Leonie A. Souman (6078990)
Thesis Master Literary Studies: Literature and Culture - Specialisation English Dr. R.W.H Glitz
30 June 2014
!
Zombies, Vampires, Humans:
How Monstrosities Demarcate the Border Between Human and Non-Human
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Table of contents:
!
Introduction 3
1. What is a Human? 4
2. Definitely Not Human 7
3. ‘No Longer Human’ 9
4. Mutation 12
5. Without a Body 15
6. Giant Rationality 17
7. The Human Factor 19
8. Talking and Thinking 21
9. Alive 24
10. Mourning 26
11. Dehumanisation and Identification 28
12. The Other 30
13. The New Human 32
14. Being Included 34 Conclusion 36 Works Cited 39
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Introduction
The definition of what features constitute a human being have changed over time. Just as eve-rything else, the contemporary view is rather different compared to the view of earlier times. In order to find out more about this intriguing subject, it is helpful to look at texts that address the border between human and non-human. By looking at monstrosities that are considered non-human, a clearer definition could be discovered. There are of course many different mon-strosities, but the focus here will be on the ones that are humanoid or near humanoid in form. A long tradition of ghost stories and vampire stories exists, along with the more recent zombie stories. These humanoids with a subtle difference to humans show which features, if lost, de-prive them of humanity. By examining some contemporary examples from these traditions, the biggest threats to humanity become clear. The criteria of what features are necessary to be considered human can be defined by monstrosity narratives and the results reflect on, and ex-plain, contemporary views of human beings and humanity.
The amount of narratives available on monstrosities is overwhelming, which could be an indicator of how many people struggle with the question of humanity and to which degree these struggles reach. Here, six novels and one book series are looked at in order to find an answer. Firstly, the novel The Zombie Autopsies: Secret Notebooks from the Apocalypse by Steven C. Scholzman, which is about zombies and the delicate border between the zombie and the human. Secondly, the book I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, which is about a world in which vampires form a new community in which humans are a minority. Thirdly, Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book, a story about a boy who is raised by ghosts. Fourth on the list is The BGF by Roald Dahl, a children’s book about a friendly giant. The fifth novel is
World War Z by Max Brooks, which describes a zombie pandemic. The novel Warm Bodies
by Isaac Marion is the last single volume. It portrays a zombie boy who falls in love with a human girl. All of these narratives play with the border between the human and the non-hu-man and, at times, blur the border to the extent that the distinction is lost. Finally, the series about Sookie Stackhouse by Charlaine Harris incorporate vampires, werewolves, shape shif-ters and faeries.
The main focus here will be on the novels that are about zombies. However, the hu-manoid figures of the vampire, the ghost, and the werewolf are useful to help demarcate the boundaries of the human.
!
1. What is a Human?
In order to understand what exactly constitutes a human, a definition of the concept is needed. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the noun human means ‘a human being’. The explanation under human being gives the following description: ‘a man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens’ (693). The online version of the Oxford Dictionary is a bit more elaborate, as it states that a human being is:
‘A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.’
While this definition seems simple and clear, there are some gaping holes in it. First of all, superior mental development is not something that is guaranteed in every man, woman and child. There are countless examples of people with, sometimes severe, issues in their mental development. To argue that their mental development is superior to that of animals is hugely problematic.
It is generally agreed upon by scholars and scientist that many different species of animals have great mental development, for example dolphins and chimpanzees, although their capacities are deemed less than those of humans, as seen in this quote from Science,
Me-dicine, and Animals by the National Academy of Sciences:
‘Animals, after all, are not capable of many of the more complex functions found in humans, such as advanced language, moral reasoning, or complex learning skills. But many of the basic structures and functions of the brain are common to all animals. Since complex human thoughts are built on a foundation of simpler mental processes that are evident in animals, animal studies can shed light on uniquely human
behaviors.’ (11)
However, there are many people with mental disabilities that lack the ability to perform these complex functions. Someone with, for example, Trisomy 21 often has great difficulties with his speech and learning. One of the common traits of this disability, also known as Down’s
Syndrome, is an IQ that is below average. Extensive research regarding the limitations and abilities of people affected by this syndrome is ongoing, but there is a general agreement that they are not as able as regular people. They fail to fulfil all the demands of a human being as stated by both the online version of the Oxford Dictionary and the National Academy of Sci-ences. Still, this does not mean that these people are not human.
The last qualification stated by the online version of the Oxford Dictionary is that of upright stance. This is, again, highly problematic. It suggests that people who are, for whate-ver reason, unable to stand upright are not human. A person born with Spina Bifida usually sits in a wheelchair and is unable to walk, due to being born with spinal issues. The same is obviously true for people born without legs. They have no stance, so therefore they are not human. And a person who could stand and walk, but loses ability to do so after an accident or illness, is from that moment on no longer human. These claims are ridiculous, outrageous and unethical: having disabilities does not mean that a person is not a human.
There are many solutions available for a multitude of illnesses and disabilities, some of which including a change to the physical body of the patient. For instance the pacemaker, a devise designed for people with severe heart problems. The devise is a little machine that re-boots the heart in case of failure. Batteries, plastic, metal and other materials are used and the little machine gets implanted into the patient. The technology behind this is incredible and it cannot be denied that this technology has saved many lives. Although the patient only conti-nues to live due to the pacemaker, and although his body has been altered, the patient is still undeniably still human. Apart from a few religious groups, that are against any type of inter-vention and believed that their deity will save them if he deems them worthy to be saved, no-body objects to the intervention doctors carry out in order to save people suffering from heart conditions, nor do they have any ethical objections.
Nonetheless, there are medical procedures that raise a score of ethical objections from various people. A clear example to illustrate this is abortion and the controversy around it. While many people think birth control is perfectly acceptable, their feelings about abortion can be quite different. Abortion is of course not a means of birth control, as conception has already taken place and the cluster of cells soon has a heartbeat, while birth control prevents conception altogether. The grounds for objecting to abortion are usually exactly because the pregnancy is already considered to be a human being. Whether or not that is true is difficult to
decide. Without the woman to feed it via the placenta and to protect it inside her womb and body, it would not be able to grow or survive. However, it cannot be denied that the growth inside the womb is alive, especially once a heartbeat can be detected, which happens at five weeks after conception.
Another controversial procedure regarding pregnancy is that of embryo selection and reprogenetics. Embryo selection is a process that allows doctors to screen in vitro embryos for certain characteristics before placing them into the womb, while reprogenetics is a term used to describe the genetic modification of said embryos. The screening of embryos allows medi-cal professionals to be certain that the resulting baby does not, for instance, suffer from Cystic Fibrosis or some other serious ailment. Apart from deciding which ailments are serious en-ough to eliminate, other possibilities spark yet more debate, as this procedure also allows for the selection of the sex of the baby. While that is useful for a number of diseases that only af-fect one of the sexes, it means that prospective parents can choose the sex of their offspring for no reason other than preferring that sex. Embryo selection and reprogenetics could even be used to only opt for babies that have blue eyes or brown hair. The possibility of having a
designer baby is there, although this notion is hotly debated.
Exactly how controversial the idea of reprogenetics is, can be seen when looking at the heated debate surrounding the subject. In 2008, Darthmouth College professor of ethics Ro-nald M. Green writes in his article “ Building Baby From the Genes Up” in The Washington
Post:
‘Will we eventually see "speciation," the emergence of two or more human
populations so different that they no longer even breed with one another? Will we re-create the horrors of eugenics that led, in Europe, Asia and the United States, to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people declared to be "unfit" and that in Nazi Germany paved the way for the Holocaust?’
Richard Hayes, director of the Center for Genetics and Society, responds a few days later to Green’s questions in his article “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks,” in The
Washing-ton Post by saying:
‘We want all these things [i.e. favourable traits], yes, and genetic technology might
and the human future that would come with altering the genetic basis of our common human nature.’
The interesting term used by Green and Hayes here is human. Hayes talks about the ‘human community’, ‘human future’, and ‘human nature’ like there terms have a fixed meaning. Green refers to ‘two or more human populations’. But if the meaning of the word human is problematic and inconclusive, then the terms uttered by Hayes and Green lose their validity.
!
2. Definitely Not Human
As shown earlier, finding an accurate description of what a human being is, proofs to be diffi-cult. By inverting the problem, an easier answer may be found. Instead of trying to describe the characteristics a human possesses, a closer look at figures that are usually regarded as de-finitely not human could provide some answers. Some obvious examples of non-human figu-res are found in fiction: zombies, vampifigu-res and ghosts. These figufigu-res are, unlike animals, still humanoid in form. That is, their appearance greatly resembles that of a human being and at first glance they could easily be mistaken for a human. One very intriguing aspect of these monsters, is that they, at least partially, fit the description of a human being as stated by the online Oxford Dictionary: all of these figures possess the upright stance.
Superior mental development is harder to prove in all of these humanoids. It is not too difficult in the case of vampires, as they still possess the ability of articulate speech. Speech makes it easy to measure mental development and learning skills, but it is not the only way of measuring said abilities. Besides, the notion of superior mental development is to vague a term to use in order to accurately describe one of the conditions required to be counted as a human being. The degree of superiority needed is not stated anywhere, nor is it clearly stated what the human is superior to. That being said, finding evidence of superior mental develop-ment in the figure of the zombie as depicted in popular fiction is difficult. The general con-sensus about the figure of the zombie is that of a reanimated corpse that has lost all mental capabilities and just exist in order to feed on human flesh.
According to the Cambridge Online Dictionaries, a zombie is ‘a dead person who is believed, in some Caribbean religions, to have been brought back to life by magic’. This defi-nition says nothing about the hankering for flesh that popular culture has bestowed upon the zombie. Ethnobotanist Wade Davis travelled to Haiti in 1982 and afterwards claimed that a
deathlike state could be induced by having two different powders enter the blood stream of the victim. In his 1985 book The Serpent and the Rainbow, which was later adapted into a movie, he describes the people affected as being completely subjected to the will of the per-son that had exposed them to the the powders. Davis’ Haitian zombie differs greatly from the one depicted in the 1968 George A. Romero movie Night of the Living Dead. Romero’s movie was the first to present the public with the dead, soulless, reanimated, flesh eating ghouls that have become the popular way of thinking of the zombie.
The popular view on vampires does differentiate considerably of the view on zombies. Probably the world’s most famous vampire novel, Dracula by Bram Stoker, has laid the foun-dation of contemporary views on the figure of the vampire, which make the figure of the vampire smart, strong, devious, highly educated, ancient, and powerful. That being said, there are also important similarities to the zombie. Like zombies, vampires are dead and soulless creatures, who prey upon humans. Unlike zombies, rather than craving human flesh, the vam-pire saturates his desires by drinking the blood of his victim. The results of these feeding frenzies are similar in nature: if bitten by a zombie, one becomes a zombie; if bitten by a vampire, one becomes a vampire. This requires the attacker to only bite the victim and not feed on him until he dies. Unfortunately, both zombies and vampires are often carried away by their hunger and will keep feeding themselves until the victim succumbs to his injuries. Thus, although the vampire and the zombie are different at first glance, they share multiple traits which helps to identify them and inhumane and even as not being human.
The traits shared by vampires and zombies are not present in ghosts, which leads to the necessity of another demarcator of what constitutes a human: death. Death seems the most important criteria when deciding about the nature of the humanoids discussed here: vampires, zombies and ghosts are all dead. Although vampires are definitely dead, they still posses their mental capabilities, the power of articulate speech, and upright stance. The rich tradition of ghost stories provides countless examples of ghosts that can think rationally and have no dif-ficulties in communicating. As mentioned before, it is a challenge to find proof of rational thinking in zombie narratives, but zombies are undeniably able to stand and walk. The only criteria that undoubtedly places these creatures outside the area that human beings occupy, outside the definition as given by the dictionary, is that of living versus dead. Neither zombies
nor vampires posses a heartbeat, while ghosts do not even have a body. Albeit useful, this cri-teria also means that a person ceases to be human once he dies.
Suggesting that a person is no longer a human being after he passes away, will surely lead to protests. There will be very few people who, after a loved of dies, will think of that loved one as no longer being human. Nevertheless, when comparing a deceased person with the definition of a human being as found in the dictionary, it cannot be argued that the person fails to meet the criteria. Upright stance, articulate speech and superior mental development are no longer present in the person and therefore he cannot be considered to be a human. This troublesome conclusion suggests that the definition of a human being needs to be refined. In-stead of simply looking at the human being, it is more fruitful to look at the terms humane and humanity. A dictionary description will not suffice to explain these terms, as there is a certain undefinable, and possibly emotional, feeling attached to these terms. This same feeling is at-tached to the term human, which explains why the dictionary is so unsuccessful at giving a definition that satisfies the innate imagine people have of these terms. Therefore, a closer look at some examples of the monstrous humanoids can provide clues about the exact border bet-ween human and non-human.
!
3. ‘No Longer Human’
Steven C. Scholzman’s book The Zombie Autopsies: Secret Notebooks from the Apocalypse paints a grim picture of a world that is infested with zombies. Two point three billion people have already died from the infection and the ones infected will follow swift: only ‘one-third of humanity remains’ (9). In Scholzman’s text, a human made virus is responsible for a disea-se that leads to zombiism: Ataxic Neurodegenerative Satiety Deficieny Sydrome, or ANSD in short. The reference to neurology here provides a clue into the essence of what constitutes a human being, as it suggest that the loss of neurological powers renders people to something that can no longer be considered human. As stated before, this leads to objections due to the difficulties in defining a clear border as to what is considered to be enough neurological capa-bility. Scholzman recognises this problem and struggles to find an answer that is acceptable.
The book is set out as a report that incorporates the diary written by neuroscientist Dr Stanley Blum, an expert in the field of zombies who tries to gain a deeper understanding on how the zombies function. After some background information in the report, the book
conti-nues with the journal of Blum and his quest to find a cure for ANSD. The disease consist of four stages, which Blum describes in his diary:
‘Stage I - Onset of extreme hunger with coexisting fever and upper respiratory symptoms. Cognitive lucidity it maintained. Stage I lasts from two minutes to three days.
Stage II - Worsening fever with measured temperatures up to 105°F. Cough worsens and cognitive decline begins with confusion and delirium. Hunger intensifies, with a preference for large, living organisms. Balance begins to suffer, with a wide, staggered gait. Arms are often held in front to maintain posture. Names and people are usually still recognised but with significant confusion. Stage II lasts from one to twenty-four hours.
Stage III - Ongoing fever, worsening delirium, and significant cognitive decline. Neurological effects are profound, with frequent falls and increased aggressive behavior. From observation, hunger appears to increase, though subjects are no longer able to speak coherently and cannot accurately convey their feelings. Previous
autopsies have demonstrated significant abnormalities in the gastrointestinal organs. Malabsorption and inability to process food predominate. Stage III lasts no more than four hours.
Stage IV - Complete loss of human characteristics. Officially categorised as “No Longer Human” — “NLH” — by the UN and the WHO. These are the true zombies. That’s what we called them when we first tried to describe their behavior, and the terms, though crass, works. That’s what they are… They have no capacity to recognise others as anything other than prey. They demonstrate profoundly hyperaggressive [sic] behavior. Everything that’s human is gone.’ (13-16)
This long quote offers some insight in the things that appear necessary to humanity. Terms such as ‘cognitive lucidity’, ‘cognitive decline’, ‘balance begins to suffer’, ’neurological ef-fects’, ‘frequent falls’, ’aggressive behavior’, ‘speak coherently’ and ’convey their feelings’ point to the significance of the requirements of mental development, articulate speech and upright stance. Stage IV speaks of a ‘complete loss of human characteristics’ and states the person is ‘No Longer Human’. Blum even goes as far to say that ‘everything human is gone’. The loss of the criteria as stated by the dictionary means the loss of humanity.
Scholzman’s character Blum agrees with the division into the four stages as suggested by the World Health Organization and the United Nations. The difference between a human and a stage IV patient of ANSD is major and nobody could claim that a stage IV patient still bears any resemblance to a human.
Ethics play a significant part in the story Scholzman has written. Early on in the story, Blum writes in his diary: ‘I remain firm in my belief that it is unethical to dissect anything other than Stage IV subjects’ (28). At this point, all the scientists Blum is working with are infected with ANSD, including Blum himself. However, anyone who has not reached the final stage of the disease is still considered to be a human and it goes against everything Blum be-lieves in to perform an autopsy on a living human. But even when a patient has clearly rea-ched stage IV, Blum struggles with the procedure, as clearly seen when he writes: ‘I still find it very difficult to bring the saw to the top of the humanoid’s head’ (34). His qualms are un-derstandable, as the humanoids in the narrative have not actually died, but are merely deemed ‘No Longer Human’. As Blum states:
‘I can’t get my mind around this. These things, these cockroaches, have human hearts that beat. They’re alive. How can they not be alive? What the hell does NLH mean? What does “No Longer Human” mean?’ (92)
The underscoring of this question highlights the importance of it. According to the WHO and UN guidelines that are referred to by Blum, a person is no longer human when he has lost all human characteristics.
A clear and exact description of the characteristics that are supposed to be human is not given in the novel. Again, it appears that there is some innate agreement as to what these characteristics are, while no explanation of them is offered. However, there is one feature mentioned above that shows up again in this narrative: the divide between living and dead. In an exchange between Blum and his colleague Pittman, the importance of this argument is brought to the foreground:
‘The host [e.g. the infected person] should be dead, but isn’t. It is dead, he told me. That’s why we call them zombies. He smiled nervously. But that’s not the point, I told him. The point is that the human is dead, but the virus changes us, uses us. We keep moving even when we’re “technically” dead. Pittman didn’t like this, and I stopped
explaining. They’re dead, he kept saying, mumbling it over and over again under his breath.’ (105)
The nervous smile that Blum sees on Pittman’s face is a strong indicator of the necessity of the zombies being dead in order to feel comfortable with performing autopsies on them. Dis-secting a living human is unethical and inhumane.
The extent to which performing an autopsy on a living human is problematic becomes apparent just a few pages further in the story. In a section that is not part of Blum’s diary, but of the report, a debate about the issue is being prepared:
‘Because neurological damage and the resultant behavioral changes appear irreversible at Stage IV, we’ll need to study subjects at earlier stages of disease progression. This means dissecting humans at Stage III or even II of the disease. In other words, we must consider dissecting living humans, a clear violation of the Atlanta Protocol. Please arrive tomorrow prepared to discuss the ramifications of this possibility.’ (118) The ‘Atlanta Protocol’ referred to is designed by the United Nations in an attempt to deal with the outbreak of ANSD. Further explanation of the protocol is found in Appendix II of the book, where it says:
‘In keeping with the conventions of the Treaty of Atlanta (3), we will not in this article refer to or consider these patients as human. Infected patients are considered “hu-manoid” once definitive ICD-10 criteria for Stage IV infection are met (4). Given our unique circumstances, we understand and are especially sympathetic with the ethical con-troversies surrounding this provocative change in definition, but in the interest of stemming the ongoing outbreaks, the reconceptualization of “human” is necessary so that scientific investigation can proceed with necessary inquiries in the absence of more stringent guideli-nes appropriately governing the use of human beings for experiments.’ (148-149) These statements indicate how disturbingly problematic it is to define the border of human and the demarcation of its confines.
!
4. Mutation
Some clues that could help to draw a clean line around the notion of a human being can be found in I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. Matheson tells the story of Robert Neville, who, according to the synopsis on the back of the book ‘may well be the only survivor of an
incu-rable plague that has mutated every other man, woman and child into bloodthirsty, nocturnal creatures’. These vampires are created by a virus that changes the infected person into a being that cannot function during the day, drinks blood, is allergic to garlic and cannot be killed by bullets. Instead, a wooden stake through the heart is one of the few full proof methods to dis-pose of these creatures, enforcing the legend of the classical vampire. But unlike the traditio-nal vampire, mirrors and running water have no effect on these creatures and the religious sign of the cross only affects a percentage of them. These strange creatures are a mixture of legend and nightmare and utterly baffle Neville.
