EngCmp
Akin: Alien in Name, Alien in Nature
In the Octavia Butler’s fictional world, there is a clear division between human and alien values. This difference separates humans and nonhumans into mutually exclusive categories. For instance, McKibben would consider taking away human values as taking away humanness itself. Subtracting the human value system, this ‘human essence,’ displaces one from the realm of what can be considered human into a dimension of alienation. For this reason, Akin cannot be considered as human because Akin cherishes Oankali, rather than human values.
One example of this is the Oankali affect regarding pain. The Oankali, who are able to manipulate sensation, regard pain as superfluous, avoidable, and evil. Humans, on the other hand, tolerate pain. They consider it as a distinct human trait, anchoring them to reality and tolerating it because it is a distinguished human value. Akin shares the same value regarding pain as the Oankali, ostracizing himself from humanness. For example, in Adulthood Rights, Akin is abducted by a group of resisters. He is regarded as waste, and treated without any type of paternal compassion. At an overnight camp, one of his abductors becomes deathly ill: vomiting blood and obviously in tortuous pain. After all the grief Akin endured in their captivity, he displayed genuine concern for the resistors pain; he was curious why someone would endure agonizing pain when an Ooloi could easily treat it. He said to another captor, “an ooloi would stop the bleeding and the pain. It wouldn’t keep him or make him do anything, it would just heal him.” In this example, Akin’s demeanor is parallel to Oankali value systems: his only concern is treating the unnecessary torment. The human perspective, however, is that the man lived a long, fruitful life, and his pain and death is the next human step of life. Akin demonstration of Oankali values delegates him as not human.
Another example of Oankali versus human values that makes Akin nonhuman is each respective value regarding violence. Oankali, by nature, are passive beings, only killing in self-defense; always intending to subdue rather than kill. Humans, however, are violent. They assaulted Lilith and killed Joseph out of frustration and rage, they created guns and abducted a child. During Akin’s initial abduction, one of the resistors placed his neck within easy reach of Akin’s venomous tongue. The man would have been easy prey, but Akin resisted the urge to sting him. The humans, in the same situation, disregarded Tino’s pleas to let Akin go. Instead, one resistor violently “smashed the wooden end of his gun into Tino’s head,” and unnecessarily assaulted him again while unconscious. The contrasting behaviors of Akin and his human captors is a scope into human and Oankali values. Because Akin chose rejected violence, whereas the humans accepted and were forthright with their impetuous values, Akin cannot be considered as human.
2 comments:
Hey Albert!
I think this is a really interesting topic. I think the differences between Human and Oankali values are fun to think about and this paper is a good embodiment of the discussion. The one problem I have with your thesis is that becausee Akin cherishes Oankali values, he isn't human. I think that a reader of Lilith's Brood can cherish the Oankali values, but that doesn't mean that they aren't human and don't have human characteristics. It is pretty clear through the books that Akin is definitely part human and shows human traits. He may cherish the Oankali values, but he feels human emotion (we talked about that part in class when he felt emotion over the story of King Lear). I think also that he doesn't necessarily cherish Oankali traits, they are just a part of him because he is Oankali (that's definitely debatable, but it's something to think about). You could definitely argue that he can't be considered human because he shows Oankali traits to a great extent. You could also make the argument that he isn't human because they won't accept him the way Oankali do, even though he is half of both.
Other than that, I think you have good examples showing how Akin displays Oankali values. I think you should add some counter-argument to advance your thesis, though.
Also (this is a picky thing and I like your title but) I think Akin said his name was human (I don't have the book with me right now so I'm not entirely sure what nationality he said it was).
That's about all. I hope the rest of your weekend is good (especially after tonight...that loss was really depressing) and I'll see you Tuesday!
Bailey - this was an interesting, nuanced, and very good response.
Albert - Your introduction is promising, although let me make a comment which is a kind of variation on one of Bailey's comments: if you're going to define humanity strictly in terms of values (admittedly, following McKibben) you should say a little bit about *why* - especially since, as Bailey notes, you're excluding many existing, biological human beings from humanity by doing so.
Your discussion of pain is good as far as it goes - but it completely ignores Akin's evolving views on pain & suffering, which he obviously embraces as a subadult, at least up to a point - he does want humanity to go to Mars, after all!
Your third paragraph is even more problematic, because you both make the problematic claim that the Oankali are passive (are you confusing pacifism and passivity? They are very different things! But the Oankali aren't technically pacifists, either), and that Akin fully shares their values on violence - ignoring the strong hint of aggression he begins to develop.
In short: this is a reasonable take on the beginning of the novel, but you didn't revise or rethink it at all in relationship with class discussion or later parts of the novel, making it a short and limited response.
Post a Comment