midterm – ENG 281.05 Fall 16

Does It Take Empathy To Be Considered Human?

The physical similarities between humans and androids are quite plain. Both of them are capable of thinking and acting upon people’s will. Yet we are always reminding ourselves of the obvious. In the end, we just are not the same. Because androids lack empathy and they are not capable of producing emotions the same way we humans advocate them. Some take this argument to mean that we actually have much more in common with mammals than androids despite our physical resemblance. That is because both humans and mammals are both subject of our cultural values: sex, menstruation, pregnancy, birth, feeding, defecation, urination, bleeding, illness, and dying, traits where that androids are incapable of doing. But androids have higher standards of critical thinking, they are deemed superior to the mammal. Because we humans are capable of all the things listed that we have in common with mammals and are also capable of critical thinking, we place our species as the highest authority. Therefore, we, as a society, would deem it perfectly normal to terminate an android. And because the android is not capable of having human emotions, there is no case for a crime to be had. One could simply commit even the most heinous crimes against an android and not found guilty of murder on any case. Also, since the android is a product of the human, the android is designated as property and does not retain any reasonable right. But we should accept that there are those who would argue that androids are, in fact, capable of being side-by-side with humans. Proponents of the idea that androids and humans are not all that different tend to point to human history, as well as how the process of empathy works. Here, we will use the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? to gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be human.

Even though the obvious answer as to why humans are justified in destroying an android is that we are the ones who have two arms, two legs, a body, and a brain that can do math, understand language, and work a computer. Yet, this does not quite hold up when you point to human history. Look specifically at colonial times. Not even 200 years ago, a vast majority of Europeans and Americans considered Africans to be less than human and therefore had no empathy towards them. Why, because most of them thought they lacked empathy, even though they still had two arms, two legs, a body, and a brain which, as time has proven us wrong, can do math, understand language, and work a computer. Even in the present, there are plenty of us that act as though people who live in different countries or lower lifestyles are deemed less than human. Many would argue today that empathy is a topic that cannot be taught in schools since humans generally are not fully empathic in their everyday lives. People who work in a city usually pass by homeless people without handing them money, often because they are too rushed to get to work on time. But the counterargument is literature, since fiction focuses on the psychology of characters and their relationships. The fiction genre helps the reader imagine the characters’ introspective dialogues, which in turn carries over into their psychology in the real world especially since it is full of problematic individuals that contain inner lives some might deem complicated. After all, most humans would agree that Harper Lee delved into what it takes to be empathic in To Kill a Mockingbird: “You never really understand another person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it”. Thus reading can be a valuable influence on people’s sociability. Philip K. Dick’s novel offers a parallel between the relationship between whites and blacks in colonial times and the relationship between humans and androids in its futuristic setting.

In the novel, androids are deemed as property and do not hold any rights. The reason for this is because they supposedly lack empathy, which is the main theme of the novel and the crux of Dick’s metaphysical reflection on the meaning of life. Humans are taught to express no empathy towards the androids, which may have caused them to possess fewer feelings in general, something they are fighting to preserve. Each and every character deals with what it means to be empathetic and whether that allows someone to be valued as a living thing. Deckard hates his electric sheep only because he believes it cannot feel any love for him even though he cares for it. This feeling allows Deckard to perform his work as a bounty hunter because he is of the prominent belief that androids are incapable of true human emotion and are not worthy of life in a society in which life is the highest ideal. He even notes early on that herbivores or omnivores are the only creatures with the empathetic impulse and that empathy is what allows humanity to survive. John Isidore, the most empathic character in the novel, on the other hand, has an incredible sense of empathy for the androids. Not just because he finally has someone to talk to when the escaped androids move into his apartment, but because to him it’s clear that the androids strive for freedom so that they can live their own lives like humans are free to do. Since the androids killed their masters, the androids are seemingly capable of understanding the concept of freedom. But later on in the story, their beliefs are challenged.

Deckard soon learns that androids can, in fact, be capable of empathy and humans may be able to be devoid of empathy upon his encounter with Phil Resch who enjoys killing simply for killing’s sake; causing a severe shift in Rick’s understanding even of himself. Rick finds that the lines between what one can call living or what once can call not living are blurred. Androids find their empathetic abilities with each other just as humans find the ability to be empathetic in a collective group. Humans are also capable of a loss of empathy. Whereas John becomes horrified that the androids show disrespect towards a spider, which humans value greatly after all living things nearly became extinct in World War Terminus. The fact that androids tarnished something that humans greatly value shakes Isidore’s empathy for the androids heavily. Such concern for animals would seem to distinguish the humans from the androids to be sure, given the way in which they torture the poor spider, but there is nothing essentially human about such a caring attitude.

Dick’s science fiction is not deeply rooted in philosophy. He was interested, from the time that he read Plato when he attended Berkeley High School, in the core problem of philosophy: Is the world as it appears, or is it a mere appearance? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be seen as a product of the author’s skepticism about the apparent world. For the novel imagines a world in which androids and humans are apparently the same, so that much of the novel is concerned with the problem of telling them apart from reality. That is because the implication of the novel is that the distinction between the two kinds of being, android and human will eventually become if not unreliable then at least undetectable. That can mean robots are very much like humans after all. But it can also mean that humans are very like robots.

