Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Honors 392
Heather Borror
6 June 2016
Final Paper
ideas found in readings of Giorgio Agamben and Hortense Spillers. The clones in the novel are
made into bare life in their society, and they also be characterized as a slave-like population,
whose bodies are rendered to flesh and stripped of kinship. Resistance to this characterization as
slaves and bare life is presented in a variety of ways, yet the outcomes of this resistance do not
necessarily do anything to progress the condition of the clones. From a broader perspective, it is
Ishiguros presentation of the story that presents room for the most resistance.
Bare life, the life of the homo sacer, is that of someone who can be killed but not
sacrificed (Agamben 140), the individual whose death can be considered meaningless. In this
regard, the clones fit such a description: the clones body is to be used for medical science, yet its
life the experience of the individual, the value of that individual to other individuals which
Agambens concept of an inclusive exclusion comes to light in this story in the way that
clones are pushed to the margins of society, yet they are a necessity for the rest of society to
thrive. This marginalization is highlighted when Kathy expresses her perplexity at the inhumane
treatment of other clones (Ishiguro 262). Emily thus responds from the side of the non-
marginalized: the clones role as a medical tool is invaluable and, in order for them to justify the
protection of their own health, other members of society did not want to consider the clones as
human. To ask society to confer value to the lives of clones, to make it difficult to harvest organs
and halt such medical practices, would mean to go back to the dark days (263), to go back to a
2
Turning this on its head, the general response to the Morningdale scandal and the
society, concretizes the designation of the clones as less than human. When the opportunity
arises to create clones that could potentially contribute to society, if given a place proper in the
polis, for the better with superior intelligence and physical capabilities, the scenario is not
perceived to be a positive development. Instead, it is a threat (264). The clones must remain
All the same, as Agamben sees it, the only real question to be decided was which form
of organization would best be suited to the task of assuring the care, control, and use of bare life
(Agamben 147). This question is raised by those running the facilities meant to house, care for,
and eventually destroy the clones in other words, decisions must be made as to what to do with
Bare life can be applied to another reading of the novel: Hortense Spillers slaves. For
Spillers, slaves are made into bare life largely through the transformation of bodies into flesh.
This occurs by speaking of the slaves as if they were physical entities without any human
qualities. In the story, this is the way society wishes to perceive the clones, making them
identifiable with the slaves Spillers describes subhuman tools of medicine. Emily supports this
by commenting that, shortly after clones were being put into usage, the clones were seen as only
The clearest parallel between the novel and the Spillers text is her description of the
captive body, which is reduced to a thing, becoming being for the captor (Spillers 67). Indeed,
the clones of NLMG are brought into being for the express purpose of organ harvesting.
3
Ishiguros employment of the word completion in the story, synonymous for the death of the
clone upon donations, confers the connotation that the clones have a purpose that is terminal
More so, there exists a clear parallel with Spillers text in the real-world usage of slaves
for medical research. Through the profitable atomizing of the captive body (68) in the case
of the novel, the dissection of the clones flesh for societys gain the link between personal
identity and the flesh it inhabits is lost. To that extent, the procedures adopted for the captive
flesh demarcate a total objectification, as the entire captive community becomes a living
Resistance to this prescribed role for clones manifests itself in a variety of ways, from
both those who seek to reform and the clones themselves. Hailsham in particular is a place where
kinship is allowed to develop, countering one of the crucial means of slave-making in Spillers
text. Spillers argues that the relations of property ownership distort the natural relationship
between parents and offspring, rendering the children of slaves as a kind of orphan (74).
Regarding the novel, the clones do not have biological families and are incapable of
reproducing and creating their own families: there are no clone parents. However, the guardians
at Hailsham fill the role of parent during the clones childhood. To some members of society, it
would be enough to simply keep the clones bodies healthy a distinct necessity highlighted by
the severe no-smoking rules (Ishiguro 40). Yet the Hailsham faculty does more: they educate the
clones in history and literature and art, steeping them in culture, and they are a source of warmth
and affection.
However, this kind of kinship created at Hailsham is still temporary, as the clones are
invariably separated from the institution and their peers. The opportunity to become carers and to
interact with other clones throughout the donation process does provide a chance for clones to
4
continue supporting one another. In the case of Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth, their time together at
the donation center allows them to reconnect and make sense of their shared childhoods. This
horizontal connection (as opposed to a vertical one with the parent-like guardian) is reflective of
what Spillers here describes: the captive person developed, time and again, certain ethical
and sentimental features that tied her and him, across the landscape to others, often sold from
hand to hand, of the same and different blood in a common fabric of memory and inspiration
(Spillers 75). Given the space provided by Hailsham, the clones are able to create their own such
Despite these personally valuable relationships, Spiller further notes that such
connectedness in the era of slaves lacked the same legal and social meaning as family; it does
nothing for the slaves politically in terms of protection. This passage in Spillers is paralleled by
the clones belief in the rumor of deferral: Kathy and Tommy hope that they can prove that their
love for one another is strong enough to grant them time to live. Yet, as Emily declares, it does
they themselves struggle to accept the humanity of the child clones. Emily herself confesses that,
at times, she felt outright disgust towards the children, yet she was determined not to let such
feelings stop me from doing what was right (Ishiguro 269). Despite their fight to give the clones
a human upbringing, they accept the clones role in society as adults and do not attempt to
change the course of the future. Spillers notes It is true that the most 'well-meaning' of 'masters'
could not, did not alter the ideological and hegemonic mandates of dominance (Spillers 75).
Ishiguro, when Emily muses that she hopes her wheelchair isnt a permanent fixture (257),
hints that she may become a beneficiary of the clones sacrifice. Such a reading of this passage
5
viscerally reminds us that Emily is one of many who benefit from the clones in society. As a
whole, the characterization of the Hailsham administrators illustrates an interesting parallel with
white abolitionists: from the guardians perspective, the clones are human, but they are still
others.
Lucy in particular struggles with her role as a guardian: she is torn about how to treat the
children, and thus resists in her own ways. Her discomfort is illustrated early in the book by a
young Tommy. He describes how she told him that the children werent being taught enough
about their futures, demonstrating an ideological disconnect: the adults are withholding
important information about the childrens identity, and she believes that the children deserve to
know. Her personal conviction is strong enough for her to say shed a good mind to talk to us
about it herself (29). This foreshadows her outburst to the children later in the book. Before
spelling it out clearly, she acknowledges that her speech may be somewhat inappropriate but
necessary. She frames her exposition with the following: If no one else will tell youthen I
will (81). In this sentence, Lucy acknowledges that she is deviating from the position of the
other guardians, who have collectively chosen not to be explicit. She then takes the situation into
her own hands and stands up for her own sense of right and wrong. Her frustrations with the
situation eventually leads to her departure from Hailsham. To me, it is unclear whether she had
been fired or had left of her own accord. If she had willingly resigned, that would constitute its
own act of resistance: she cannot stand for the system that Hailsham has created because, in her
That said, Hailsham may not truly function effectively a site of resistance at all. Indeed,
Emily expresses regret at not being able to do more for the children in terms of political progress
(261). Yet by conditioning the clone children to believe that their existence is normal, by treating
6
them well and allowing them to love and feel loved, the clones do not fight their fate. Because of
the way their world is shaped, to them, there is no perceivable out. The very usage of the word
donation can serve to twist the clones perception of their place, especially if one considers
how language can shape reality. In another context, a donation can be interpreted as gift on
behalf of the giver, something that is freely and willingly given. It suggests a degree of agency in
the situation. Such an agency is not made available to the clones. A clone may be able to put off
their donations for as long as they are able to handle being a carer, but they still do not have a
Of the clones, Tommy is notable as he recognizes the horror of his situation and strives to
resist, but does not succeed. His response instead comes in form of his tantrums. As a child, he is
demonstrated to be sensitive and often throws tantrums in response to being bullied or confused.
