Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[akfarrar]

Two posts from my blog and a discussion going on over on the OU/BBC discussion board:

1.

What is an android?

If you strip away the pseudo-scientific gobbledegook, and come to the realisation that androids not only don't exist, but have nothing to do with science, what are you left with?

Personification.

Androids are a literary device - a personification (possibly the ultimate personification).

Which brings us to the question, what do they personify?

Dick seems to have taken the idea of a force, let us call it intellect - although I am not happy with that - and given it as the major component of android persona. Because it is a full personification and not a simple representation, the android needs to be given a much more rounded character - so cruelty is thrown in, and ambition; there is a lust for power and even sexual satisfaction.

But, as with all personification, it is an abstraction - anything more would take the android into full humanity.

The point of personification might be to bring similarities to the fore - but the device doesn't work unless there is a significant difference - we love to admire the cleverness of the authors wit in bringing the sweet and the sour together.

Interesting that the question, 'What makes us human?' comes to mind: Should we be asking, 'What stops the androids from breaking out of the mould of personification?'

(Sorry, double excess - espresso and leisure time.)


2.

Been watching TV again!

This one was a design programme - and a couple of 'scientists pointed out we like symetry because the human face is symetrical.

An aside was, 'the most satisfying sort of column is a caryatyd': Empathy.

Loud church bells, explosions and fireworks.

The difference between the android and the human is empathy.

But, the android is a personification - what is personification but empathy?

Is there a delicious paradox at the heart of, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'?

[FONT=&quot]Are we attracted to the android because we empathise with its humanness: But, it is its lack of empathy that stops it from being human.
[/FONT]

 

[j d worthington]

First: Some interesting thoughts here. However, there are a couple of points I'd like to address. The first is your opening question: "What is an android?"

Well, if you're speaking strictly of the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, then we're talking about a particular choice of metaphor. If we're speaking in the broader sense, the definition is "an automaton in the form of a human being", the word was coined ca. 1720-1730, from Neo-Latin androides, a compound word using andr-, a variant of andro- (a combining form meaning "male," used in the formation of compound words, from Gk. andro(s), gen. of aner man; aking to Skt. nar-, Albanian njeri, person, L. Nero) and "-oid", meaning "resembling"; it was originally coined for the mechanical toys or automata that were so popular in the eighteenth century, becoming adopted by writers later on to differentiate betwen the "mechanical men," or robots of obvious metallic structure, and those given a more "human" appearance, including synthetic (or organic) skin, hair, eyes, etc. (as someone else has mentioned, the "robots" in Karel Capek's R.U.R. are in fact androids rather than the more common -- at that time -- image of mechanical men); though the term has been used more broadly to include both, as long as they had the general structure of a human being. Most generally, though, it has been used as a metaphor for an underclass of one form or another; marginalized human beings.

Interesting that the question, 'What makes us human?' comes to mind: Should we be asking, 'What stops the androids from breaking out of the mould of personification?'

The difference between the android and the human is empathy.

But, the android is a personification - what is personification but empathy?

Is there a delicious paradox at the heart of, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'?

[FONT=&quot]Are we attracted to the android because we empathise with its humanness: But, it is its lack of empathy that stops it from being human.[/FONT]

And here I think we get to the heart of the matter... it isn't that the androids lack empathy... their caring for one another shows that, and Deckard's reactions emphasize that... it is that they are perceived as lacking humanity, because they are created beings rather than natural beings; in other words, there is something different about them: their origins (and the fact that they are programmed genetically for obsolescence -- a further method of setting them off from human empathy); just as, with slavery, there was something different about those made slaves, whether it be skin color, geographical location, or simply the fact that they belonged to a different tribe and therefore weren't "real" human beings. In other words, the "androids" are, perhaps, more "human" than the human beings. I'd say that's where the attraction lies: we perceive them, in the end, as being more human, more empathetic, than the humans themselves; it is the "real" humans who lack the empathy, not their simulacrae.

 

[akfarrar]

Erm, no it isn't

(Sorry, but I was quoting, and who am I to argue with the experts - although I do think that most people have two eyes, two ears and an even length of mouth either side of their nose)

It is the perception of symetry that makes a face comfortable to look at - if not actually beautiful.

 

[akfarrar]

Sisyphus, Androids and Mercer

There is certainly something in the connection between the legend of Sisyphus and the daily, never-ending battle against rogue Androids in 'Do Androids . . .'.


Sisyphus is condemned to push a heavy rock up a hill and will only be released once he reaches the top - but, as the top approaches, the rock escapes and runs down to the bottom of the hill: Sisyphus has to start all over again.

This is a metaphor for never ending toil - the sort of toil needed to keep a vegetable garden weeded (before the 'devil-opment' [sorry, I'm organic] of chemical weed-killers), or perhaps that of the worker on a production line doing a repetitive job at the command of a conveyor belt.

As this, there is nothing special in P.K. Dick's use of the myth for Rick Deckard's set toil - if he had it in mind at all. Camus applied the myth as a metaphor to modern life – but modern life didn’t consciously apply the myth to itself – Camus simply made the connection. Dick could simply have had modern life in mind when developing the story rather than the myth of Sisyphus.

One interesting question people don't often ask about the myth is, "Why was Sisyphus condemned to this punishment?"

Sisyphus has attempted to deceive - deception is at the root of the labour.

Is their deception in, 'Do Androids...'?

Rather a lot.

Rick opens the novel being woken by a shock from his organ [sorry, it's 'second childishness' creeping in: And whilst I’m at it, what are nom-de-plumbs for if not to replace unfortunate surnames like ‘Dick’?].

His mood is artificially set; it is not honest. His wife, who has an element of fight against this sort of mind control, refuses to participate in the deception of induced moods.

The androids themselves are a deception – multi-layered: They are not human but look it; they do the essential work human’s think they are too superior for in space (but still perform on earth – by using ‘chickenheads’, classified as subhuman); the Rosen Association develops increasing sophisticated androids which are designed to ‘cheat’ the tests of bounty hunters like Rick; and the androids don’t necessarily know they are androids as they are given false memories.

And what are we to make of electric sheep?

The pastoral myth of carefree shepherds is set in contrast to Sisyphrian labour: However, the sheep are as likely to be an electric deception as real.

The result of these deceptions is the labour which dehumanises Rick and which he longs to escape. (Interestingly enough, the Dream Factory film version lets him do so at the end – not that I have seen it.)

And a final twisting deception: Rick’s job is to protect humanity from the ‘de-human’, from the android - that labour is itself dehumanising.

There are certainly strong parallels between the Myth and the novel, but I still don’t think we can yet say Dick consciously used the myth.
So let’s turn to Mercerism: Here is the strongest evidence that P.K. Dick refers to Sisyphus knowingly.

What happens when humans grasp the handles of the empathy box?

It is in a landscape of barrenness, reminiscent of Jesus in the wilderness, that humans merge, to toil up a merciless hill, “Impossible to make out the end. Too far. But it would come.” (Chapter 2, pg. 20)

This repeated climbing of a hill is surely direct reference to the Sisyphus myth – with a difference: The top is attainable.

We first encounter the empathy box in the hands of the ‘chickenhead’, John Isidore – and he has been to the top – where the ‘other part of it’ begins.

Whatever this other part is, however painful, people still join together through the empathy box in order to struggle to attain it.

We have to be careful though with any information that comes via Isidore – he is, after all, a ‘special’. P.K. gives some intriguing information about the finding and early existence of the character – he was picked up from a boat off the coast (possibly Mexico) is adopted by a family called Mercer (!) and seemed to have the ability to bring dead animals back to life – which made him, “…. more special than any of the other specials.” (Chap 2, pg. 21)

I am not so sure that ordinary humans manage to get to the top – their existence is more bound to the labour of Sisyphus than this special’s is.

 

[chrispenycate]

The precise object described by the word "android" has mutated several times during my period of reading science fiction. At the beginning it was merely cosmetic; any humanoid robot, presumably with metal cogs and gears inside.
Then, these were merely "robots", and androids were biological constructs (I've even seen Cordwainer Smith's "underpeople" defined as androids, though I don't think he ever did so), sometimes with animal antecedents, sometimes human (all right, who wrote that story where all androids had "made in the USA" embossed inside their navels, because otherwise it would be impossible to tell the difference?) Under this definition, Cherryh's Azi and Friday are androids, and Bujold's uterine replicated characters on the edges (Brave new worlders too, for that matter) The definition is swinging back; now, you need to be at least a chimera to earn the title, preferably partially synthetic, strange upbringing is no longer sufficient (bionic and shell people need not apply, either)
But the symbol of the android is the racist, rejection of the alien (while the symbol of the robot is far more the mechanisation of socity) Thus, some of Asimov's robots are essentially androids, by another name, while sub-humans, bred for particularly disagreeable tasks, are frequently biological robots.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Sisyphus, Androids and Mercer

akfarrar: Interesting ideas. I like the different possible readings here; I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement, but you have a lot of food for thought. Keep it up; I find it quite nifty!

At the moment, I don't really have anything more to contribute (going on considerable lack of sleep, I'm afraid), but hope to do so later....

 

[akfarrar]

The precise object described by the word "android" has mutated several times during my period of reading science fiction.

and

But the symbol of the android is the racist, rejection of the alien (while the symbol of the robot is far more the mechanisation of socity).

Good points!

The 'Racism' connection has sent my mind racing off - been reading Martian Chronicals and I would add Martians to the same boat.

 

[akfarrar]

Re: Sisyphus, Androids and Mercer

I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement,

Not too sure how insistent I would be on anything yet - these are rough responses and I am pleased with any feedback.

The book has certainly stimulated people over on the OU website too.

I am now reading Techno-Fi (can't quite write Sci!) with a greater empathy.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Sisyphus, Androids and Mercer

I am now reading Techno-Fi (can't quite write Sci!) with a greater empathy.

That's quite all right... I abhor the hideous neologism. I'm one of the people who stubbornly sticks to "SF" or goes whole hog and types out "science fiction". The other term accrued far too many negative connotations to the field, I'm afraid, for me to ever even read it without wincing....