The ability to empathize is imagined as being an exclusively human faculty. The Voight-Kampf Test is designed to determine whether the tested subject is an android look for an empathic response to questions that typically involve the mistreatment of animals. The reliability of the test depends on human attachment to animal life following a war that caused mass extinctions. With living animals harder to find, humans grew more and more fond even for living organisms such as toads and ostriches, chickens, sheep, even spiders. This love of animals is linked to the religion of Mercerism, which is believed to be some kind of cosmic entity, one apparently exposed as a fraud by Buster Friendly, a popular TV host. But to Rick and John Isidore, Mercer is actually neither a cosmic entity nor a mere fraud. Furthermore, we are told of other humans who might make the task of distinguishing between human and android quite difficult. These humans who might be mistaken for androids if given the empathy test exhibit what is called a flattening of affect; they have a diminished empathic faculty, which means that they are humans with some form of mental disorder such as schizophrenia. If they were stopped by a routine police check, they could very well be mistaken for androids and be killed mistakenly. But this is only one of the more obvious ways in which Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? broaches the problem of determining the difference between human and android. There is also the question of Deckard’s response to the problem of empathy. He starts to feel empathy for the android Luba Luft, and feels nothing for Phil Resch. At one point, the novel briefly raises the possibility of Deckard himself being an android, when Luba asks him if he has taken the empathy test. But the novel does not really pursue this possibility; it does not so much question whether Deckard is human as much as it questions whether the fact that he is biologically human is enough to distinguish him. The androids lack empathy, but they do not seem to be wholly without any emotional responses in the novel, and they do not seem to be wholly without desire either. The answer to the question that the title poses is unclear. When the last three survivors meet at Isidore’s apartment, their conversation is full of passion because they experience a range of emotions, including joy, shock, and fear. Yet, Isidore senses that there is something different, something “peculiar” or “malign” about these characters. It means that in the end, we do not know if the androids experience desire after all. More important still in terms of the difference between androids and humans is the fact that the androids’ lack of empathy is not something that androids inherently lack. Quite the opposite. It’s the result of a built-in defect.

The built-in defect is a lack of empathic ability. This is important because it means the one attribute in the novel on which the distinction between human and android is based, even it is a reliable distinction for the moment, is only artificially missing from androids. If the defect were not created, the implication is that the androids would have an empathic faculty just as healthy humans do. So the deprived condition of the androids cannot be said to be a natural condition. And if that is the case, then the distinction between android and human cannot be said to be a natural distinction too. Consider the novel’s opening. We find human characters having an argument about the use of the Penfield artificial brain stimulator. Humans might want to call androids artificial, and to see their lack of empathy as a measure of their distance from being human, but with the brain stimulator, one can never know if the emotional responses of even apparent human characters are natural or just a product of artificial stimulation.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? looks at the issues of human versus non-human and hypothesizes that empathy, not language or the number of arms and legs, is the key trait determining humanity. But how far does that humanity extend? Is Phil Resch still human despite his lack of empathy? Is Luba Luft a human in her ability to empathize through art despite being born factory-made chattel? Deep down, we really believe that the people that make our products are full human and act as though they are. For if we do not, that makes us less than full human.

WORKS CITED

Dick, Philip K. Blade Runner: (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). New York: Del Rey, 1996. Print
Bury, Liz. “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2013. Web.
Krznaric, Roman. “Can You Teach People to Have Empathy?” BBC News. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web.
Paulsen, Kyle. “Is Empathy Only A Human Ability? – Kyle Paulsen.” Kyle Paulson. Web.
Chiaet, Julianne. “Novel Finding: Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy.” Scientific American. Springer Nature, 04 Oct. 2013. Web.
Anonymous “The Meaning of Being Human In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And Blade Runner (I)” Essay Judge. N.p., 1970. Web.

True Empathy: How Androids Can Show Us the Way

As a species, we like to think of ourselves as empathetic beings. We protest injustices, we take care of wounded animals, and we donate money to charities. Overall, we see ourselves as the saviors of the needy and the unfortunate. However, this really isn’t empathy that causes us to reach out a helping hand, not completely at least. In fact, we humans have a flawed sense of empathy; we condemn terrorism while we drop bombs on innocent villages, we are disgusted by world hunger and homelessness but we refuse to glance at the stranger on the street begging for money. Most of us only express empathy towards the people we think are deserving of it. The less fortunate have to relate to us on some basic level, but they can’t be completely unlike us. This flawed reasoning can be expressed through the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick. Although the world they live in is more dystopian, it is not unlike ours. By using this novel, the true form of empathy will be realized—understanding other’s plights and choices no matter how different they are from any of us.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, humanity is divided. Most humans emigrated to Mars due to a catastrophic nuclear war that ruined the Earth, while everyone else stayed behind. The most important plot point in the book is that when a person would emigrate to Mars, they were rewarded with an android to be their slave. The only way for an android to escape and live their own lives was to kill their master and run away to Earth to hide. In this world, androids are modeled just like humans and have all of their characteristics, except for one: empathy. Androids are the villains feared by all the humans; they’re stronger, faster, and in some cases, smarter. In order for humans to feel human and to show to others that they are not actually escaped androids, they buy an animal. This is their ultimate form of empathy. They dedicate their lives to taking care of their animal and, if their animal is an android, they strive for the moment they can actually afford a real one. It is an unspoken rule to not discuss whether they own a real animal or not. In fact, Dick states that to ask if an animal is fake is “a worse breach of manners than to inquire whether a citizen’s teeth, hair, or internal organs would test out authentic” (8). In other words, asking if an animal is fake is the same as implying someone is an android. The two go hand in hand.

The protagonist of the story, Rick Deckard, struggles with the concept of empathy throughout the entire novel. He himself owns an electric sheep and he struggles with that reality. He actually only cares for it of out habit and has no feelings of affection towards it. He hated the thought of owing a false animal but “from a social standpoint it had to be done, given the absence of the real article” (Dick 9). Deckard had no choice to care of his electric sheep or else people would think he was an android. The empathy that is sought out by the citizens is actually completely lost based on this aspect. They aren’t caring for their animals because they have empathy, they care for them for social status. They can’t stand the thought of being scrutinized for possibly being an android.