He maintains such sensitivity into adulthood, and one would hope that someone capable of
responding so acutely to conflict and pain would seek to make change. This isnt necessarily the
case. On the way back from Emilys home, he flies into a rage in response to what he and Kathy
have learned (274). Yet this episode does not turn into rebellion, only resignation, as he and
Kathy continue to carry out their roles as before. Tommy never seeks true escape or attempts to
The pursuit of deferral with Kathy itself was Tommys most explicit act of resistance, yet
it can still be considered as a compliant act. If the rumor was true, it would have been complicit
with the existing system. Tommy he had been playing by the rules, so to speak, the entire time:
he was making art and fostering his relationship with Kathy, just as it should be according to the
rumor. This was not a means of demanding freedom, but petitioning for reprieve while still
subjecting themselves to the system. It is possible that he and Kathy may have recognized that
7
being a fugitive might not confer them the kind of life that they desired, therefore making it
imperative that they seek legitimized forms of exit. Yet this is only speculation, as such
Ishiguros narrative technique itself challenges the making of clones into bare life, into
slaves by allowing Kathy to tell her story, to recount her childhood and reflect on her life. He
initially obscures the fate of the children at Hailsham, not explicitly stating their purpose until
Lucys outburst a third of the way through. This allows the reader to experience Kathys
He also uses the resignation of the clones to their role as a potential challenge to general
acceptance. The end of the novel was personally very difficult to swallow, and it did not sit well
with me that Kathy did not try to do anything about her situation. This might have been the
response that Ishiguro intended. He may have wanted the reader to recognize that clones
possessed a humanity that deserved to be respected by society. Indeed, Ishiguro narrates the
novel as Kathy in the first person. She is directly telling the reader her story, building a
relationship and inviting him or her to become part of the narrative. In a sense, the reader is
the story through the lens of Agamben and Spillers deepens the interpretation, illuminating
unsettling parallels between the fictional world and the real. The clones are supposedly made
from the same biological materials that regular people are, yet they are maintained by society as
less-than-human entities. The novel makes the reader question the ways in which our own
society creates us-and-them dichotomies, how we treat those that are not us, and, perhaps most
8
Response 1
With this text, Foucault seeks to analyze the discourses surrounding sexuality in Western
culture. He frames his analysis in Part I, discussing how typically we consider sexuality to have
been repressed in the Victorian era and liberated in the current. Foucault wishes to challenge this
Repressive Hypothesis, stating that sexuality has always been a topic of discourse, and also
seeks to ask why such a hypothesis has gained such prominence. In Part II, Foucault counters the
Repressive Hypothesis by claiming that, in trying to keep sexuality hidden, people have created
different lenses through which to discuss it. These lenses have expanded since the Victorian era,
and the resulting categorization of different perversions came to be a tool of exerting control
within society.
Part III poses the idea that the West perceives sexuality to be something that has truth
within itself, and that must be analyzed and investigated that the West seeks to generate
knowledge about it. This is contrasted with other cultures, who have treated sex like an art rather
than a science. In Part IV, he presents the argument that sexuality is a tool of power, power
referring to the collective of different force relations within a system. The shift that we have
bourgeoisies desire for self-preservation of status: they must use it to control themselves to
One section that struck me was his characterization of Western and Non-Western
historical attitudes towards sexuality. He describes other cultures as possessing their own sort of
ars erotica (57), which also seeks to gain an understanding of sexualitys truth yet considers this
truth to be of a different nature, that which encompasses the experience of pleasure, its value
coming from the special-ness of the experience. If I had not read this is in the context of
9
Foucaults argument, it is likely that I would have perceived such a statement to possess more
freedom with their sexuality: that they view it more positively and seem to embrace it. However,
I realize that this is the kind of thinking that Foucault wishes to challenge. We, the West, have
always embraced sexuality but have simply framed it differently within our society. Trying to use
terms like freedom and repression in a black-and-white way is very limiting to the
discussion.
history. As someone with a scientific background, Im glad that Foucault points out how the act
of confession is not necessarily a reliable way to draw objective conclusions (64). Confessions
are subject to the experience of the individual, whose verity is disputable and depends on the
relationship between the speaker and the listener. To me, in order to render something as a
scientific statement, one must be able to demonstrate causality between events yielding the same
results in multiple scenarios. In other words, the result must be replicable. Thus, much of the
science surrounding sexuality in the past is not really passable as such in the modern sense of
the word. However, Foucaults contextualization gives these a lot more sense, and Ive developed
more respect for it in within the frame of mans greater pursuit of knowledge.
