The Testing of Racheal in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
To me, there is one reason why the Viogt-Kampff test that was administered to Rachael in chapter five is particularly interesting.
What makes it It is that many contemporary
readers would likely fail it. The reason I say this is because most of the
scenarios that are presented to us are, in one way or another, practices of
animal cruelty that are commonplace in today’s world. Because these acts of
cruelty are so commonplace we are not likely to feel epithetic when
represented with them. The Viogt-Kampff test is a test that was designed to
detect androids. It does so by looking for the one thing that androids
supposedly do not have: empathy. If one fails to respond empathetically to the
scenarios in this test one is declared an android. Because of lack of empathy
for animals, we would then be classified as androids. Because of this, this book
makes particularly interesting statements about the human perception of
animals. In this essay, I will particularly look at how Philip K. Dick portrays
the relationship between humans and animals and how this relates to the android and
the lack of empathy towards animals.
One Viogt-Kampff scenarios that is particularly
interesting, is the scenario with the girl and the bearskin rug:
“In a magazine you come across a full-page color picture of a nude girl.” He paused.
“Is this testing whether I’m an android,” Rachael asked tartly, “or whether I’m a homosexual?” the gauges did not register.
He continued, “Your Husband likes the picture.” Still the gauge failed to indicate a reaction. “The girl is. “The girl,” he added, “is lying face down on a large and beautiful bearskin rug.” The gauges remained inert, and he said to himself, An android response. Failing to detect the major element, the dead animal pelt. Her-its-mind is concentrating on other factors. “Your husband hangs the picture up the wall of his study,” he finished and this time the needles moved.
“I certainly wouldn’t let him,” Racheal said. (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
This scenario also is particularly interesting
seeing as here we see an android respond to the question in a way that would
not only be preserved as normal but also would be expected. We would expect
that a wife would not like it if their husband took an interest in other women.
We would therefore expect her first response to be that she would not allow it.
Although in the context of the book, this is utterly ghastly. Most humans would
have responded exactly like Racheal in this particular situation. We see
Deckard thinking that Rachael has failed to detect the major element. Although
for most people the naked girl would be the major element and not the bear skin
rug. Because we failed to detect this major element we too are lacking in
empathy. This scenario shows us how human-centered, we humans are. We are
more worried about our own problems than the lives of animals. In this scenario, Rachael is diagnosed as an android she is focusing on “other factors” than what
is socially expected of her. This is the trend that all the scenarios in this
test follow. Racheal fails to understand the ethical code of society and thus
she is branded as having a lack of empathy. It is because of this otherness
that she is diagnosed as something inferior and thus is not fit to be part
of society.
The first scenario that is presented to us is
related to bugs. In the first scenario, we see an example of a boy killing and
collecting butterflies. The first scenario is:
“You have a little boy and he shows you his butterfly collection, including his killing jar.” (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
In our world, this is perfectly acceptable
behavior. Many people collect butterflies. Killing butterflies would thus not
necessarily be something that would cause people to feel empathetic. The
killing of bugs is extremely common in today’s world. We even
have products (such as poisons) that are manufactured for the specific purpose
of killing bugs. How then can we then be expected to pass an empathy test for a
question like this?
But what, then, is this scenario doing in this
test? Why are the people of Philip K. Dick’s world expected to feel empathetic
towards bugs? The clue lies in Racheal’s response to this question:
"I’d take him to the doctor.” (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
In this world, butterflies are so rare and
valuable that it is utterly socially unacceptable for someone to kill them. It
would be thought that only someone who is mentally ill would kill them. It
therefore would be expected that Rachael would take someone who would do such a
thing to the doctor. In our world bugs are extremely plentiful, we therefore
cannot see any harm in killing them, but the same cannot be said for the world
that Phillip K. Dick describes. Nearly all the animals are extinct, even small
things like bugs. A perfect example of what animals (even insects that are
thought of as disgusting and beneath our contempt) mean to the people of Philip
K. Dicks world can be found in chapter eight: the example is of Isidore’s
discovery of the spider. The spider is significant because of its rarity:
The spider he thought. Maybe it had been the last spider on Earth. (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
One can hardly imagine that something as common
as a spider would go extinct. When one thinks of animals going extinct, one
normally does not think about small things such as bugs. Because they are
so numerous. But in Philip K. Dick’ presents us with a world where man has even
caused spiders to go extinct. On the step ahead of him something small moved in
the dust. Instantly he dropped the suitcase; he whipped out a plastic medicine
bottle, which, like everyone else, he carried just for just this. A spider,
undistinguished but alive. (Philip K. Dick, 1999) Everyone in this world
carries a bottle with them for the purpose of catching and conserving any
animal they might find. In our world, we have exactly the opposite. Nearly
everyone has one or another form of poison in their home for the purpose of
killing. There is an antithesis in the attitude towards animals in our world and
the one created by Philip K. Dick the reader. Because of this, the reader
might start to question his own attitude towards animals. Both the rarity and
the way people treasure them in ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ makes one
realize just how fragile earth ecology is and it conveys a message that if we
are not careful, we too one day might live in a world where nearly all animals
have gone extinct.
But Racheal’s response to the scenario with the
wasp contrasts completely with that of the next scenario.
“You’re sitting watching TV,” he continued, “and suddenly you discover a wasp crawling on your wrist.” Rachael said, “I’d kill it.” (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
Here Racheal says that she would do exactly what
she would have taken the boy to the doctor for in the previous question. In our
world, this would have been a perfectly acceptable as well as the expected
response, but in the context of the book, this would have been absolutely
deplorable. Because Racheal responds correctly to one question, but incorrectly
to another we can see that she is beginning to understand the social norms of
her world, but that she does not yet fully understand them. We can see something
similar occurring with Pris and the spider. She cuts four of the spider’s legs
off to see if it could function with only four. When Isidore pleads that she
should not mutilate it she responds with: “Is it worth something.” (Philip K.
Dick, 1999)
Pris does not understand that the spider is worth
something because of its rarity. All she is concerned about is the amount of
money that it’s worth. This means that what makes androids stand out is not
necessarily their lack of empathy, but their lack of cultural understanding. In
our world spiders and wasps (and most other bugs) are viewed as disgusting and
beneath our contempt and it is considered a normal human response to kill them
even without a particularly good reason. Androids have a similar view towards
bugs than we do.
This cutting of the spider’s legs to see if it
could still function without four legs is something one would expect a child to
do. Androids are children in a certain sense: they do not understand the social
norms of their world because they have never been thought to feel empathy. The
fact of the matter is that children can sometimes be quite selfish and even
sadistic and destructive at times before they are told to feel empathy for
others. We can see Pris’s childlike joy when she discovers the spider:
“Let’s see it… I’ve never seen a spider… All those legs. Why’s it need so many legs J.R.?” (Philip K. Dick, 1999)
It is clear that she is quite interested in the
spider. We can see this in the way that she immediately diverts her attention
to the spider. She even neglects to watch The Buster Friendly Show when he
makes his big announcement about Mercerism, in which it is declared that Mercer
is a fraud. This announcement is very important to the androids, but she is so
infatuated with the spider that she neglects to watch it. This quote shows us
the childlike joy she finds in the spider. We would not expect an adult to act
in this way and we can also see that Pris clearly does not understand that she
has done something wrong. When Isidore drowns the spider, she understands that
he is upset, but she cannot understand why. She thinks that Isidore’s reaction
is not evidence of a serious problem. She says: He’ll get over it.” Indicating
that she considers this whole affair to be a somewhat trivial matter.
While in reality Isidore’s whole world has been shattered. She does not
understand complex human emotions. This is similar to a child struggling to
understand the pain of others. Simply because children like Androids do not
have much experience with these emotions seeing as both have only been alive
for a comparatively short amount of time. Seeing as androids were made as
adults, they never had undergone the normal education a child receives, and
they therefore never learned the social and cultural norms other people have and
therefore they behave like children. This may also be related to their lack of
empathy: they may not be able to empathize with others because they were never
taught to do so and because they die so young, they do not have sufficient
time in which to learn the cultural norms as well as empathy. According to
Racheal androids have a lifespan of only four years.
In some ways, androids therefore are us the
readers: like androids, we do not understand the dynamics with which this world
operates. Like androids, we are thrust into the world of Do Androids Dream of
Electric sheep without being born into it. We are mere visitors and we never
fully understand the culture with which the world operates. We therefore find
this obsession completely alien and strange and possibly even
comprehensible, just like Racheal. Before we read the book we are in exactly the same position as the androids: we are not necessarily aware of just how
fragile the earth’s ecology is. We can hardly imagine a world wherein there are no
animals and yet we have a lack of empathy towards them.
In the testing of Racheal, we learn that people
who kill animals are viewed as being mentally ill in this world. But if the
readers are like androids because they would likely fail the test does this
make them mentally ill as well? Because this book links the reader with
androids (beings that are incapable of empathy and there), the reader must feel
that there is something wrong with him: his lack of empathy towards animals.
Because of this, the reader is encouraged to rethink his own perception of
animals and consider. The reader is encouraged to think that animals are in
fact deserving of our empathy.
Bibliography
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep? (Great Briton,1999)
Image taken from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/85385780@N03/7824075248
copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024
Please leave a comment. I would love to hear what you think of my post. I am always open to constructive criticism.
ReplyDelete