In his search for an explanation, Neville educates himself on a wide variety of sub-jects. He becomes a builder, a vampire killer, a philosopher, and mechanic, to name a few. He is ruthless in his attitude towards the vampires and tries to dispose of as many as he can. Un-fortunately, the vampires invariably find his house and keep demanding he gives himself up. Each night, a former neighbour, Ben Cortman, keeps demanding that Neville comes out. Cortman can still speak, walk and possesses at least some rational thought. However, he is not able to break into Neville’s house, nor are the other vampires. As Neville observes:
‘He was certain that all the living that came to his house at night were insane. … And that would explain the fact that they’d never taken the obvious step of burning his house. They simply could not think that logically.’ (106)
This quote straddles the border of the mental development deemed necessary in order to be counted as a human. The vampires can think, but not logically enough to reach the bar of hu-man rationality set by Neville.
The quote also reveals the mixed makeup of the vampire population in Matheson’s story. Albeit a great percentage of them is dead, there is also a high percentage of vampires that are still living. According to Neville, the reason for this can be found in the bacteria res-ponsible for the vampirism: it needs blood to feed from. If the host, while still living, does not provide the bacteria with fresh blood, the host will starve to death. The infection than causes the reanimation of the corps, still using it in a quest for fresh blood. He deems the living vam-pires as insane. Whether this insanity is caused by the bacteria itself or just a consequence of the inability of the human mind to cope with being infected, is not clear. It does not matter much to Neville, as both the dead and the living vampires are after his blood. That being said, it is obvious that his conscience objects towards the killing of living vampires more than it
does when the vampire is already dead, as can be seen in the following: ‘it was always hard when they were alive … it was insane, there was no rational argument for it’ (15).
At one point in the story, Neville stumbles upon another human walking around in the ruins of the city during the day. He first distrusts her deeply, which is not surprising after ye-ars of solitude. However, Ruth slowly gains his trust, even when she cannot convincingly pass the tests to proof she is not infected. Neville is so starved for human contact, that he believes Ruth’s explanations for her unsatisfactory reaction to garlic and her limited knowledge of how to ward of vampires. As she was outside in the sun and has a tan instead of the white com-plexion of the vampires, it stands to reason that she is a human. The sudden appearance of another human, one of the opposite sex, releases a flood of emotion in Neville. He is afraid to feel, to care about someone, to love. After years of hardship, he has locked away all human emotions and the presence of Ruth quickly snaps the chains he has forged to keep this essenti-al part of humanity secluded.
The years of surviving in the post-apocalyptic world have made Neville careful, so he decides to do one last test. Surprisingly enough, when he tests Ruth’s blood, it is positive for the disease. Panicking, Ruth hits him in the head to render him unconscious and fleas the hou-se. She leaves a letter containing information that startles Neville to his core. She writes:
‘We are infected. … we’re going to stay alive. We’ve found a way to do that and we’re going to set up society again slowly but surely. We’re going to do away with all those wretched creatures whom death has cheated. … we may decide to kill you and those like you. I didn’t mean to hit you, it nearly killed me to do it. But I was so terribly frightened of what you’d do when you found out. … Forgive me for having to lie to you … I was loving you.’ (143-144)
Vampire Ruth is eloquent and describes her feelings. She writes about fear and love, she asks Neville for forgives for her actions, in short: she displays human feelings. Naturally, it is pain-ful for Neville to digest this letter and the ramifications of it:
‘He felt as if all the security of reason were ebbing away from him. The framework of his life was collapsing and it frightened him.’ (145)
All the knowledge he has deducted over the years about the morality of killing the vampires has suddenly been taken away from him. If the living vampires can think, walk, talk, and
build a society, Neville cannot find any moral grounds that justify the murdering of these cre-atures.
The most startling part of Ruth’s letter is when she turns the table on Neville and claims that there is a big possibility of the vampires deciding to kill Neville and those like him. Suddenly, he is the one that is abnormal, he is the one from a different species, he is the monster. The majority of the people have been infected and Neville is a very small minority. Via Ruth’s blood sample, he discovers that the bacteria originally responsible for the infection has mutated. This new variant allows the infected to stay in possession of the qualities that would classify them as human beings. Neville realises the reversal of roles, as seen in this quote:
‘I’m the abnormal one now. Normalcy was a majority concept, the standard of many and not the standard of just one man. … they were afraid of him. To them he was some terrible scourge they had never seen … he was anathema and black terror to be
destroyed.’ (159)
The living vampires are afraid of the unknown human and they fear this unknown life form that they do not understand. Neville believed that all signs of humanity were absent in the vampires. The vampires, on the other hand, belief that there is no sign of, for want of a better word, vampirity in Neville.
!
5. Without a Body
That humanity is not only found in living humans, is visible in Neil Gaiman’s novel The
Gra-veyard Book. The book is set in a graGra-veyard and tells the story of Nobody Owens, a boy who
is raised by a collection of ghosts after his family is brutally murdered. Starting with the dicti-onary definition of the human being again, the ghosts in Gaiman’s story seen to qualify: they can think, talk and walk. Moving on from the dictionary, the next qualification was that of being alive. Obviously, ghosts are not alive, as they have no heartbeat or even a body. The presence of feelings and emotions, however, cannot be denied in the characters designed by Gaiman. Astonishingly, the fictional characters often appear more humane than the actual humans, although the degree of their humanity differs from character to character and not all the characters were completely human to begin with. All of this together means that Gaiman has created a story that supports the fluidity of the term human.
One of the people that takes care of Nobody is Silas, a being that is definitely more than merely human. Silas has abilities that no human possesses, such a flying, and appears to have a lot of knowledge. Gaiman’s story reveals that Silas is neither alive nor dead and
through subtle hints the reader will probably come to the conclusion that Silas is a vampire, as he only consumes one type of food, rests during the day and has no reflection in mirrors. No-netheless, he cares deeply about Nobody and goes to extremes in order to ensure the well-being of the boy. He is intelligent and articulate, walks and can fly, and experiences a range of emotions. In many ways, Silas would be the perfect example of a human being, apart from the fact that he is a vampire.
There are more examples of characters who are perfect examples of human beings in the story. Mr and Mrs Owens, a couple buried in the graveyard the story is set in, adopt little Nobody after his real parents are killed. They have been dead for over 200 years, which means that there is nothing left of their earthly bodies. However, being alive is not necessary to possess humanity and it seems that a body is not necessary either. Mr Owens himself strug-gles with this, as can be observed when he exclaims: ‘for this here baby is unquestionably ali-ve, and as such is nothing to do with us, and is no part of our world’ (8). The other ghosts in the graveyard have their reservations as well, as Nobody is ‘a human child, a living child’ (18) and surely does not belong among the dead. The debate is settled when the Lady on the Grey arrives and tells the ghosts that ‘the dead should have charity’ (24).
The charity of the ghosts ensures Nobody’s survival and slowly their moral objections to have a living child amongst them disappear. Although Nobody does not know anything apart from the graveyard, his youth is carefree and not all that different to that of the children growing up in the nearby village. He has lessons he needs to attend, parents to obey, a com-munity to grow up in, and friends. As Silas puts it: ‘this is where you live and this is where those who love you can be found’ (31). As a result of his upbringing and the love of the ghosts, Nobody does not fear death. In a conversation with Silas about dying, he says:
‘“It’s only death. I mean, all of my best friends are dead.”
