Advertisement

World Building, Citizenship, and Disability: The Strange World of Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go

  • Rosemarie Garland-Thomson
Chapter

Abstract

A crucial challenge for critical disability studies is developing an argument for why disabled people should inhabit our democratic, shared public sphere. The ideological and material separation of citizens into worthy and unworthy based on physiological variations imagined as immutable differences is what I call eugenic world building. It is justified by the idea that social improvement and freedom of choice require eliminating devalued human traits in the interest of reducing human suffering, increasing life quality, and building a more desirable citizenry. I outline the logic of inclusive and eugenic world building, explain the role of the ‘normate’ in eugenic logic, and provide a critical disability studies reading of the 2005 novel Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro and its 2010 film adaptation. I argue that the ways of being in the world we think of as disabilities must be understood as the natural variations, abilities, and limitations inherent in human embodiment. When this happens, disability will be understood not as a problem to be eliminated but, rather, as a valid way of being in the world that must be accommodated through a sustaining and sustainable environment designed to afford access for a wide range of human variations.

References

  1. Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1979). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In T. Adorno & M. Horkheimer (Eds.), Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Althusser, L. (1972). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (trans: Brewster, B.). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  4. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.
  5. Arendt, H. (1965). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  6. Baynton, D. C. (1996). Forbidden signs: American culture and the campaign against sign language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
  8. Bruinius, H. (2006). Better for all the world: The secret history of forced sterilization and America’s quest for racial purity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burleigh, M. (1994). Death and deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany 1900–1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cogdell, C. (2004). Eugenic design: Streamlining America in the 1930s. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, L. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Elliott, C. (2003). Better than well: American medicine meets the American dream. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Friedlander, H. (1995). The origins of Nazi genocide: From euthanasia to the final solution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  15. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring disability in American literature and culture. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Garland-Thomson, R. (2005). Dares to stare: Disabled women performance artists and the dynamics of staring. In C. Sandhal & P. Auslander (Eds.), Bodies in commotion: Disability and performance (pp. 30–41). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garland-Thomson, R. (2012). The case for conserving disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9(3), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garland-Thomson, R. (2015a). A habitable world: Harriet McBryde Johnson’s ‘Case for My Life’. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 30(1), 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garland-Thomson, R. (2015b). Human biodiversity conservation: A consensual ethical principle. American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilman, S. (1995). Health and illness: Images of difference. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Gilman, S. (1998). Creating beauty to cure the soul: Race and psychology in the shaping of aesthetic surgery. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haller, M. H. (1984). Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hamraie, A. (2012). Proximate and peripheral: Discourses of space and vulnerability surrounding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In C. Certomá, N. Clewer, & D. Elsey (Eds.), The politics of space and place (pp. 145–171). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harrison, M. J. (2005, February 25). Clone alone. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/feb/26/bookerprize2005.bookerprize. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  31. Hasia, M. A. (1996). The rhetoric of eugenics in Anglo-American thought. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  32. Heberer, P. (2001). ‘Exitus Heute in Hadamar’: The Hadamar facility and ‘euthanasia’ policy in National Socialist Germany (PhD dissertation). University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
  33. Hoche, A., & Binding, K. (1920). The authorization for the destruction of life unworthy of life [Die freigabe der vernichtung lebensunwerten lebens]. Leipzig: Verlag Von Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  34. Hubbard, R. (2006). Abortion and disability: Who should and should not inhabit the world. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 93–104). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Hvistendahl, M. (2011). Unnatural selection: Choosing boys over girls, and the consequences of a world full of men. New York: PublicAffairs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ishiguro, K. (2005). Never let me go. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  37. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kerr, S. (2005, April 17). ‘Never let me go’: When they were orphans. The New York Times Sunday Book Review. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/books/review/17KERRL.html. Accessed 13 July 2012.
  39. Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  40. Kitcher, P. (1996). The lives to come: The genetic revolution in human possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  41. Kühl, S. (1994). The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lombardo, P. (2008). Three generations, no imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lukács, G. (1972). History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics (trans: Livingstone, R.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. First published 1923.Google Scholar
  44. Mairs, N. (1996). Waist-high in the world: A life among the nondisabled. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mannheim, K. (1955). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge (trans: Wirth, L., & Shils, E.). San Diego: Harvest Books. First published 1936.Google Scholar
  46. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1932). In C. J. Arthur (Ed.), The German ideology (p. 1970). New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Menand, L. (2005, March 28). Something about Kathy: Ishiguro’s quasi-science-fiction novel. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/28/050328crbo_books1?currentPage=all. Accessed 13 July 2012.
  48. Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (2003). The eugenic Atlantic: Race, disability, and the making of an international eugenic science, 1800–1945. Disability & Society, 18(7), 843–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Müller-Hill, B. (1998). Murderous science: Elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany (pp. 1933–1945). Woodbury: Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  50. Parens, E. (2005). Authenticity and ambivalence: Toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Center Report, 35(3), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parens, E. (2006). Surgically shaping children: Technology, ethics, and the pursuit of normality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2007). The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 3–43). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice: Freedom and new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Romanek, M., dir. (2010). Never Let Me Go. Fox Searchlight Pictures.Google Scholar
  55. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Saxton, M. (1998). Disability rights and selective abortion. In R. Solinger (Ed.), Abortion wars: A half century of struggle (1950–2000) (pp. 374–393). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Scully, J. L. (2008). Disability and genetics in the age of genomic medicine. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(10), 797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shimazono, Y. (2007). The state of the international organ trade: A provisional picture based on integration of available information. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(12), 901–980. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/12/06-039370/en/. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.
  60. Shklovsky, V. (1917). Art as device. In Theory of prose (trans: Sher, B., pp. 1–14). Normal: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  61. Stacy, R. H. (1977). Defamiliarization in language and literature. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Thomson-Jones, K. (2009). Formalism. In P. Livingstone & C. Plantinga (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy and film (pp. 131–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  64. Turner, B. S. (2006). Vulnerability and human rights. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  65. United Nations General Assembly. (2007, January 24). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. A/RES/61/106. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/general-assembly/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-ares61106.html. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.
  66. Weber, M. (1905). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar
  67. Weisman, L. K. (1981). Woman’s environmental rights: A manifesto. Heresies: A Feminist Publication on Art and Politics, 3, 6–8.Google Scholar
  68. Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English and BioethicsEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations