Rethinking ‘the Human’ in Dystopian Times: Modified Bodies and the Re-/De- construction of Human Exceptionalism in Margaret Atwood’s ‘MaddAddam’ Trilogy and Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ by Alessandra Boller

Abstract

MLR, .,   Hogle and Robert Miles (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ).) is is, however, a relatively new approach, which will be of interest not only to postcolonial scholars, but also those interested in history and the complicated relationship between past and present. U   W  E A R Rethinking ‘the Human’ in Dystopian Times: Modified Bodies and the Re-/Deconstruction of Human Exceptionalism in Margaret Atwood’s ‘MaddAddam’ Trilogy and Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’. By A B. Trier: Wissenschalicher Verlag Trier. . viii+ pp. €.. ISBN – –––. Alessandra Boller’s critical intelligence is of a high class; its sharpness can be seen in how she lays out her theoretical framework and applies theoretical points of view to analyse Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam trilogy and Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. She smartly builds up her case, brilliantly reassessing the ‘human’, exposing the ideological foundation of ‘natural and irrevocable beliefs, value systems and thought structures’, and concluding that this ‘rethinking has turned out to be inextricably connected to a reassessment of the apparently stable western dichotomy of human (“self”) and animal (“other”)’ (p. ). e deliberate, methodological treatment of her theoretical framework relies considerably on concepts including, but not limited to, Judith’s Butler’s ‘grievable life’, Michel Foucault’s ‘discipline and biopower’, Georges Canguilhem’s ‘explanations of definitions of physiological (“normal”) and pathological (“abnormal”) bodily states’, and, R. W. Connell’s ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (pp. –). It should be noted, however, that, while theoretical frameworks themselves are remarkable and useful, Boller’s theoretical applications are unfortunately uninspiring . Her enquiries oen reiterate deconstructionist vantage points with which serious readers are already familiar. Furthermore, her deconstructive approach to the ‘human’ in Atwood and Ishiguro is misleading and incomplete. Close reading reveals that the boundaries demarcating the human and the posthuman are not easily obfuscated. In the MaddAddam trilogy, for instance, human survivors (like Jimmy) are ‘positioned outside ecological conditions’ in places ‘superior to other inhabitations of the world’, whereas the posthuman Crakers are not only lacking in ‘symbolic learning and syntactic communication’ (p. ) but more importantly are dependent on humans for care, guidance, and education. Never Let Me Go, by contrast, suggests that a defining part of humanity is inextricably related to the possession of the Dasein (soul/spirit) regardless of one’s status (citizen or clone). Readers should also note Boller’s mishandling of the concept of the human and her hasty adaptation of animal studies to expand on posthumanism. ese interconnected missteps fail to incorporate critical discussions about the human not only in terms of sentience, language, autonomy, and culture but more importantly in association with crucial terms such as mind, soul, and spirit. ese latter concepts are not only leading principles in allocating humanity and personhood, but  Reviews also significant bases for distinguishing humans from animals or non-/posthumans. Her conclusions, for the above reasons, seem overly optimistic: she argues that, in these literary narratives, the deconstruction of demarcation strategies (such as normality/pathology, animal/human, human/posthuman) initiates a ‘process of overcoming anthropocentrism and speciesism’, displaying ‘the possibility of a new, positive multiculturalism’ that points to a ‘utopian possibility’ (p. ). ere is on Boller’s part a liberalistic tendency to overextend theoretical approaches in order to formulate opinions on contemporary political issues. For example, she makes clear, at various places in her book, that ‘animal species cannot logically be excluded from considerations of personhood and sympathy’ (p. ), and that they are entitled to human rights and power. is is not sufficiently borne out by the literary or theoretical texts under analysis. Many readers, however, may sympathetically regard Boller’s missteps as resulting from the ambitious enthusiasm of a young scholar. Despite its faults, her book should be acknowledged for its attempt to reassess the idea of the human, deconstruct human exceptionalism, and expose demarcation strategies in contemporary dystopian fiction. Since Boller relies heavily on deconstructive theories, her book is recommended for readers who want to familiarize themselves with deconstructive critical practice. Her next study will be worth waiting for with excitement, if it overcomes the allure of leaning too heavily on theory. B U  F S J Y Petits poèmes à voir: de la bambochade textuelle...