The power dynamics inherent to the act of confession as Foucault unravels it (61) was
very intriguing and resonated with me personally. In receiving personal information, the listener
does potentially gain some form of leverage over the speaker. Yet the speaker, despite being
vulnerable in relaying such information, can be considered empowered in doing so. As a pair,
they can transgress more widely-applying social norms. This reflects to me the importance of
trust in such situations, and reminds me of experiences Ive had with the people that are close to
me.
10
One question that came to mind in Part IV regards life expectancy and effective treatment
of disease. Foucault presents this need for preservation of power of the bourgeoisie (123), and I
wonder to what degree that is influenced by the capabilities of healthcare. In the United States of
the 21st Century, we do not encounter death with much regularity at all removed from daily life,
it has been sequestered to the hospital. In centuries prior, families would have many children and
not all would be guaranteed to survive into adulthood: death was far more commonplace, a more
present reality to be dealt with. With this intense attention to sexuality that Foucault presents, it
seems logical for there to be some sort of connection. If we think we can predict negative
outcomes ahead of time, in coping with the uncertainty of the future, and can understand what
causes it, were going to do whatever we can to avoid those situations. Thus, if degeneracy is
presumed to be dangerous to the health of our offspring, and if we have unsure methods of
coping with such health problems, the fear surrounding perversion is very logical.
Overall, this reading illustrated to me how we are largely responsible for creating our
own realities and yet are subject to the constructions of others, calling into question how much
control any individual actually has over their situation. The way in which Foucault conceives of
power as something that stems from within and between rather than from above, and that social
structures can be considered a result of the pre-existing forces existing between people makes
sense, but the degree to which the individual can influence and engender wider change seems
very fuzzy.
11
Response 2
In the final chapter of History of Sexuality Vol 1, Foucault arrives at biopower in the final
chapter from sexuality. The biopower he introduces in History of Sexuality is discussed at greater
length in his lecture, Society Must Be Defended, as he uses the concept to frame an argument
for the role that racism plays in such a society. Although, in the lecture, Foucault frames
sexuality within biopower, rather than as biopower emerging from sexuality, reading the two
population management
In the lecture Society Must Be Defended, Foucault seeks to discuss State racism
(61). Before diving in, however, he contextualizes it through the shift from sovereign power to
biopower. Foucault here reiterates ideas from the final chapter of History of Sexuality, claiming
that the sovereign possesses the right to take life or let live and that the subject is a neutral entity
in this scheme. With biopower, on the other hand, the right to make live and to let die (62)
comes into play. This reflects a shift from permitting individual lives to go on when it not a
threat to the head to shaping lives proactively through various surveillances and regulations of
the social body via norms and standards. In the lecture, Foucault later makes three clarifying
points: a) the object of biopower is the social body, b) biopower is concerned with metrics of
population that are arbitrary on a small scale yet is illustrative of trends on a larger scale, and c)
biopower seeks to influence these metrics from its source in order to create an optimal state for
the population of interest (66, 67). This shift aligns with another statement made in History of
Sexuality: that, in the nineteenth century, the issue of life itself had entered the political sphere on
a different level than before. Given the advances in humanitys abilities to find, create, and
12
manage its resources, the threat of death became less imminent: we could better manage its
occurrence (142). Ultimately, the population is of utmost concern in the new paradigm.
Foucault then describes how there are two categories of methods to deal with the social
body, one that is disciplinary and seeks to intervene on the level of the individual and one that is
regulatory and intervenes at the level of the population (69). These categories are not mutually
exclusive, and can manifest themselves in institutions like the police and health insurance.
Foucault identifies the unifying element between the disciplinary and the regulatory: the norm. In
such a society governed by regulation, he calls attention to the role of killing individuals plays as
it differs from that of a sovereign society. Whereas killing to protect the sovereign, how does one
justify killing in a state that seeks to make life? It is at this point that Foucault finally
incorporates racism. To him, racism is a means of creating division within populations using a
biological logic. Not only does it function to fragment, racism can be used to justify using the
right to kill, or allowing others to die because it may be of benefit to the rest of the group (75). In
other words, if one group is otherized as inferior or potentially harmful, then it is acceptable to
allow for its elimination. In a society managed by biopolitics, this attitude of Social Darwinism
follows naturally. It can be a lens through which to evaluate the political actions taken to protect
some individuals over others. Foucault then brings up the example of Nazi Germany as a unique
merging of biopower and sovereign power: a society in which all were encouraged to surveille in
a biopolitical manner yet also to exercise the right to kill those who did not suit the norm (78).
The ideas presented in the lecture are, again, not new to those who have read the last
discussion of power inherent within the construct of Western sexuality. In History of Sexuality,
he also defines sovereign power in terms of its rights over life and death. Additionally, he also
13
distinguishes the two categories of control over the social body again, referring to the
disciplining of the individual and the regulating of the population (138, 139). The point of
intersection for the two domains of discipline and regulation, which is also mentioned in the
lecture (71), is sex (146). Relevant to the usage of sex as a means of creating bonded individuals,
Foucault then discusses how the significance of blood ties has changed over time. While once
blood was the means of obtaining both material and privilege, blood no longer guarantees that in
a society without caste or feudal hierarchy. Universally, it seems that it seems that people seek to
protect that which they believe belongs to them. This seems to be a constant throughout time, yet
in a biopolitical-capitalist world, for the bourgeoisie, it means to maintain its hold on its status:
one to which there is no divine right. In a situation where one needs to justify protecting that
which they believe belongs to them, Foucaults racism doesnt seem very far-fatched.
In the end, it seems that racism is not necessarily about those that do not look like you,
but about those who are not regular, who do not fit the prescribed mold. It is interesting to me
how the blood power is present in racism, if we consider it in terms of ethnicity while it is not
something Westerners necessarily seek to preserve, it can be used as a tool of otherizing and
empowered to manage and optimize our existence, the question no longer seems to be that of
surviving, but thriving. How we go about in our attempts to thrive, though, seems to be a great
wellspring for conflict. Once we perceive those who are different as threatening this
optimization, it seems to open many doors for mistreatment and loss of respect. It strikes me as a
little paradoxical that a world so concerned with life places more value on some lives rather than
others, but perhaps it cant be helped considering humanitys intractable need for self-
preservation.
14
Response 3
In Hannah Arendt's article, The Perplexities of the Rights of Man, she argues that the
concept of unalienable rights inherently paradoxical in reality. Once one loses their connection to
a government capable of protecting their rights, the individual effectively loses these rights,
despite the theoretical notion that even in such a stateless state one still possesses them. The
bare life is reflected in these stateless characters. To what degree, however, is debatable.
In her article, Arendt is interested in what is implicit by their declaration and the inherent
dynamics of their possession and loss. The importance of a community, in this respect, means
that the individual is capable of making his/her opinion known, heard, and acted upon (Arendt
88). Without the community, ones voice is rendered null. The refugees in the film are a natural
example of such marginalized individuals. For these people, the crumbling of their original
government has forced them to seek community elsewhere, ostensibly because they would not be
able to be protected under their own government. While the audience is not privy to the process
of loss of their nationhood, we do see the end result. The British state denies them protection,
rounding up the people in droves and taking them to camps, placing them in cages. The scene at
the camp into which Theo and Kee are smuggled in is very striking in that regard, depicting
barely-clothed huddled together and covered, dead bodies lying on the floor. This scene also
viscerally illustrates the idea of Agambens inclusive exclusivity: a space is created within
Kee is a unique refugee, however, as they baby confers her an interesting degree of
protection. She is made valuable by being the last human on earth to carry a child, and by
possessing such a value she gains the role of the last mother thus, for the sake of the baby, she
15
cannot be killed. At the same time, however, throughout the film she and her baby are constantly
being pulled to different sides, to belong to different alliances. In a way, Kee could be considered
as a type of slave as Arendt claims that slaves, despite lacking rights, still had a place within their
Despite having such a place in the world, whether or not Kee can be considered to have
more than bare life is questionable, however. To revisit the concept of bare life, Agamben
conceives of it as the life of homo sacer: one who may be killed and yet not sacrificed
(Agamben 140). This person does not belong within the established public society, thus lacks the
Aristotlian bios element of life. However, this does not render them dead as they still possess
zoe, which is intrinsic to all living creatures, human or animal. Women and children, in the
ancient Greek sensibility, did not have bios even though they certainly had a place in society:
within the oikos, the private sphere of the home. Given such context, the characterization of Kee
as an enslaved figure could constitute a kind of homo sacer, by definition lacking bios. However,
in a biopolitical world, this distinction between what belongs to the oikos and what belongs to
the political bios becomes blurry and, to Agamben, is constantly in question and in a state of flux
(148). Despite Kees state of relative powerlessness in her situation, she still possesses
sovereignty over the life of the baby. In a conversation with Theo, Kee discussed the possibility
of killing herself using the quietus pill, ending her life and that of the baby. It is possible I am
conflating the capacity for sovereignty with bios, but regardless such power does confer
The baby itself is an interesting figure. It is at the mercy of her caretaker, and really has
nothing more than bare life it is far too young to have any agency itself. In discussing the
character, in fact, because I feel more inclined to call the baby an it rather than she/her, this
16
signifies to me that the baby could be considered little more than a static illustration of zoe and
bare life. Additionally, the baby is not capable of wielding any sovereignty over anyone else
perhaps it can wield sovereignty by extension through whichever political group possesses the
At the same time, where does Theo fall within this spectrum? The story introduces him as
However, he was a political activist in his youth, which evidences personal ideological resistance
to the status quo. Yet despite this disillusionment, through his occupation he is still making
contributions, however small, to the functioning of the bureaucracy and the perpetuation of the
system as it were. Once he is criminalized for the killing of the police officers, though, Theo
becomes an enemy of the state. He has thus relinquished or, rather, has been placed in a
situation where he has no choice but to relinquish the protection of the government, and is now
Relative to the Theo, the Fishes are a rather similar entity. In fighting for the rights of
immigrants, where do those individuals belong? By committing terror crimes, they too are
criminalized, occupying a space outside of Britains legitimized public life. Their goals, however,
are to secure a new space for themselves and the refugees within the accepted society their
world: they seek to acquire bios. In a way, this speaks to me of the Foucauldian idea that there
The audience sees very little of those who do have bios in this movie for example,
Theos cousin, Nigel. However, in the world of the film, it seems that anyone is capable losing
their protection once they are regarded as a threat or an outsider, and that nobody is unalienable
from their society. This, to me, is eerily resonant with themes present in our own world.
17
Response 4
thought for me, particularly regarding the ways in which caesuras can be created using the
biochemistry and is pursuing a career in healthcare, this raises some chilling questions for myself
In his analysis of Roses piece, Braun highlights the perceived shift of state responsibility
for health (in a Foucauldian, macroscopic level of public health) to the individual. This suggested
information is limited: in other words, the homo sacer would take the form of the individual who
would not be able to access the knowledge and resources necessary to make informed choices
and proactive measures in taking care of their health. This group of people could in part be made
and classisms.
This further suggests that it is possible to attribute blame to them rather than the greater
social picture for their ignorance, to depict the capacity to understand as something immutable
and intrinsic to the individual, not unlike the way in which Lisa Cacho relates the perception of
socioeconomic status and individual moral standing, creating a new category of already not-
valued others (Cacho 60). Whether or not such an uninformed group can be criminalized or
not is debatable, however, but I can imagine the sentiment they got what they deserved in
terms of poor health outcomes for the undereducated to possibly gain traction over time as the
wealth of knowledge and its accessibility through venues like the Internet increases. This would
18
Another type of homo sacer is manifested in the potential target of global health: those
that are othered because they might be deemed to harbor a biological threat a virtual one
(Braun 17) within their bodies on the basis of geography. As Braun puts it, in our efforts to
protect ourselves from potential harm, we attempt to control the biological lives of the villages in
distinctions (25). This was frightening to me, as these dichotomies smack of imperialistic
sentiment something from which I personally hoped that the West was finally beginning to
move away. It never occurred to me that it would be possible to use contemporary molecular-
biological knowledge to create new justifications for xenophobia. Then again, this is not
necessarily novel: pseudosciences like phrenology were certainly used to lend superiority to one
group over another. Perhaps I find it more difficult to swallow since the evidence by which we
use to support our theories is much more rigorously collected before it is put to practical use or
All the same, this highlights the dangers of using nascent science to make wide-ranging,
impactful decisions. Yet in Brauns article, biopolitics demands that the state is pre-emptive in
managing global threat to life, to protect against the threats that are both known and unknown
(15). In seeking to, so to speak, beat the curve, imperative is created to make discoveries, to
create new knowledge that might be useful in our crusade to sculpt our future into the best of all
possible futures. The pressure to find something new is often greater than the incentive to verify
and test what was already been established, leading to a wealth of unique causal statements with
limited discussion as to the veracity of each. This is a pitfall of scientific pursuit that Ive noticed
in my education, especially as one delves into increasingly specific topics requiring, in addition
19
to highly specialized background on the subject, expensive investigative tools and methods. But I
digress.
Despite the differences in the origins of these two new kinds of homo sacer, the common
thread running between them is the us-and-them paradigm, and that this paradigm is reinforced
by the state. In a biopolitical world, the state seeks to control life at both the level of the
population and of the individual, with the murky teleology of creating an optimum state of
existence, or fitness. As in his discussion of Rose, Braun describes how such a fitness is
considered from a neoliberal stance, as ill-health interferes with the individuals ability to
function at his or her maximum capacity (11). With the first type the citizen who lacks the
resources to manage their own health it could be considered to the states benefit to assist them.
However, we the people are capable othering them by deciding that such individuals are not
worthy of help, as their very status infers that they are inherently undeserving. With the second,
the quarantined pathological-primitive other, we are seeking to protect ourselves from the threat
of the foreign unknown. It becomes acceptable to choose to exert limitations upon this group in
order to protect ourselves because, as they do not belong to us, they do not possess the same
rights. Even though this is a discussion on the biomolecularization of life, the way in which these
particular caesuras are created, at its core, seems to differ very little from the others that we have
noble goal, and the means by which we hope to secure it. It also reminded me of the importance
of convention and how our models are always changing given new information or ways of
looking at our world. Now, the foremost question I find myself asking is what does it really
20
Response 5
In Bloodchild, the relationship between humans and Tlic is a strange parable for the
concept of bare life. Humans can be imagined as homo sacer, both included and excluded at the
benefit of the dominant class. Yet because they serve such a vital role in the Tlic life cycle, the
Humans are a necessity, yet they do not belong in the polis. Gatoi and her political faction
give the humans voice, but without them the humans would have little protection from being
used as chattel. Gan notes how, in his experiences outside the Preserve, he had witnessed the
desperate eagerness with which other Tlic looked at him as a resource for their children (Butler
5). The integration of families of different species is an attempt to mitigate the precarious
situation, to respect the humans as sentient life, but this construct does not necessarily allow the
humans to have much of a choice. The Tlic could easily overpower the humans physically, with
Despite this, it is the Tlic who need the humans for the survival of their own species,
providing humans with a leverage not unlike that discussed by Ziarek: a situation that provides
the opportunity for homo sacer to create a site of contestation and possibility (Ziarek 98). This
leverage is exercised by Gan when he threatens to kill himself. There is risk in dealing with a
partner, (26) Gan reminds Gatoi as they argue, capitalizing on her need for him. The blocking of
the characters in this scene also conveys a reversal of power, with Gan in a standing position
Additionally, this scene illustrates Foucaults concept of death as the limits of biopower:
the Tlics capacity, with respect to humans, to make live and let die they encourage humans to
reproduce as long as they provide a host, and they can allow the human NTlic to die and be
21
consumed by the offspring is threatened once Gan gives himself the option of suicide, thus
removing himself from the entire schema and the Tlics ability to influence his choices.
Humans, despite their place in this society, are thus able to wield sovereignty over the
Tlic in their ability to limit their reproduction. For instance, had Gan denied Gatoi the chance to
impregnate him and somehow stopped her from reaching Hoa in time for her to lay her egg, Gan
could have prevented Gatois children from coming into being altogether. The health of these
future generations is also under the humans command, as Gan muses that Khotgif might have
been born from a non-human animal, given her illness and relatively weak constitution (Butler
18). Thus, for their own sake, it is imperative for the Tlic to maintain their control over the
Despite this need for dominance over the humans, one of the most gripping elements in
this story is that the human-Tlic relationship seems far more nuanced than that of master-slave.
The Tlic, and Gan uses the word people to describe Tlic he sees in the city (5). Gan is
reminded by his mother to take care of Gatoi, further characterizing the species as co-dependent.
Gatoi and other Tlic treat the humans with compassion and empathy, yet at the same time, it
comes off as if the humans were a sort of pet. They are often fed sterile eggs, putting them in a
state of sedation, and are identifiable by a tag worn on their arms (11). Yet the degree to which
human can be considered pets is skewed as Gatoi gives Gan agency in their situation. She feels
hurt as she realized that Gan did not chose her once he had learned the gruesome truth of
birthing Tlic.
It could be argued that the willful withholding of knowledge of this truth is the
mechanism by which the Tlic allow humans to both exercise free will as intelligent beings and to
cast them as bare life. This is most clearly illustrated by the attitudes of Gans siblings. Qui, on
22
one hand, had witnessed a human allowed to die as he was giving birth to Tlic, thus becoming
unable to complicit in becoming a participant in the Tlics lifecycle. On the other hand, Xuan
Hoa, who had been shielded like many other humans from the truth, was gladly willing to fulfill
such a role in Gatois life, as Gatoi was a figure that may have very well been a second parent to
Gans father, however, could potentially provide a counter-argument to this: he had given
birth three times. Despite learning the truth after the first time, he continued to serve as a host.
How much agency he had remains an open-ended question, though, as Butler does not reveal
All the same, the integration of human and Tlic species is an intriguing mirror for the way
we, in real life, have created different caesuras between groups of people, particularly by race or
gender. For instance, women have the power to give birth, yet the degree to which they can
control pregnancy is challenged by restrictions on birth control, abortion, and other such
reproductive healthcare. Butler flips this on its head by making men the hosts of foreign life. Her
story also forces us to consider the refugee and how, by the loss of protection of their rights, they
can potentially be put into sub-human occupations in society. Relative to other readings we have
done, Butler has inverted our paradigm by narrating her story from the point of view of the homo
sacer himself. By doing this, she forces us to think about what it could be like for us to lose our
place in the polis and, perhaps more hauntingly, what it may already be like for whom it has
23
Works Cited
Agamben, Giorgio. Introduction to Homo Sacer and The Politicization of Life. Biopolitics,
A Reader. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013. 134-151. Print.
Arendt, Hannah. The Perplexities of the Rights of Man. Biopolitics, A Reader. Durham and
Braun, Bruce. Biopolitics and the Molecularization of Life. Cultural Geographies 14.1 (2007):
6-28. Print.
Butler, Octavia. Bloodchild. Bloodchild and Other Stories. New York: Seven Stories Press,
Cacho, Lisa. Social Death: Racialized Rightlessness and the Criminalization of the Unprotected.
Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended. Durham and London: Duke University Press,
Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Random House, 1978.
Print.
Ishiguro, Kazuo. Never Let Me Go. New York: Vintage International, 2005. Print
Spillers, Hortense. Mamas Baby, Papas Maybe: An American Grammar Book. Diacritics
Ziarek, Ewa Plonowska. Bare Life on Strike. South Atlantic Quarterly 107.1 (2007): 89-105.
Print.
24