The Personality Exchange
What if you were replaced by a clone of yourself?
As a human being, it's easy to rule out the possibility of being replaced. Every one of us knows how unique and different we are from each other. With this in mind, it's hard to think that there is someone that could take our place in this world by matching our exact personality, attributes, and talents. However, for the children at Hailsham in the book Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, it's a much easier feat, in fact somewhat ingrained in their understanding of themselves.
Each student at Hailsham is modeled from a 'real' person in the outside world, mostly referred to as 'possibles' in the novel. The children being aware of this guides them to think that they are not human at all, only replacements for an actual human. Despite this reality, the students show an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are in fact human and not merely replacements. Although the Hailsham clones share the same genetic makeup as their possibles, differing experiences, environments, and personalities between the clones and possibles highlight their distinct humanity as they can no longer be considered replacements.
The Hailsham students are blind to their own humanity. Having awareness of their reality, they struggle to find value and purpose in themselves that matches up to 'real' humans.
When Ruth talks about who they are cloned from she concludes that they are "modeled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps" (166). Going off of this conclusion the Hailsham clones cannot be accepted as replacements because they turned out to be caring and selfless people. With this distinction of their futures, it's clear that the environment they grew up in played a large role in shaping them as individuals. If it's true that one student was modeled off of a 'junky' then it's impossible to call them interchangeable and a replacement for one another because their lives and personalities differ greatly.
The children at Hailsham display their individualistic nature through their differing personalities. Yes, I understand that some of the differences in personality could stem from the differing genetics of each student's possibles. However, I refute this idea because their interests and ideas are not predestined, they fluctuate in response to others around them.
For example, one large shared experience at Hailsham is the seasonal exchange. At this event, each student was able to view different pieces of painting, pottery, drawings and many other types of art. All the students saw the same things yet each one of them looked at the pieces uniquely, and each work impacted them differently. This exchange was a way of "building up a collection of personal possessions" (16). The things the students collect turned into personal items that held individual value, things that resonated with their interests and fit their own distinguishing personality.
It is understandable to think that since every student was modeled off of someone different they should all have contrasting interests, yet I still claim that they build their personality based on relationships around them.
Each student has new and original ideas on their surroundings that are personal to them as shown in the previous example above, however they also have the capability of learning from other's interests and finding new passions to relate with other students. Kathy even admits "the Exchanges had a more subtle effect" and being "dependent on each other" is "bound to do things to your relationships" (16). Through these Exchanges the students were able to understand each other's differences and find ways of relating to each other which in turn had this "subtle effect" on not only their relationships but also personalities.
We can see this idea in action when Kathy and Ruth were deciding what to get at a seasonal exchange as they "[stood] there torn between Susie K.'s poems and those giraffes Jackie used to make" (17). This example shows how the clones were not all completely separate from each other in personality, but rather they were able to learn from their fellow student's personalities, share similarities, and incorporate this into their own self-image.
These exchanges display the complex personalities that each of these students has and their ability to have individual preferences but also the capacity to change and mold in relation to others around them.
Taking these examples into consideration, I emphasize that it is not viable to call these clones just a replacement for their possible. The Hailsham students are all their own distinct human beings who are shaped by their surroundings yet still grounded with unique and personal interests.
One clone that can be seen as a replacement is Ava from the film Ex Machina.
Ava is a hyper-intelligent robot that seems to have very human characteristics displayed by her complex understanding of language and thoughts. However, Ava is only a model based on a previous prototype. And in time Ava will be disabled and a new robot will be made from her experiences as Nathan explains, "Ava doesn’t exist in isolation... She’s part of a continuum. Version 9.6. And each time, they get a little better" (Ex Machina 23). Ava is a literal replacement for her previous version.
This makes sense because Ava only has a mind with basic skills that can pass her off as having consciousness and functioning, but she cannot be considered a human that is separate from her previous models. Nathan, Ava's creator, describes when transitioning from a new model he "[downloads] the mind" and "[unpacks] the data" and "to do that, you end up partially formatting, so the memories go. But the body survives" (Ex Machina 83). This is a critical distinction between the Hailsham clones and Ava. The clones at Hailsham have experiences and memories that build them as a human being and defines them as different from their possibles. Ava is only a piece of equipment that replaced another clone with her same mechanical brain and skill set. She has no previous memories to shape her personality and self-image which is why it is acceptable to label her as a replacement.
[Credit: KPBS]
This cannot be said for the Hailsham clones.
A clone at Hailsham could not take the place of a possible and vice versa. Their experiences and surroundings have shaped them into completely different people. The students learned from each other creating interconnect and distinct personalities that differ vastly from their possibles.
Although the children at Hailsham are clones of another person, it does not make them any less human than their possible, and certainly does not justify labeling them as replacements. Growing up, these clones had lives that were completely different from their possibles. Furthermore, the clones do not have fixed personalities that are immune to change. The Hailsham kids display how they have unique and distinctive personalities by showing individual interests and also common values that are built off each other. It is not realistic or logical to conclude that these clones are replacements for their possibles because of their humanities are so widely dissimilar. However, juxtaposing Ava to the Hailsham clones we can clearly see how Ava can be seen as a replacement due to her lack of memories and experiences that would shape her personality and differentiate her from previous models. Although these clones are identical in genetic nature, they are still humans that have complex and interrelated personalities that greatly differ from their possibles which is why the Hailsham clones cannot be considered as a replacement.
As a human being, it's easy to rule out the possibility of being replaced. Every one of us knows how unique and different we are from each other. With this in mind, it's hard to think that there is someone that could take our place in this world by matching our exact personality, attributes, and talents. However, for the children at Hailsham in the book Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, it's a much easier feat, in fact somewhat ingrained in their understanding of themselves.
