The mass production mentality of androids and electric animals prompts questions about what makes something authentic. An “authentic” life form is generally thought of as unique, but as Booth remarks, “The uniqueness of the real is reproduced to the point that it can no longer be distinguished from the fake” (Booth 1). If an android or replicant is truly unique then does that qualify as being authentic? The androids in Dick's work do not appear to be unique since Rachel and Pris are described as the same model, despite the minor differences they are more obviously mass-produced which makes the fact that they are not original more apparent. Rachel herself admits, “I'm just representative of a type” (Dick 189). In the film, Rachel and Pris are portrayed by different women, which makes it easier for the audience to affiliate Rachel with humanity.
It has been argued that what makes people human is weakness, invincibility being associated with the non-human (generally robotic). Mulhall writes, “what the replicants lack is the frailty of human flesh and blood” (Mulhall1). In Blade Runner, what makes the replicants noticeably distinct is their physical abilities such as being resistant to heat and cold. Mulhall argues, “The empathic claim exerted upon us by those scenes in which that behaviour becomes pain-behaviour is what grounds the film's assumption that it is this aspect of the replicant's embodiment which is pertinent to their candidature for human status, and not the issue of whether anything occupies their bodies” (Mulhall 2). Mulhall is saying that it is not a question of a soul that determines an individual's humanity, merely physical traits.
Being a member of a community is an integral part of humanity. Muhall states, “the humanity of the replicants or indeed of all human beings is in the hands of their fellows; their accession to human status involves their being acknowledged as human by others…if their humanity is denied, it withers” (Mulhall 3). Deckard is unable to kill Rachel after she saves his life. Brian Carr argues that this moment of saving him from Leon is what makes her human in Deckard's eyes, “[Deckard] only extends to Rachel (Sean Young) the insider category of the “human” after Rachel kills a replicant in order to save Deckard's life” (Carr 122). If Carr is correct in this assumption then it implies that what makes one human is to be part of the community and work towards the human cause (in this case going along with the assumption that a human life is more valuable than that of a replicant). Even if Carr is correct about Deckard's reasons for differentiating Rachel from the other replicants, it does not mean that all the characters or the writers share this view on what is necessary to be considered human. Carr himself observes, “But Rachel refuses such terms of humanity…regardless of his capacity to read her as human” (Carr 122). Being part of cultural society is essential for humans.
A second and more popular view Carr shares about Rachel's humanity is that it is linked to her sexuality. He states, “It is precisely the “act” of “falling in love” and the (hetero) narrative trajectory it marshals which exacts Rachel's ability to signify “human,” thus rendering the dissolution of the human/replicant distinction” (Carr 134). He further explains, “It is not that Rachel first signifies “human” and then she can enter into sexual normativity. Rather, what the film makes clear is that sexual normativity constitutes the hegemonic field of the human's intelligibility as such” (Carr 134). While this statement can be applied effectively to Blade Runner, it becomes problematic when dealing with Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. In the novel Rachel explains that her reasons for having sex with Deckard are logical rather than due to emotional or physical attraction. She believes that once a man is intimate with her or another android he is not capable continuing to hunt them. This cold calculated use of her body diminishes her humanity, meaning that while both their relationships with Deckard were turning points for the characters he had opposing effects on their resemblance to humanity.
While the Rachel in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep represents what is inhuman about the androids, there are androids in the novel that represent human characteristics. T. J. LeGrice writes, “Some of the androids are examples of what it is to be human, or rather what Dicks impressions of what humans should be as oppose to what we are” (LeGrice 3). He discusses how Luna Luft's appreciation of art and ability to perform opera is uncharacteristically human of an android. Her sentimental attachment to art is parallel with the attachment replicants in Blade Runner have with photographs. As "non-humans" they are not supposed to be capable of such emotions or attachments, therefore the art and the photographs represent an unspoken link to humanity. That those items are what associates them with humanity indicates that Dick felt art is part of what makes humans human and that the filmmakers feel nostalgia is essential to human identity. LeGrice states, “it is the android willingness to use the primitive instincts of survival, sex and togetherness that defines them, and shows man what it is to be human” (LeGrice 3). The Rachel from Blade Runner is represented as being very close to if not completely human. Carr argues, “Rachel, though a replicant, is offered up in the film as prototypically human” (Carr 133).
The question of what it means to be human is explored in Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream Of Electric and this examination is made possible by the use of replication and the questions of authenticity that it entails. The replicants in Blade Runner and the androids in Dick's work provide the opportunity to attempt to define humanity through both their human and inhuman qualities. While many aspects of humanity are investigated through the texts they both remain ambiguous in regards to what it means to be human. Booth states, “By maintaining an unstable subject, the text resists any attempt at qualifying a “real” human by complicating the notion of authenticity.” (Booth 4) The themes of replication and the loss of the original are responsible for this scrutiny of the nature of humanity.
