Madame’s character intrigued me.
She operates on her own morals, the likes of which I’m here to question. Hello.
Welcome.
Madame’s entire purpose for
Hailsham becomes clear in the last section of the novel. The students are
growing up at a time where the cure for cancer involves cloning individuals for
organ harvesting. The public finds it convenient to view these clones as
sub-human, making it easier to justify the donations and completions they
endure. Madame sought to change the public’s opinion on these students. She
worked to prove their humanity to the world, to insist they had souls like
everyone else. However, she didn’t go through all this trouble to end the
cloning process. Instead, she just wished for the clones to be treated humanely
while they are alive.
Madame chose to prove the students’
humanity by showcasing her art. Her argument was that the students must have
souls in order to create artwork as beautiful as they did. If the Hailsham
students were taught about their grave purpose, she believed they would cease
to produce art, deeming it useless. This art was the key in Madame’s plan,
something she could not risk losing. So, in order to keep the gears turning in
her plot, she actively chose to manipulate her students, keeping them in the
dark for a major part of their lives. She justified lying to these children
because she believed it would help prove their humanity in the long run.
The problem here is that Madame did
not believe her own cause. To her, the students were terrifying, unique in a
threatening way. Any time she came close to one, she reacted in fear, once
reacting as you would if two giant spiders were set to crawl over you. In their last conversation, Madame
often referred to Kathy and Tommy as “creatures.” She does not address them as
people, but rather poor creatures that she could not help further.
These are distinctions I find
interesting. Madame clearly does not view the clones as fully human, but her life’s
work is proving the clones have souls and should therefore be treated humanely.
My question: why did she fight for something she didn’t even believe in?
I think Madame’s intentions come
down to self-fulfillment. She wants to be known for fighting for her student’s
rights because that’s what she believes is right. However, her solution brings
about its own set of ethical dilemmas.
Is it better to raise the students
in a place like Hailsham? Say it is impossible to deny the public the benefits
of cloning (not a frame of mind I agree with in the first place, but let’s
imagine for the sake of the argument). In the given society, would it really be
better to treat the clones humanely? It’s evident to me through this novel that
the students do have souls, but at the very least, they have emotions, values,
and aspirations. These children dream about the type of jobs they will grow up
to have. Over and over again the rumor that some students can defer their donations
for the sake of true love sparks up. They feel betrayal, compassion, and
jealousy. Growing up unaware of their futures allows them to breed hope. The
students grew up wishing for lives they soon learn can never be true.
There is the opposite end of the
spectrum where the clones could grow up just that: as clones. They could be
taught their purpose from the beginning, brainwashed to believe it is normal
and heroic much like the Hailsham students receive subliminally. If they grow
up in harsh conditions, it would not be as difficult to begin the donations at
all. The clones would not have to face the disappointment of not getting the
futures they dreamt of because they were never offered the opportunity to dream.
I could see how some would view this as the better alternative. If the clones’
purpose is to complete in donations, you could spare them the disappointment of
believing they had a chance at life.
Which option is better, more ethical? I don’t think there
is a correct answer. The commentary I understood through Ishiguro’s work
was that fighting something half way is not good enough. It is no longer enough
to inch toward a better future, straddling the line between what is right and
what is easy. Even if Madame succeeded in ensuring the students were treated
humanely, they are still being raised for slaughter. If women are promised
equal wages but still viewed as fundamentally less capable because they are
women, that is not progress. If slavery is illegal but black men and women
still suffer from institutional racism, that is not progress. There is no room for
convenient compassion anymore. When something is unjust, it is time to uproot
the entire structure it operates within. Audre Lorde illuminates this idea,
saying, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” The
frameworks used to perpetuate systems of oppression are not useful in creating
substantial change. It’s time for a new system entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment