Miss Emily admits that she has feelings of revulsion towards the children at Hailsham. Why do you supposed that is? Does she see the children as less than human? Are they? What does it mean to be human?
This section of the novel breaks my heart. I think that it is even more impactful because Kathy and Tommy do not see themselves, or their peers, as something repulsive. In other words, they do not understand the causes of such feelings. I find it interesting that when explaining the gallery, Miss Emily notes that it was to prove that students at Hailstorm had souls (260). Perhaps, in this world, to be human, one must also have a soul, which many believe these students are without. It is possible that by having a soul, these individuals would gain value and worth in the eyes of society. However, Miss Emily does not say that they were trying to prove that the students are human, which makes me wonder the degree to which she believes them to be the same kind of human as her and Madame. In this way, it may be possible that the students are considered to be a lower level of human than others. A possible explanation for this would be that people like Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy are clones. That said, they are also "modeled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps." (166). Perhaps, in this way, it is not just how these individuals came to be that makes them a lesser version of humans to Miss Emily and Madame, but also the roots of their genetic origins.
Hey Nicole, I totally agree with you. In the eyes of the kids who grew up at Hailsham they were as human as they could be, but the guardians seemed to see them as less they human or were even scared of them. "we're all afraid of you." (269), is just one of the many things Miss Emily says to Kathy and Tommy when they meet at the end of the novel, and it goes to shoe just how much the "regular humans" feared these students. while they are scared of them they see them as less them human because as you mentioned they are modeled after "trash".
I think the way in which the students modeled ("Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps") and the feelings of being less human can be applied to our society. Unfortunately, those who undergo struggles in their lives such as those who have addiction problems or work in sex work are often viewed by others as "less human" because they took a path deemed unacceptable by society. I definitely do not think this is the case for all but I do think it is prevalent in our society. For example with sex work, some may view sex workers as less human because of stigmas such as it being immoral and degrading. This largely ignores the human emotions that led the person to sex work, such as love for their children who they have to feed, fear about being able to earn money, anxiety about finding a job. The same thing can be applied to those with addiction, simply regarding them as less than human ignores human emotions and biology. For example, some people are genetically more likely to have addictions, maybe some do drugs because of the trauma they endured in the past, or maybe their choices came from the nurture they were given and the environment they grew up in. Again, I definitely do not think that this is across all of our society, but I definitely think that society tends to treat, view and associate these types of people with being "less than human". It truly is heartbreaking.
Hey Emily! I totally agree with you! This novel touches on dehumanization of oppressed groups like people addicted to drugs and alcohol, prostitutes, etc. and in a way the students were dehumanizing themselves by noticing how dehumanized these people were in society. They were outcasts. Miss Emily tries to help others see that the children of Hailsham had souls, but deep down, I'm not sure she saw them as humans herself, she was trying to show they too felt, but never succeeded to prove that they were humans and maybe that's because she didn't completely believe it herself. I personally believe that the students were human, they have all the same biological conditions apart from not being able to have children and they are sentient beings, they feel emotion and this is clarified when you see how Tommy's and Kath's relationship develops. They feel the pain and the good. They are cloned from humans to give donations to humans and in a way raised to believe that they are less than human while realistically they should also be treated as humans, because they are. The practice that the government in charge is doing is outrageous, and that's an ethical debate that's already been discussed. It's not because one was cloned that they don't deserve basic human rights and shouldn't be treated as a human should. I also want to bring to the table that when the children followed the possible to a shop they were treated normally by the people who didn't know they were students of Hailsham. I feel like this shows how the bias works, it's a bit like in our lives. As an example to support my point, when an exotic dancer is off work, they are regular people after all, they are dancing and making a living for themselves and their families, yet people are quick to judge when they learn that someone is an exotic dancer and they are dehumanized for selling their bodies, but if no one knows, they treat this person with the same respect as they would treat someone else who isn't an exotic dancer. With this being said, I believe that the way people sees the 'donors' is a social construct just like in our society we were socially conditioned to believe that sex work is degrading and bad when it's actually just a way to make a living.
Hello Nicole!
That is a very interesting idea- that it is not just that they are clones that repulses people but that they were cloned from "lowlife" individuals. I had not thought of it that way and you make a very interesting point. I wonder why this was so. Would no one else volunteer for the gig of donating their DNA for clone making or, is this such a sick society that medical professionals simply stole DNA from unsuspecting drug addicts, drunks, and prostitutes when they weren't paying attention? Interesting avenue Nicole, thank you!
