Monday, February 19, 2018

Clones - Outcasts of Society


Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go” presents a debatable topic of whether clones have a place in the society. Throughout the book, Ishiguro appeals to the readers that clones possess all the capabilities and flaws that humans do. However, as one of the protagonists, Ruth, declares in the story, “we [clones] are modelled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps”, question arises as to where these artificial beings are like the societal outcasts (166). Are they accepted in the society similar to normal human beings, or are they driven to antagonism? Regardless of clones exhibiting human characteristics, Ishiguro implies that the society is not ready for the monumental change of including the clones.

From the beginning, the children at Hailsham receives a harsh reality when Madame unexpectedly reveals how frightened she is of them. Yet, the clones are described to be like any other children - playing in the sunny pavilion and “screaming with laughter, or in a furious row. Mostly, the pavilion was a way to unwind for a while with your closest friends” (7). The innocent children therefore has no idea as to why Madame is so cold toward them. Ruth claims that “Madame’s scared of us” and tests her theory (33). Madame’s reaction when the children approached her was silent, yet strong : “she just froze and waited for us to pass by. She didn’t shriek, or let out a grasp. Kathy could see the shudder she seemed to be suppressing, the real dread that one of us would accidentally brush against her” (35). Ultimately, the children put it best as they say “it had never occurred to us to wonder how we would feel, being seen like that, being the spiders” (35). Although innocent and human-like, the unfamiliar notion of clone itself impacted Madame to see the children as “spiders”.

Furthermore, life after Hailsham suggests that clones are not yet ready for the society. The protagonists, Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy, transfers to the Cottage after finishing out their schooling. Unlike Hailsham, the Cottage only has one “guardian”, Keffers, who seems to dislike the residents. The clones asks Keffers to provide them with a large supply of heaters, but Keffers “shakes his head gloomily, like we were bound to use them up frivolously or else cause an explosion” (117). Keffers seems to distrust the clones very much, which may have been affected by the bias against clones. In addition, the guardian blatantly disregards the clones. Few of the clones try to greet him when he arrived and “he’d stare at you like you were mad” (117). The clones never had a chance to develop good relationships with Keffers. Relationships and society can never accept clones if people like Keffers present an impenetrable wall.

Ultimately, people like Madame and Keffers are exemplary of people fearing change and the unknown. No matter how similar clones are to human beings, they will never be accepted unless people treat the clones like similar human beings. Without these proactive measures, Ruth will forever be right in saying that they, the clones, are no different from the social outcasts of junkies, prostitutes, winos, and tramps (166).


2 comments:

  1. The fear the “normal” people in the story feel towards the clones may stem from ore than a fear of the unknown. It also is a fear that they are wrong, and that there truly is no difference between themselves and the clones they exploit. Miss Emily notes that, “however uncomfortable people were about your existence, their overwhelming concern was that their own children, their spouses, their parents, their friends did not die” (263). From this it is clear that people were uncomfortable with the reality of the clones and what was happening to them. It is logical to conclude that the reason they tried so hard to not think about them or go near them is that they feared if they did the mental distinction they had between themselves and the clones would fall away. If they spent time with them, spoke with them, touched them, they may come to see them as people. This would be a far worse fate than simply going “back to the dark days” (263). They would have to admit that hundreds, maybe even thousands of human beings had been slaughtered, and that they as members of society, and even beneficiaries of this practice, were personally responsible for every single one of them. It is far easier to believe that someone else is an inhuman monster than to admit that you yourself may be one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you bring up an interesting point that I have not thought of before. I think that not only are the clones outcasts, but they know it too. As stated by Ruth, “’We all know it. We’re modeled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps’…'We all know it, so why don’t we say it?'” (Ishiguro 166). Although this might not be the first thought of the reader, I do think that it is a point that Ishiguro is trying to convey, and I believe that he placed this quotation in the story to convey this point. Cloning is, and still continues to be, a controversial topic. The true capabilities of cloning are unknown, and I think that Ishiguro made this book to make a statement on this. The clones are in a weird place between being humans and creatures, and they don’t have a group that they truly belong in. Instead of working to integrate them into society, humans have banished them to their own schools and homes, and as a result the clones have become outcasts, and they have even led themselves to believe that they came from trash, as they call it. The clones have no real place in human society, and as a result they are outcasts.

    ReplyDelete