Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Isabella Hays-Velasco
Professor Batty
English 102
14 November 2019
When I was nine, I was scared of dinosaurs because I had a nightmare that a
Tyrannosaurus rex ate the roof of my house. Looking back at that fear, I realized that, one, it was
irrational as dinosaurs are extinct, and, two, the nightmare had a deeper meaning; it represented
the outside forces that were wreaking havoc finally breaking the shaky walls of my home.
Monsters, like dinosaurs, ghosts, and robots, terrify us, but why? They represent facets of
humanity that we try to repress because it is too ugly or horrible to reveal. We fear them because,
in some ways, they are us, or at least reveal parts of us that we do not want to see. Philip Dick’s
1968 science fiction novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is set in the aftermath of
World War Terminus in a dystopian San Francisco where humans are hunting androids for
killing their human masters and animals are worshipped for their scarcity and used as a tool to
distinguish the difference between humans and androids. Rick Deckard, an android hunter, is
tasked with “retiring” (killing) six androids who escaped from Mars, the planet which most
humans relocated to with the incentive of receiving an android to serve them as Earth turned to a
wasteland, and his mindset towards androids and the predetermined morals of his society
changes with every android he experiences. In juxtaposition with Deckard’s story is the one of
the special, a person who can no longer procreate, Isidore who ends up encountering three of the
escaped androids and becoming a part of their hiding plan. In Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep?, the humans view the androids as the monsters because they lack empathy for animals
Hays-Velasco 2
and have killed their human owners; however, the humans are actually afraid of what the
androids represent: the worst parts of humanity. Moreover, the humans are actually the monsters
through their institutionalized empathy for animals and their complete lack of empathy for
androids.
In all honesty, androids are not sinless creatures. As Rick states in his explanation for
being able to retire androids, “an escaped humanoid robot [...] had killed its master, [...] had no
regard for animals, [... and] possed no ability to feel empathic joy for another life form’s success
or grief at its defeat” (Dick 30). Most androids who escaped Mars terminated their human
masters in order to gain freedom which is a great moral violation; murdering anyone, in most
situations, is typically condemned. Also, androids lack the ability to truly empathize as humans
did not find it necessary to include that quality when creating them, and this lack of empathy,
specifically towards animals, is what humans use to test, with the Voigt-Kampff test, if a person
is a human or an android. Moreover, in the novel, androids have blatantly displayed their lack of
empathy towards animals which are revered in this society. Rachael, an extremely human-like
Nexus 6 android who tricks Rick into thinking she will help him in killing androids and sleeps
with him, “dragged [Rick’s goat] out of its cage, and dragged it to the edge of the roof [, and]
pushed it off” (Dick 208) in retaliation for Rick being able to execute the final three escapees
after sleeping with her. After Isidore excitedly finds a spider, which is rare as sparse living
creatures are found where he lives, the three androids he is helping ponder if the spider “doesn’t
need all those legs” (Dick 189) and proceed to cut off its legs as Isidore pleads for them to stop.
Both of these instances exemplify the disregard androids have towards animals and displays the
cruelty in which they can possess, even if they do not always have a cruel intent. From a
human’s viewpoint in this society, why would they not find androids monstrous and want to kill
Hays-Velasco 3
something that has both killed their own species and lacks empathy for the one thing they find
sacred? The answer lies in the fact they they created these beings they find so monstrous.
Humans are actually afraid of androids because androids reveal the negative aspects of
humanity and force humans to look at their faults. Humans created androids to serve them on
Mars and used them as a marketing tool to convince people to leave Earth. They were designed
to be extremely intelligent beings, even more so than their creators, who lacked empathy as
humans found it unneccesary to include one of their fundamental morals in beings who were
meant to serve them (Dick 30). As Asa Simon Mittman discusses the qualities of monsters in
literature in his introduction to The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the
Monstrous, he states that monsters “swallow up our cultural mores and expectations, and then,
becoming what they eat , they reflect back to us our own faces, made disgusting or, perhaps,
revealed to always have been so” (Mittman 1). As displayed in the previous paragraph, androids
can be ruthless and do not value the lives of animals. They represent some of the worst qualities
to have in a society that so highly values empathy. Thus, they represent the unfavorable aspects
of humanity that humans strive so hard to work against that they even use a mood organ, a
device that simulates emotions, to encourage the appropriate response. But, as Andrew Howard
notes in his article “The Postmodern Prometheus: Humanity and Narration in the SF Worlds of
Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And Scott’s Blade Runner.” discussing the
creation of androids and its implication in Dick’s novel and the movie adaptation, a problem
arises when humans protect themselves from the cold, emotionless androids who they are so
threatened by; “the problem of emotion surfaces when the humans have to be the cold,
emotionless killers. “The problem in this killing then would be, ‘Could we not become like the
androids, in our very effort to wipe them out?”’(Howard 112). In killing the androids, humans
Hays-Velasco 4
become the very thing they despise: empathy-lacking killers. But, they attempt to justify that by
arguing that androids are the killers so therefore, androids need to be killed. However, that paltry
justification simply amplifies the fact that humans are hypocritical and even monstrous
themselves, setting their own standards of morality and ignoring those morals when other beings
defy them.
