In the film ‘Blade Runner’, the Tyrell Corporation, which
was involved in the manufacture of the replicants, claimed that they could make
replicants ‘more human than human’. Is it merely a sentimental slogan or a
foreseeable phenomenon in the near future?
I believe that if we are to think whether ‘more human than
human’ is possible, we have to dissect the question in two perspectives – a
biotic (evolutionary) perspective and also an ethical perspective. For the
first point of view, if the force to rise above human is merely driven through
the impersonal force of evolution, then it is a natural phenomenon and there is
nothing wrong about that per se. Yet, if the motivation behind this motto is to
afford advantages that can improve humanity’s well being, we have to think what
sort of consequence that may lead to ourselves, and also our environment and
the machines – that is, the replicants in this case – around us.
The replicants in the film were interesting because they
could be considered as a combination of the two ends of the dialectic - the man
and the machine. Through the use of genetic engineering, the Tyrell Corporation
has been able to generate replicants with above-human abilities, in terms of
physical strength and intelligence. Thus, they should be compared to HAL in ‘2001
A Space Odyssey’ rather than the Terminator, as the replicants were a sort of
artificial intelligence which could mimic real human behaviors, or could even
become more like humans. Yet, the irony was that in order to use these
replicants as instruments, they had to be treated in a mechanical way. The
Tyrell Corporation's underlying motivation to use the replicants as tools and
slaves meant that they had to strip the replicants of their potential dignities,
treating them as sub-human. The replicants were engineered to behave as if they
were automatons, so that they could be effectively controlled. They were only
allowed a mechanical sort of lifespan - a battery life of 4 years, and this forcibly
limited the potential development of their existences. They were all assigned
specific duties, and they had to perform functions they were programmed to.
Moreover, they were even assigned to simulacra, where in
some cases they were misled to believe falsely that they were behaving as if
they were genuine human beings and they had life stories of their own. Take Rachael
as an example. One of the first twists in the film was that Rachael, who has
always believed she was a human being, but was actually a programmed replicant
like all the other products of the Tyrell Corporation. While Rachael argued
that she had all the memories and all the proofs of her ‘human’ existence,
Deckard told her the awful truth that all these memories of her were actually
implants, they were simulacra which were programmed into her brain to give her
a false consciousness of human existence. I suppose any members of the audience
can sympathize with this poor character. It is as if you have everything and
all of a sudden, they are gone.
Thus, for Eldon Tyrell, no matter how he rationalized in a
sentimental way that he was trying to make our lives better or led us to a
better future, it is contentious to state that his motivation is ethical. From
a Kantian perspective, the Tyrell Corporation treated the replicants – for whom
the Corporation claimed were more human than human – as means to an end. The
replicants were not granted any human dignity or individualism - they were
merely seen as instruments to further other humans’ end. If we are to use
Kant’s ethical theory to provide critique on the Tyrell Corporation’s action,
then they should be seen as unethical. For someone to be treated as a human
being, he/she should be treated as an end to himself/herself, so that autonomy
can be gained and they are not dehumanized because they have to perform some
pre-assigned functions to further others’ ends.
Coming back to Rachael’s scenario. Even if Tyrell appeared to be compassionate
and caring to Rachael, his motivation was hypocritical. He went as far to
implant happy memories to Rachael’s psyche, to offer her a complete fictional
narrative for her existence. None of the scenarios she has encountered
throughout her existence belonged to or were originated from her, because they
were stories that has already been written and programmed into her. When she started playing the piano in
Deckard’s apartment, she bitterly commented that it was just another skill
implanted to her. Tyrell’s dream clearly has not been fulfilled.
The above discussions regarding the nature of replicants are
closely related to the central enigma of Blade Runner, which has become iconic
over the years - is Deckard a replicant? Many words have been devoted to the
potential answers of this question, and everyone, including the director and
cast, has provided their own points of view. The newly released ‘Blade Runner
2049’ has thankfully preserved the importance of this mystery, thus preventing
the possibility of any simple and shallow answer. I believe this ambiguity is
deliberate from the director, though he probably understood that this decision
would alienate those members of audience who looked for simple story and fast
entertainment. The director put in both clues that argued for and against
Deckard’s true nature, and some of these clues would lead to subjective value
judgments from the viewers, thus leading to gaps in logic from any possible
interpretations. Everyone’s answer will have their own assumptions and have slightly
different interpretations, so that a final and definite answer for this mystery
will not exist.