“Yes.” Silas hesitated. “They are. And they are for the most part, done with the world. You are not. You’re alive, Bod. That means you have infinite potential. You can do anything, make anything, dream anything.”’ (165-166)
Silas touches onto a very defining human trait here. The ability to do anything, to make any-thing, to dream anyany-thing, or to be anything is reserved to human beings as opposed to other animals.
However, this does not mean that only living humans can do these things. As seen above with the vampires in I Am Legend, it is possible for other humanoids as well. Silas himself has changed dramatically over the course of his existence, and his troubled past can be seen by the following confession:‘I have not always done the right thing. When I was younger… I did worse things than Jack [the mass murderer]. Worse than any of them. I was the monster, then, Bod, and worse than any monster’ (285). Silas refers to himself as having been the worst monster of all, but he recognises that ‘people can change’ (285). From the monster he used to be, he has turned into a loving guardian for Nobody. Apart from this func-tion he is also a member of the Honour Guard. When Nobody asks Silas what the Honour Gu-ard does, the answer raises many new questions. The members of the Honour GuGu-ard ‘guGu-ard the borderlands’ and ‘protect the borders of things’ (284). What these things are, is never spe-cified, although the most natural conclusion is the border between good and evil. But as there is no specification, it could just as well be the border between human and non-human.
!
6. Giant Rationality
Another novel that describes humanoids with monstrous qualities is The BFG by Roald Dahl. This famous children’s book tells the story of a little girl named Sophie and the unlikely friendship that develops between her and a giant. The great majority of the giants is eats hu-man beings and delights in violence. The giant that abducts Sophie is different: he is kind, lo-ving and gentle. His calls himself the Big Friendly Giant, or BFG for short, as that reflects his nature. The other giants sport names such as Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and Childeater, which are also reflections of their nature. The BFG is different to the others of his kind and the differences cause him to be bullied by the others. He is considerably smaller and this ma-kes it easy for the other giants toss him through the air and beat him up. Their hatred for him is probably caused by fear, as so often in cases of hatred. Fear of the other, fear of things that are different, fear of the unknown.
Although the BFG is not educated and muddles up his speech, he is intelligent and knowledgable. He has learned many things by observing humans, but a great number of
things remain a mystery to him. In a conversation with Sophie, he touches upon a subject that clearly shows the evil in humans:
‘Human beans [sic] is killing each other much quicker than the giants is doing it. … Giants is not very lovely, but they is not killing each other. Nor is crockadowndillies [sic] killing other crockadowndillies. Nor is pussy-cats killing pussy-cats. … they is not killing their own kind. Human beans is the only animals that is killing their own kind. … Human beans is always killing other human beans.’ (78-79)
The BFG does not understand why humans continuously kill other humans. A lot of murders are committed out of emotional responses humans have: love, hatred, jealousy, greed, fear. Humans are not the only species to experience these feelings, yet the rational capabilities of the humans do not prevent them from killing. The ability to think rationally is one of the characteristics of the human being, yet it still allows for a multitude of actions that are not at all humane.
The humanity of humans is questioned even further by the BFG. When Sophie ex-claims that ‘humans have never done them [i.e. the giants] any harm’ (79) the BFG responds by saying:
‘That is what the little piggy-wig [sic] is saying every day … He is saying, “I has never done any harm to the human bean so why should he be eating me?” … The human beans is making rules to suit themselves … Everybody is making his own rules to suit himself.’ (79)
The BFG refers here to the eating of animals, but his observation rings true for nearly every-thing. If the rules are constantly adapted to suit the needs and wishes of the person that makes the rules, then they are not rules at all. And if rules are essentially non-existent, this opens up the possibility to include many more humanoids into the group of human, as the rules of what a human being actually is are also non-existent. Instead of claiming that only a life form of the Homo Sapiens variety is a human, an argument can be made to include every life form that possesses a shred of humanity, whatever that may be.
Thus, the gentle character of the BFG would mean that he should be counted as a hu-man. However, the BFG has a cruel side to him as well. The first proof of this can be seen when he makes the meanest of the other giant to have a terrible nightmare. And after an elabo-rate scheme designed by Sophie, the BFG and the Queen of England, all the man eating giants
have been rounded up. They are locked up in a prison built to make sure that they cannot es-cape and remain incarcerated. He is not so cruel that he is going to let the others of his kind starve to death. Instead, he plans on feeding them the disgusting plant that he has been eating himself for years. The plants, named ‘snozzcumbers’ taste like ‘trogfilth and
pigsquibble’ (201). When throwing the repulsive snozzcumbers to the other giants, the BFG laughs and shouts: ‘It serves them right left and center!’ (203). Interestingly enough, the Queen seems to agree with this course of events and praises the BFG for his with, as she says: ‘What a clever fellow you are … You are not very well educated by you are really nobody’s fool, I can see that’ (203). The ability to complete complicated thoughts, again one of the traits of the human being, is highly valued.
!
7. The Human Factor
The creatures in World War Z by Max Brooks are certainly not able to complete complicated thoughts or think rationally. In his novel, Brooks follows the course of a zombie apocalypse and the subsequent years by conducting interviews with survivors. He starts the story by ex-plaining how he has written about the events for the United Nation’s Postwar Commission Report and how his report was deemed too ‘intimate’ (2). According to the chairperson, the original report contained ‘too many opinions, too many feelings’ while ‘we need facts and figures, unclouded by the human factor’ (2). The narrator is baffled by position taken by the chairperson and asks:
‘But isn’t the human factor what connects us so deeply to our past? … By excluding the human factor, aren’t we risking the kind of personal detachment from a history that may, heaven forbid, lead us one day to repeat it? And in the end, isn’t the human factor the only true difference between us and the enemy we now refer to as “the living dead”?’ (2)
Once again, the human nature appears to be the only thing that divides the humans from the others.
In one of the first interviews in the book, the importance of the brain is highlighted. In order to exterminate the zombies, their brains must be destroyed. Jurgen Warmbrunn, an em-ployee of the Israeli intelligence service remarks:
‘We talk about it today as if it is some feat of magic, like holy water or a silver bullet, but why wouldn’t destruction of the brain be the only way to annihilate these
creatures? Isn’t it the only way to annihilate us [i.e. human beings] as well? … Isn’t that all we are? Just a brain kept alive by a complex and vulnerable machine we call the body? The brain cannot survive if just on part of the machine is destroyed or even deprived of such necessities as food or oxygen. That is the only measurable difference between us and “The Undead”. Their brains do not require a support system to
survive, so it is necessary to attack the organ itself.’ (44)
Warmbrunn’s claim that the only difference between the humans and the zombies is that the human brain needs a support system, while the zombie brain has no need of one. This state-ment would lead to the conclusion that the only thing that makes a human being human, is the vulnerable dependency on the body. In other words, a person without a relationship between their body and their mind is not human and the grounds on which someone can be declared to be human are purely biological.