Sheep?, and the creation of this empathy allows for the humans to justify their horrible treatment
towards other species. As a result of the war, animals began to rapidly die off, and the animals
that were left are revered to that extent that nobody kills animals and the lack of empathy for one
classifies the being as an android. Animals are a vital part of their society as animals define
species and class. Empathy for animals distinguishes if you are a human or an android, and the
rarity of the animal one owns, defines the wealth that they have. In Sherryl Vint’s article
"Speciesism and species being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," she discusses the
speciesism between humans, animals, and androids in the novel, and she notes that “if empathy
human/android boundary, then owning a real animal should be a social relationship, not a
commodity one” (Vint 112). In the novel’s society, one is expected to care for animals because
of the defining qualities caring for an animal establishes. Rick constantly tries to buy a more
lavish animal to distinguish his class and works extremely hard to obtain money so that he can
do so as looking at his electric sheep reminds him that “it’s not the same” (Dick 12) as having a
real one. Whether one has a real animal or an artificial one, having one establishes one’s
empathy towards them and distinguishes that one is a human. If living animals were truly valued,
it would not be a necessity to own an artificial one. The establishment of societal empathy
Hays-Velasco 5
Furthermore, as Vint notes, the human/animal boundary “is the political core of why animals are
in the novel: it is essential that Mercerism [, the religion in the novel,] is founded on empathy
with animals as it is precisely the human/animal boundary that provides the grounds upon which
to deny empathy and continue exploitation” (Vint 111). Humans are able to justify their
treatments towards androids because they do no fit into the human/animal boundary; androids
lack empathy towards animals so androids can be killed if they misbehave and it will not actually
count as killing. Moreover, androids do not deserve empathy because they cannot feel empathy
towards animals. Humans’ behaviors of creating forced empathy towards animals and alienating
other species in their society based on this criteria is both sanctimonious and horrific.
The complete lack of empathy humans have for androids and the utter disregard they
have for killing another species is monstrous. In Jordana Greenblatt’s article “‘More Human
than Human’: ‘Flattening of Affect,’ Synthetic Humans, and the Social Construction of
Maleness.,” she discusses the relationship between humans and androids. She notes that
“ Persons are bearers of rights. Andys/replicants can only be “retired” because they are
not persons with rights [...] Personhood is not necessarily exclusively human by
definition, and not all humans are always legal people, as in the case [of] slaves and of
women. Meanwhile, the humanity of groups to whom personhood has been denied has
Androids are not people; therefore, they do not have rights based on this logical fallacy. They are
denied humanity and empathy because they do not fall into society’s definition of a person. As
previously stated, androids were created to serve humans, and androids are simply supposed to
accept that. Being born into a life of servitude for humans, who are almost exactly like them
Hays-Velasco 6
besides the empathy factor, would make anyone question why they are below. It is not surprising
why androids would try to escape as the history of enslaved people has shown us that one can
only be oppressed. As Officer Garland, an android posing as an officer who Rick has to kill,
states, “[it’s] a chance anyway, breaking free and coming here to Earth, where [androids are] not
even considred animals [,] where every worm and wood louse is considered more desirable than
all of [the androids] put together” (Dick 113). The androids are so desperate for freedom that
they will come to a hostile place where they have little worth and are considered nuisances. And,
while their method in which they gain their freedom by killing their master is not the most viable
choice, it is understandable as it evident that humans would not allow them freedom in any form.
Furthermore, humans who base their society’s morals on empathy can justify killing androids.
As Howards explains, “[there] are no narrow, easy criteria that define authentic humans in the
novel, aside from a test that measures levels of empathy in response to certain stimuli. However,
the test, if it does in fact work, only separates supposedly normal humans from androids”
(Howard 111). The humans created androids without a sense of empathy and exploit their fault,
which humans chose to exclude, to justify killing them. The reasoning is incredibly faulty and
cruel as the humans created a system where the androids have no chance of escaping which
displays the selfishness and complete apathy that is a part of the human society in the novel.
In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, humans are actually the monsters as they
created a system based on empathy for animals in order to establish class and species rather than
concern for animals’ well-being, and are apathetic to the androids who they purposefully created
to stay beneath them. While the humans appear to be afraid of the androids because androids
lack empathy and kill human, they are actually afraid of what androids reveal about the
hypocritical nature of their society. Androids may be monsters, but they are a product of humans
Hays-Velasco 7
which defines humans as monstrous too. Monsters tend to frighten us or make us want to hide,
but looking closer at the monsters allow us to gain a deeper understanding of what we truly fear.
It could be symbolic of a more literal or figurative problem occurring in our lives, or it may
reveal a facet of ourselves that we try to mask. And while it may be terrifying, learning to face
our figurative or literal monsters allows us to recognize what is truly affecting us, deal with it
head on, and learn from that experience. It will allow us to better ourselves by addressing the
negatives in our lives and strengthen our character through the acknowledgement of what we
fear.
Hays-Velasco 8
Works Cited
Greenblatt, Jordana. “‘More Human than Human’: ‘Flattening of Affect,’ Synthetic Humans, and
the Social Construction of Maleness.” English Studies in Canada, no. 1–2, 2016, p. 41.
EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.4807
08431&site=eds-live.
Howard, Andrew. “The Postmodern Prometheus: Humanity and Narration in the SF Worlds of
Interdisciplinary Humanities, vol. 35, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 108–120. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=135448993&site=eds-live.
Mittman, Asa Simon. “The Impact of Monsters and Monster Studies.” The Ashgate Research
Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, edited by Peter J. Dendle and Asa Simon
Vint, Sherryl. "Speciesism and species being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Mosaic:
A journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature, vol. 40, no. 1, 2007, p. 111+. Gale
d=AONE&xid=f20c77e3.