic status and also an expression of one's humanity. Androids, in contrast, do not care for others, neither animals nor other androids. Their inability to feel empathy is what sets them apart from humans and justifies their enslavement and execution. Organic machines, androids can only be distinguished from humans through Voigt-Kampff test for empathy which measures involuntary emotional response to certain questions, predominantly about abuse and exploitation of animals. There is a general critical consensus that novel's major concern is with alienated, modern, technologized rendering humans increasingly cold and android-like. While this argument usually concludes that Deckard is healed by reconnecting with nature, most critics ignore important role of animals in novel and specificity of category of animal in Western culture. (1) Ursula Heise, one of a few critics attentive to animals, concludes that, although animals are crucial to definition of what is human, novel's theme is that the technological simulation of animal life (79) is a sufficient substitute for real animals. In contrast to such readings, I argue that representation of animals is central to novel's critique of Cartesian subject and commodity fetishism, and that only by realizing centrality of animals can we perceive all implications of Deckard's change. It is not, as often argued, that Deckard risks becoming increasingly like androids through his work as a bounty hunter; rather, risk faced by Deckard and other humans in novel lies in realizing that they already are android-like, so long as they define their subjectivity based on logical, rational, calculating part of human being. The version of human self that emerges in novel can be traced back to Descartes's cogito, which marks entrance of a number of important distinctions that have structured modernity. …