This is similar to how we sometimes interact as humans on an everyday basis. People all around the world post pictures and videos of themselves doing good deeds for others. Now this necessarily doesn’t mean that none of those people actually care; however, the fact that it has to be gratified and shown to the world shows that there is more than empathy driving them. True empathizers would carry out their good deed anonymously because that isn’t the point. The point is to just help. If Deckard and the rest of the citizens truly empathized with the animals, there wouldn’t be a competition. There wouldn’t be android animals to begin with. The citizens would just take care of the real ones that were left and try to repopulate the Earth with those surviving creatures.

As the readers continue to follow Deckard’s journey as a bounty hunter “retiring” escaped androids for the police department, they begin to see Deckard empathizing with androids more and more. The first instance of this is when his temporary partner Resch thinks he might be an android with false memories. Deckard struggles with the thought of telling Resch. In the novel he thinks, “I’ve got to tell him… It’s unethical and cruel not to. Mr. Resch, you’re an android… You got me out of this place and here’s your reward: you’re everything we jointly abominate” (Dick 126-127). He felt bad for him regardless if Resch turned out to be an android. In fact, at this point in the story, Deckard really thinks that Resch is an android. However, he still struggles with the thought of telling him because he knows what has to happen if he really is one.

Deckard again shows empathy for the next android he “retires,” an android named Luba Luft. Luba Luft lived out her days as a beautifully talented opera singer. And Deckard felt genuinely upset that he had to end her existence. He wonders what the world truly gains from losing her. After Deckard and Resch deal with her, Deckard asks Resch, “Do you think androids have souls?” (Dick 135). This question completely puzzles Resch; however, it weighs heavily on Deckard’s mind. This is because unlike Resch, Deckard actually starts to question whether or not what he’s doing is right. Now this instance of empathizing with Luft may be tied to his sexual attraction toward her; however, this is just a stop on Deckard’s journey to fully being able to empathize.

When the novels gets closer to its end, Deckard invites Rachael over to a hotel room. Rachael is an android that showed an interest in helping him “retire” the rest of the androids. Deckard makes a proposition to Rachel that if they “do something else,” he’ll forget about the other remaining androids (Dick, 182). Deckard requests this of Rachel partly because he doesn’t want to find the other androids and partly because he wants to sleep with her. He doesn’t like his job anymore and he just wants something to distract him from his reality. After Rachael and Deckard sleep together, Deckard learns that it was in Rachael’s plans all along. She wanted to sleep with him to get him to stop hunting the androids, and he wasn’t the first. Deckard doubts that her charms worked on him; however Rachael seems to know otherwise. She says, “I already know… When I saw that expression on your face, that grief” (Dick 198). Deckard eventually flies into a blind rage, threatening to kill Rachael, but he can’t go through with it. Just as Rachael had predicted, it did get to him. He didn’t want to kill androids anymore, and he certainly didn’t want to kill her.

At the end of the novel, Deckard is completely broken. He finished off the last three androids he was after and Rachael, the one android he let get away, killed his goat. The goat he saved up for just so he didn’t have to take care of an electric sheep anymore. He’s delusional and almost seems like he has a death wish. Until he finds a toad. In this novel, a toad is a holy symbol of sorts and Deckard sees finding it as a sign from Mercer, the novel’s Jesus-like symbol. When Deckard returns home, he is delighted to show his wife Iran that he found a real, live toad. To his dismay, Deckard discovers that the toad is actually artificial; however, he has a much different reaction to it than the old Deckard would have. “I’ll be okay,” he says “But it doesn’t matter. The electric things have their lives too” (Dick 241). At this point, Deckard doesn’t care anymore about what’s real and what’s artificial. He will take care of the toad and it shows by him acknowledging that electric beings have their own lives. This is something that the old Rick Deckard would never dare to think. He hated his electric sheep. He despised it so much, he spent all his bounty hunting money on a goat for it to only die. And now that he has this electric toad, he’s gone full circle back to a false animal, but this time he’ll actually take care of it fully because he doesn’t care anymore if it’s real or fake.

The entirety of Deckard’s experiences and journey relate to how we, in this world, can truly learn to emphasize. As stated before, we only empathize when we find we have something in common with someone less fortunate. Deckard was the same way. He didn’t emphasize with his sheep because he looked upon it as wrong, he emphasized with Resch because Resch was just like him, and he emphasized with Luba and Rachael because he was sexually attracted to both of them and thought of them as vulnerable. At the end; however, Deckard was revealed to truly show empathy when he encountered the toad. The fact that he didn’t care whether the toad was real or no showed he didn’t care whether people were human or android.

That revelation is the most important because it was the hardest to achieve. In fact, in an article posted to Cyborgology, it was stated by philosopher Jesse Prinz that “empathy is impartial; we feel greater for those who are similar to ourselves” (Recuber). Recuber goes on to state that many experiments back up that claim, especially when it relates to race. There is an empathy gap in our society that is making it harder and harder for people to truly emphasize with one another because we can’t see past our differences (Recuber). This is exactly what Deckard did in the novel by going through all the problems that found him. He found a way to emphasize with androids even though they were nothing like him. So how can we as a society in the real world do it? How can we close this gap and find a way to truly emphasize with one another no matter the differences?

This answer goes back to our flawed system of empathy itself. We need to stop seeing empathy as partial. We shouldn’t put up posts about saving Syrian refugees while we bash the countries who choose not to. We can’t decide who’s right and who’s wrong. That is not how empathy works. With true empathy, there is no good guy or bad guy, whether or not you agree with the choices made. There has to be a level of understanding. A moment when you truly place yourself in their shoes and try to understand why they chose what they did. And maybe getting to that point begins with books. There has been extensive research into whether or not reading fiction improves ones capability for empathy (Surugue). It is suggested by a researcher named Oately that fiction novels stimulate “a social world which prompts empathy and understanding in the reader” (Surugue). Fiction novels seem to bring the reader into a complicated world and forces them to look through the main protagonist’s eyes, which actually forces them to emphasize with them on a certain level (Surugue). Interestingly enough, Surugue also states “Some studies have shown that fiction can even make you feel empathy for people who live very different live than you.” And that is our main problem. That is the solution for the gap that Recuber was talking about.

If we have such a problem emphasizing with people who are different from us, then why don’t we force ourselves to learn by reading fiction novels? And what better novel to start that journey on than Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The novel that centers around what empathy truly is surely can hold answers for many struggling to see both sides of any problem. If reading it can cause myself to empathize with beings I don’t see as “good,” then why can’t it do the same with anyone else that decides to delve into it?

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1968. Print.

Recuber, Tim, “What Becomes of Empathy?” Cyborgology, 20 Jul. 2016, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2016/07/20/what-becomes-of-empathy/, Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Surugue, Lea, “Reading Books and Watching Films Makes You Kinder in Real Life”International Business Times, 19 Jul. 2016, https://via.hypothes.is/http:/www.ibtimes.co.uk/reading-books-watching-films-makes-you-kinder-real-life-1571434#annotations:_MOsQlpyEeaiesf9ed4wVw Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

The Search For the Ideal: What Society Really Wants

Our contemporary society has a peculiar obsession with sorting things into groups based on how they are different. This can be useful when it comes to things such as silverware, but it starts to get complicated when we start doing this to human beings. As described by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin in America on Film, this process is described as “othering” (54). In contemporary media, cinema and literature alike, othering has been used to shape a societal norm based around what is ideal. The only thing that stands in the way is the less than ideal: a threat to perfection only because of the risked that something flawed will somehow reflect upon the whole in a negative light. Society’s ongoing search for the ideal will forever be hindered by the desire to create a homogenous society in its place.

In Constructing Normalcy, an academic paper on the evolution of how disablement is viewed in society by Lennard J. Davis, the author dives into the origins of the societal norm. Davis makes particular note on the etymology of the root words “norm” and “average”, specifying how they “all entered the European languages rather late in human history” (3). The concept of the norm developed in the English language over the period between 1840 and 1860, with the word “norm” itself appearing around 1855 (Davis 3). Average, which came from an astronomy method, dates to 1835, with French statistician Adolphe Quetelet and his idea of the average man, “both a physically average and a morally average construct” (Davis 4). The word “ideal”, and by default the concept of the word, only predated the norm by only about two hundred years (Davis 4). The conception of the norm in European culture is usually linked to the growth of statistics (Davis 4). The conception of the norm then evolved into the further subdividing of society based on social class and disability, among other things, that we know today.

The development of a societal norm can be catalyzed from a broad range of factors. One particularly curious instance can be seen in the landscape of Philip K. Dick’s book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Devastated by nuclear war, most humans have gone to colonize space, leaving only those unfit or unwilling to leave on Earth. Out of this, a societal norm based around empathy has developed, forming into a religion called Mercerism. A large part of Mercerism is taking care of animals, somehow making up for the mass extinctions that were mentioned in the book. However, there is a distinct line drawn between androids and humans. Androids are incapable of feeling empathy; and as a result, are not to be part of the society (Dick 12). The androids, in a way, are victims of “othering”. The main character, Rick Deckard, is a bounty hunter, and has the job or retiring, or deactivating the androids. As the story progresses, Deckard develops empathy towards the androids, and decides to quit his job.

Typically, people have a hard opinion on the matter: whether grouping human is a good thing or a bad thing. There are drawbacks, usually based on moral principals; these choices have shaped our history and our society. It is the norm in the society presented in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for grouping to occur: those fit to colonize space, those who remain on Earth (and these are grouped into further subgroups) and androids. In the group of people who remained on earth, you have the subgroups of people who can afford real animals, like Bill Barbour (Dick 4), and those who can’t afford real animals, like Rick Deckard (Dick 5). There are also the Specials, like John Isodore, who have been affected by the radiation, and are prohibited, from reproducing or emigrating to Mars.

This concept or “othering” can especially be seen through the past two hundred years of American history through numerous examples of institutional racism; one of the most shocking instances of this is rather contemporary, and seen in retaliation to the Black Lives Matter movement. In the Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Julius Bailey and David J. Leonard describe the Black Lives Matter movement as “this generations’ ongoing struggle against persistent state-sponsored violence with black bodies as its target” (Bailey 67). It’s a loose comparison, but a line can be drawn between the Black Lives Matter movement and some of the societal groups in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. African Americans have a long history of oppression in the United States, and thanks to the Black Lives Matter movement, it is being exposed that it is still happening to this day at a greater level than was commonly thought.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, there is oppression towards many groups of people, but especially towards androids and specials. Androids, on Earth, are denied life, and have bounty hunters (like Rick Deckard) searching for them (Dick 12). On the other end of the spectrum, the Specials are denied the ability to reproduce and emigrate (Dick 7). Although African Americans as a whole do not fit the mold developed in Philip K. Dick’s novel, as a group developed by white society, they are denied a sense of safety.

In their paper, Bailey and Leonard mention a few examples of the dehumanization of African Americans. One of these examples is the concept of the “no angel”, when the media focuses on the criminal record of any killed young black man (if a criminal record exists); while on the contrary, the media would portray any killed young white man as an angel, even if a criminal record did exist (74-75). As the authors continue to mention, “the criminalization and dehumanization of blackness require the hyper visibility of ‘thug’ imagery” to keep the ongoing, unfortunate tradition of dehumanizing African Americans and treating them as second-class, despite legislation, that has occurred since Civil War reconstruction (Bailey 75). Although no exact parallels can be drawn between these events in Philip K. Dick’s book, there is a strong link with the specials in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, where they were “abruptly classed as biologically unacceptable” and “ceased, in effect, to be part of mankind” (7). Although it is clear that the stigma against specials is based around a system of eugenics, while the stigma against African Americans is no longer; both groups, as dictated by society, are in some way, shape, or form incapable of falling into a societal norm, and are thus viewed as something less.

