Dr. Moreau vs. Ishmael

Ishmael is a book about the future of the human race. In it a large gorilla, named Ishmael, preaches about life, freedom, and the human condition. He preaches about “Natures Laws” which we must learn if our species, and the rest of life on Earth as we know it, is to survive. Here is a brief summary of the major theme of the book:

“Ishmael's paradigm of history is startlingly different from the one wired into our cultural consciousness. For Ishmael, our agricultural revolution was not a technological event but a moral one, a rebellion against an ethical structure inherent in the community of life since its foundation four billion years ago. Having escaped the restraints of this ethical structure, humankind made itself a global tyrant, wielding deadly force over all other species while lacking the wisdom to make its tyranny a beneficial one or even a sustainable one.

That tyranny is now hurtling us toward a planetary disaster of pollution and overpopulation. If we want to avoid that catastrophe, we need to work our way back to some fundamental truths: that we weren't born a menace to the world and that no irresistible fate compels us to go on being a menace to the world.”

More on Ishmael

I found this an interesting contrast to what Dr. Moreau is trying to achieve with his experiments. Dr. Moreau is directly menacing with nature and animals. “The Law” enforces repression on the animals, and this process of humanizing can be compared to the way society enforces repression on individuals. However, in Ishmael Nature’s Laws are obeyed by every other creature on Earth except for humans; and it is humans and society that must conform to “Nature’s Laws” otherwise civilization as a whole will end catastrophically. According to Ishmael, Dr. Moreau’s experiments are the exact opposite of how society should treat nature. His humanization of animals is actually compounding the disaster humans are in, and serves as a perfect example of the type of behavior humans need to stop.

Animal Instincts

While Prendick was stranded on Dr. Moreau’s island, he witnessed Dr. Moreau transform wild animals into human like creatures. These creatures followed rules requiring them to walk and talk like real humans. They obeyed these laws for fear of death, or even worse going to the House of Pain. Once Moreau had died, their whole belief system was gone. He had been a God like symbol; he gave them human life and had the power to take it away. Without him the laws no longer existed; they were free to act as they pleased without terrible consequences. Without the enforcement of the laws, their animal instincts soon returned. The Dog Man followed Prendick around the island like a lost puppy while the Hyaena-Swine tried to attack and kill him. They all reverted back to walking on all fours, stopped talking and began killing for food. But this wasn’t the only change, without human interaction and law Prendick became more animal like as well. He describes his appearence he said, “My hair grew long, and became matted together, I am told that even now my eyes have a strange brightness, a swift alertness of movement” (131). He resembled the animals, he had that wildness to his eyes that he found curious in animals when he first arrived on the island. After he returned to the human world, he couldn’t even interact with people. He was different, “[He] was almost as queer to men as [he] had been to the Beast People” (138). All living things have animals like instincts, humans just do a better job at repressing them. The law is the reason for acting civilized, without it we aren’t too different then animals.

Humanity and Trust

One aspect of The Island of Dr. Moreau that was really intriguing was Prendick's inability to trust his fellow men and women, but would instead see their animal sides. His fear was that humans would revert to their animal instincts like the Beast People. This is in a way this story's way of reflecting back onto society a negative aspect of itself. That is, it seems to me that Wells is attempting to portray through his last chapter that there are elements to our society that are primitive and that in many ways human being cannot be trusted (Dr. Moreau could not be trusted with his science, society didn't have the compassion to believe Prendick's story, etc.). The use of Dr. Moreau's creation of the Beast People serves as a subject against which human society can be judged.

This idea of scientific creation echoing back on on society seems to be a very familiar trend as we have seen it with numerous texts; Black No More, Frankenstein, The Monster, etc. These stories are constantly critiquing either scientific minds and pursuits as society's "bad" curiosity, or are using a scientific break through that causes regression/progression to show the faults in "current" society.

It seems apparent that Moreau's logic with regards to the purpose and methodology of his experiments is surely flawed in some deep way. In particular his stance towards pain seems to me to be self contradictory.

He first expounds on pain to Prendick in order to convince him of its superficial nature. He does this by describing it merely as an evolutionary tool used to avoid hazardous things in the environment. Pain is present because, for instance, it tells you to remove your hand from a flame, thus avoiding harm to your body. He makes pain out to be a sort of sensory tool, much like smell or sight, that is removed from the higher functions of the brain. To him it is a vulgar emotion which a higher order intelligence can distance itself from, relegating it to a position of relative inferiority.

However, as I understand it Moreau's whole method of humanizing the animals is to vivisect them so that their bodies are 'able vessels for humanity', and then inflict intense pain upon them to basically erase their minds. Then he is able to implant a human psyche on their now blank slate through his various methods of hypnotism.

Thus Moreau's stance that pain is a base emotion from which a mind can distance itself and his methodology of erasing a mind through the application of pain seem to me to be at odds with each other.

TMNT

The re-hatching of one of my personal childhood favorite sensations, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) and reading The Island of Dr. Moreau made me think about the humanization of animals. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are just that, chemically mutated animals and not vivisected animals turned into beasts but nevertheless they are animals that are very much humanized. They walk, talk, and act in a very human way. While watching the show or movies I very quickly forgot that these creatures are not humans, but turtles just like Prendick began to see the island beasts as humans.

Dr. Moreau's beasts could not laugh (85) which is an exclusively human action, which separates them from humans in a fundamental way no matter how close they phyiscially resemble humans. But the TMNT can laugh. Then I began thinking, what made the TMNT more human-like than the beasts in the Island of Dr. Moreau? Is it that they live and function in "normal" society? Is it because they wear clothes? How is it that chemicals are capable of producing more human-like animals that vivisection? Does it all come down to chemical alteration of genes over manually reshaping the physical and physiological bodies?

Unnatural Vs. Natural, revisited in The Island of Dr. Moreau

"I say I becme habituated to the Beast People, that a thousand things that had seemed unnatural and repulsive speedily became natural and ordinary to me. I suppose everything in existence takes its coulour from the average hue of our surroundings: Montgomery and Moreau were too peculiar and individual to keep my general impressions of humanity well defined."
-page 87

Define natural. Something natural is something existing in or produced by nautre, not artifical, and not an imitation. Now define unnatural. The opposite of natural. Not occuring in nature on its own. Something that must be artifically created. Some definitions of unnatural include grotesque, distorted, abnormal, and hideous. I would argue that nature is full of some grotesque looking things. Not everything that occurs naturally or by natural means is beautiful.

This paragraph from The Island of Dr. Moreau is very profound. HG Wells is essentially making a mandate about the societal and humanized concepts of natural and unnatural. Webster's put aside, he states that everything in existence takes its colour from the average hue of its surroundings. Here in our world, things seem natural. Prendick is ultimately transfered to this little island, this "other world." Everything on this island is different from anything he has ever previously dealt with. The human beings on the island, Moreau and Montgomery, have human natures that seem completely dysfunctional to Prendick. Their ethics, morals, and general way of life is completely different from anything he has ever encountered elsewhere. Thus, initially this seems unnatural. He has never seen these strange beast creatures before, thus they are unnatural. As he grows accustomed to living on this island with a drastically different way of life, it becomes natural to him.

Trust in Humanity

One of the main themes of the novel that I mentioned in class, is the continuing struggle for trust. Dr. Moreau begins the novel with little trust of Prendick and that lack of trust is returned in kind. As the story develops, Moreau and Prendick begin to trust not only each other, but also the strange vivisected animal creation on the island. However, this trust is betrayed when the animals revert to their instinctual behavior and attack the humans. The novel closes with Prendick feeling alone in the world, unable to trust anyone.

The reason I feel that this is an important theme, is that trust is exactly what science demands from "non-expert" observers. Those who deal with the intricate complexities of cloning, genetics, or any controversial research ask that society trust them. One must trust that the science is being conducted for a beneficial purpose, and by decent means to ever truly accept it. I believe that Wells is arguing against a quick trust of individuals or even of anyone in general.

By demonstrating the human qualities of the monsters, Wells directs the book at human nature not necessarily animal instinct. Thus, even when Prendick returns to human society he finds himself unable to return to his normal life. He has experienced just how malevolent, cruel, and deceitful humans can be. He has learned that religion can be and is oppressive. He has lost his faith in anyone other than himself. While this is certainly a bleak perspective, Wells is using slight exaggeration to send his message. While maybe trust can be rightfully placed in certain individuals, to give it so freely and easily is dangerous. It was dangerous for Prendick, Moreau, and for the creatures and native who once inhabited the island. Furthermore, it would be dangerous in reality to so freely place society's trust in mysterious scientists and religious leaders.