The biological argument says nothing about the functioning of the brain. But the zom-bies in World War Z are described as displaying ‘no conscious thought, just sheer biological instinct’ (320). They obviously lack the superior mental development of humans, which ma-kes it ‘ironic that the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy its brain, because, as a group, they have no collective brain to speak of’ (334). The only thing the zombies care about is food, whether it is in the form of a human or any other animal does not make the slightest dif-ference to them. There is not a shred of emotion left in them, nor can they work together. This is an advantage for the humans, who can plot and combine their resources in order to win the war against the ghouls. However, the zombies have the advantage of ever growing numbers, as each human that dies and is not consumed will become a zombie. On top of that, the zom-bies have no emotions and do not care when one of their number gets killed, whereas the hu-mans mourn for the death of their comrades.
The fact that humans grieve is enormously important, as this display of emotion is a very humane trait. In another interview, the person being interviewed says: ‘I’m talking heart, instinct, initiative, everything that makes us us. That’s why I’m still here … they still haven’t come up with a collection of chips and bits to replace us’ (379-380). The characteristics he describes here are all essential parts of what it means to be human and, as seen in the quote, it
is not possible to recreate these elements. The metaphorical heart, the thing that is responsible for human emotions, is the defining element of the human being. Not, as Warmbrunn sugge-sted, the brain, but the part of the brain that makes it possible to experience emotions is what sets the human apart from the zombies. As obvious as this may seem, it also creates a problem when considering the case of ‘quislings’: ‘the people that went nutballs and started acting like zombies’ (194). These quislings are not infected and are still alive, yet they no longer retain any humanity or emotions and are zombies in every way except being dead. As an interviewee says: ‘we could never talk them down. There was nothing left to talk to. These people were zombies, maybe not physically, but mentally you could not tell the difference’ (196-197).
This single difference between the quislings and the zombies is enough to grant them a different treatment:
‘our orders were to capture quislings if possible, and use deadly force only in self-defense. It sounded crazy, still does, but we rounded up a few, hog-tied them, turned them over to the police or National Guard. I’m not sure what they did with them. I’ve heard stories about Walla Walla, you know, the prison where hundreds of them were fed and clothed and even medically cared for.’ (197)
The demarcator of alive as opposed to dead is not of great importance to this individual. By calling the procedure he was ordered to follow crazy, it is obvious that the interviewed party does not view these people as humans. Even though they belong to the Homo Sapiens species, even though they can walk, even though there is physically nothing to stop them from talking, the absence of rational thought renders them as something that can no longer be recognised as human. The human factor appears to be an intricate combination of superior mental develop-ment and emotions.
!
8. Talking and Thinking
In Warm Bodies, the novel by Isaac Marion, the reader encounters a world that inhabits a mul-titude of zombies and where humans are the small minority. Marion has written the book from the perspective of one of the zombies, simply known as R due to the inability to remember his name. When comparing R to the dictionary description of a human being, he passes the test: R can walk, talk and think, though each of these functions require great effort from his part. As he puts it: ‘the rusty cogs of cogency still spin, just geared down and down till the outer
moti-on is barely visible’ (4). R is still a member of the Homo Sapiens species, albeit being a dead one, and that is the biggest distinction between him and a human. He dislikes this distinction, as can be seen in this quote: ‘I wince at her use of the word ‘human’. I’ve never liked that dif-ferentiation. She is Living and I’m Dead, but I’d like to believe we’re both human’ (41). R is a sensitive zombie and his emotions resemble that of a human being with increasing intensity throughout the novel.
R is thoroughly confused by the feelings he experiences: ‘I feel it. I am feeling it. How is that possible? … Contentment. Is this what it might feel like?’ (172). From a flesh ea-ting monster, R is slowly regaining his humanity. The experiences are new to him, as he has not had an emotional response to anything for ages. This leads to him having trouble identi-fying what is happening, as can be seen in a passage where he starts crying: ‘My vision blurs, and a wet trail streaks down my face. The burning in my eyes cools’ (207). R is just descri-bing the physical signs of crying and leaves out the emotions responsible for the tears. His scientific observing of his surroundings and the analysis of his awakening feelings allow him to discover the essence of a human being. The presence of feelings and emotions is what ma-kes a human humane.
The clearest example of this can be found when he describes what he sees when loo-king at the human girl he is with:
‘The flesh and the bones, the blood and the brain, all the way down to the unknowable energy that swirls in her core. The life force, the soul, the fiery will that makes her more than meat, coursing through her every cell and binding them together in millions to form her. Who is she, this girl? What is she? She is everything. Her body contains the history of life, remembered in chemicals. Her mind contains the history of the universe, remembered in pain, in joy and sadness, hate and hope and bad habits, every thought of God, past-present-future, remembered, felt, and hoped for all at once. … I understand that I love her. And if she is everything, maybe that’s answer
enough.’ (222)
The dead zombie R has fallen in love with the living girl Julie. Preposterous, outrageous, un-heard off, impossible and insane. The dead do not feel, they do not love. R touches here on the qualities that make a human ‘more than meat’. He lists some feelings and emotions, talks about the soul and the fiery will. Most importantly, he expresses the hope that his love for her
may be enough to overcome the differences between them. R cares deeply about Julie and has saved her life on numerous occasions, when he just as easily could have eaten her. At first he does not understand why he does not eat her, but the urge to protect her is that strong. R is a changed man.
When Julie’s father discovers R, he explodes in a fit of rage and shouts at her: ‘The Dead don’t change, Julie! They are not people, they are things! … We’ve done tests! The Dead have never shown any signs of self-awareness or emotional response!’ (198-199). But, as Julie points out:
‘How do we know that? Just because they don’t talk to us and tell us about their lives? We don’t understand their thoughts so we assume they don't have any? … R saved my life! He protected me and brought me home! He is human! And there are more like him!’ (198-199)
Julie raises some good questions here. If someone is only human when his thoughts are un-derstandable for other people, then a person who cannot communicate his thoughts is not a human. After death, nobody is human, as there are no thoughts left. But the people in a coma, the people with severe brain injuries or mental disabilities, babies and people suffering from dementia, they are also not humans, as it is not possible to measure their thoughts.
R has thoughts and he can communicate with others. At the start of the novel, he re-marks that ‘focussed thought is a rare occurrence here, and we all follow it when it
manifests’ (5). This suggest that all the zombies are able to think, albeit this does not happen very often. R’s surprise move of saving Julie instead of eating her, has started a change in the other zombies as well. M, who is R’s friend, is one of the zombies that is changing. M mana-ges to make a phone call, speaking to both R and Julie. The news he tells them is surprising, but full of hope:
‘“Changing,” he says. “Lots of us . . . changing. Like R.” … “It is not just you?” she [Julie] says … “This . . . reviving thing?” … “are you saying the plague is
healing?”’ (192)
However incredulous this may seem, the plague is indeed healing and the zombies are regai-ning their humanity. A new name for them is needed, as they are no longer zombies or just the Dead. But as they are not living either, they are named ‘Half-Dead’ or ‘Nearly-Living’ (234). The zombies are still different and cannot be counted as humans, even though they talk and
think. The big issues that still separates them from the humans is that the humans are living and the zombies are not.