As Lennard J. Davis explains in Constructing Normalcy, “a common assumption would be that some concept of the norm has always existed” (3). The concept of disability as not ideal is rather recent. Davis explains this elegantly, putting a pinpoint on the mark in history when this idea began to rapidly change:

As we see it, the social process of disabling arrived with industrialization and with the set of practices and discourses that are linked to late eighteenth and nineteenth century notions of nationality, race, gender, criminality, sexual orientation, and so on (3).

The development of the social norm, forcing out people of the post-industrial idea disability (including race) has led to an imbalance in the world. The Black Lives Matter movement has tried to combat this by vocalizing this issue. However, from the societal norms of both sides of the political spectrum, they have received criticism. Bailey and Leonard mention how people on the right side of the political spectrum question a movement that claim black lives matter while remaining silent in relation to black-on-black crime, while some people that drift more towards the left complain about the specific nature of the movement, attempting to create the countermovement “All Lives Matter”, attempting to encompass a larger group of people that includes the cultural norm. Regardless of where they lie, however, they are not being proactive towards the movement’s mission.

One major question is presented in this phenomenon: why does society have a problem with creating a social norm that accepts people of all backgrounds? The root of the problem might lie in the empathetic response of the people in the societal norm. In the article What Becomes of Empathy, the claim is made that the empathetic response to people of different regions (people not like us, the cultural norm) is different, or less, than the empathetic response to people like us (Recuber). Tim Recuber, the author, uses America’s empathetic response to the terror attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, and compares it to the much greater empathetic response to the terror attacks in Paris, France last year. The average person simply didn’t have the same empathetic response to a terrorist attack that happened in Turkey, in different region with a different kind of people, than one that happened in a Europeanized country, like France, with a people that is similar to the “societal norm” of America. Humans were the victims of both attacks, but it is clear through the empathetic response that the average American viewed one group as more human than the other.

Something similar can be said about the Black Lives Matter movement. Although the people involved in the Black Lives Matter movement are from our country, they are still not considered the Europeanized people we have adapted as our societal norm. For some reason, this continues to be a major hurdle for the movement to gain legitimacy among the majority of the population. Since the Black Lives Matter movement advocates for the safety of African Americans primarily in urban settings, the average person from middle America has trouble empathizing with them, and as a result, is incapable of find a person reason to support the movement.

Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep purposefully makes you feel empathy for the important subplot lead John Isodore. He is portrayed as a generally good person that has been genetically degraded, and deemed less than a citizen. He is also lonely, which a large portion of the book’s audience can empathize with the romanticized version of a loner. However, the real dilemma is whether or not one can empathize with the androids. The androids come from Mars, a region that is not Earth, so using Tim Recuber’s account of the terrorist attack in Istanbul as reference; the average reader will not feel empathy for them. Androids are determined using the Voigt-Kampff Empathy Test, since androids are incapable of showing empathy (Dick 12). However, the new Nexus-6 androids’ abilities are drastically underestimated.

At the root of the issue is this search for the ideal, based off Lennard J. Davis’ paper Constructing Normalcy. The idea as a norm, as said by Davis, “is less of a condition of human nature than a feature of a certain kind of society” (3). The process of othering is our society’s way of creating a norm, and expelling people from it, citing them as less than ideal. The real question is if those marked as less than ideal are any less human. Androids, an exceptional example, obviously are not human, due to their nature, but the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep makes its audience think if they actually are. The specials, despite being removed from society, and humanity by means of sterilization, are no less human than unaffected humans. African Americans, although they have a history of being dehumanized by white society, are no less human than the rest of society. All groups, whether in our society or Dick’s fictional society, are victims of othering and the search for the ideal.

The process of othering, as described by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin in America on Film can be seen throughout Philip K. Dick’s book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement. Both the androids and the specials in Dick’s book, as well as African Americans, are the unfortunate victims of othering. Due to othering, people will have different empathetic responses, and as a result, society will never find itself to be ideal.

Works Cited

Bailey, Julius, and David J. Leonard. Black Lives Matter: Post-Nihilistic Freedom Dreams. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Vol. 5, No. 3/4, pp.67-77. 2015.

Benshoff, Harry M., and Sean Griffin. America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. Malden, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Davis, Lennard J. Constructing Normalcy. The Disability Studies Reader, Routledge, New York, 2006.

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

Recuber, Tim. “What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology.” What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology. N.p., 20 July 2016. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.

Artificially Influenced

To be human is to be a myriad of different things. Different people will provide different answers when posed with the question “What does it mean to be human?” Some may speculate that to be human is to experience love in all its forms. Others may say it is human to create and to dream. While answers like those are all well and pleasant, some realities may not be all that heartwarming. It can also be argued that to be human is to lie; to be human is to hurt. No matter the definition given, here I will provide my perspective on a trait exclusive to the human race, something that, from my observation, is a defining trait of the average individual: humans are easily manipulated. Be it by means of media, shopping trends, or religious movements, manipulating a human into giving up his or her logic isn’t so difficult at all.

Before I get into the thick of it, I want to introduce a certain novel that I will be referencing quite often, as it illustrates my claims quite excellently. Subjectively one of the best explorations of a post-apocalyptic future in store for earth, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep provides a fantastic study of the concept of humanity. In this alternate future, Earth has been ravaged by war and has become almost uninhabitable, so the majority of humans have escaped to Mars and other colonies in space. Very few humans have remained on Earth, including the novel’s protagonist, Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter of androids. The entire story takes place over the course of a day, where Deckard hunts some escaped androids and faces the pressing questions regarding the humanity of cyborgs and the morality of humans. While the novel is chock full of fantastic messages and interesting food for thought, it shines in its exploration of humanity relative to these hypothetical androids.