The Problem of Pain

“He drew a little penknife, as he spoke, from his pocket, opened the smaller blade and moved his chair so that I could see his thigh. Then, choosing the place deliberately, he drove the blade into his leg and withdrew it.”

-The Island of Dr. Moreau (p. 77)

To justify his infliction of pain, Moreau responds by stabbing his own thigh to prove that pain is not as horrible as Prendick believes. In Chapter fourteen, Moreau goes on to explain how certain areas of flesh are able to tolerate pain better than others. He also makes claims saying that if man allows pain to drive him, then he is no better than an animal.

Reading this passage made me question man’s tolerance of pain and its similarity to that of animals. How could Moreau stab his thigh without even a flinch of pain? Was this really a reasonable justification for his vivisections?

In the National Academic Press, I found an article that talked about human tolerance for pain. Humans all have a pain threshold, a limit to which they can endure intensity of a sensory stimulus until it is ‘unbearable.’ However, this threshold varies among humans; there are several factors that influence pain tolerance: strain, species, experience, age, health, and stress. For example, anxiety is a major influential factor - a subject with higher anxiety is more likely to have a lower tolerance. When going to a doctor’s office to get a shot, we are always given a choice of ‘right or left arm’? This gives us a sense of control over the situation, therefore alleviating some of our pain, raising our level of tolerance.

The problem is that whenever Moreau decided to stab himself in the thigh, he did so with complete control. He knew exactly where the penknife was going to puncture his skin and he knew when to expect it. In his experimentation with vivisection, however, I think that his infliction of pain cannot be justified because his subjects had no knowledge of what he was doing. They were strapped down, unable to move. Not knowing what to expect, their anxieties were probably well higher than Moreau’s; therefore, he cannot claim that pain is absent. In his case, maybe it was, but that does not extend to his victims.

Also, from personal experience, I think that pain is tolerable only under certain circumstances. When it is inflicted upon the individual unwillingly, then tolerance is extremely low. Stubbing your toe on a desk or getting a paper cut are just small examples of injury, but to me, they hurt A LOT. (maybe because they are sudden and unexpected) On the otherhand, although getting your ears pierced or plucking your eyebrows may seem quite similar to the above two, the difference is that they are voluntary. That’s why I believe they are more tolerable.

So in the end, I think that Moreau’s justification of pain, stabbing himself in the knee, a self-inflicted example, is not at all sufficient.

The Island of Dr. Moreau / Lord of the Flies

<---------->




So after reading The Island of Dr. Moreau, I begin to think that the novel holds a close resemblance to Golding's Lord of the Flies on various levels.

Foremost, both novels take place on an island. It is quite interesting to note the use of the island in such books to explore human nature and moral philosophies. The island serves as an "untainted" environment from humanity and social structures. Thus, an island will bring out the true nature in organisms--both humans and animals.

Also, the theme of civilized societal structure resonates with both novels. The laws that Dr. Moreau creates serves as a structure to hold the animals on the island in order. Also, the religious undertone of Dr. Moreau's laws and control further add civility and structure to the island. Similarly, in Lord of the Flies, the boys do begin by making some type of order. They try to hold meetings and assign leadership and control.

Finally, the theme of animal vs. human nature is explored in both novels. In the Island of Dr. Moreau, as Prendick sees the terror in the eyes of the these animal creatures he begins to attribute human qualities to these animals and feel empathy. Also, the puma's cries take on the form of a voice, once again juxtaposing the animal's instincts with those of human qualities. In Lord of the Flies, the boys become savages and go through a rapid process of "de-evolution." The humans nature we though innate is questioned and more animal/savage like nature is brought out.

Thus, although the two novels are ultimately investigating separate aspects of society, many of the underlying themes seem to parallel.

What keeps people “in line”?

As soon as Moreau dies, the island creatures all go crazy. Their law of social norms is no longer upheld and social disaster ensues. This makes me wonder about the implications in today’s society. There are many things that we just don’t do because they are unacceptable. For example you would never pick your nose in public. It would be looked down upon and would be embarrassing. But if there weren’t that pressure, then I think that more people would do such things. In the same way, I think Dr. Moreau instilled a pressure and obligation in the creatures to act human. They are not to walk on all four or eat meat because it is socially unacceptable. If they do these things, not only will they be looked down upon, there is punishment. They must follow the law. But as soon as this pressure was released they no longer felt the obligation to up hold the law.

Obviously Wells is making a suggestion about the ill results of this type of science, but as these creatures are part human I can’t help to wonder if Wells is trying to say something about human nature itself. In Nazi Germany, there were no social pressures against human experimentation. So it was “ok” to horrid things to the Jewish people. Should the laws in the US be relaxed, would pandemonium follow leading to ultimate destruction? Is this in our nature to be viscous? Is our “nature” controlled by “the norm”? I am making to large of a jump here. I am interested to see what everyone else thinks. What keeps people "in line"? The rules or the morals behind the rules?

Do Animals Have Social Status?

While at first I considered the entirety of the themes and lessons portrayed in The Island of Dr. Moreau to be strictly scientific, such as a warning against progressive experimentation or a social commentary on Darwinism, I also noticed a parallel between the novel and George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Animal Farm is an allegorical satire of Stalinism in the USSR where different animals on a farm are used to metaphorically represent contemporary historical figures. When the Laws were read in the cave, I immediately connected these two novels, as in Animal Farm there are a similar set of commandments. In addition, the revolt of the Beast Men against the humans was very similar to Orwell’s novel, where the farm animals eventually rebel against the farmers.

All of these connections got me thinking about other themes that H.G. Wells may have slipped into this seemingly simple story. The only other H.G. Wells story I had ever heard of is The Time Machine, which was brought up in other posts, where this is a clear distinction between two sects of people, the Eloi and the Morlocks. Therefore, perhaps Wells is indeed supporting some sort of social reformation via The Island of Dr. Moreau. The way in which the lower class, the Beast Men, are brainwashed by Dr. Moreau and his assistants, are frightfully reminiscent of a totalitarian regime. Once there are flaws in the system, where the Beast Men learn that the Laws can be violated and that Dr. Moreau has died, they revolt as if they were a Marxist proletariat.

In a book where I had thought the message was about the advance of science and theories of evolution, I was quite surprised to see this pro-Socialist message in the novel. However, theories of social status and class are actually very closely linked with Darwinian theories of evolution. Ever since hints of evolutionary theory arose, the concept has been used to justify group superiority. For example, it was believed that certain races were evolutionary inferior to others, thus relating certain races to “Beast Men” more so than actual humans. In The Island of Dr. Moreau, Wells is playing with these ideas in genetically and physically altering these creatures so that they appear more human-like. Thus, despite the fact that they may appear misshapen and inferior, the alterations made by Dr. Moreau may have produced benefits in these Beast Men. Also, if Dr. Moreau’s work was a complete success and animals were made to look and act exactly like humans, we would have no distinction between groups and thus no means for superiority, exactly like in Black No More. In his novel, Wells is able to connect a variety of themes and interlink them through this one, rather simple, story.

On Weird Animal Experiments...

Apparently, there has been a long history of animal experimentation (which makes sense, given that human bodies are that much harder to obtain). One of the most morbid ones that I found dealt with dog heads, and is explained in gruesome detail by Mary Roach in Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. In May 1908, an intrepid scientist named Charles Guthrie took his weird transplantation obsession to another level, making the first artificial two headed dog! Like Moreau's animal men, this dog looked fantastically strange: "Were it not for the caption, the photo would seem to be of some rare form of marsupial dog, with a large baby's head protruding from a pouch in its mother's fur. The transplanted head was sewn on at the base of the neck, upside down, so that the two dogs are chin to chin, giving an impression of intimacy..." (Roach 207). What makes this experiment doubly cruel is the fact that in order to obtain the 'extra' head, Guthrie designed his own guillotine and decapitated a live dog so that its head would be 'fresh.' Sadly, both dogs were euthanized shortly after they were fused (due to complications).

In the 1950s in the Soviet Union, another man by the name of Vladimir Demikhov pushed this canine experimentation even farther. He would take two dogs and split both of them at their diaphragms, promptly switching their entire lower and upper halves and grafting their veins and arteries together. Since he couldn't reconnect the spinal nerves, this procedure ultimately failed as well.

What I find interesting as I was reading these accounts is the fact that to me, experimenting in such a way on animals seems to be more cruel than human experimentation. Granted, not much of this has been imposed on humans (but who knows what happened during the Nazi regime...), but it almost seems worse for animals because they can't fight back or protest in pain. Many of my friends shared the same sentiments. Any thoughts on this?

