THE HUMAN REVIEW

A Fundamental Translation of Theme

By: Shanda Glover
Introduction
We are human.
This is a statement that many would label
truth. I am human. You are human.
However, what makes that statement an
honest expression of identity. How are we
human? What sets us apart from animals or
machines?
In most science fiction novels, the future is
often painted bleak. Humans are squeezed
into dystopian ideals. Most commonly,
androids or machines with artificial
intelligences are the greatest enemy of
humanity. They are our enemy because we
fear their flawlessness, they are perfect, and
they can do what we cannot do out of fear of
failure or fear of death. Now, as our
technological advances take small steps to
this future, our society begins to question
what will differentiate us from these near
human artificially intelligent beings. What
will be the symbol of humanity?
Is it our ability to love or ability to
acknowledge when we feel love? Is it our
ability to feel pain or our ability to sense
when those close to us are not themselves,
rather they are enclosed in a bubble of
sadness, of madness, regret, or sickness.
Does our humanness grow from our innate
ability to feel empathy towards our fellow
man or woman?

Do Androids Dream of Electric

Sleep?

Like I previously stated, the sci-fi genre is

built heavily on envisioning the future. It
could be seen as a genre that continually
critiques or explores technological advances,
and how society adapts to those advances.
Philip K. Dicks novel Do Android Dream of
Electric Sheep, is no different. According to
Kyla Bremner, Philip K. Dick was
constantly asking the questions of "What is
reality?" and "What is human?" in his
writing. These themes are found in most all
of his books. Both of these questions he
could never fully answer (Bremner).
However, I do believe his inability to answer
these questions is beneficial for the reader.
What it means to be human is a common
theme throughout his novel, and it causes
the reader to ask themselves whether or not
the characters presented to them are
projected as purely human, or purely
android, or a little of both. Where do you
draw the line?
Briefly, Philip Dicks novel is primarily
focused on a futuristic bounty hunter, Rick
Deckard, who is faced with retiring escaped
Nexus-6 model androids. However, there is
an underlying plot that focuses on John
Isidore, a man who isnt super intelligent
and he helps the escaped androids that
Deckard is trying to hunt. It is important to
note that these androids are consistently
labeled androids because they have no sense
of empathy towards other androids, or other
humans.

Thus, encouraging the reader to think

empathy is Dicks answer to what makes us
human.
Again, according to Kyla Bremner, as the
reader continues through the novel they may
be inclined to believe what Deckards
thoughts tell us in terms of what is right and
wrong in his society (Bremner). Deckard is
employed by a police organization that
encourages him to feel proud of what he
does. However, it isnt until the reader reads
between the lines of Deckard's prejudices
that we begin to understand the true
inhumanity of his actions and the society in
which they are
enacted. In the
opening scene
of the book,
Deckard's own
wife calls him
"a murderer
hired by the
cops" (p. 7). The
truth of this
accusation is
slowly exposed
as we learn
more about the
androids and
why they are
classified as non-human (Bremnar).
They are androids, non-humans, because
they were created through engineering. They
have to program their emotions, instead of
having an automatic systemic response to
their environment. However, the process of
distinguishing a human from an andy is
what the novel calls the Voight-Kampff and
Boneli tests. The tests serve to measure
involuntary eye and capillary dilation
induced by a blush response to a series of
'moral dilemmas' posed by the investigator.

There are two factors that make the test's

results irrelevant (Bremnar). This is
specifically used to test a subject, Rachel,
and see if she could pass as an android or if
Deckard will able to see her android
personality. For example, Deckard suggests
to Rachel that the briefcase that he carries
with him is made out of babyhide, she
responds like anyone would, however, her
response is analyzed by Deckard. He notes
that there is a pause, in which there
shouldnt be. The reaction had come too
late, he thinks, he knew the reaction
period down to a fraction of a second, the
correct reaction period; there should have

Source: gizmodo images.

been none. (Dick 59). Dick is suggesting

that by Rachel not be able to give the correct
reaction, this allows the test to be misread
and turned into a possible insight on the
absurdity of the tests. Should a test really be
the answer to determining if we are human?
One simple nerve response to differentiate
human from android. As Bremner would
ask, Is this a sound basis on which to
classify an [android] as inhuman?
(Bremner)

