Last week, for my Contemporary Literature module at university, I read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. (Just to warn anyone who hasn't read the book/seen the film this post will contains spoilers - so stop reading now if you don't want it to be spoiled for you!) The novel explores the questions: 'What is it that makes us human and what does it mean to be human?' as well as other questions surrounding ethics and about life generally. Ishiguro raises these questions by positioning the main characters as clones who have been purposefully created to donate their organs to the person whom they are a clone of. Consequently Ishiguro plays with the idea of time and age, shortening the clone's lifespan in order to lengthen the original person's. While I was reading the book it never occurred to me that the clones may not be considered 'human', yet when I was reading secondary criticism it became evident that some people do not categorize them as being 'human'.
To me this ultimately suggests that many people must have a particular conception of what makes somebody human and that the scientific manipulation aspect removes the clones 'human-ness'. It's argued that the clones are not human because they aren't natural, they aren't unique - they are just mere copies of an existing human. But each of the clones in the novel has their own personality, albeit a limited one due to their upbringing and end purpose. They also demonstrate the ability to portray emotions and construct their own opinions about the world, which I would consider 'human-like'. Identical twins are as close as we get to Ishiguro's fictional clones in real life and yet we would never say that the second twin is not a human just because they have the same genetics as the first. They, like the clones in relation to their 'original', do not grow up as the same person - they are individuals with unique experiences. I think this shows that it is our experiences in life that shape us most: our upbringing, our friends, the institutions we're a part of and our relationships. However trying to pinpoint what exactly 'human-ness' is, is more problematic, more blurry and less clearly defined than I initially thought. Your definition of what makes a human dictates whether you'd deem Ishiguro's clones and being human or not. But I'd suggest that the unsettling, disturbing feeling the novel leaves the reader with, regarding the clones and their end purpose, must say something. The clones focused on in the novel: Kathy, Tommy and Ruth are all treated in a human way, they are given an education and so on. Whereas it is implied that other clones are not so lucky and are treated in a inhuman way, I would suggest that these clones would probably appear less 'human' to the reader.
It seems to me that Ishiguro is stressing the importance of experience and of living. He moves beyond the debates of human-ness and back to the idea of time. Perhaps the underlying message is that we should learn to appreciate the experiences and opportunities we're given rather than endlessly trying to survive longer and live to an older age. Sometimes we have to let go. After all, a longer life isn't necessarily a better one, especially if you just spend twice as long sleeping.
Laura.
Song: Hey Now by London Grammar
