Of Androids and Fossils: (Re)Producing Sexual Identity in Blade Runner and Jurassic Park
With the shift from industrial to postindustrial capitalism, our culture has become increasingly concerned with the problem of how to represent subjects in a technologized world. Traditionally, dominant conceptions of the subject have relied on Western metaphysics; naturalized monolithic categories arranged in hierarchic binary oppositions: male/female, human/machine, subject/object, etc. In this system, the discourse of science maintains an isomorphic and mutually reinforcing relationship with the discourse of heterosexuality, since each posits an active, masculine subject and a passive, feminine object. However, the sciences of contemporary capitalism are marked by technologies of reproduction and simulation which transform the world into a web of interconnected, overlapping information codes, asking us to reconsider our “natural” binary distinctions. While these questions have sparked a lively debate concerning technology and the representation of “naturally” gendered bodies, there has been less discussion about the specific ways in which the term “reproduction” links the discourses of science and gender. Reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization, test tube conception, and genetic manipulation challenge our concepts of human reproduction, transforming bodies from unified organic units to strategic and manipulable systems. Furthermore, these new ways of thinking about human bodies undermine the biological justification for traditional heterosexual gender identities: if all reproduction is redefined as technological, then normative or “natural” gender roles must be reconsidered as well.
Understandably, this denaturalization of bodies provokes a great deal of both hope and fear about the status of gender relations. Borrowing from Donna Haraway, I argue that contemporary narratives explore this ambivalence though the metaphor of the cyborg, the part-organic, part-technological creature whose hybrid body marks it as a “signifying monster.” This monster occupies a “destabilizing place in the great Western evolutionary, technological, and biological narratives” precisely because it reminds us that identity itself is a mere construct, something which is performed rather than essential. Furthermore, by ...
... middle of paper ...
...e romantic plots, to consider the ways in which gender positions, especially as linked to “biology,” are cyborg artifacts constructed and naturalized by discursive structures.
Finally, I briefly consider these two films vis-à-vis the larger problem of identity and agency in the postindustrial era. To a certain extent, both Blade Runner and Jurassic Park leave their viewers at an impasse: while the newer discourses of technological reproduction reveal the limits of gender identity as prescribed by biological narratives, they offer neither new identities nor new forms of agency to replace our old models. Unlike the films’ protagonists, we do not have the luxury of retreating from the postindustrial world; how, then, are we to re-imagine our relations within it? While neither Blade Runner nor Jurassic Park offers answers to this question, I caution against dismissing them as merely ambivalent embodiments of “postmodern angst.” Instead, we must acknowledge them as genuine efforts to speak the complexity of cybernetic existence, and, as cyborgs ourselves, use them as a starting point from which to read -- and perhaps reweave -- the cultural webs of power.
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
Blum, Deborah. “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. 6th Edition. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. 573-580. Print.
In Ruth Gilbert’s At the Border’s of the Human, she discusses society’s interest in hermaphrodites in terms of “people’s desire to examine, scrutinize, and display objects which are alien, strange and other” (6). The anomalous and bizarre spectacle of the hermaphroditic body has drawn the focus of scientists since the early sixteenth century. Hermaphrodites have long evoked a “mixture of disgust and desire, and fear and fascination”(Gilbert 150) that has led to their position as objects of scientific scrutiny. As defined by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, a hermaphrodite is “an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present”. Besides hermaphrodites challenging society’s physical norms, they challenge and have recently changed its cultural norms as well.
Butler, Judith. "Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion." Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge, 1993. 121-140.
Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) and his other film Jurassic Park (1993) both contain a major theme of what makes a successful hero in society. In Jaws, police chief Martin Brody must successfully eliminate the threat of a Great White Shark from attacking Amity Island. In Jurassic Park, billionaire John Hammond creates a theme park where cloned dinosaurs come alive, hoping that his ideal resort becomes a major success. Through the use of film style elements, such as editing and mise-en scene, Spielberg develops Brody’s character as a person who must learn from his past mistakes in order to become a successful hero while Spielberg creates Hammond’s character as a man who only sees himself as a hero of science and technology without realizing his attempted control over nature is what leads him to his ultimate failure.
