Technologized Representations of Labour and Class from the Man in the Machine to the Machine (Wo)man in Science Fiction Film and Television by Valérie Éliane Savard A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Film Studies Department of English and Film Studies University of Alberta © Valérie Éliane Savard, 2018 ii Abstract This dissertation is about the implications, and iterations, of “the machine” as a tool and metaphor in science fiction (sf) — particularly within the media of film and television. Beginning with Karl Marx’s depiction of an anthropomorphized, metaphorical, and, expressly, capitalist machine in “The Fragment on Machines,” I take up the machine as a symbol of humanity at work, trapped in the various nodes and mechanisms of capitalism. The machine is described by Marx as a controlling force that mechanises the worker as much as it is itself personified: “[T]he machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso,” writes Marx, “with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil etc. … just as the worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion” (693). Marx’s description is of an overbearing, physically present machine that sources its power from human labour as though that labour were a living organ of the machine’s body. A move toward immaterial labour in the 1960s intensified capitalism’s consumption of the human body and of human subjectivity. Around the same time, this immateriality began to be reflected in sf in virtual and cyber worlds, presenting the labourer as a mere fragment of code within the capitalist system. The machine metaphor has necessarily changed along with the nature of labour and labour technologies; we are now equally, if not increasingly, bound to (and within) the digital machine at which we work and live. Yet Marx’s analysis of the machine as all-pervasive and controlling is still applicable today: The worker’s activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, iii but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself. (693) The implications of this arresting passage have changed somewhat along with the dawn of the digital era and the advent of Internet technologies. Despite these changes, however, the concern remains the same, yet more urgent, as our connection to the machine becomes increasingly literal. The machine continues to regulate us from all sides, and its control is more pervasive, yet we must remember that the controlling machine is not the technological one, but the metaphorical one that uses the technology as a tool of exploitation. Many of the texts examined in this dissertation demonstrate the ways in which digital technologies are used as tools of oppression and marginalisation within the capitalist machine. These ways are varied, so each of my chapters engages with a different aspect of control expressed through different kinds of technologized science fictional bodies. In each text, the technology is what facilitates capitalism’s control over otherwise autonomous subjects, yet the subjects differ in how they interact with the machine in its dual function. These variations allow for an analysis of different systems of control that capitalism imparts upon its subjects, which are based on class, gender, and race. What ties this dissertation’s four chapters together, and the texts I examine within them, is that they demonstrate the ways in which capitalism’s machine has become all-consuming of the labouring subject, and how its alienating power over the worker’s entire life has extended beyond just her limbs. iv For Echo v Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my supervisors Imre Szeman and Harvey Quamen for the unique support they each provided me over the years. Imre, for his unwavering commitment to the project since I began at the University of Alberta, even through a dramatic change in thesis early on. Harvey joined me as an enthusiastic First Reader, but then graciously accepted the role of co-supervisor, which resulted in many long discussions about the project — sometimes with little notice. I also owe much gratitude to my First Reader, Michael Litwack: Michael provided invaluable assistance within a very concentrated period of time due to a shift in my committee late in the game that had me inviting him to come on board at the last minute. His constructive feedback has been essential to the completion of my dissertation, and I only wish we could have had more time to work together. I look forward to many more conversations with all three of these excellent scholars whose work, and work ethic, I admire greatly. My appreciation goes out to my external examiners, Allison Muri and Nathan Kowalsky, for their valuable and rigorous contributions during my defence, which have given me a lot to think about as I continue to pursue my research on the machine metaphor and expand my readership. It is truly an honour to have had them both on my committee. My heartfelt thanks go out to Lorraine York who has provided me with countless forms of support not the least of which included kind and understanding words of reassurance when I often (even in the final weeks!) felt like no one else understood what I was experiencing. Lorraine was also there for me in a way that felt like she was part of my committee — having read over several portions of the dissertation, including one entire chapter when I found myself in urgent need of a proofreader. I truly cannot thank her enough. We need more Lorraine Yorks in this world! vi I also want to thank Mark Bould for his friendship and support over the years. Despite his likely being the busiest person I know, he so generously lent me his ear, offered advice, and most importantly commiserated with me when, several times, I was at the height of my imposter syndrome. My sincere gratitude goes out to the selfless Theo Finigan, Grant Dempsey, Sarah-Nelle Jackson, and Heather Larson, who each contributed valuable proofreading and feedback of the final dissertation draft despite their own very busy schedules. I owe (each of) you one! My pursuit of a PhD was facilitated, and inspired, by many brilliant colleagues. There are far too many to name everyone here, yet a few stand out to me for their practical support and academic mentorship, as well as, in many cases, their friendship. These are the kind and brilliant people who kept me on track, motivated me, and made this feel like a worthy pursuit: Anthony Stewart, Jason Haslam, Pawel Frelik, David Higgins, Adam Carlson, Brent Bellamy, Jeff Diamanti, Andrea Hasenbak, Steven Shaviro, and Sherryl Vint. Though it is widely known that graduate school can be lonely, I am fortunate to have had wonderful individuals to spend my occasional spare time (and often vent and complain to) during the best and worst of it all: Laura Wiebe, Angelica Torices, Birgit and Leif Esser, Chris Uren, Chandra London, David London, Jason Treit, Jean-Paul Fournier, Metteko Woebaloefie, Ida Klaire, Baertolt Braun, Snuffy Norton, Jed and Tito Bramwell, Sheepy (Del) Margolis, Kristin Lundgren, and the late DJ Dyer. Most importantly, I thank Echo, Kevin, and Red for absolutely everything they have done to keep me going, especially this last year when I haven’t been around near as much as I would have liked. Anything I might say here pales in comparison to what you’re owed. Suffice to say that, of everyone named here, you know me best, as well as how much I actually hate machines! vii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 THE LONG HISTORY OF THE MACHINE AS A METAPHORICAL CONCEPT 2 KARL MARX AND THE CAPITALIST MACHINE 4 WHY SCIENCE FICTION? 6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6 KEY TERMS 9 ANALYTICAL FOCUS AND LAYOUT 17 PART ONE Virtual Space Narratives and the Immaterial Labouring Body 22 CHAPTER 1 Lost in the Circuits: Simulacron-3, World on a Wire, and the Birth of a New SF Body 24 KARL MARX AND THE MACHINE OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION 26 LIFE IN THE MACHINE 27 EARLY VIRTUAL REALITY IN SCIENCE FICTION 29 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND IMMATERIAL LABOUR: A NEW WAY TO WORK 30 WORLD ON A WIRE 32 THE COSTUME DICHOTOMY IN WOAW 44 THE MATRIX AND IMMERSION PARANOIA AFTER WOAW 54 A SHIFT IN IMMERSION PARANOIA IN RECENT SF 59 CONCLUSION TO “LOST IN THE CIRCUITS’ 65 CHAPTER 2 Gameworlds at Work: Digital Capitalism and Negated Revolutionary Spaces 66 GAMEWORLDS 69 PUPPETS AT PLAY 71 PLAYING THE GAME 71 EARLIER GAMEWORLDS IN FILM 77 ESCAPING THE GAME – Part I 78 POWER AND CONTROL 80 PRECARIOUS SPACE BETWEEN NARRATIVE/LEISURE AND GAMEPLAY/WORK 82 ESCAPING THE GAME – Part II 94 CONCLUSION TO “GAMEWORLDS AT WORK” 103 viii PART TWO Technodigital Bodies and the Question of Hegemonic Desperation and Control 104 CHAPTER 3 Commodified Bodies: The Body Surrogate Other and the New Corpse-economy 106 THE QUESTION OF “CHOICE” IN A CONSUMER SOCIETY 110 HISTORICIZING THE CORPSE-ECONOMY 111 THE NEW CORPSE-ECONOMY 114 TARSEM SINGH’S SELF/LESS AND DAMIR LUCASEVIC’S TRANSFER 115 JORDAN PEELE’S GET OUT 127 JOSS WHEDON’S DOLLHOUSE 134 CONCLUSION TO “COMMODIFIED BODIES” 152 CHAPTER 4 The Master’s Tools: or, the Counterhegemony of the Female Robot Body 154 FEMBOTS 156 THE MASTER’S TOOLS 158 A HISTORY OF OBJECTIFIED FEMBOTS IN FICTION 162 SAMANTHA 166 AVA 167 KYOKO 170 MAEVE 172 WRITING THEIR “OWN FUCKING STOR[IES]” 174 JANELLE MONÁE / CINDI MAYWEATHER: THE INTERSECTIONAL ANDROID 180 CONCLUSION TO “THE MASTER’S TOOLS” 193 CONCLUSION 197 WORKS CITED AND REFERENCED 204 ix List of Illustrations Figure 1: Solange Pradel as the Cabaret Singer in Fassbinder’s WOAW……………………….