"I am your slave, master"

After the subsequent deaths of Doctor Moreau and Montgomery, the Beast People believe that they no longer have to follow the Law because their masters are not present to enforce it. It is only the St. Bernard creature that decides to treat Prendick as the new leader on the island. Numerous times during the end of the novel, Prendick mentions that both his confidence and courage continue to grow because of the faith that the St. Bernard creature has in him and because he knows that he can defend himself against the Beast People with his trusty revolver. The transfer of power from Doctor Moreau to Prendick causes Prendick to gain a taste for blood. He is more than ready to shoot whichever creatures tries to harm him or basically anything that moves suspiciously.

While Prendick seems to regard Doctor Moreau with utter disgust as he learns of his practices of vivisections on these animals, he begins to understand the fear that the doctor had in the creatures that he created. As the days and months pass, the humanity in these creatures slowly diminishes and they completely throw the Law aside. Although Prendick "grasped the vacant sceptre of Moreau, and ruled over the Beast People" (123) for a moment, it is clear at the end of the novel that the power that he believed he had did not match the strength or animal instinct of the creatures on the island.

Only one of the Beast People decided to become Prendick's slave after he took over the island--the St. Bernard creature, which ended up costing its life. Prendick became a slave to the power he earned as well as a slave to his revolver, which many of the creatures learned not to fear. Prendick's acquiring of Moreau's power only served to show that he was not meant to lead--he was a slave to his fear of Moreau in the beginning of the novel, and becomes a slave to his fear of Moreau's creatures at the end of the novel.

Dr. Moreau + Dr. Mengele= Two of a Kind

When H.G. Wells wrote The Island of Dr. Moreau before the turn of the century, little did he know (or maybe he did) how accurately his story accounted for things to come in the future. Wells' story focuses on vivisection and its possibility. In today's world, we know that vivisection is certainly possible and in parts of the world there is little being done to change it.

Wells' character of Dr. Moreau performed fictional experiments that turned into real-life experiments at the hands of Dr. Mengele and his colleagues in Auschwitz. Moreau's attempt to get rid of any "animalistic" behavior the animals on the island still possess parallels how, a few decades later, eugenics attempted to rid the human population of any undesirable people and characteristics.

Moreau's island of animals-turned-human does not just parallel Auschwitz. It can also be related to the Tuskegee, Alabama penicillin experiments, for in this situation the basic result was similar; people were being kept from medicines they needed in order for other people to learn more about their own scientific interests. In other words, just as the animals on Dr. Moreau's island were,these people were being "used".

A line must be drawn to determine where science has gone too far. Though there is no longer an Auschwitz, similar situations are still happening all over the world to both people and animals. Though scientific advancement is important, the importance of ethics should come first.

Book suggestion...

A book was recommended to me today that I thought might be of interest to some of you, particularly if you are interested in linking up some of our concerns with sex, science and psychoanalysis with this week's discussions on Nazi Germany and eugenics.

The title is: _Nazi Psychoanalysis: Only Psychoanalysis Won the War_ (the first of a three volume set), by Laurence Rickels

Has anyone read this or know about the history of psychoanalysis in Germany during WWII?
I haven't read it, so if you have a look at it, let me know what you think.

Redesigning the Body

I was looking through New Scientist Archives recently to see what I could find in relation to cyborgs and this article on two performance artsists, Stelarc and Orlan, came up. Both apparently work with technology's manipulation of the body, much of it purposely grotesque. Orlan has undergone a series of cosmetic surgeries that put bumps on her temple, enlarged both lips and jaw lines, with her next project being the addition of a large, caricature nose. The French performance artist claims these changes are mean to question normailty, gender, and the perception of beauty, and her plans for the future inlcude using biotechnology to alter her appearance yet again. While Orlan's work relies heavily upon doctors, Stelarc's uses direct application of technology. His most famous pieces are those when he suspended his body in the air, from over crashing waves to a cityscape, using tiny hooks and wires inserted into strategic spots in his skin. In another experiement, Stelarc combines robotic limbs with his own. The resulting man-machine can be contolled by a computer program that uses etirical shocks to trigger his muscles, so that the audience can control his limbs.

We spoke about what it means to be a cyborg, with Klynes' defintion along with Haraway's, and it seems that while there are many variations, most defintion's imply cyborg-ism to a be a semi-recent development. Stelarc's opinion on the matter differs greatly:

"Bodies are both Zombies and Cyborgs. We have never had a mind of own and we often perform involuntarily- conditioned and extremely prompted. Ever since we evolved as hominids and developed bipedal locomotion, two limbs became manipulators and we constructed artifacts, instruments and machines. In other words we have always been coupled with technology. We have always been prothetic bodies. We fear the involuntary and we are becoming increasingly automated and extended. But we fear what we have always been and what we have already become- Zombies and Cyborgs."

In an especially disturbing (to me, at least) project Stelarc features the "Shedding of Skin", where he proposes we "hollow, harden, and dehydrate the body to make it more durable and less vulnerable ". He ends his proposition on improving the human body with the ominous line, "THE HOLLOW BODY WOULD BE A BETTER HOST FOR TECHNOLOGICAL COMPONENTS", claiming that it is "no longer meaningful to see the body as a site for the pysche or soul but rather as a structure to be monitored and modified". Stelarc most likely wouldn't see it as such, but this seems to be an extreme end of dehumanizing technology. In a way, what's most startling is Stelarc's complete dismissal of the soul. As Klyne's argued, there's the problem of 'satisfactions', we have emotions and needs that run far deeper than just the materials technology can supply. In his intense but sparsely (and the spareness could be causing this) written theories on redesigning the body, Stelarc represents humans as ideally being like the scientists in sci- films; little heart, little ethic, and a whole lotta logic to rationalize what they're doing.

Mengele's Twin Studies

German Nazi-science on the whole is disturbing to the majority of those reading about it today. What is the most disturbing piece of information out of all of it is that the Nazis were actual people committing these crimes, not aliens or some foreign beings who might have no connection to humanity. The idea that baffles many is the fact that humans can ruin other humans' lives and brainwash them so easily.

Josef Mengele played quite a large role in this. A physician in the Nazi camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Mengele had the job of deciding who could die and who could be used for labor. Mengele was head of a "Gypsy" camp whose inhabitants later all got gassed, which led Mengele to achieve a higher position of power (Chief Medical Officer); this seems an odd way to gain power to any sane human being.

Mengele is most famous for his interest in twins, who furthered his studies in heredity. He used them to test diseases such as Noma, a disease primarily caused by malnutrition and weak immune systems (obviously prevalent in concentration camps). Often, Mengele would use one twin as a control and inject the other twin with something he thought caused such an infection. He would also try various amputations and to change the twins' eye colors by injecting them with foreign substances. Usually this was performed on children, which makes the matter seem even worse.

Was it good or bad that twins were sent to the concentration camps instead of the gas chambers? It seems like a Catch-22. Some mothers hid their twins, unsuspecting of what was to come next, and they would all end up in the gas chamber; other mothers would offer their twins at hearing the request (other requests were made as well for dwarves, giants, and other abnormal qualities). It seems that going to the concentration camp to be tested and tortured is not much better than getting gassed.

Mengele's experiments are a prime example of two simple questions that have plagued many people since the time of these concentration camps; how could anyone do such things to another human being, and how could anyone sit back and let it happen?

Knowledge is Knowledge

I completely agree that Nazis committed horrible atrocities during their time in power. I also agree that some of the experiments that they conducted were unethical, and in no way support their methods of experimentation. However, Nazi-era scientists were brilliant and made significant contributions to the world we live in today.

Nazi-era scientists and engineers were pioneers of television, jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, electronic computers, the electron microscope and ultracentrifuge, atomic fission, and new data processing technologies. All of which were either first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. During the Nazi-era, Germany was at the fore front of technology. Some examples of this are: the first magnetic tape recording was of a speech by Hitler, the V-2 emerged from a plan for intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to be able to reach New York City, and that the nerve gases sarin and tabun were Nazi inventions. Also German cancer research during the Nazi era was the most advanced in the world: Nazi-era health reformers built on this research base, introducing smoke-free public spaces, bans on carcinogenic food dyes, and new means of controlling dust exposure on factory floors. The period saw extensive work in the area of occupational carcinogenesis, and in 1943, Germany became the first nation to recognize lung cancer and mesothelioma as compensable occupational illnesses caused by asbestos inhalation. Germans also pioneered what we now call experimental tobacco epidemiology, presenting the most convincing demonstrations up to that time that cigarettes were a major cause of lung cancer.

U.S. officials knew that Nazi scientists were very intelligent and tried to recruit Nazi talent for use in U.S. military projects. At least 1,600 German scientists came to the United States under the rubric of “Operation Paperclip” including a number of medical professionals, some of whom had been implicated in abusive human experimentation.