The Question of Control as Presented in Jurassic Park According to Arnold Pacey How could one describe the relationship between humans and nature? Perhaps it is one of control, a constant struggle between the power of the elements and the sophistication of human mechanization. Could it be one of symbiosis, where man and nature coexist in relative peace? Are we, as a species, simply a part of nature’s constantly changing realm? This issue is one that philosophers have debated for centuries. Where does mankind fit into the vast network of interacting environments and beings called nature? From the beginning of time, we have attempted to set ourselves apart from the rest of Earth’s creatures. Given the ability to reason, and to feel, and most importantly, to choose, we find ourselves with "the impulse to master and manipulate elemental force" (Pacey 86). We must fight, we must advance, and we must control all these elements of the natural world. But just how much of that world do we control? Surely people attempt and perceive control over nature, but do they succeed? The question of control, over nature in specific, is one of the prevalent themes that runs through Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park. This novel is set on a small island off the coast of Costa Rica called Isla Nubar. On this island, construction of a new, virtuostic, state of the art park is almost complete, when a gathered team of paleontologists, businessmen, and a mathematician arrive to approve of the park opening. All seems well until the "experts" lose control of the park, leaving the main attractions, genetically engineered dinosaurs, free to roam and hunt. This loss of control further contributes to the downward spiral the park experiences, resulting in numerous deaths. How, one might ask, could a team of technicians and experts let something like this happen? The answer is simple. They over-estimated their perceived sense of control over one of the world’s most unpredictable forces… nature. The theme of man’s perceived control over nature is one that Crichton has masterfully incorporated into his novel. The actions of the park experts present to the reader the false idea "that the proper role of man is mastery over nature" (Pacey 65). Mankind has always attempted to achieve this mastery, and the construction of Jurassic Park is a perfect example. Crichton uses the character of Ian Malcolm to constantly present this theme.
From the silent epic of Fritz Lang Metropolis (1927) to Ridley’s Scott’s spectacular Blade Runner (1982) the connection between architecture and film has always been intimate. The most apparent concepts that connect these two films are the overall visuals of both films and their vision of city of the future. The futuristic city of both Scott and Lang are distinct in their landscapes, geography, and social structure. These two films sought to envision a future where technology was the basis by which society functioned. Technology was the culture and the cities would crumble without it (Will Brooker). Metropolis and Blade Runner uses the themes relationships among female sexuality and male vision, and technology. However, Gender roles and technology seems to be the most important part in both films.
The relationship between sex and gender can be argued in many different lights. All of which complicated lights. Each individual beholds a sexual identity and a gender identity, with the argument of perceiving these identities however way they wish to perceive them. However, the impact of gender on our identities and on our bodies and how they play out is often taken for granted in various ways. Gender issues continue to be a hugely important topic within contemporary modern society. I intend to help the reader understand that femininities and masculinities is a social constructed concept and whether the binary categories of “male” and “female” are adequate concepts for understanding and organising contemporary social life with discussing the experiences of individuals and groups who have resisted these labels and forged new identities.
The presence of gender through this the twenty-first century is no longer black and white (nor was it ever explicitly male or female at anytime). In a time of push towards acceptance of all people, no matter their social standpoint, the time of questionnaires and government documents asking whether one is male or female, has become extremely complex. “Gender” as a concept represented through the body is not simply a configuration of how the body formed. Rather, gender is performed and represented through and using the body – hence referring to Waskul and Vannini’s theory of the body being embodied when they state in their piece Body/ Embodiment: Social Interaction and the Sociology of the Body (2006),
The category of gender identity was not determined by one’s biological sex; rather gender is a social construct, which can be resisted through social and political struggle.(73)
In this article, gender is identified as a social identity that is constructed and reformed throughout life in order to achieve a true sense of identity. It is not a term or label given from biological sex such as male or female that defines ones’ gender role. The writer claims gender is more than a social settlement, that it is not a binary construction of male or female and involves a matrix of genes, hormones, and social influence.
Garber, Marjorie. "Spare Parts: The Surgical Construction of Gender" from "Questions of Gender/Engendering Questions", 361-368
As Lorber explores in her essay “Night to His Day”: The Social Construction of Gender, “most people find it hard to believe that gender is constantly created and re-created out of human interaction, out of social life, and is the texture and order of that social life” (Lorber 1). This article was very intriguing because I thought of my gender as my sex but they are not the same. Lorber has tried to prove that gender has a different meaning that what is usually perceived of through ordinary connotation. Gender is the “role” we are given, or the role we give to ourselves. Throughout the article it is obvious that we are to act appropriately according to the norms and society has power over us to make us conform. As a member of a gender an individual is pushed to conform to social expectations of his/her group.
Haraway’s cyborg is a blending of both materiality and imagination, pleasure and responsibility, reality and the utopian dream of a world without gender and, maybe, without end. We are all hybrids of machine and organism. The cyborg is our ontology, a creature in a post-gender world with "no origin story in the...
In order to grasp the concept of social construction of gender, it is essential to understand the difference between sex and gender. Biologically, there are only two reproductive genital organs that are determinants of sex: the vagina and the penis. Sex is established solely through biological structures; in other words, genitalia are the basis of sex. Once a sex category is determined, gender, a human categorization socially attached to sex, is assigned based on anatomy. Gender typically references social or cultural differen...