That is a very interesting idea- that it is not just that they are clones that repulses people but that they were cloned from "lowlife" individuals. I had not thought of it that way and you make a very interesting point. I wonder why this was so. Would no one else volunteer for the gig of donating their DNA for clone making or, is this such a sick society that medical professionals simply stole DNA from unsuspecting drug addicts, drunks, and prostitutes when they weren't paying attention? Interesting avenue Nicole, thank you!
This is a very good point to add Paytra! I just accepted that they used this kind of DNA for all the children but I did not think as to why they only used this kind of DNA. I think it probably has to go along with their fate and being less human. I think it is supposed to make the children's fate more "acceptable" because they are to be modeled off people deemed bad for society.
Hi Paytra,
I actually had similar thoughts on this as well. It makes me wonder about the roots of this project and why the cloning was off those on the lower rungs of society. It also makes me wonder who benefits from these programs. Are those who get cloned the ones that benefit from these scientific advancements? I doubt that is the case.
I actually had similar thoughts on this as well. It makes me wonder about the roots of this project and why the cloning was off those on the lower rungs of society. It also makes me wonder who benefits from these programs. Are those who get cloned the ones that benefit from these scientific advancements? I doubt that is the case.
Hi Nicole!
I really like your point that it is those in the lower rungs of society that are suffering, and this is represents our society as it is today. The clones are not the ones benefitting, and the clones being modelled after "trash" further illustrates the blatant disregard for those that are not in positions of power or that aren't born in privileged families.
I really like your point that it is those in the lower rungs of society that are suffering, and this is represents our society as it is today. The clones are not the ones benefitting, and the clones being modelled after "trash" further illustrates the blatant disregard for those that are not in positions of power or that aren't born in privileged families.
Hi Nicole,
I agree with you, this book was a really hard read for me emotionally. The children clearly show that they themselves are people in every way possible, treating them any differently seems immoral and wrong. The idea that these children are aware that eventually they will be harvested for their organs and die, but its a full cycle for their life seems unethical, clone or not. The reality is that a close would be similar to having a child, they are not you, you are not them, you just share DNA and that gives you no rights to harvest them for organs, just like it would be immoral to do that to a child. This book reminded me of My Sister's Keeper, a novel and movie where parents forced the organ donation of one child for another, putting them through painful surgeries and not respecting the bodily autonomy that every person deserves.
I agree with you, this book was a really hard read for me emotionally. The children clearly show that they themselves are people in every way possible, treating them any differently seems immoral and wrong. The idea that these children are aware that eventually they will be harvested for their organs and die, but its a full cycle for their life seems unethical, clone or not. The reality is that a close would be similar to having a child, they are not you, you are not them, you just share DNA and that gives you no rights to harvest them for organs, just like it would be immoral to do that to a child. This book reminded me of My Sister's Keeper, a novel and movie where parents forced the organ donation of one child for another, putting them through painful surgeries and not respecting the bodily autonomy that every person deserves.
Thinking about the concept of what means to be human reminds of the debate on abortion access. One of the main arguments for pro-lifers is the fact that once the fetus has a heartbeat is life and therefore is a crime to kill it. If we went with this logic wouldn't these clones be human? They are ALIVE, have heartbeats and souls. In my opinion, having the capacity to make thoughts and feel emotions makes you human. The scenes of Kathy dancing and imagining the story of the baby, or even feeling love for Tommy, are all in my opinion characteristics of humanity.
Hi Sara,
These are some great points. What you mentioned about Kathy made me wonder if Madame thought of Kathy as more human because she saw her swaying with the "baby." It also makes me wonder why Madame and Miss Emily tried so hard to protect these students even though they did not see them as human. Similarly, if this is how donors are treated by those at Hailsham who are trying to advocate on their behavior while still being repulsed, what was it like in other "schools"?
These are some great points. What you mentioned about Kathy made me wonder if Madame thought of Kathy as more human because she saw her swaying with the "baby." It also makes me wonder why Madame and Miss Emily tried so hard to protect these students even though they did not see them as human. Similarly, if this is how donors are treated by those at Hailsham who are trying to advocate on their behavior while still being repulsed, what was it like in other "schools"?
Hi Nicole,
I wonder too! Although it seems that Madame didn't really think of a scenario but rather was struck by the emotion. Kathy was showcasing. I think morality def plays a role, even if they were disgusted there was a sense of needing to treat them with a minimum dose of humanity. I definitely didn't want to tip my toes to think of the other school because it seemed like it may have been awful, or at least a lack of education and care for the children.
I wonder too! Although it seems that Madame didn't really think of a scenario but rather was struck by the emotion. Kathy was showcasing. I think morality def plays a role, even if they were disgusted there was a sense of needing to treat them with a minimum dose of humanity. I definitely didn't want to tip my toes to think of the other school because it seemed like it may have been awful, or at least a lack of education and care for the children.