While Nazi scientists committed horrific atrocities, we cannot forget some unethical American experiments such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Also from 1945 through 1947 scientists on the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments fed radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women without their consent.
Nazi-era scientists made significant contributions to science, research, medicine, technology, and engineering. While their experiments were unethical and should never be repeated, they did provide substantial knowledge, including evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer. I argue that if the knowledge is there and you need you should use it. I do not condone their methods; however, if you’re writing a research paper on: television, jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, electronic computers, the electron microscope and ultracentrifuge, atomic fission, or any other of advancement that the Nazi scientists made, you should be able to cite that research. Again I do not support Nazi methods; however, after knowledge from Nazi experiments is gained it is the same as any other knowledge and you should be able to use it and cite it just like any other knowledge

The Perfect Baby

I was thinking about eugenics and how it is practiced in modern times and a series of modern medical techniques of child rearing popped into my head. First, the definition of "eugenics" as defined in the dictionary:

eu·gen·ics: noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

The process of invitro fertilization where a woman's eggs are fertilized outside of her body and implanted in the uterine wall seems especially pertinent. The fertilized embryos can be tested for genetic defects before choosing which to implant which promotes healthy genes and discourages passing on genetic defects. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, person's with genetic defects are doomed to die off before they can pass on these defects yet this procedure has found a way to trick the system. Is this procedure un-natural because it intercepts evolution? Furthermore, because of the procedure's steep price tag, wealthier couples are able to afford it while, their less financially endowed counterparts cannot. This seems to lead to an elimination of defects or undesirable qualities in higher socioeconomic classes but a continuation of these defects in lower classes making a new kind of evolution. A genetically near-perfect upper-middle class and a defective lower class. So in place of Darwin's theory of the evolution of species, there is an evolution of the classes where he who has the gold has eternal life (so to speak, by yielding more generations).

How is childing rearing based on conscious genetic selection for a healthy child that much different than the Nazi party trying to create a superior race by encouraging what they saw as people with desirable traits (Aryans) to reproduce to further their lineage will stunting those of the people with what they thought as undesirable traits (Jewish people). Does that mean that invitro fertilization is as unethical as the Nazi's attempt of genetic engineering?

*I know I exaggerated a bit, but it is just to create a more distinct stance to open for discussion

Using Nazi Data

There is no question that the research done in Nazi concentration camps during WWII was completely unethical. Doctors tortured prisoners in the name of science to try to discover how much the human body can withstand before dying among other things. They were able to draw conclusions about the effects of temperature and altitude. Even though death usually ensued, some of this information is valuable, especially to the military. I found this hypothetical situation to illustrate my point:

“Given, then, that A is the donor, and that B is the worthy recipient, it would certainly be unethical to remove A's heart while he is still alive (thereby killing him) with the intent to transplant it into B's body. B's blood is not redder than A's, and both A and B deserve an equal chance to live. But what if a doctor disobeyed our warning, and removed A's heart anyway? Can he transplant A's murdered heart to save B's life? B still needs a new heart or he will die. The moral problem is: what do we do with A's murdered heart? Do we throw it away because it was immorally obtained? If so, must the needy recipient (B) suffer and die because of A's unfortunate death? If so, is it ethical to have B's death on our conscience? And what of the doctor? Suppose he transplanted A's murdered heart into B. Would the doctor be considered A's murderer or B's hero? Could he be both? Would B's renewed life suffer because of A's death?”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

This research is impossible to replicate; the data, no matter how disturbing or wrong, is still useful information. We can’t take back the suffering and cruelty that people had to endure for this research, so why shouldn’t we turn it into something good? Some of the data can be used to save lives, so we shouldn’t let it go to waste.

The knowledge gained from these experiments cannot even begin compare to what was lost, especially since most of the data isn’t completely valid. A lot of it was bad science and no good can come out of it. Too many people suffered that did not deserve it, and their suffering should no be forgotten.

Mechanization of the Group

In watching the clip of Metropolis that we screened in class today, I instantly thought about the H.G. Wells story The Time Machine. This story if you are not familiar with it details the trip of a man through time to a land where he discovers human beings have been split over time into two races. One that lives peacefully and serenely on top (The Eloi), and one that lives in a primal world of mechanization and cannibalism below the surface of the earth (The Morlocks). The idea behind this transformation was that Democracy had gone wrong and over time the working class had been pushed underground along with all the machinery, while the top was kept a beautiful luxurious place for the well off. The result was the eventual division of the races.

In The Time Machine, as well as in Metropolis, the issue being addressed is not the creation of individual cyborgs. It is instead dwells on the idea of what happens to the individual when large portions of our society become part of a machine. The concept of the mechanization of humans can be a disturbing idea when applied to the individual level, but through a portrayal of dual societies we see that the effects of such a division can lead to terrible consequences and the dehumanization of society itself not simply the individual.

I thought that the movie we watched today portrayed a sort of foreshadowing for the idea of the cyborg that we read about in the Clynes article. In the movie the workers were basically consumed by and incorporated into the machinery with which they worked. They walked stiffly and mechanically as if they were robots and performed mindless repetetive tasks. This image seems to describe the fears of the cyborg which Clynes discusses and and tries to dispel in his interview and description of his work.

Contrary to the popular terminator like image which is most often associated with the term cyborg, Clynes' idea is much more scaled back and purposeful. Though his ideas often sound fanciful they are all just coping strategies for a new environment. In addition he stresses the use of pharmaceuticals as one of the main ways to achieve these adaptations, which generally doesn't fall under the popular conception of the term cyborg. Physical modifications using machinery to replace organic parts is really a relatively small pert of his idea.

Bearing in mind the popular portrayal of a cyborg as a half man half machine freak, and Clynes' description more palatable idea of a cyborg more as a person whose body is regulated by chemical releasing implants, I think it is interesting to note that it is the former of these two types of cyborgs that actually exist. Prosthetics are becoming ever more advanced and artificial hearts have successfully helped keep people alive, while implants releasing body regulating drugs are relatively unheard of.

Further Thoughts on Citing Nazi Research

Although in class I espoused the idea of using/citing the research if it benefits mankind, I have chosen to recant my statement. Thinking about the issue at further length, I feel that to uphold the integrity of the scientific field in general we must ban the use of this research. The only cases where this research should be cited is in cases where a paper is focusing on the ethical issues at that time.

Those who underwent these horrific experiments and conditions did not provide consent for these experiments, and certainly there is no way to check with all these victims whether it is okay to cite these studies. Although one can make the argument that because these victims suffered something "good" should come out of it, I feel such an argument would almost be some sort of hollow apology and insulting to those who underwent such atrocious conditions.

I don't think that by citing these studies science is going be revolutionized dramatically, and thus by not citing such research we really are not at a big loss. Instead of focusing on attempts to cite this research, science should spend its time figuring out how to obtain such data without putting patients through life threatening situations. Such other methods may be through computer simulations, ethically approved animal studies, etc.

There is not a dearth of knowledge in science right now, and so instead of trying to cite such research studies, we should place ourselves in the bodies of the victims and empathize instead of trying to find some "good" out of such a tragedy.

Gemini

‘What was injected into me and my twin sister, Miriam? And for what nefarious purposes were our blood used?’ These are probably the thoughts that have been haunting Eva Mozes Kor for the past half-century according to the NAZI Research article we read for class this week. Josef Mengele was the man behind the studies. He was the man who probed twins as if they were lab rats. And what good has come out of his unethical studies? Have we benefited at all from his work? Or as Britt asked in class, is it even ethical for us to cite his work?

To answer these questions, I think it is important to first have a better understanding of what Mengele did in Auschwitz. In class today, someone mentioned whether or not it was even practical to use any of Mengele’s Nazi research today because many of the experiments were conducted with an Arian superiority bias. How do we even know if these experiments were even scientifically structured and reliable? However, after reading some other research on Mengele and his studies, I learned that he was actually working alongside some of the top researchers of that time.

Also, Mengele treated twins very differently from the other prisons at Auschwitz; they were given chocolates and candy (some of them called him ‘Uncle Mengele’), freed from certain punishments, and even sometimes allowed to play sports (Children of the Flames: Dr. Josef Mengle and the Untold Story of the Twins of Auschwitz). But all this changed once Mengele was ready to experiment on them. This “happy” time also seemed like a waiting room at a Doctor’s office. You get toys and games to play with before you go in to see the Dr.

Once they were called upon for experimentation, they were subjected to probably some of the worst treatment during the Holocaust. Everything he did, however, was a secret to the test subjects. Eva and her sister, Miriam, had no idea what was being done to their bodies and for what purpose they were done. Blood was drawn, chemicals were used, measurements were taken, injections were given, and even death was used in research.