The Identity of Clones
[Credit: The Telegraph]
The Hailsham students are blind to their own humanity. Having awareness of their reality, they struggle to find value and purpose in themselves that matches up to 'real' humans.
When Ruth talks about who they are cloned from she concludes that they are "modeled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps" (166). Going off of this conclusion the Hailsham clones cannot be accepted as replacements because they turned out to be caring and selfless people. With this distinction of their futures, it's clear that the environment they grew up in played a large role in shaping them as individuals. If it's true that one student was modeled off of a 'junky' then it's impossible to call them interchangeable and a replacement for one another because their lives and personalities differ greatly.
The Humanity of Clones
The children at Hailsham display their individualistic nature through their differing personalities. Yes, I understand that some of the differences in personality could stem from the differing genetics of each student's possibles. However, I refute this idea because their interests and ideas are not predestined, they fluctuate in response to others around them.
For example, one large shared experience at Hailsham is the seasonal exchange. At this event, each student was able to view different pieces of painting, pottery, drawings and many other types of art. All the students saw the same things yet each one of them looked at the pieces uniquely, and each work impacted them differently. This exchange was a way of "building up a collection of personal possessions" (16). The things the students collect turned into personal items that held individual value, things that resonated with their interests and fit their own distinguishing personality.
It is understandable to think that since every student was modeled off of someone different they should all have contrasting interests, yet I still claim that they build their personality based on relationships around them.
Each student has new and original ideas on their surroundings that are personal to them as shown in the previous example above, however they also have the capability of learning from other's interests and finding new passions to relate with other students. Kathy even admits "the Exchanges had a more subtle effect" and being "dependent on each other" is "bound to do things to your relationships" (16). Through these Exchanges the students were able to understand each other's differences and find ways of relating to each other which in turn had this "subtle effect" on not only their relationships but also personalities.
We can see this idea in action when Kathy and Ruth were deciding what to get at a seasonal exchange as they "[stood] there torn between Susie K.'s poems and those giraffes Jackie used to make" (17). This example shows how the clones were not all completely separate from each other in personality, but rather they were able to learn from their fellow student's personalities, share similarities, and incorporate this into their own self-image.
These exchanges display the complex personalities that each of these students has and their ability to have individual preferences but also the capacity to change and mold in relation to others around them.
Taking these examples into consideration, I emphasize that it is not viable to call these clones just a replacement for their possible. The Hailsham students are all their own distinct human beings who are shaped by their surroundings yet still grounded with unique and personal interests.
The Replacement
One clone that can be seen as a replacement is Ava from the film Ex Machina.
Ava is a hyper-intelligent robot that seems to have very human characteristics displayed by her complex understanding of language and thoughts. However, Ava is only a model based on a previous prototype. And in time Ava will be disabled and a new robot will be made from her experiences as Nathan explains, "Ava doesn’t exist in isolation... She’s part of a continuum. Version 9.6. And each time, they get a little better" (Ex Machina 23). Ava is a literal replacement for her previous version.
This makes sense because Ava only has a mind with basic skills that can pass her off as having consciousness and functioning, but she cannot be considered a human that is separate from her previous models. Nathan, Ava's creator, describes when transitioning from a new model he "[downloads] the mind" and "[unpacks] the data" and "to do that, you end up partially formatting, so the memories go. But the body survives" (Ex Machina 83). This is a critical distinction between the Hailsham clones and Ava. The clones at Hailsham have experiences and memories that build them as a human being and defines them as different from their possibles. Ava is only a piece of equipment that replaced another clone with her same mechanical brain and skill set. She has no previous memories to shape her personality and self-image which is why it is acceptable to label her as a replacement.
[Credit: KPBS]
If a new model was made Ava could be replaced just as easily as the last. Basically the same body, and the same cognitive skillset with no memories to base a sense of self off of.
A clone at Hailsham could not take the place of a possible and vice versa. Their experiences and surroundings have shaped them into completely different people. The students learned from each other creating interconnect and distinct personalities that differ vastly from their possibles.
Although the children at Hailsham are clones of another person, it does not make them any less human than their possible, and certainly does not justify labeling them as replacements. Growing up, these clones had lives that were completely different from their possibles. Furthermore, the clones do not have fixed personalities that are immune to change. The Hailsham kids display how they have unique and distinctive personalities by showing individual interests and also common values that are built off each other. It is not realistic or logical to conclude that these clones are replacements for their possibles because of their humanities are so widely dissimilar. However, juxtaposing Ava to the Hailsham clones we can clearly see how Ava can be seen as a replacement due to her lack of memories and experiences that would shape her personality and differentiate her from previous models. Although these clones are identical in genetic nature, they are still humans that have complex and interrelated personalities that greatly differ from their possibles which is why the Hailsham clones cannot be considered as a replacement.
I agree with the idea that replacements cannot be clones, and vice versa. The fact that the students of Hailsham grew up as individuals with different personalities goes to show the humanity in them. In addition, there is no contact between the clones and their human counterparts. In essence, clones merely share the same biology and genetics as their respective humans, but I believe these physical attributes are not what define us. Compassion, courage, jealously, fear, etc. These are human qualities. Our development as individuals cannot be replaced, but rather, embraced.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that nurture plays a huge role in determining the way the clones of Hailsham act, and that both humans and clones have personalities that are extremely malleable. With regards to Ex Machina, however, I was slightly confused by your argument. I think that Ava can only be seen as a replacement and not a clone - yes, she was developed from a previous prototype, but she is not the genetic duplicate of an organism.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post was very thought provoking and I agree with your stance on how a these clones have their own different personality
ReplyDelete