Seeing as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? covers many aspects of humanity, it more than addresses humans’ shortcomings in the realm of allowing other humans to manipulate them. Utilizing the literary tool of hyperbole, the novel uses its exaggerated potential future for mankind to paint a picture of humans as unknowing slaves to various “systems,” if you will, set up by various third parties. The most obvious example of this manipulation of the humans in the novel that is extremely relatable to our society today lies in the influence of Buster Friendly, the world’s most popular and well-received T.V. personality. Basically, Buster serves as a talk show host of his very own talk show “Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends,” a program that airs constantly on T.V. that just about everyone watches religiously. One character in the novel even claimed, “I watch [Buster] every morning and then at night when I get home; I watch him while I’m eating dinner and then his late late show until I go to bed” (Dick 63). Throughout the novel, Buster Friendly and his friends are ever present, building up hype for his important expose that he’d been working on for years and reporting on current events in the universe. Buster Friendly’s news is important to people; whatever Buster says, his dedicated viewers are sure to accept and believe, as he is their primary source of entertainment and news. When a T.V. personality gains a dedicated following, people tend to idolize them, which leads to the conclusion that these personalities can convince people to believe whatever they tell them. In our society today, there are numerous T.V. personalities with strong supporters who will believe just about anything the personalities tell them. Celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah, Jimmy Fallon, Bill O’Reilly, etc. likely come to mind. When people are put in a position of authority over others, they can easily sway the masses who support them in their favor; there’s a reason the fans of these celebrities scream and cheer when they’re in the audiences of the various shows. For example, multiple celebrities have taken their picks for the upcoming presidential election: personalities and celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres, Julianne Moore, and Morgan Freeman endorse and encourage votes for Hillary Clinton, while Kirstie Alley, Gary Busey, and Hulk Hogan have voiced support for Donald Trump. With the amount of influence these celebrities possess, they can significantly affect the results of the election by encouraging their fans to vote for their preferred candidate; they make a point of sharing their opinion on a candidate with the goal of influencing their followers in their favor. Just like how Buster Friendly convinced almost the entirety of humans to watch and enjoy his show and news, T.V. personalities today can sway the masses. Humans are easily manipulated into following and supporting these idols of theirs merely because those personalities are their offering them something to watch and support.

It’s not just T.V. personalities that can serve to manipulate humans, however—humans can also be easily swayed by group movements, such as religious trends and social movements. When groups of people band together, there grows a sort of mob mentality that people become willingly a part of because they’re participating in the group; they want to be accepted and included, so they become a part of a group without possibly questioning why. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? this group is a new religion called “Mercerism.” This religion, whose figurehead is named Wilbur Mercer, encourages the sanctity of all life and a sort of oneness with everyone who uses their Penfield empathy boxes to take the “climb with Mercer.” This climb, called “fusion,” is a simulated climbing experience each person feels when using their box; they feel that they are climbing a mountain with Mercer himself and various other followers of him, feeling the same pain as each other and taking the journey together. Iran, the wife of the main character Rick Deckard, describes the experience as such: “And I remember thinking how much better off we are . . . when we’re with Mercer. Despite the pain. Physical pain but spiritually together; I felt everyone else, all over the world, all who had fused at the same time” (Dick 173). The appeal of this religion seems to be the togetherness everyone feels; they will endure the pain of fusion because they are happy to be experiencing it together. This is characteristic of numerous religions and modern movements; people may do irrational things for the sake of their religion or movement but do so willingly because they are happy to be part of a group. If a group or religion were to be corrupt, as some are, people can easily be manipulated into doing things they normally wouldn’t do.

Another method of manipulation humans can easily relate to within our society today is the desire to have what everyone else has, to be caught up on the most recent trends. This one undoubtedly hits home as something just about every human can relate to; try watching commercials on television and not wanting something they’ve advertised to you. This is tricky to do, because once an advertisement has put the idea in our heads that some cool new product is all the rage among our peers, we suddenly want it. If everyone starts buying a new drink at Starbucks and posting on social media about it, suddenly we feel inclined to try it and do the same. For us today these desires can range anywhere from clothes to food; in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? there was a more universally desired item to acquire: a real, live animal to keep and care for. The average citizen was more socially accepted if he or she had an animal, preferably a rare one or multiple, to have as his or her pet. This pet couldn’t be a fake robotic creature; it had to be a living, breathing animal for it to be socially acceptable: “[Rick] wished to god he had a horse, in fact any animal. Owning and maintaining a fraud had a way of greatly demoralizing one. And yet from a social standpoint it had to be done, given the absence of the real article” (Dick 9). Socially speaking, in Dick’s version of the future, owning a living animal was the way to social acceptance. In our society, owning whatever is trendy and “in” at the moment whether we actually want it or not is the way to social acceptance. When seeking to manipulate humans, those with malicious intent target the desires of people to have what others have to feel like they are all part of a group. Marketing an item by claiming everyone has it is a clever way to trick someone into purchasing that which they wouldn’t normally consider buying. Humans can easily be convinced (i.e. manipulated) into participating in certain trends merely because everyone else is participating in them, yet another of the numerous examples of how humans effortlessly fall prey to manipulation.

Of these examples from both our society and Dick’s novels, there is a commonality with all of these manipulative means that answers the nagging question “Why do such things serve to so perfectly manipulate humans?” To answer this, we have to explore the concept of empathy, another trait uniquely attributed to humans. “Empathy” is defined as “The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, one can empathize with someone else by understanding him or her and his or her experiences and emotions; it’s how people relate to each other and find commonalities on a human level. So how does empathy relate to how humans are manipulated by others? Empathy is inherently a social concept. To feel empathy, there must be two parties involved. This itself is a very human trait, as psychology professor Keith Oatley explains, “The most important characteristic of being human is that our lives are social. What’s distinctive about humans is that we make social arrangements with other people, with friends, with lovers, with children, that aren’t pre-programmed by instinct” (“Reading books and watching films makes you kinder in real life”). Given that humans are social creatures striving to connect with and empathize with each other, it is no surprise that humans can be manipulated under the pretense of being social with fellow humans. Someone may feel connected to Ellen DeGeneres when watching her show to the point where he or she emulates Ellen as an idol and lets Ellen dictate his or her decisions, as radical as that sounds. Another person may join a new religious cult out of a desire to feel a part of something with fellow humans but commit heinous acts as part of the cult’s rituals. Yet another person might waste money and go into debt purchasing expensive clothing because those clothes are popular and trendy according to this person’s friends on social media. All of these examples stem from a desire to empathize with other people, but when these means of community have manipulative natures, people will fall prey to these ploys without stopping to think about the possibly harmful consequences.