In the end, it is still difficult to decide whether or not it is acceptable to use Nazi research today. If we do decide that this research is unethical to cite, does this mean that the victims of Mengele suffered for no cause? I think the decision is up to the remaining survivors. My guess is that they’ll support its use if there’s anyone who can benefit, but really, how are people today supposed to benefit from this research? What sort of useful information did Mengele come up with that is applicable to medical research in this time and age? If his purpose was hidden from his subjects, then where can we find the answers?

Here are some words from a surviving victim of Josef Mengele:
"Dr. Mengele had always been more interested in Tibi. I am not sure why - perhaps because he was the older twin. Mengele made several operations on Tibi. One surgery on his spine left my brother paralyzed. He could not walk anymore. Then they took out his sexual organs. After the fourth operation, I did not see Tibi anymore. I cannot tell you how I felt. It is impossible to put into words how I felt. They had taken away my father, my mother, my two older brothers - and now, my twin ..." (http://www.auschwitz.dk/Mengele/id17.htm)

Humanity is secondary

While reading the article by Clynes and Kline, my first impression was that the original cyborg was really nowhere near the half man, half machine it's known as today. But the more I read, the more apparent that Clynes and Kline's proposed "biochemical, physiological, and electronic modifications" were really just adjustments meant to mechanize the human body (29). It seemed that their ultimate goal was to bypass the natural process of selection and evolution, allowing humans to adapt to extreme conditions (such as space) in the most painless way possible. In other words, they were looking for the shortest path to advancement: with human obstacles such as food and excretion aside, astronauts would then in theory be free to explore the mysteries of space and in turn increase the breadth of scientific knowledge.

Here we come to the classic dilemma of scientific advancement and ethics. With all our normal bodily functions regulated by a complex combination of chemicals, what becomes of humans' natural existence? At that point, aren't humans indistinguishable from products of scientific experiments, shells made to house chemicals? After all, those of us sent off into space are subjected to prolonged states of sleep, brought on by low temperatures and chemicals designed to decrease consumption and excretion. These 'cyborgs' are in effect comatose, reliant on drugs to "help maintain muscle tone" (32). To me, this type of life is not really living at all; cyborgs are just bodies that are existing, caught in a state of artificial stagnation. It's really kind of depressing to think that in this context, cyborgs are not given a chance to move forward -- they don't have to react or adapt to changes around them, for everything is taken care of by self regulated pharmaceutical injections. Emotional needs (friendship, etc) that remind them of their human natures are simply dismissed as problems that are "amenable to pharmacological influence" (33).

It seems that from their inception, cyborgs have been doomed to lead artificial existences, suspended in a certain space and time. Where is the humanity in that?

Eugenics and Its Unforeseen Consequences

I think that the main reason ideas of eugenics are frowned upon is, like Jordan said in his post, selective breeding is unnatural. Selective breeding, only allowing certain individuals in a population to mate, by definition is not natural selection and therefore is not a natural process. (Natural selection is when individuals which are best adapted to their environment are the ones who make the largest genetic contribution to the next generation because they are most likely to reproduce.) In my opinion, the biggest controversy in eugenics is "who gets to decide what traits should be selected for and what traits should be favored?" When humans selectively breed someone is going to have to decide which traits are the most valued. This again introduces the controversy between god and science. Is it ok for humans to decide the evolution of the species. This seems to be an extension of man playing “the creator.” Selecting for certain traits could have unforeseen consequences. Through selective breeding, humans will become very specialized thus decreasing the diversity within the population. Should a small change in the environment occur, it could wipe out the entire species if the traits we have selected for happen to be detrimental in the changed environment. I think that not only is it unethical for people to value certain people more than others due to certain characteristics, it may actually be detrimental to the human race.

Looking back....looking ahead

In the Clynes and Kline article and Clynes interview, I noticed that there was always a mention to the future progress that would be made in their field of study. Both scientists were optimistic that in the next few years, science would become thoroughly enthralled in the study of cyborgs and creating systems that could control man's body without him being conscious of the actions.

It is interesting how science seems to have an undenying optimism that progress will be made in a year, or many years down the line. It is clear that new scientific topics come to the forefront after groundbreaking results are brought to light and that these topics gain and lose popularity in the blink of an eye. I wonder if this optimism is a characteristic of human nature that has been brought to the scientific world. If it is, I believe that this optimism is one of the most necessary qualities for all those who work in scientific and or medical fields. Just think, if someone spends years searching for the cure of a disease and decides that too much time has passed and that the cure will never be found, how will any medical breakthroughs surface?

Although the study of cyborgs and space is not the same as searching for the cure of a disease, it is still incredibly important to those who study it. I am interested in finding out what progress has been made in the study of cyborgs--this afformenioned scientific optimism tells me that the topic has obviously not been completely left to the side; however, I have not heard of any current incredible ideas that have come out of Clynes and Kline's studies.

Sir Francis Galton: Natural Selection of Humans

Toward the end of class today, the name Galton came up Britt was mentioning the origin of eugenics. Sir Francis Galton was, as brought up in class, actually a half-cousin of Darwin, the man behind natural selection. Galton produced numerous scientific papers and was even knighted for his work and discoveries. Among the topics Galton worked with are inheritance of intelligence, nature vs. nurture, differential psychology and psychometrics (measuring peoples’ brainpower), and behavior genetics. Essentially, Galton’s work was centered about finding statistical and mathematical ways to distinguish a hierarchy of humans. Therefore, it is no surprise that he proposed providing incentives for people who had eugenically favorable marriages. In fact, he called those marriages, which produced imperfect children “dysgenic.” Galton also studied facial characteristic by a method that he called “composite photography” which focused on determining human traits just by viewing facial features. In something that we would refer to today as racial profiling, Galton tried to identify a set of criminal faces. Near the end of his life, in an attempt to reach a wider audience, Galton wrote a novel called Kantsaywhere, which was a Utopia where families bred eugenic progeny.

Today, when anyone mentions racial purity or a “perfect” race, thoughts of Nazi Germany usually come to mind. Racial purity has strongly negative connotations today, but if the Nazi regime had not happened, would this be so? When I learned today that the government had the power to sterilize unfit child-bearers, I was very surprised and had never heard of that. The only incident I really heard about racial purity is the Nazi attempt around World War II. Looking at Galton’s theories and Darwinian natural selection, eugenics seems almost like a smart idea that will benefit humankind. Perhaps if the Nazis had not attempted to extinguish minority races, the common population would not have such negative connotations. Other instances of eugenic promotion are much less known.

Evolution provides the means by which all organisms survive. The creatures in today’s world have evolved to overcome weaknesses due to flaws in their system. While disrupted by some, humans have evolved from apes and have developed many functional qualities to improve life. Then why is it that natural selection of humans is looked down upon? My personal view is that eugenic determination for human children is unnatural. But then again, mating in humans is not random and in fact constrained by several factors. What about genetically inherited diseases? Should a man and a woman with a strong likelihood to pass on a horrible disease be allowed to have children? Is it right to have a child that you know will have a miserable experience? Where do we draw the line?

The Dangers of Science

The documents detailing some of the experiments conducted by Nazi scientists in concentration camps offer a haunting reminder of the dangers of unethical science. While most of the stories we have read warned of pushing science too far too quickly, it is difficult to actually show a period in time where science was so misused as in Nazi Germany. The nightmarish stories of monsters rising from the dead, and people disfigured by experimentation actually came true.

This raises an interesting quandry for modern society. In the secular, scientific present we only observe the benefits of science. Individuals in class expressed hesitation at some aspects of cloning or other future technologies, but everyone acknowledged the benefits of these inventions as well. Furthermore, the popular opinion is that religion and faith have cause wars and death on an unimaginable scale. However, it is important for those of us who are secular and do believe in the power of science to admit to the failures of science at the dawn of the twentieth century.

After Darwin's theory of evolution gained popularity the idea of "survival of the fittest" was stretched and abused by colonial Europe. European countries who colonized every inch of Africa actually did so with scientific claims. They argued that they were the fittest breed of human and had a right to dominate the lesser, soon to die off, races. The colonizing forces deemed it natural and in the interest of evolution of the species for these abuses of human dignity to occur. Then, the Nazi's took it to a whole differnt level. The experimentation on subjects with the purpose of creating a perfect, pure race of man violates every modern medical ethics standard. Moreover, the German's understood this and used prisoners in addition to volunteers. The entire concentration camp process was fuled by pseudoscience. The churches in Nazi Germany were destroyed during Hitler's uprising, and the war crimes perpetrated by Himmler had scientific theory behind them.

It is important to remember the dangers of extending any theory too far, too fast, and with too few safegaurds in place. Science can be just as radical and dangerous as religion and was responsible for colonization and the war crimes of WWII.