!
9. AliveApart from the emotional aspect, the important classifier of the human is that of being alive. Humanity and emotions are not enough to be granted the title of the human. Vampires, zom-bies and ghosts all share the condition of being dead and none of them are counted as humans. But the issue becomes confusing again when looking at a fourth supernatural creature: that of the werewolf. It is difficult to decide in which category the werewolves belong. They are hu-manoid in form, but they alternate this form with that of an animal. The books about the character Sookie Stackhouse, written by Charlaine Harris, deal with a multitude of creatures that are not human. Vampires, werewolves, werepanthers, weretigers, shape shifters, and de-mons; they all enter the series at one point. All of those creatures are definitely not human, but the question of why they are not human is not easily answered.
The vampires are the simplest ones. Harris’ vampires conform to the traditional view of dead, nocturnal creatures that drink blood and are allergic to both daylight and garlic. In her stories, they manage to keep their bloodlust under control by drinking artificial blood, but they prefer the blood of humans. They are dangerous and the humans in the stories do well to remember that the vampires belong to a different species. The vampires themselves agree to this, as they see humans more like pets, or meals that walk and talk, than as creatures that are actually worth something. They do not wish to be regarded as humans, as human beings are less able than vampires. This also explains the existence of so called ‘fang-bangers’: humans harbouring a wish to be turned into a vampire themselves and become better than just mere human.
The other creatures that Harris has designed are more difficult to place. The were-crea-tures, wether they are wolves, tigers, panthers or any other animal, are all alive. They are hu-man in every way, except for the fact that they can change into animals. This has serious con-sequences for the definition of the human being. It is difficult to measure the extent of huma-nity of these creatures while in their animal form, for it is impossible for them to talk while having that shape. A case could be made to say that they are human when in human form, and animal when they change their appearance. However, even in human form, the were-creatures
retain some of their animal characteristic. For example, they have a heightened sense of smell, or stronger than the average human being and heal incredibly fast when injured. They straddle the line between human and not human to the extent that they seem to be both, which is very puzzling when trying to decide on absolute borders between these groups.
If the criteria of being alive is the ultimate criteria, then the were-creatures should be counted as humans. The events in Warm Bodies support this claim. When R wishes to enter the heavily guarded human city, he manages to fool the guards: ‘my stride is good, I can feel it, I look normal, alive, and so I snap neatly into a category: “Human”’ (115). R is good en-ough at pretending to be a human to be let into the city without any hesitation from the gu-ards. But while R can think rationally, can talk and can walk, he is still a zombie. As seen be-fore, Julie objects strongly to the exclusion of zombies. She says: ‘isn’t “zombie” just a silly name we came up with for a state of being we don’t understand’ (125) and wonders about what would happen if she kissed R:
‘If I kiss you, will I die? … You said it won’t, right? I won’t get infected? Because I really feel like kissing you. … And even if you do pass something to me, maybe it wouldn’t be all bad. I mean, you’re different now, right? You’re not a zombie. You’re . . . something new.’ (181)
Something new, but still not alive. R still lacks the most important characteristic of the hu-man.
Near the end of Marion’s novel, a remarkable thing happens: R becomes alive again. He starts bleeding from a wound that is a month old, he has a pulse, experiences pain again, blushes and gets an erection. All of these things were beyond his capabilities while he was a zombie, yet suddenly all of these bodily functions occur again. This is further proof for the claim that one has to be alive in order to be regarded a human being. However, it does not solve the problem of the were-creatures. In the books by Harris, the were-creatures stay under the radar for a long time, as they fear the reaction of the regular people. Only in the ninth no-vel of the series, Dead and Gone, do the weres finally announce their existence to the rest of the world. In a live television broadcast aired to educated the people about the were-animals, the spokeswoman says: ‘we’re regular people just like you-all, with a difference’ (9) after which she turn into a wolf.
The revelation sparks a multitude of reactions, which range from positive to horrified. As one woman, Arlene, puts it: ‘I thought you were human, not a damn supe!’ (14). This reac-tion prompts the following response from Sookie: ‘he is human … he’s just got another face, is all’ (14). Arlene uses words such as inhuman, weird and unnatural in her reaction to the were-people. In her mind, they are not human at all, despite having been friends with one of them for a great number of years. Suddenly, this one fact is enough for her to despise all of them and to no longer include them into the group of humans. Although the were-animals are alive, their differences cause them to be excluded. Being alive is not a good enough reason to claim the title of human being. In order to be counted as a human being, there is an extensive list of requirements to conform to. A person that does not confirm exactly to those require-ments is therefore not a human.
!
10. Mourning
So far, the monstrosities in the novels have not succeeded into providing a definite answer to the question of what a human being actually is. The opinion of scholars could be helpful in finding out what precisely demarcates the territory of the human. Judith Butler, famous for her contributions to the fields of feminism and gender theory, has published work on the defi-nition of the human. In Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence, Butler explo-res the boundaries of the human being. Although Butler seeks answers in the problems of war and the issues surrounding gender theory, her research prompts her to ask questions about the human being. She wonders ‘how to best depict the human’ (XVIII) and writes about a ‘frame for conceiving who will be human, and who will not’ (XVI). Fear of the unknown plays a part in her text, as she asks herself ‘at what cost do I establish the familiar as the criterion by which a human life is grievable?’ (38).
Butler makes a strong argument when she says that an important criteria of the human is when a life is grievable. She writes the following:
‘We have seen it already, in the genre of the obituary, where lives are quickly tidied up and summarized, humanized… But ... we seldom, if ever, hear the names of the thousands of Palestinians … or any number of Afghan people, children and adults. To what extent have the Arab peoples, predominantly practitioners of Islam, fallen outside
the “human” as it has been naturalized in its “Western” mold by the contemporary workings of humanism? What are the cultural contours of the human?’ (32)
It is difficult for people to mourn the loss of the lives of people who have no name or face. The Arab people are often dehumanised in this way. Since they are different from the norm of the white, the Western, the Catholic, they are quickly deemed to not be as human as others. While it is perfectly easy to mourn the loss of a loved one, many people do not care at all about the thousands that die every day. This is not because they do not feel compassion for other, but simply due to the fact that these unknown people have been dehumanised to the ex-tent that they are no longer recognised as fellow human beings. As Brooks puts in in World
War Z: ‘don’t write their eulogy, don’t try to imagine who they used to be, how they came to
be here, how they came to be this’ (221).
