Features of anti-utopia in the novel by H. Wells “The Island of Dr. Moreau”. Course paper

2.2. Themes of human identity and human interference with nature in the novel

Fanon’s Black Skin White Masks discusses the effects of the colonialization of the black people by the whites. One of the issues raised is that those black people regardless of their attempts to become like the white colonizer, by adopting his language, thoughts, culture, and outfit, they fail to do so and remain black; and all of the adopted aspects by the black are considered no more than a ‘white’ mask that their true black identity hides behind of. [17]

In The Island of Dr. Moreau, the same issue is being raised. Those animals that the protagonist is doing surgeries on are mere animals being forced to wear the mask of the civilization; yet, it remains only a mask to cover their real animalistic and instinctive side. In other words, they remain animals covered with the blueprints of human beings; because of both the new features imposed on them, and their basic instinctive qualities are being suppressed and prohibited.

The animals are put in the scope of what Bhabha identifies as the ‘unhomeliness’. This concept is applied to the colonized people when they confuse between where they actually belong to, the side of the colonizer or their old as the colonized; the same applies on the animals in this novel, they are altered to resemble and behave like humans; they are confused about where they do belong to: the animal kingdom or the human civilization; because they are neither left as animals as they used to be, nor fully transformed to human beings.

The bottom of the vortex of confusion of Bhabha’s ‘unhomeliness’ can sink into Foucault’s calls ‘third space’. Due to the othering of those animals whom have been taken by force to undergo some surgeries, they are rejected by both sides of their pathway, the animal kingdom from which they come, and the human kingdom to which they were being taken to; therefore, they belong neither to the first space ‘animal kingdom’ nor to the second space ‘human kingdom’, hence, the third space, which is neither the first nor the second space. In the novel, they are described as ‘beasts’ in order to differentiate them from both the animals and the human beings.

The criticism of colonialization by shedding the light on the colonizer starts with Said’s polarizing the Orient and the Oxidant. This polarizing is clearly seen in The Island of Dr. Moreau by making the human beings as one pole, and the animal kingdom an opposite pole. This polarizing leads to what Jacque Derrida introduced as the Binary Opposites, in which the animals are being opposed to human beings then one of them is preferred over the other. By making them look like two opposites with one of them being preferred over the other, Said states that the other side is automatically being mis- or ill-represented. Indeed the animals are not well-represented in this novel, and are referred to by their animalistic looked down upon features, or by indicating the qualities by which the human beings overcome them. [17]

Throughout the novel, Wells refers to the Beast Men as "travesties" and "mockeries" of humanity. Through Prendick, he implies that no matter how Moreau or anyone else puts them together, animals are by nature animals, not men. Thus he emphasizes the qualities of humanity that exist outside of a physical body. Darwin's theory challenged this metaphysical barrier by suggesting that humans were merely exceptionally well evolved animals, and Wells appears to be trying to assert human exceptionalism. Of particular note is that what Prendick seems to find most human in the Beast Men is their constant awareness of their inadequacy. That is, they are cognizant and desirous of an ideal they are unable to reach, and this shortcoming makes them unhappy.

Montgomery provides an alternative perspective, and he introduces a degree of relativity to the issue. Separated from other men for so long, he has become much closer to the Beast Men, and he does not make as clear a distinction between them and himself as does Prendick. Perhaps as a result of the variation in Dr. Moreau's experiments, the Beast Men are not uniform in their degrees of bestiality versus humanity; besides, some animals are by nature closer to men than others are.

While Moreau's actions are abominable, Wells did not create a one-dimensional antagonist. Driven by scientific curiosity, Moreau lacks compassion. This scientific objectivity is understandable, if humanly inexcusable. Even so, his actions are not purely objective; quite the contrary, they result from his overpowering desire to cause scientific "progress." This dangerous motivation is more familiar to readers than a simple impetus to cause harm. [18]

Despite his socialism, which relied on a hope in social progress through the use of reason, Wells was tapping into a common concern about the amoral march of "progress," namely the risk that it can corrupt and overwhelm the natural sensibilities of men with its promises of shiny, efficient perfection. Many people in his time worried that man was overstepping his authority and entering the domain of divinity. Moreau's vivisections express the dangers of science and technology. Doctor Moreau's speech to Prendick in defense of his activities is especially relevant: as a man of reason he claims, among other things, that pain and pleasure are irrelevant.

In most people's minds, there seems to be a divide between mankind and the natural world. The natural world is the stuff we put in state parks and pay five dollars to park near when we want to see some trees. Mankind, well, that's everything else. The Island of Dr. Moreau tries to break down that divide by showing us that mankind and the natural world is one and the same. More to the point, mankind is part of the natural world. We can't escape it no matter how big we build our cities or how many flush toilets we add to our state parks. Like the Beast Folk, we came from nature, we live in nature, and to nature we shall return.

Moreau’s whole life has become devoted to creating perfect human beings out of animals through the practice of vivisection. Though it seems a tall order, by the time Prendick arrives, the rogue scientist has already created enough Beast Folk to form a small society of creatures who blur the line between human and animal. They possess animal body parts nipped and tucked to resemble the human form and are capable of rudimentary thought and speech, yet are conflicted by their underlying animal instincts. Playing on contemporary science and Charles Darwin’s controversial observations of evolution, Wells suggests, through the development of the Beast Folk, that humans and animals are less rigidly separated than many people in his day would have liked to believe.

Moreau, in his experiments, seeks to make animals into fully developed human beings. He is partially successful—the Beast Folk he creates can stand upright and have a limited ability to speak English—suggesting that, at least biologically, human beings and animals are not entirely distinct from each other. Not only is Moreau able to change an animal’s physical form to make it humanoid with roughly human proportions, facial structure, and the ability to walk upright, he is also able to adjust their mental capacity. By excising and restructuring portions of the brain, Moreau gives his creations enough intelligence to be capable of very basic speech and simple problem solving—though they are only given the capacity for such things, and still must be actively taught them. This suggests that, biologically, animals have the potential to reach a human level of development, or at least something close to it. The fact that Beast Folk are enabled to speak like humans through biological changes defies the common belief that speech and intelligence are utterly unique to humans, God-given faculties that separate humanity from the natural world.

Critics discuss the reasons behind the incredible fame of this literary piece of work and some of them conclude that The Island of Dr. Moreau is that it is that it is way ahead of its time. In a technique of double layering the novel, Wells tells a story showing the significance of shedding the light on the morality, consequences, and dangers of vivisection; while on a deeper lever, he delivers multiple messages that are related to the naturalist, Charles Darwin. In his Origin of Species, and among many unique ideas, Darwin presents his ideas of evolution and natural selection. Wells borrows those techniques and shows how the metaphoric world he created in The Island of Dr. Moreau is a success and relatively acceptable, whereas it is, in fact, a replica of the rejected ideas of Charles Darwin. This way, Wells scrutinizes humanity and civilization for its double standards in accepting something in a context and rejecting the same thing in a different context. [17]

However, though they biologically come to resemble humans, Moreau’s Beast Folk always retain their animalistic urges, which must be actively repressed and replaced with human behaviors. This suggests that these human behaviors are not primarily biological but social. The Beast Folk are able to produce offspring, but those offspring are born merely as animals. They inherit none of the human faculties of their parents—no intelligence, no speech, no inclination to walk upright—and live as animals until Moreau vivisects and trains them as well. This suggests that there is more that separates humans and animals than mere biology, since the Beast Folk’s animal instincts cannot be conquered merely through rearranging their physiology. Although the Law is evidence of the Beast Folk’s natural inclination to animalism, it is also proof that those animal instincts can be overcome—for a time—through social pressures. The Law forbids the Beast Folk from practices that seem animal rather than human, such as walking on all fours, chasing others, eating meat, and so on. Each incantation of the law ends with the enthusiastic refrain, “Are we not Men?” This indicates that although the Beast Folk are beset with animalistic urges, they aspire, as a society, to be human. Through teaching and social development, the Beast Folk are able to maintain a semblance of humanity. Whatever stunted human nature the Beast Folk are able to absorb is trained into them by threat of pain and hypnosis through the chanting of the Law. The Beast Folk thus learn to act like humans in the same way that a dog might learn to do tricks or a parrot might learn to talk, and these behaviors are socially reinforced by the Law. However, once the Law falls apart, so do the Beast Folk’s human traits. Without that social pressure, and in spite of their vivisected biology, the Beast Folk completely regress back into animals. This suggests that despite the biological similarities between animals and humans, it primarily the social pressures of human society that encourage individuals to rise above their basic instincts and develop human qualities.

Prendick observes not only human qualities in the Beast Folk, but also animalistic qualities in human beings. This, too, points to a common biological ancestry and suggests that, although humans and animals do not seem intrinsically the same on every level, humans do seem just as capable of regressing to animalistic behavior. Prendick observes that Montgomery favors the company of the Beast Folk to that of other human beings. Indeed, he seems “unfitted for human kindred” after all the years spent on the island, outside of human society. This suggests that Montgomery, though still civilized, has more in common with the Beast Folk than he does with human beings, again narrowing the distinction—though not obliterating it—between animals and humans. When he escapes the island and rejoins human society, Prendick believes he sees the same animalistic potential in the eyes of other human beings. This would suggest that away from society, without the social pressure to act human and repress certain desires and urges, human beings could be as capable of acting like animals as the Beast Folk are of acting like humans. Perhaps humanity is merely a socially trained, socially fueled set of behaviors that contradict latent animal instincts.

In The Island of Dr. Moreau, Wells maintains a tenuous distinction between humans and animals, but argues that it is much slimmer than many would like to believe. He recognizes their common ancestry by observing that humans are often capable of animalistic behavior and animals may be trained to imitate humans, who suggests that the distinction between animal and human is more socially constructed than people would perhaps like to think.

The essential difference between men and beasts is that men have the human nature, beasts have no. Sometimes men's human nature may be lack or backwards, as on a desert island Moreau's wanton anatomy of beasts and changing beasts into beast folks in The Island of Dr. Moreau. His ethical choice shows that he treats beasts without human nature. Montgomery makes the lower as the beast folks, and guide his own ethical choice under the beast folks' ethics. Montgomery's human nature has been backwards. Scientific selection can't take place of natural selection and ethical selection. Beast folks have not gotten humans' form, they are beasts, not men, and their choices are not ethical choices. The hypocritical human nature has become the shackles of beast folks and the source of pain. In the ethical environment of the desert island, men will not degenerate into beasts, but beast folks will degenerate into beasts. In the human ethics environment, once men lose moral, they would live like the beast folks. This novel has permeated the writer Wells' hate and confusion about human society ethics chaos. Human nature is not innate; it is acquired through the moral teachings. Reading books is the best way to acquire moral teachings. Only men have acquired the ration and human nature, human society will have being promising. [19]

When it comes for Dr. Moreau to finally reveal all details of his experiments to Prendick, he tells him that he is altering those defenseless animals to resemble and act like human beings. Not only he changed their physical appearances and bodies, but also he implemented a law in such a way that a new creatures would be born. New creatures that becomes obedient according to the law. The law is designed to prevent the animalistic behaviors and suppress them within those animals. The animalistic features include the instincts of predators, walking on all fours… etc. Through the course of events, some of the animals succeed to break the law and unleash their predatory instincts, then return to the house of pain of Dr. Moreau, and eventually Dr. Moreau is killed by those Law Breakers. [17]