Sexology

I have previously read Freud and it never ceases to amaze me how certain he is on the deviation of childhood sexuality. The very basis of Freudian psychotherapy is uncovering the childhood sexual dysfunction that has lead an adult towards neurosis. For instance, in "Phobia in a 5-year old Boy" little Hans tells a male playmate that he loves him and gives him a hug, Freud calls this "the first instance of homosexuality" which clearly is an overreaction. Most young children express affection towards all of their friends at a young age. Though Han's father is the one that makes these observations, he is a follower of Freud and Freud agrees with the assessment. Furthermore, Han's father diagnoses in his son a joy in exhibiting himself. This is another overreaction to a common childhood activity. Young children enjoy the physical freedom that clothing inhibits and also express a insatiable fascination with body parts especially genitalia.

These drastic diagnoses make me start to wonder what exactly is the clinical backing for Freud? I know he was a forerunner on psychoanalysis but he advanced his ideology by damming the body. He makes it where any concern or focus on the body at all is dirty and a road to neurosis. It seems like he tries to cure the mind by separating it from the body so does he do more harm than good?

Homo sapiens sapiens are the product of billions of years of evolution starting with one celled organisms and leading to astounding levels of complexity. Our species' current level of success indicates our flexibility and cunning at responding to the multitude of challenges presented by an environment composed of a nearly infinite set of variables. Thus it seems somewhat ludicrous to suppose that the totality of the human psyche can be boiled down to various expressions or repressions of the sexual desire. However, if we take a Darwinian standpoint on the "purpose of life", namely to survive to reproductive age and then to reproduce, we can see that Freud may have been neglecting only one other major piece of the puzzle, fear, and in particular fear of death (to help facilitate the survival part).

In my opinion fear has had an impact on human culture at least as important as sexual desire, providing a massively persuasive idealogical basis for religion (heaven, afterlife, immortal soul, etc. to help ease that annoying fear of death), as well as supplying the impetus for the cohesion of small groups into larger societies (easier to protect your camp, kill that mammoth, etc. with 20 guys instead of 2, increases rate of survival, helps quell fear of death).

Thus, while I'm not trying to insinuate that Freud never considered fear of death, because I'm sure he did, it seems odd to me that he should omit it in describing the emotional and psychological growth of little kids. He certainly references fear as a symptom of repressed sexual urges, but I find it unlikely that latter is always a cause of the former and never the other way around.

Pornography= art?

There is much speculation as to whether the works of Edweard Muybridge are closer to works of scientific experiment or works of art. In addition, there are people who speculate that Muybridge's works were forms of art and, in addition, pornographic forms of art.

It seems that there is a fine line between what is pornography and what is not. While to many people in today's world Muybridge's work seems relatively mild, to the people of this time it might have appeared to be overly promiscuous (i.e. the images of women pouring water on each other or rubbing each other). The question of whether his work is pornography almost seems to pertain more to the time period being applied rather than the actual make-up of Muybridge's work, for people today will certainly have different takes on his work than people of the time the works were created.

Did Muybridge simply have "scientific" reasons for using nudes and semi-nudes in his work? Why was this, if his work is indeed scientific, scientifically necessary? When considering Muybridge's odd life outside of his work with locomotion-changing his name, almost getting killed by a stagecoach, killing the man who had an affair with his wife at point -blank range-it is questionable as to whether Muybridge had a direct purpose in using these naked and nearly-naked figures or if he was just a little bit on the loony side. So the basic question is, was Muybridge's work scientific or artistic, and furthermore was it a form of pornographic art?

The Man, the Myth, the Legend

It’s clear that there is a lot of controversy surrounding Eadweard Muybridge and his work. Was it science, was it art, or was it pornography? After doing research on Muybridge it seems most people view him as a scientist. He however, saw himself as an artist. I believe him to be an artist disguising himself as a scientist. He never really came to any conclusions about human movement or the human body. By calling his work science he was able to get the funding. He did however take thousands and thousands of pictures, many of which are beautiful.

However a lot of his “art” is very strange, and somewhat inappropriate. A lot of his nude photos were of people doing things that the normal person wouldn't. A lot of his border lined erotic and pornographic.

So what was he? I think I can comfortably say he was a very strange if not crazy person; he did kill a man for sleeping with his wife. His pictures never really contributed to science in the way that information about the human body was obtained. He was however, the father of cinema, his Zoopraxiscope lead to motion pictures. Without him the motion picture world would not be the same as it is today.

Science vs. Art in Freud and Muybridge

After first reading Freud's psychoanalyses, I was confused as to why we read
them. After having previously discussed Muybridge's work and its
classification on the science-pornography gradient, I thought of ways to
relate these two "scientists".



1) We could compare these two studies to determine how scientific each of
them is. As many of us found out through research, Muybridge often
distorted his images subjectively to increase continuity. Also, some of us
questioned whether or not there was pornographic intent in the
photography. Personally, I believe that Muybridge's work was rooted in science (Stanford's bet), but his artistic style came out in his product. What could one really learn from his images, since, after all, the multiple camera angles show the same image in only a slightly different configuration? Since there is no constant of
relativity, what science can we gain from a collection of nude models running?



On a similar note, we discussed the scientific authenticity of Freud's
psychoanalyses in class today. While he approached his theories very
academically and with many scientific methods, a major flaw in Freud's work
is a lack of testability. In many of the social sciences, theories cannot be
proved right or wrong, which leaves uncertainties in any situation. Some of
Freud's theories about infant sexuality that we read about seem legitimate,
but the fact that the subject of the study, Little Hans, was
unscientifically provoked discredits Freud’s results. Therefore, it seems like Muybridge's work and
Freud's studies are actually quite similar in their scientific validity, or
lack thereof.

2) On the other hand, we could use Freud’s theories of infant sexuality to determine Muybridge’s motivations in his photographic studies. While we haven’t learned too much about Freud from only 2 essays, it seems like Freud would probably cite some repressed desire as an infant for sexual stimulation. Whatever the reason, I am relatively confident that Freud could find someway to claim that Muybridge’s photos are definitely pornographic. However, I think we would need to read more about Freud’s philosophies to be sure.

Looking at these two “scientists”, what we can learn most from their experiments is that fact that science is based in art. That is, in any scientific study, there is definitely an art to performing it. In Muybridge’s case, there is an actual artistic value to his product. In Freud’s case, there is an art or skill to designing his case study to produce a significant result that will fit into his theories. Essentially, science is rooted in art and art is rooted in science. At some point in the development of either, we can find a point where the two branches of the experiment overlap.

Infants as sexually aware?

I completely disagree with Freud on the assertions he makes about “infantile sexuality” and infants’ pursuit of sexual satisfaction. These claims are nothing more than tenuous postulations, based not on empirical evidence (granted, it’s hard to gather data on thought processes, especially those of babies) but on the lack thereof. This gives him free reign to sexualize his own observations. For instance, he claims that since infants can’t remember events that occur during their first 3 or 4 years, there is no information to prove that they had no sexual impulses at the time; Freud, because of the absence of such data, takes it to mean that infants definitely have strong “sexual instinctual forces” in this blackout period (44).

Having established such a shaky foundation for his assertion, Freud proceeds to distort infantile behavior such as thumb sucking. What is astounding about his connection between thumb sucking and “sexual naughtiness” is that he links frequency of thumb sucking to masturbation later in life. In other words, one can tell how sexually active an infant will grow up to be from how often it turns to its thumb. In my opinion, infants, during their first few years of life, don’t really have physical or mental capacity to pinpoint innate sexual frustration and find an outlet for it. Babies are not the sexual beings Freud frames them as; it takes years recognize and articulate sexuality, an ability that is learned after people become cognizant of their bodies in the context of their surroundings. For infants, learning how to eat, talk, and walk definitely take place before this “epiphany” occurs.

"The Way of Seeing a Nude"

John Berger’s Ways of Seeing has been a intro art-class favorite since its conception in 1972, despite some arguing Berger’s Marxism opinionates the text too much. In its third chapter, Berger explores the portrayal of women in painting and photography, eventually concluding from their often nude depiction that ‘nudity’, in direct contrast to ‘naked’, means having yet another skin covering oneself while ‘naked’ means to be entirely exposed without presumption.

One common opinion on nude versus naked can be summed up from Kenneth Clark’s The Nude: A Study of Ideal Form:

“To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes, and the word implies some of the embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word 'nude,' on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous, and confident body: the body re-formed.”

