In Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, I believe the style in which the students of Hailsham are raised is the best option in terms of the theme of humane treatment. In their time at Hailsham, the students know they are different from "normals", being told since they are young that they are clones made to give organ donations once they are older. Yet, in the school, the students are given an education and always encouraged to be creative in artwork and poetry. Thus, the Hailsham students never fully understand the background of their purpose, being "told and not told" (Ishiguro 81). However, I consider this mixture of schooling and sheltering the most humane way to live out their purpose and to also have normal childhoods.
Ultimately, the students are brainwashed, as the guardians foreshadow the clones' futures just a couple years before they can fully understand the meaning, so they know it all along but do not rebel. To them, it is a fact they will live short lives and endure multiple painful operations, but they are never explicitly told that this is different from normal childhoods. The level of which they are sheltered becomes clear when protagonists Kathy and Tommy visit Madame in hopes of a deferral for their love. Upon arrival, their headmistress, Miss Emily, shares that the purpose of Hailsham is to prove "that if students [are] reared in humane, cultivated environments, it [is] possible for them to grow to be as sensitive and intelligent as any ordinary human being" (Ishiguro 261). The education and creativity aspects are to give the students some semblance of a normal childhood and a purpose, rather than the alternatives of locking them in a prison or keeping them in a coma their whole lives. Therefore, the school creators allow the opportunity for their students to reflect back on their childhoods and have happy memories. In addition, they gather the artwork of the students to show the world that the clones do have souls and can be just as different from one another as "normals" can be.
Overall, I deem Hailsham's methods of sheltering and brainwashing the clones into believing their childhoods are normal and valuable to be the best and most humane approach. Doing so allows the guardians to be free of guilt and the souls of the bodies used as organ incubators to live happy lives. Instead of growing up in some of the disastrous conditions hinted at in the novel, Hailsham students can gratefully await their call to duty while reminiscing over fond memories.
I do not have a strong opinion on whether sheltering the children or exposing them to the hard truth would have been better or more humane - I think there are pros and cons to both options. However, I like that you bring the issue up, as I think this argument is what makes Never Let Me Go so interesting. Miss Lucy and Miss Emily and the rest of the guardians have very different opinions on how the children of Hailsham should be brought up, which essentially boils down to an argument of whether “knowledge is power” or “ignorance is bliss” is a better approach for the treatment of the clones. Tommy tells Ruth after they speak with Miss Emily and find out that deferrals do not exist that “Miss Lucy was right. Not Miss Emily” (273). This shows that Tommy wanted to know everything there was to know about his situation, as hopeless as it was. Maybe he would have lived differently had he learned the details regarding his purpose in life earlier on. Sheltering the children from the reality of their lives certainly gave them a happier childhood, but keeping things from them led them to build false hope, believing that deferrals were possible and love could be their way out of such a sad destiny.
ReplyDeleteThe human relationships within this novel are what shape the plot line and build the characters. I agree that Tommy, Ruth, and Kathy all act as a family and a group of people that count on one another. However, this type of family to me is one that isn’t relatable to the families and relationships we form in the “real world”. For example, when growing up and going to school we form these close relationships with friends and consider them our “family” but they aren’t the ones we go home to every night. Our actual families are a different sector of people that we jump to outside of the relationships we bond at school. Even in college, our family is a phone call away from the relationships we build at school. In this dystopian society, this group of individuals that you form in Hailsham is the only group you get to cling to and call your home. Instead of being given your parents and siblings to call your family, it is up to the orphans (donors) to go out and find that replacement. In addition, this element of finding a family rather than being given one is one reason that the author proves to the reader that they are not “humane” individuals and are just there for a purpose of others rather than living their life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe humanity aspect of this novel is very interesting to bring up, as there are definitely arguments favoring both sides. In that, I agree with your view on raising the children and treating them as if they served a purpose other than as donors.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning, the humanity of the novel is without a doubt lacking. The situation itself is unarguably inhumane, as the idea of forming clones purely for the purpose of glorified organ harvesting is horrifying. At that point, what comes next? Do you leave them unconscious their entire lives, existence unaware from the start? Do you let them live like pigs, purely for the purpose of harvesting and without any freedom? Continuing inhumanity with more inhumanity doesn't sit right in my stomach, personally. I believe that opening up the clones to new experiences, and offering them some independence, is the humane path to take. The experience opened them up to some moments of happiness, such as when Kathy "was swaying about slowly in time to the song, holding an imaginary baby" (Ishiguro 71). While her life will be cut short, the fact that she got to experience these moments and form relationships allow her to have some semblance of a life. The clones learned to appreciate others and how to love. In my eyes, the length of life doesn't matter as long as the quality of life meets expectations. Kathy, Ruth and Tommy all formed meaningful relationships in their lifetimes, and were happy as a result. Thus, I do not believe that offering a life to the clones is inhumane, but for the best of the clones.
The situation at Hailsham is making the very best of a bad situation. I agree with what Devin said, about the quality of life being superior necessarily one that is just long. the Bonds that they formed at Hailsham were loving and created memories that were able to get the colones through the grisly fate of repeated operations to harvest their organs until they complete. The education at Hailsham is very focused on creating the best life for its students after they leave, putting great emphasis on games, friendship, creativity and candidly talking about sex for fun. However, I disagree with the statement that this allows the guardians to live free of guilt. The guardians are racked with guilt, which is the entire purpose of Hailsham. Even years later when confronting Madame she said tearfully “Poor creatures. What did we do to you? With all our schemes and plans?” showing that while the experiment at Hailsham wasn't enough to guilt the public into stopping donations, it did guilt the guardians.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the students are brainwashed. For whatever reason, they never fight the oppression they’re under. To me, a fate of dying at 20-30 years old would be absolutely horrible. The fact that they basically “go silent into that good night” just proves that they have accepted their fates. However, as we discussed in class, it also makes some sense. Many of the clones have little to no skills and would not be accepted in the real world. In the reading for Monday, also, it was clear that they were almost afraid of the normal people. They wouldn’t know how to fit in, even if they had the opportunity. I’m still curious as to how they decide who gets to die when, which may effect their feelings about the donations.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Stacey
DeleteI very much agree with your position that these students at Hailsham are brainwashed in the most humane way possible. By educating students and encouraging them to be creative (in the form of art and poetry), they are being sheltered from the fact that they're nothing but clones, whose sole purpose is to donate their organs. They are brought up with no families, and so they seek compassion and comfort amongst each other, as the main characters do (Tommy, Ruth, and Kathy). I believe it is this concept of friends and family that brings a humane aspect to the novel, making it more bearable to read. The argument as to whether Hailsham teachers should shelter the children or expose them to the harsh reality of their world is definitely representative of a double-edged sword. If they are told everything, they might rebel and seek deferral, ultimately bringing the system down. If they are sheltered from the truth, they would lead happier lives but die in a very melancholy manner. Ishiguro depicts a beautiful picture by presenting Hailsham students as being "told and not told" (Ishiguro 81) about the purpose that their lives serve.
ReplyDelete