Although manipulation is easily integrated into these situations, that doesn’t mean participating in all of these actions is inherently wrong or damaging. T.V. personalities are not always out to manipulate the crowds; not every group requires wrongdoing and harmful actions; and sometimes keeping up with trends is harmless fun. My touching upon this flaw of humanity is not to condemn humans for being too “mainstream” with society but to encourage critical thinking on top of attempts to empathize with fellow human beings. As hard as it is to accept, not everything is beneficial and good for people. There are terrible people in the world with ulterior motives, and they can use their manipulative tricks to sway innocent people just wanting to connect with other people. When people fall prey to these trappings, genuine relationships and empathy are dead in favor of manipulation and false appearances. Clinical psychologist Arthur P. Ciaramicoli accurately comments on our society’s viewpoint on the matter by claiming, “I think we have become a society where we rate status over relationships. We relate image over character and when you do that, you place much less emphasis on the skill or the ability of empathy” (“Empathizing 101“). When humans are manipulated into accepting a viewpoint or blindly joining a group, it becomes more about status and image, as Ciaramicoli stated, than about genuine connections. This is not true empathy; status, especially among peers, does not achieve empathy, as manipulators strive to make people craving empathetic connections with others believe. If status is viewed as more important than empathy, less people will empathize with each other in favor of their social standing, whether they realize they are distancing themselves from others or not. The solution is not to never attempt to empathize with others—the solution is to be aware at all times, to put morality and genuine connections above appearances of being part of a collective group. So the next time a T.V. personality attempts to sway you to his or her side, an exclusive group tempts you into joining in, or a new trend beckons you to participate, think carefully about what you’re getting into. Compare your situation to the various instances I mentioned from the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Finally, consider your desire for connections with others. Will you truly achieve empathy by risking letting certain groups/personalities/trends control you? Think critically, stick to your beliefs, and don’t be afraid to connect with others—just keep an eye out for those who seek to manipulate your good intentions.

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 1968. The Random House Publishing Group, 1996.

“empathy.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2016. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

Grasgreen, Allie. “Empathizing 101.” Inside Higher Ed, 24 Nov. 2010, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/24/empathy. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016

Surugue, Léa. “Reading books and watching films makes you kinder in real life.” International Business Times, 19 July 2016, https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/reading-books-watching-films-makes-you-kinder-real-life-1571434#annotations:_MOsQlpyEeaiesf9ed4wVw. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.

Disability and Humanity

Every day, more and more people come into a disability. Whether they’re born with an extra chromosome, develop anxiety from the stresses of the world, or needing to amputate a limb due to an injury; disability is present all around us today. With this omnipresence of disability, one would think that deformities and disabilities would be generally accepted. That assumption would be wrong in our current society. In today’s community, disability is viewed as an outlier, a deviation from the norm (Davis 6). If someone were to walk by a man in a wheelchair on the street, they would stare and gawk as though his incapability to walk made him a freak of nature; anything but a human being. But, the disabled are still people. They can empathize with others, they can still function in society in many different ways, and they can contribute to the world around them. Better yet, they can want to contribute to the world that they live in to make meaning of their existence. If they lack the ability to do so, there are programs that can teach and rehabilitate the disabled to help them to learn for the very first time or relearn skills that would allow them to do what they can to pitch into their society. Our differences o not make us any more or less human. Being different is a part of being human.

A part of being human is the ability to empathize with others. Empathy follows any and every tragedy in one way or another. Tim Recuber points out that empathy is what drives “efforts at social justice”. Recuber notes a personal experience following the Orlando shooting at the Pulse nightclub. “I experienced an intense form of empathy for the victims and their families… I read the news from a position of safety and security, but still felt that empty pit in my stomach…” (What Becomes of Empathy?). Tim sno relations nor any connections to anyone impacted by the shooting and yet his heart goes out toward the victims and their families. Why? Because he is a full functioning human being? No. Because he is a human being.

Philip K. Dick defines being human by characters’ ability to empathize in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. In the novel, androids are disguising themselves as humans. The only way to tell the ever advancing technology that is the Nexus-6 line of androids from humans is their ability to empathize, or lack thereof. An examination called the Voight-Kampff Empathy Test would be given to those suspected of being an android via a series of questions designed to trigger one’s empathy. If one were to fail the examination, they were assumed to be an android. But sometimes, a “special” would fail the exam (Dick).

“Specials” of Dick’s world in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are those that have been impacted by the radiation. They are considered “disabled” because they have become genetically defective from their exposure to the radiation. Their intelligence may be deteriorated or other such abnormalities can develop, thus a medical examination will label them as a “special” (Dick). In today’s society there are numerous conditions where one’s ability to empathize is diminished such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or sociopathic tendencies but they can go unnoticed in society when managed properly. Recuber explains that being able to identify with other humans creates a special connection, a bond, between all humans, no matter their physical distance (What Becomes of Empathy?). A sense of understanding develops across the miles of land and sea.