Naked, then, is to simply be without clothes and with shame, while nude is a form of art, a way of seeing achieved through that art. Berger argues that this isn’t entirely true. He claims that “to be naked is to be without disguise.” Nudity is “a form of dress” for derived from being display in art, meaning “the surface of one’s own skin, the hairs of one’s own body, [is] turned into a disguise which, in that situation, can never be discarded.” Berger then expands this concept to the women found in the nude tradition of European oil painting, who were -and Berger would are argue, still are- “seen and judged as sights.” One such example is Charles the Second commissioning a ‘secret’ (he later showed it to a select group of male guests) portrait of his mistress Nell Gwynne nude. “Her nakedness is not, however, an expression of her own feelings; it’s a sign of her submission to the owner’s feelings or demands.” When an artist paints or photographs a nude woman, he arranges it to appeal to male sexuality of the supposed viewer, not the female sexuality actually being portrayed.

Is this argument on nude and naked, object and possessor occurring in Muybridge’s photographs? I would think those ones of women draped, undressing, and bathing each other would count as Muybridge playing to eroticism and male sexuality. Furthermore, the women are depicted as individuals; they’re often unnamed and the physical reproduction of their image in those many frames devalues them. When an artist actually appreciates the woman for herself, Berger believes the spectator “is forced to recognize himself as the outsider that he is.” We never feel like an outsider when looking upon the women in Animal Locomotion because Muybridge photographs them to not just be sights but to be, in a Bergian sense, sights constructed for the male spectator.

"that's dirty...it's not decent": Repression of Infantile Sexuality

In his essay "Infantile Sexuality" and case study of "little Hans", Sigmund Freud explores the idea of sexual instinct in both infants and young children as well as the attempts of society to prove that sexuality only begins with the onset of puberty. What intrigued me the most about these two readings was the effect that societal repression of infantile sexuality can have on the individual children themselves. In the case of Hans, he slowly begins to become more and more anxious because the urge he has to touch his "widdler" directly conflicts with the ideas of disgusts that his mother has placed in his mind. Hans' mother tries to get his attention away from his "widdler" for the majority of the case study--utilizing the "castration complex" as Freud describes it, which Hans disregards at first. The little hints that his mother makes cause him to feel shame in small amounts, which slowly build up as time passes.
Freud says that "infantile amnesia...conceals from him the beginning of his own sexual life, [and] is responsible for the fact that in general no importance is attached to childhood in the development of sexual life"(Freud 42). Although it is true that no real importance is placed on infantile sexual development, it seems that a great deal of time is spent repressing any sexual (or mildly sexual) behavior in children. Children's sexual curiosity through questioning or in some cases, experimentation, is looked down upon by society and leads many parents to tell their children that such thoughts are "dirty" and shameful. While Hans' mother was probably dealing with these uncomfortable conversations as best as she knew how, Hans' anxiety seems to come primarily from things that she said to him.
It is quite normal for young children to be sexually curious--to wonder what things are, where babies come from, why girls are different from boys. It is also important that parents try to answer their questions as best as possible without pushing their ideas off to the side. We live in a sexually-conscious society, and if children don't find out information from their parents, it is quite easy for them to find out the wrong information right outside of their doors.

The Scantily Clad ~ Running, Jumping, Dancing…Jumping in Hay?

Eadweard Muybridge was one interesting man. Whether he was a man of science or art, however, is something open to debate. I agree with what Amit said in class earlier this week that originally, Muybridge’s intentions were scientific. The purpose for his first “animal locomotion” photograph was to answer a scientific question of whether or not a horse’s feet are all airborne at any time. The hypothesis according to Leland Stanford was that such a time exists, and what Muybridge did with this experiment of photography was to prove the hypothesis to be true. But after looking at those three thick volumes of photos in class, I thought that what began as a scientific experiment eventually shifted over to something that was purely artistic. In my opinion, it seemed as if Muybridge’s curiosity disappeared, and what replaced his curiosity was a fascination with the aesthetics of motion and human form. From the photos of the still figured man and random positioning of the rifle, it seems as if no scientific knowledge is being revealed. What can we learn from this series of photographs?

Furthermore, what are Muybridge’s intentions in using naked models? Is this a form of pornography? I certainly do not believe that Muybridge’s sole objective was to suggest anything sexual in his work. In fact, I thought that he was trying to exhibit man in his natural form. How can we fully understand how motion functions if the joints and muscles of the body are hidden in drapes? That’s why I think it was appropriate for his athletic shots to be of nude models. Also, the Greek Olympics in Olympia were played with nude male athletes. However, I do agree that there were some photos of naked models which seemed almost unnecessary. Why did Muybridge need to expose a woman’s breasts when all she was doing was sweeping the floor? Although these nude photos seem unnecessary, I think that Muybridge was just trying to say, “Hey, let’s not make it a big deal that they’re nude. What is natural is beautiful and I want my photographs, my art, to be portrayed as bare and uncovered. I’m showing the public what is real, what is natural, the normal, and the abnormal. I am showing you things as they are. Some models will be naked. Some will be clothed. Let’s not focus on their nakedness and let’s look at what’s going on in the photo.”

Looking at the photo below, I wonder why these men had to be photographed naked. It’s not as if they are running; we don’t need to see the muscles and joints with every hint of movement. But, I also think that their nakedness adds to the photograph. It makes you focus on what they’re doing; you’re not distracted by their clothes or any other extraneous object. Motion is the photo's main attraction and we can see that clearly when all other distractions are taken away. It is a bare photo whose purpose can be clearly understood.

Art funded by Science?

I would argue that Muybridge’s collection is art rather than science and that he just put on the façade of being scientific to get funding through a university. Without the support of an institution, Muybridge would not have had the funds to do this project. Science involves some type of question or end goal. In this motion study “experiment” there was no end goal. There are countless volumes of what seems to be random motion documentation. Once Muybridge received support from a few credible individuals and the University of PA, the support just snowballed. He built a reputation as a scientist, whether he really was or not. This credibility allowed him to practice his art on a scale that was otherwise unimaginable.

To test my hypothesis that Muybridge’s goals were more artistic than scientific, I think it would be interesting to inspect the number of plates present in each section of the collection to see if the numbers are skewed in any one direction. More plates in certain categories would suggest that Muybridge had a preference for these certain types of photographs. I would argue that the abnormal movement section is the most scientific section of the cataloged. If the most of plates lie in this section of the collection, than maybe his goals were of scientific nature.

Secondly, I think it would be interesting to look at the dates of when each plate was taken. I would think that his early work, before he had funding from the university would reflect his true interests in animal locomotion and when they began. Was his interest in animal locomotion sparked by the possibility of funding or was documenting movement always his goal?

Muybridge's Influence

So I found it interesting to look into some of the influences that Eadward Muybridge has had on other artists and current experimental techniques.

One such modern artist happens to be the band U2. In their music video for their song Lemon, they pay tribute to Muybridge. It is rather strange though watching this on video because the notion to capture images in motion is being shown on a motion medium (the music video). Thus, the effect is slightly different of course, but nonetheless interesting. Here is the link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fCE_ASpejs

Another influence of Muybridge concerns Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase painting. This is strikingly similar in intention to Muybridge's Nude Descending Stairs.

Both attempt to fragment the motion and capture it. However, the difference is that Duchamp overlays many of the fragments while Muybridge is showing them as separate, sequential entities.

Finally, many of Muybridge's motion captures deal with the movement of athletes. Thus, he may have set the foundation for present day analysis of every athlete's motion. Professional athletes are tested in every single aspect, such as stride length, frequency of various motions, angular positions, degree of rotations, etc. This data is the then analyzed by researchers to determine "optimal" techniques, etc.

Here is simply one example in golf concerning motion analysis:

Thus, Muybridge's work has proved quite influential both in art (Duchamp's painting) and science/experiment (athletic motion analysis).

Can anyone think of other influences Muybridge has had?

Muybridge's Innovation

While today it is easy to observe the photographs by Muybridge and analyze them objectively, it is important to remember the context in which the experiments occurred. For those who question the legitimacy of his moving photos as pornography or simply meaningless, the technology of the time must be kept in mind.

Throughout history the human body has been observed and documented for artistic and scientific purposes. The original pictures and sculptures of human bodies were crude in their design and implementation, but nonetheless marked an important step in artistic and scientific discovery. Da Vinci sketched images of naked men and women, and his physical inquiries are not perceived as pornography, but rather the foundation of modern studies of the anatomy. Thus, I was surprised when Muybridge's work was questioned in class.

He was the first person to develop a method for taking photographs in rapid succession. This elementary motion picture was an astonishing innovation in itself. The ability to observe minute movements that had escaped human understanding prior to his machine was in itself the experiment. It is only the natural progress of human art, from sculptures, painting, and murals, to photographs, and finally moving pictures. One should not be astonished to find naked bodies in any mode of art.