Butler posts a lot of questions: ‘who is normatively human: what counts as a liveable life and a grievable death?’ (XV), talks about ‘the question of the human’ (20), and asks ‘who counts as human?’ (20). All these questions allow for the opinion that Butler herself is not sure about the answers. In fact, no definite answer about who counts as a human is given, as the requirements shift for each individual. She confirms that there is ‘a normative notion of the human’ (33), but gives no explanation of what this notion entails. Instead, Butler remarks that the notion of what constitutes a human being is highly personal:
‘if I understand myself on the model of the human, and if the kinds of public grieving that are available to me make clear the norms by which the “human” is constituted for me … What are the cultural barriers against which we struggle when we try to find out … when we attempt to name, and so to bring under the rubric of the “human”’ (46) Butler’s remark opens up the discussion as to whether there can be one definite norm that de-scribes what a human being is. If it is indeed a case of personal beliefs on the matter, then the-re will never be an agthe-reement. Especially when considering how experiences differ from per-son to perper-son and how ‘the kinds of public grieving’ available are radically different as well, it becomes apparent that it is not possible to firmly demarcate the borders of the human.
The grievability of a life can only be measured when taking a close look at the feelings of individuals. In the books written by Harris, Arlene will not grieve for the loss of the life of any were-person. She will not mourn the death, unlike other characters in the story, and she does not view the were-people as humans. Sookie, on the other hand, has many friends
amongst the were-people and mourns the death of each of them. Another example of this can be found in Warm Bodies, as Julie would grieve for the loss of R, while her father views R as a non-human. The example of the quislings from World War Z is even more convincing, as quislings are humans that have lost their minds. As the quotes from page 196 and 197 show, the interviewee would not mourn the demise of the quislings, but other people did and the quislings were not killed, but were put into care. These examples show that it is impossible to find a common denominator of grievability that is true for each person.
11. Dehumanisation and Identification
The media play an important part in the extent of grieve people feel. The dehumanisation in the media of people such as the Afghan and Palestinian war casualties is to a great extent res-ponsible for how people feel about these deaths. Butler explains the importance of dehumani-sation as follows:
‘When we consider the ordinary ways that we think about humanization and
dehumanization, we find the assumption that those who gain representation, especially self-representation, have a better chance of being humanized, and those who have no chance to represent themselves run a greater risk of being treated as less than humans, regarded as less than humans, or indeed, not regarded at all.’ (141)
The same dehumanisation is at work in the novels discussed earlier. In World War Z, one of the interviewed people declaims: ‘in war … we spend so much time trying to dehumanize the enemy, to create an emotional distance’ (242). The zombies in World War Z and The Zombie
Autopsies are not able to create any kind of self-representation at all. The zombies in Warm Bodies are extremely feared when they are not able to represent themselves to the humans, but
due to the changes they go through, this slowly changes as well. The fear of the zombies di-minishes when the collective voice of the zombies gets heard. Communication between the two groups is essential, as is personal experience. People like Julie, who gain first hand expe-rience of the zombies via interaction, lose the fear of the zombies and start to view them as humans.
The same holds true for the vampires in the Sookie Stackhouse series. They have come out of the shadows and have gone public. They interact with the general population and although some people are still convinced that there is nothing humane in the vampires, the
people that have taken the trouble to educate themselves on the issue and acquaint themselves with the vampires have learned differently. The vampires are different from the humans, but no two people are the same anyway. Therefore, the us versus them argument loses all validity. There are plenty of examples of people who are killers and feel no remorse about their deeds, of people that feel better than others, of people that are dangerous, dimwitted, straight, gay, black, white, tall, short, skinny, fat, the list goes on. The same can be said about the vampires in Harris’ stories: stupid, smart, extrovert, introvert, mean, kind, Indian, Asian, all of these things can be found in the vampire community. There even is a vampire with severe brain damage who prefers to drink the blood of cats, which proofs how diverse the supposedly per-fect vampires are.
The possibility to identify with the other party is crucial for the acceptance of the Other. The vampires in the stories Harris wrote have made it possible for the humans to iden-tify with them through interaction. The were-people have interacted with the humans for many years, yet when they reveal their secret, the reactions are mixed. However, as soon as the emphasis is put on the fact that they are the same people they always were, but with an extra dimension to their personalities, most people are comfortable with the new situation. There will always be a few that cannot overcome their personal feelings on the subject, but those are a minority. The similarities between the were-people and the homosexual people are easily spotted. Many gay people face the same kind of reactions when they first confess their sexual orientation to their environment. Thankfully, the majority of the people gets used to it quickly and accepts it as just another aspect of the person. They may not share the same sexu-al preference, but they focus on the similarities between them, for instance musicsexu-al taste and a love for sports. Identification with the other person does not mean you are each other’s mirror, it means that you can recognise aspects in the other that you yourself posses.
Butler states that essence of the human being cannot be captured by representation. She writes:
‘the human is not identified with what is represented but neither is it identified with the unrepresentable; it is, rather, that which limits the success of any representational practice … Rather, the human is indirectly affirmed in that very disjunction that makes representation impossible, and this disjunction is conveyed in the impossible
This statement can appear confusing, as it is the representation that allows for the identificati-on with the Other. Butler is, nidentificati-onetheless, right. Any representatiidentificati-on will identificati-only account for a small percentage of the whole, as it is not possible to represent the whole. In order to repre-sent the whole, the whole most be shown. In order to explain this, the image of a photograph is useful. The photograph shows an image of, for example, a woman, but does not show all woman. Nor does it show every aspect of the woman it depicts. That being said, I can still identify with the woman, as I am one myself. A man can identify with the picture as well, as he identifies her as a human being and is one himself. If the photograph shows a woman that is tall, has a dark skin and is elderly, I will still identify myself with her, regardless of our dif-ferences. And if that photograph is shows to an elderly, tall, dark skinned man, he may identi-fy himself with her to a greater extent than I do, despite the difference in sex. According to Butler:
‘Identification always relies upon a difference that it seeks to overcome, and that its aim is accomplished only by reintroducing the difference is claims to have
vanquished. The one with whom I identify is not me, and that “not being me” is the condition of the identification. Otherwise … identification collapses into identity, which spells the death of identification itself. This difference internal to identification is crucial, and, in a way, it shows us that dis-identification is part of the common practice of identification itself.’ (146)
Thus, representation and identification work only when there are differences between the re-presented and the self. This makes sense, because when there are no differences, there is no need to identify with the Other: the Other does not exist when it is the same.
!
12. The Other
The Other is a term frequently used in the social sciences. The meaning of the term is to de-scribe that what is alien and divergent from the norm. The French philosopher Emmanuel Le-vinas has published a score of works regarding the Other. In “Peace and Proximity”, an essay in Basic Philosophical Writings, he writes:
‘The Other is the sole being I can wish to kill. I can wish. And yet this power is quite the contrary of power. The triumph over this power is its defeat as power. At the very moment when my power to kill realizes itself, the other has escaped me …. I have not