However, there is no sense of understanding in Dick’s fictitious world between the specials and those who remain unaffected by the radioactive dust. Specials are portrayed as outcasts due to their tainted genetics, below average IQ scores, and on occasion, an inability to empathize. These specials are sterilized and no longer have the opportunity to immigrate to the radiation free colonies on Mars. The specials may be below average in terms of intelligence but they are still people. Isidore, a special in Dick’s novel, can still function in society well enough to support himself. He held a job for a time and his “condition” was only evident through a stutter. An open display of being human by empathizing in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is to care for an animal. Isidore, for a short period of time, cared for a spider and was mortified when his companion began to mutilate it. Yes, Isidore the special, the disabled, doesn’t conform to the norm of society but he is still a functioning asset of the human population.

Those who face disablement may not view their impairment as a disability but rather as a minor difference. Lennard Davis opens his chapter on “Constructing Normalcy” by emphasizing that “the ‘problem’ is not the person with disabilities; the problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the ‘problem’ of the disabled person” (Davis 3). Sunaura Taylor has arthrogryposis and she has adapted to her condition in many ways. While she is wheelchair bound she can still function in society, just with a different approach than those who are not “disabled”. Her joints do not work normally so she has trouble picking things up but that does not stop her. When she goes to a coffee shop, she can pick up her cup with her mouth since she doesn’t have the necessary ability to do so with her hands. She can also ask for assistance to bring her cup to her table or she could get a tool that could help her carry things (Examined Life).

There are many other prevalent disabilities in today’s society; blindness and deafness are just two of the many conditions. Those who have issues with their hearing or vision can get implants and surgeries to correct their “problems” or they can learn to adapt to their conditions. The people with hearing impairments can learn to read lips instead of relying on their auditory sense. Those with vision impairments can learn to read by touch and to navigate their world by sound and touch by developing a skill similar to echolocation.

Many people believe that the disabled couldn’t possibly contribute to the world but they are wrong. Those who are blind could become exemplary telephone operators or a position that involves the use of touch and hearing to be completed effectively. Those who are deaf could become fantastic visual editors or writers. The disabled can always learn to take their disability and turn the side effects into a positive. They can “develop abilities that other people lack” and thus they can balance out the disadvantages of their condition with these abilities (Bognar 47).

There are an almost infinite amount of different forms of rehabilitation and treatment for different handicaps across the globe. People can be taught to walk on prosthetics and can learn how to formulate speech; basic skills necessary to navigate in today’s society. Those who can’t do or learn these sorts of tasks are often looked down upon because they are “different”; they are defective. Having a disability shouldn’t impair one’s ability to be a human being and contribute to society but rather it should change the approach to the contribution. Isidore was an exemplary human being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? who does his best to take part in his community. Being human is about doing your best to be an asset to society and to always strive to be a better person.

The disabled are still people, whether they are emotionally, mentally, or physically handicapped. While they are technically classified as people, they are still viewed as different, as not normal; as sub-human. Lennard Davis says in “Constructing Normalcy” that the problem is not the person but rather the way that normalcy is defined in context to the ideal in society (4). What Davis is saying is that the concept of the norm is what is labeling the person as a problem, as different. The person is still considered a human being but they are different; an outlier on the bell curve of the human norm (6). Davis references that “deviations mor or less great from the [average] have constituted ugliness in body as well as vice in morals and a state of sickness with regard to the constitution” (5). So, this concept of the norm is what sets apart those with disabilities or differences from the average person.

Being human involves a cognitive decision on whether or not to try. It is up to the individual to employ their ability to contribute to their society. Greg Bognar points out that disability can impact quality of life and not just be a mild inconvenience that can be overcome. There are medical conditions that can cause constant agonizing pain, making life seem not worth living (46). This stigma does not come from the outside source of society but from within the disabled person. Bognar goes on to acknowledge possible arguments such as the disabled not feeling at a disadvantage and that it is those who do not share the condition that consider the disabled as afflicted. He also describes how those facing disability can adapt to their disability. With this acknowledgment, he goes on to differentiate that some conditions cannot be adapted to but all disabilities can be adjusted to (46-47). Bognar concludes that disability is simply another part of human characteristics such as gender and race. Just like of characteristics that cannot be controlled, there is discrimination and prejudice towards the disabled just as there is towards females and other similar case (48).

Bognar never hit back on the point that the disabled may feel that their disability isn’t just a mild setback but rather something not worth living through. There is still a conscious decision that has to be made in this regard. The disabled person is allowing their self to lose hope for a possible treatment or cure for their condition. They can hold onto that hope and can lead by example for those with similar or the same condition or they can give up and cast another shadow over the debilitating condition that they had been fighting. Treatment is a two way street. There is the one way for the doctors and the physical treatment and the other way is for the disabled to keep heart. If the disabled person just accepts that they are going to die then their body will not fight as hard to survive and the attempts at treatment may prove less effective. These tough decisions and actions are all a part of being human. Choosing to fight through and adapt to the disability is just the same as fighting through a hardship in everyday life.

The disabled may be viewed as deviations from the norm and thus different and unapproachable. Empathy bridges the gap between all human beings. If an able bodied person were to actively empathize with their fellow humans, they’d be able to understand their plight and make the world more welcoming to the disabled. The disabled will not be viewed as freaks of nature but as the human beings that they are. Their efforts to participate and contribute to society will become more welcome and the world would be much better at understanding its patrons. The world will be better with the disabled’s different abilities and a stronger community will be forged. Humanity and empathy will unite the world into one.

Works Cited

Bognar, Greg. “Is Disability Mere Difference?” J Med Ethics, vol. 42, no. 1, 2015, pp. 46-49.

Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century.” The Disability Studies Reader, Routledge, New York, 2006.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Ballantine Books, 1996.

“Examined Life – Judith Butler & Sunaura Taylor 720p.avi.” YouTube, uploaded by 黃小竹, 6 Oct. 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE.

Recuber, Tim. “What Becomes of Empathy?” Cyborgology, 20 July 2016. www.thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2016/07/20/what-becomes-of-empathy/. Accessed 1 Sept. 2016.