Hello Sara!
These are some great humanity factors that you brought to light. I agree with you completely. These children are alive, they are more developed than a fetus, they are intelligent and possess emotions. They are clearly human and it makes me so sad they were ever doubted.
These are some great humanity factors that you brought to light. I agree with you completely. These children are alive, they are more developed than a fetus, they are intelligent and possess emotions. They are clearly human and it makes me so sad they were ever doubted.
Hey Sara! I really like your analysis with the debate on abortion access. I too believe that what makes you human is the capacity to make thoughts and feel emotions, but this is certainly an argument that could be used in order to help the Hailsham students because they fit all criteria whether you believe being human is having a beating heart or if it's more due to the emotional and sentient capacities of an individual.
On the point that what makes you human is the ability to make thoughts. IDK, gang. What about people in comas? Or suffering from dementia and are no longer coherent. Babies? Babies don't have thoughts or memory until 5 months old or so.
Now, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying think of the police implications. I also assign an article in my philosophy of human rights course that suggests human rights should be extended to all those who are sentient so your argument is sound. That said, I once wrote an article on Westworld (great show), looking at the future of robotics and the rights of those who are not natural humans. Based on Rorty and your arguments above, it suggests that the robots from Westworld would be considered humans for rights protection purposes. Maybe they should be. I wouldn't disagree. Are you willing to say, ok, if robots become so advanced they are sentient with their own thoughts, they will be considered humans.
Some psychologists suggest it is our ability to experience pleasure and pain is key to unlocking what makes us human and it is our ability to suffer that is a mark of humanity.
So, are we still sticking with thoughts and emotions make us human or should we revise it? I think we can revise it and still include our clones.
I'm not one to pump my tires, but you can read more on my thoughts here:
http://journaldialogue.org/tag/westworld/
Now, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying think of the police implications. I also assign an article in my philosophy of human rights course that suggests human rights should be extended to all those who are sentient so your argument is sound. That said, I once wrote an article on Westworld (great show), looking at the future of robotics and the rights of those who are not natural humans. Based on Rorty and your arguments above, it suggests that the robots from Westworld would be considered humans for rights protection purposes. Maybe they should be. I wouldn't disagree. Are you willing to say, ok, if robots become so advanced they are sentient with their own thoughts, they will be considered humans.
Some psychologists suggest it is our ability to experience pleasure and pain is key to unlocking what makes us human and it is our ability to suffer that is a mark of humanity.
So, are we still sticking with thoughts and emotions make us human or should we revise it? I think we can revise it and still include our clones.
I'm not one to pump my tires, but you can read more on my thoughts here:
http://journaldialogue.org/tag/westworld/
I think Miss Emily views the children as less than human because of society's implied definition of what is considered human. This may not be an accurate comparison but it is like a child looking at a disabled person and thinking that something is wrong with that person versus thinking that they are just differently abled. Emily, just like every other product of society only sees the conventional or normal as what is and the clones are too unconventional to be what is. While I would regard Miss Emily's ability to take care of the children despite how she feels inside making her 'better' than the rest, I do think she still looks at them as less than human. She expresses it herself when she says "we're all afraid of you" (269). She, just like most is afraid of the unfamiliar.
When asked what should be considered human I think when I heard "behave like a human being" and it referred to using emotions in our actions or acting with empathy. I think a human being is one that has the ability to feel physically, have feelings and to be responsive to all feelings. By this view I would extend it to clones, especially those depicted in Never Let Me Go. I do think it is difficult to define a human because there is room for interpretation as some would define animals as also being able to do that
When asked what should be considered human I think when I heard "behave like a human being" and it referred to using emotions in our actions or acting with empathy. I think a human being is one that has the ability to feel physically, have feelings and to be responsive to all feelings. By this view I would extend it to clones, especially those depicted in Never Let Me Go. I do think it is difficult to define a human because there is room for interpretation as some would define animals as also being able to do that
This is a really good question. I remember philosophy of human rights, and now I'm debating within myself things only that class made me question. After thinking more and more about it I realized. I don't believe that sentience, memories or the capacity to make memories is what makes us human anymore, it's only a function of the brain. I believe we are human because we were born human or homo sapiens if you prefer the scientific name and that being human is due to your DNA. In example, when someone dies, their body is still human, just not alive, so it cannot be a matter of being alive or not. This may be controversial, but this way of explaining it would include that even robots would be able to have rights, which is a side I don't like to take, but for the sake of this explanation I have to. After all we give rights to species that aren't human beings, so the only thing that makes us human is the fact that we were born in the species of homo sapiens. An unborn foetus is still human because of its DNA, I'm not saying it's wrong or right to remove a foetus that's for another debate, just that scientifically it's still part of the human species. Therefore the DNA is what makes us humans, which concludes that the Hailsham students were also human because their DNA also is. This also explains that rights should not be exclusive to humans, because we are giving rights to other species.
Hello Dr. Dipoalo,
You brought a point that definitely made me rethink my whole idea of what humanity means. I am just wondering about the concept of pleasure and pain being the threshold for humanity, but aren't animals capable of experiencing pleasure and pain?
You brought a point that definitely made me rethink my whole idea of what humanity means. I am just wondering about the concept of pleasure and pain being the threshold for humanity, but aren't animals capable of experiencing pleasure and pain?
Hi Annabelle,
Your response is very though provoking. There is a relationship between cloning and abortion access. The questions of when life begins or what is a human being are so relevant.
Your response is very though provoking. There is a relationship between cloning and abortion access. The questions of when life begins or what is a human being are so relevant.
Hi Sara!
That is something I did not think of and that's actually really interesting. I completely agree with you that under the standard used by pro-lifers, clones are fully humans. They have the factors we consider to be human qualities. They experience sorrow, heartbreak and even have dreams.
That is something I did not think of and that's actually really interesting. I completely agree with you that under the standard used by pro-lifers, clones are fully humans. They have the factors we consider to be human qualities. They experience sorrow, heartbreak and even have dreams.
I really like your connection to abortion and "pro-life" arguments here. I also think that the students in the novel are considered human because of these human-like feelings and emotions. The difference between pro-life in regards to abortion as compared to the determination of the students being human, is that fetuses are not yet born and do not have the capacity to choose or think for themselves. The clones in the novel instead carry all of those qualities. Similar to ethnic cleansing and genocide in our own societies we see around the world, the government figures out a way in this novel to justify the death of the students through dehumanizing them and labeling them merely as "clones" designed to benefit humans through organ harvesting.
I believe Miss Emily saw them as more than clones unlike seemingly the majority of the population yet still she didn't see them quite as human. She refers to them only as students and never goes on to say Hailsham and the gallery were meant to prove the students as humans, instead, the goal was to prove they had souls and were individuals maybe different than the people they were cloned from. Them also being cloned from what was referenced as "trash" can also be an explanation for the disgust people have towards them whereas perhaps if they were cloned from famous actors or scientists, maybe a Nobel peace prize winner they could be treated completely differently.
Hello Emily!
I really like your analysis of Miss Emily here. I agree with you, while she is clearly more friend than foe to the students, I still don't think she sees the students on the same level as her. Miss Emily is still fundamentally prejudiced as is the rest of the world. I also really like your comparison with the Nobel Peace Prize. That is super interesting to think about and you might be right. Perhaps if they were cloning geniuses then instead of donating their organs like animals, they could be helping to advance contemporary science and technology.
I really like your analysis of Miss Emily here. I agree with you, while she is clearly more friend than foe to the students, I still don't think she sees the students on the same level as her. Miss Emily is still fundamentally prejudiced as is the rest of the world. I also really like your comparison with the Nobel Peace Prize. That is super interesting to think about and you might be right. Perhaps if they were cloning geniuses then instead of donating their organs like animals, they could be helping to advance contemporary science and technology.
I believe clones are human beings. They are capable of thought and experience emotions just as like individual conceived the normal way. Their ability to have complex thoughts, to empathize and have dreams and aspirations make them human. Any attempt to dehumanize them or say they are not real children can be seen as the guardians trying to justify their involvement in the cruel and inhumane treatment of children.
This reminds me of a tactic used in genocide. The targeted group is dehumanized so that killing them is not perceived as an injustice. If Kathy and the other children are not considered real children then there is nothing wrong with taking their organs without their consent and ultimately killing them.
This reminds me of a tactic used in genocide. The targeted group is dehumanized so that killing them is not perceived as an injustice. If Kathy and the other children are not considered real children then there is nothing wrong with taking their organs without their consent and ultimately killing them.
I found this to be a very significant topic because not only were the characters fully immersed in the debate if donors were considered humans or not but so were the readers, every step of the novel it had us toying back and forth with both sides of the debate. Ishiguro uses the words such as donor, shadow, clone but also uses words like chidden, or even going as far as giving them names to fully conceptualize the lives of the donors which never explicitly chooses a side for them. Due to the need that donors were created to subside, this inherently label donor as supporter of human as their sole purpose is now to stand behind the humans and support them in achieving a long fruitful life. This now becomes one of the reasons humans dislike donors because they are products of other humans playing god which would go against many religions, additionally if they were supposed consider the donors human it would confirmed humanity's inhumane way of avoiding death by subsequently picking a choosing who gets to be life once again playing god.