It should not be surprising to see that the name ‘Rick
Deckard’ is very similar to Rene Descartes, one of the first modern
philosophers who questioned about the justification of being. How are I certain
of my own autonomous existence, not existing in a dream or being controlled by some
unknown, outside force? In the film, the replicant Pris, who were assigned the
role of pleasure model, also attempted to assert her autonomy by quoting the
motto ‘I think, therefore I am’. The question regarding Deckard’s ultimate
status is an epistemological question – very much like if someone challenges
you the justifications that you are in a waking state rather than in a dreaming
state. When Rachael first met Deckard at the Tyrell Corporation, she challenged
Deckard whether he has ever retired a human by mistake before. It was a totally
logical suspicion because with the exception of the Voight-Kampff test, there
were almost no possible ways to distinguish between a human and a replicant –
the replicants were made to look like humans from the very beginning.
Of course, the most straight forward answer is to have
Deckard himself taking the Voight Kampff test. Yet, I feel this simple answer
does not address the implication behind the question. The Voight-Kampff test,
which could be seen as a representation of science in the film's world, was
dependent on the context and order of knowledge in that particular world. Even
if it can provide a satisfactory answer at that point, one cannot guarantee
that the answer is the ultimate final answer, because the science and
technology in a given era may not be adequate as time goes on - the development
of Einsteinian physics from Newtonian physics serves as a great example. What
the question is concerned with are more timeless and metaphysical issues - how
Deckard was certain himself that he was a genuine human being but not a ‘skin
job’. Descartes, employing his method of doubt, came to conclude and asserted
his being because rationality should dictate his existence to be real. The
Cartesian doubt should eventually lead to self knowledge, and provides an
opportunity to philosophize one of the deepest questions of humanity.
One of the most important and suggestive evidence to support
the possibility of Deckard being a replicant was the unicorn origami that Gaff
apparently left in Deckard' s apartment, when Deckard planned to escape with
Rachael after all that happened. This was so because Deckard had a similar
dream about an unicorn some time before, and this uncanny coincidence might
suggest that the dreams were planted into Deckard’s consciousness, thereby
implying Deckard was just a replicant experiencing his own simulacra. The point
when Deckard picked up and inspected the unicorn origami, his facial expression
suggested he seemed to understand something. It was also possible that Gaff
might be aware of the fact that Deckard was a replicant, and so he provided a
subtle clue to Deckard and helped him to run away with Rachael indirectly.
Ridley Scott did not commit to provide a final answer in the 1982 film. With
the intention of making a hybrid between sci-fi and film noir, he wanted to
immortalize the Blade Runner mystery, and thus led to ongoing debate and
discussions regarding this modern classic.
So do I think Deckard is a replicant or not? Well, just like
everyone else, when I first watched ‘Blade Runner’ I have tried to pick up all
the clues in order to lead myself to a final answer. Yet, the more I revisit
this question, the more I understand why the creators of the film want this to
be a mystery. The question itself is a philosophical one, and the metaphysical
nature of it means that we are likely to be inaccessible to the final truth,
and can only employ whatever mode of thinking and arrive at some speculations. The
point is not just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, but what implications the
question brings us to. It is the most elemental question of what it means to be
human. If I can choose an answer for the film, I would prefer to have Deckard
being a replicant, because that will lead to a more ironic and powerful message
for the film. No matter what sort of systems we have used to understand
ourselves, there are many issues that we cannot understand at the end, because
we are often situated in a subjective point of view, no matter how impartial we
believe ourselves to be. The acquirement of self-knowledge is the holy grail of
our intellectual lives, because it is just so hard to achieve.
Perhaps, the final answer of what it means to be human is
not the mere use of reason, in a Cartesian sense, to give a ‘yes’ to the
question of our being. It is the very ability for us to doubt our existences,
to raise these hard questions, that makes us so human in the first place. A
machine or an animal with a lower cognitive ability will not have the ability
to ask this. Even we may never find an ultimate answer for the puzzle of our
existences, the courage we have channeled to think about these issues is affirmative
to our presences. As Gaff will have the final words here – ‘You’ve done a man’s
job, sir.’