Back to the power of empathy. These tests

are built on empathetic response. These
tests serve to see how an android would
respond to horrible news, or stories, or even
mere statements of abuse. A human would
react emotionally, or instinctively. This
instinct, Dick proposes, is what sets us apart.
We hear someone getting hurt, and
immediately without thought, we want to
help. However, Dick suggests that for an
android, the expression of emotion does not
come instinctively, and they must practice
feeling. Bremner writes, the statement you
are given a calfskin wallet on your birthday"
(p. 40-41) would elicit a 'normal' response of
'I'd thank them and put it in my pocket' from
almost all of the readers of the novel. Yet
within Dick's world, any response other than
extreme shock and horror, such as Rachel
Rosen's response of "I wouldn't accept
it...Also I'd report the person who gave it to
me to the police"(p. 41), would indicate
sociopathic and 'inhuman' qualities
(Bremnar). This juxtaposition of expressed
emotions lends to the concept that humanity
or the sense of normality are arbitrary. That,
technically, there is no common ground
when it comes to feeling or emotion. Thus,
allowing the argument that what makes us
human is based on our constant ability to
feel emotion, to be folded into itself
I should also note a smaller degree of Dicks
thinking process. He explores the idea of
being loved with also wanting to feel
empathy. In his novel, Miss. Luft is an opera
house singer, but she is also one of the
escaped androids that Deckard most find and
retire. Miss. Luft loves to preform and it
seems that her only desire is to be accepted
and loved by an audience. This desire,
though minimized through Deckards
thoughts, can be interpreted as a
characteristic of empathy. She feels emotion.

Yet, she is classified as non-human,

therefore she must be eliminated.
Humans do not feel the same emotions all
the time. Androids have the ability to learn
what to feel and when to feel it. Where is
line drawn?

From Paper to Screen

My main focus was not so much the book,
nor how the book is adapted to film, but
rather I wanted to explore the translation of
humanity from book to film. In other words,
how successful is the film in translating the
novels fundamental concept of humanity?
Obviously, Blade Runner is not completely
based on Dicks novel, it is merely inspired
by it. However, I do think Ridley Scott did a
good job of furthering Dicks questions on
human identity. His approach, like Dick, put
much of the work on the observer. The
dialogue is simplistic even with the voice
over, and the tight angles make the observer
share the characters point of view. In doing
this, the observer is constantly torn between
feeling like a human and feeling twisted in
the probability that they are looking through
eyes of an android.
John Whitehead suggests that Blade Runner
combats the idea of synthesizing the
meaning of life into one definition. He
writes, scientific tinkering will obviously
have revolutionary implications-especially
in how we humans view ourselves. When
we can synthesize life, professor Arthur L.
Caplan recognizes, it makes the notion of a
living being less special (Whitehead). He
goes on to state that many viewers and
critics saw the film as a warning against the
push towards scientific growth and
exploration. The earth is breaking down, and
people are forced to inhabit other planets.

Those who remain on earth live in huge

cities consisting of new buildings 400 stories
high, and decaying remnants of the world
before.
According to Michael Newton, the film is
preoccupied as it is with the thought that
people themselves might be hollow. The plot
depends on the notion that the replicants
must be allowed to live no longer than four
years, because as time passes they begin to
develop raw emotions (Newton). Once
again, what makes us human is questioned.
As humans, we express emotion. However,
the film, more so than the book, suggests
that it isnt that simple.

reach. Essentially, the film takes the

fundamental idea of humanity explored in
the book and then continues to ask why
us? We established that there is a difference
between humans and androids, but makes
our differences hierarchal?

Conclusion
What gives humans the right to hunt and kill
androids because they want to exist like us?
I want to focus on that question. If humans
have the ability to feel the broad spectrum of
emotion, then that means they feel hatred,
and rage, allowing power itself to become an
emotion so strong it can lead a person to kill.
However, the androids in the
film and in the novel want to
live. They come back to earth to
live a life similar to the human
counterparts. They feel nothing,
supposedly, and because of this
they cannot live. We feel
everything, supposedly, and
because of this we kill.
What makes us human?

Source: screenrant.com

Humans too, can be void of feeling.

For the most part, everyone in the film
seems to live alone, and travel in their own
little circles. There is a lack of intimacy in
this film that suggests that there is no line
between androids and humans. The films
choice to separate society into individual
persons allows the film to go deeper into
what constitutes humanity as a whole.
The films greatest feature is that Ridley
Scott was able to add an interesting layer to
humanity that Dicks novel doesnt quite

If it is really our instinct to feel towards

another person, what happens when you
isolate us? How can be differentiate
ourselves then? How can we express our
empathy if there is nothing or no one to feel
empathetic about?
Perhaps that is not the question that needs to
be asked. Maybe we should ask ourselves:
What am I when I am alone?
Who am I when I am with the others?

Works Cited
Bremnar, Kyla. "Philip K Dick's Human Vision." August 1999. The Ethical Spectacle.
Document. November 2016.
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep. New York: A Del Rey , 1968. Print.
Newton, Michael. "Tears in the rain: Why Blade Runner is Timeless." March 2015. The
Guardian. Document. November 2016.
Whitehead, John. "Blade Runner: what does it mean to be human?" September 2007. The
Rutherford Institute. Document. November 2016.