Furthermore, it may be that due to the moving nature of the pictures, we expect a higher level of quality from the art. We laugh at the inability of the pictures to be completely instantaneous, sharp, and clear. We dismiss the inability to capture many motions as poor art and a useless experiment. We simply cannot understand the novelty of the zooropraxiscope and the studies of animal locomotion as the society of the late 1800s did.

Overall, I feel that Muybridge's photographs were definitely a fusion of art and science, and in no way pornographic.

More traditional animations

This short clip includes sequences of Muybridge himself:


A Baboon


And finally, a "real" baboon walking

Contemporary Experiments with Muybridge

Muybridge Modernized



Stick puppet animation of Muybridge's Animal Locomotion Series.
Can you figure out which photograph series are represented here?

Animal Locomotion: An Observational Experiment

I think that Eadweard Muybridge’s Animal Locomotion Studies qualifies as an experiment even though there was nothing specific being tested for, besides Stanford’s question about a horse being airborne. It is an observational experiment where the sole purpose is to gain new knowledge about a subject. In this case the subject is the motion of animals and humans, and Muybridge sought to learn the order in which such motion takes place. He was interested in the biomechanics of motion, such as what muscles are involved in a certain motion and how they work together to carry out that motion. This could be determined by examining specific photographs and seeing which muscles are flexed at a particular point in the motion. This observational experimentation can be compared to psychology experiments where the purpose is to determine which parts of the brain are active when solving a math problem or reading a paragraph. Both of these are examples of experiments that do not have a specific hypothesis or theory, yet neither of which are as unethical as the Tuskegee Experiment. They show that it is possible to experiment ethically without a hypothesis and with the sole intention of gaining new knowledge about a subject.

Even though he used very unscientific methods in misrepresenting his findings by using the same images over again or by combining separate sequences to exaggerate effects, Muybridge’s experiments still qualify as scientific. His altering of his photos makes him a bad scientist in that regard, but it does change elegance of the experiment itself nor make the experiment unscientific. With the development of more advanced technology such as cinematography and film, scientists can carry out the same experiments and use the film to gain insight into how groups of muscles work together to produce one fluid motion.

I also would not consider his work pornographic. The definition of pornography is: “Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.” I argue that Muybridge wanted his subjects nude in order to better examine the biomechanics of motion, not to cause sexual arousal in any way. Even if sexual arousal was associated with his pictures, it was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to study mechanisms of human motion. Muybridge considered himself an artist; and as an artist he probably valued the beauty of the human body much like the Greeks and Romans.

Schuyler's Capitalistic Approach

George Schuyler was quite different from most black leaders and scholars of his age. Although he experienced racism just like other blacks at the time, he took a different stance on improving the status of black in America's community.

Many leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr, WEB DuBois, etc., seemed to be proponents of more of a socialistic approach. They foresaw government intervention as the path towards equality. However, Schuyler, interpolating from his novel, seems to suggest that that would be the absolute wrong path to take, especially due to the corruptness of the government, which he ridicules through the actions of the Black No More, Inc. paying off govt officials.

Schuyler instead proposes a capitalistic approach, one where blacks would obtain the respect and equality they deserve from others by becomes economically independent and successful. This idea is largely played out in the novel through the actions of Max (or Matthew) becoming rich with his schemes, etc.

These ideas are also important in that they may partly explain why Schuyler was not read so much back then--that is, because he proposed the self reliant, capitalistic approach towards equality, and this seemed to be a much harder route to traverse compared to the approach offered by govt intervention.

Anyone have any ideas on this?

Not So Meek Genius

Well, I did some research on Our World, the magazine that "America's Strangest Family" was published in. Its now, if it indeed is he same publication as it was in 1951, a 50+ generation free magazine. Just thought I'd share that...

I also looked up some stuff on Philippa Schuyler, and apparently, she wasn't particularly happy at the time of the article. Philippa's early childhood had shown her to be of exceptional genius, both reading and writing at 2 and composing at 5. Her mother attributed it to both the unusual diet that we read about, with all those raw veggies and meat, and also her genes, resulting from the mixing of her parent's races. The article depicts her childhood as, if not ideal, superior in its intellectual stimulation. Philippa is "pretty, sensitive", depicted in an entirely passive manner as she "fondles her braids". The journalist claims she's so shy that she "wouldn't know how to act" if a boy kissed her.

In truth, Philippa actually became increasingly disenchanted with her parents and lifestyle as she grew older. At early adolescence, Philippa found the scrapbooks her parents kept, chronicling her developement. This discovery prompted her to realize that her conception and entire childhood had been an 'experiment', tainting her earliest fond memories. The disillusionment grew as she aged and eventually, Philippa shunned her parent's values and became increasingly feminist, finally claiming she was of Spanish descent (instead of mulatto). By age 19, she was already beginning her transformation into a more independent being, yet she was still portrayed as a meek genius in "America's Strangest Family". I wonder what caused this depiction of Philippa: was she hiding her true self from her family, is her protrayal a reflection of early '50s sexism/racism, did her parent's influence the article's presentation, etc.? I'm apt to think it was some conjunction of all three. For the entirety of Philippa's story, check out the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Schuyler (sorry I didn't use the link function; it just doesn't seem to be working).

"Science would succeed where the Civil War had failed"

In George Schuyler’s Black No More, Max Fisher makes the comment that “science would succeed where the Civil War had failed.” The scientists who created Black No More Inc. believed that all racial problems would disappear as soon as exterior color was taken out of the equation, however they couldn’t have been more wrong. The book soon proved that racism is more then skin deep. There was mass hysteria among the white community when it became possible for white women to be tricked into marrying black men and then unknowingly have mulatto children. If the white community believed that black people were so inferior to white people then wouldn’t it still be easy to tell them apart, even if they looked the same? What are they afraid of then? It certainly wasn’t the skin color; in the end everyone tries to darken their skin in fear of the ultra white race. It couldn’t be that they were afraid of people being different; everyone looked the same. I believe that it’s about superiority. The white race wanted to feel better then someone else. The poor southerners could at least be better then the black population. The black race wanted equality; they wanted to be the same as the white race to have equal opportunities. Black No More Inc. leveled the playing field, now you had to work to be better then someone else.

As if you don't have enough reading already...

I just cracked a new book that might be of interest to you in light of our conversations about race and science over the past couple of weeks. Harriet Washington's _Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present_. The book is really readable and interesting. It surveys plantation medicine in the 18th and 19th century and also includes a chapter on Tuskegee called: "'A Notoriously Syphilis-Soaked Race': What Really Happened at Tuskegee?" I thought it might be especially interesting for those of you who were curious to get at questions like: what kind of information was being sought in reality? what did they hope to gain? And so on...
Happy reading.
Britt

A Past of Racism and A Future of Science

In today’s scientifically advanced society, where the discussion of the future possibility of cloning and other genetic operations is frequent, principles of race and ethnicity emerge in scientific debate. Racial purity is something that certain groups have strived for at various times in history. For example, Nazi Germany attempted to create a “pure” Aryan race by eliminating all potential “impurities,” including Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies. This attempt at creating a “super race” could be considered an example of early eugenics, a social philosophy and scientific theory that advocates the improvement of human traits. While at first eugenics seems like a good way to eliminate suffering from diseases and flaws in human genetics, the whole idea of “breeding” humans seems entirely inhumane. Eventually, if humans try to avoid certain aspects of genetics, we may actually be committing genocide against certain ethnicities.

An interesting theory proposed by an early 20th century theosophist, Gottfried de Purucker, is that “the race of the future will be a composite, composed of the many different races on earth today. Let us also remember that all men are ultimately of one blood.” What Purucker describes is a blending of the human race, such that we are all genetically equal. Is it truly possible that all of human diverstity will converge to a single, composite race? Theoretically the answer would be yes, eventually. But as in Black No More, will people allow for such racial equality? Or will people attempt to find slight variations to distinguish “superior” races from “inferior” ones?

But really, is anyone truly “pure”? At some point or another, someone in our ancestry is likely to have “unpurified” the family tree. Whether it is just someone of a different ethnicity or nationality, most of us are definitely not 100% anything. I, for example, am some conglomeration of Eurasian ethnicities. I’m not sure of what proportions my “blood” is nor can I account for 100% of it. Some people advocate that knowing our heritage results in a strong pride for a certain group, and while I agree, I can also see the 6+ billion people on Earth as a human race, with slight variations in genetics.

Schuyler plays with this idea with the ending of Black No More, as he inverts the entire racist setting of the novel through a struggle to become as “black” as possible. If race is as easily alterable, as in the novel, why has it mattered so much in history? Skin color is simply just the cover of a book; looking solely at one’s race omits all the pages between.