The Artificial Alien: Transformations of the Robot in Science Fiction

American Academy of Political and Social Science The Artificial Alien: Transformations of the Robot in Science Fiction Author(s): Morton Klass Reviewed work(s): Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 470, Robotics: Future Factories, Future Workers (Nov., 1983), pp. 171-179 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1044811 . Accessed: 19/08/2012 21:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. http://www.jstor.org ANNALS, AAPSS, 470, November1983 The ArtificialAlien: Transformationsof the Robot in Science Fiction By MORTONKLASS ABSTRACT:The robot, though a relativelyrecent arrival in the real world, has been a subjectof interestin literature-primarily,though not exclusively,science fiction-for most of this century.It is possibleto note significanttransformations in perceptionsof, and attitudestoward, the robot during this period by reviewingthe literature.Thus the earliest robots are flesh and blood creations, and are perceivedas potentially inimicalin a numberof ways. Overtime the robot becomesa mechanical equivalentof humansand takes on many but not all of the attributesof aliens: interestinglythe one most threateningalien attributein Western perception-that of sexual threat-is not accordedthe robot. Insteadthe robot is perceivedas the perfect and perpetualservant, though with a distinctpotential for danger.It mightmake humans superfluous in certain areas,but if humanscan manageto preventthat, the literatureimplies, they will rejoicein a human-equivalentservant and companion. This articleis of possibleinterest to those in the fields of the anthropologyof work,anthropology and literature,futures research, and ethnic relations. Morton Klass has taught anthropology at Barnard College, Columbia University, since 1965, and has been director of the Southern Asian Institute, Columbia University, since 1982. He received his B.A. from Brooklyn College in 1955 and his Ph.D. from Columbia in 1959, and has taught at Bennington College. His research interests and numerous publications pertain to South Asian society and culture, particularly stratification, culture change, anthropological theory, and change and modernization. NOTE: An earlier version of this article was read at the 1982 meetings of the American Anthropolo- gical Association, Washington, D.C., and was published in the journal Cultural Futures Research, 7 (1983). Reprinted by permission. 171 172 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY HErobot-themanufacturedequiva- only as a provisionalsolution, for the T lentof the human-is almosthere. questionsremain to be answered.Is the Thereare those in fact who wouldclaim robot a machine only, and never any- that it has alreadyarrived and that quite thing else?Suppose it were constructed a few peopleare currently engaged in the of livingtissues, by geneticengineering? process of adjusting to its presence. Suppose, whateverits composition, it There is another argument, however, could somehow reproduce itself? Or one reflectedin this article, that in an does the term imply the issue not so importantsense manufacturedequiva- much of constructionand composition lents of human have been with us for but ratherof human-likeappearance? In most of this centuryif not longer and other words, is it a robot becauseit has that thereis a substantialbody of litera- the equivalentof a humanbrain, or of turedealing, speculatively and varyingly human-likeappendages, or because it but still significantly,with the implica- moves or communicateslike a human? tions, opportunities,and problemsin- Would it still be a robot if it were herentin the associationof humansand enclosed in a featurelessbox? Or is the the manufacturedequivalents of hu- term "robot"intended to reflect some mans. sort of intellectualcapacity? Might we "Manufacturedequivalents of hu- call any programmedor programmable mans" is admittedlyan awkwardway machine a robot or should we reserve of puttingit, but it does have its uses. I the term for the machinethat can pro- emphasize the word "equivalent"be- gram itself, that can learn, that can cause the termintroduces an important think?Or it is all of the above,or at least anthropologicaldimension, that of the many, in some kind of combination? alien-the personwho in manysocieties Most of these questions, and many is viewed as not of us, not truly human related ones, have been pursuedin the butonly an equivalentof thetrue human. voluminousliterature of sciencefiction The views held in a given society of the during the past half century.They be- nature of the alien may be quite com- come suddenly of anthropologicalin- plex. The alien may be simultaneously terest, however, once we ask how our scorned and feared, for example, or society has respondedto the presence- consideredboth nonhuman-say, non- if only fictional-of robots as aliens, as marriageable-and yet very human-- human-equivalents.The anthropologist sexually quite desirable.It is certainly will wantto knowthe particularways in legitimate,therefore, for the anthropol- which the robot is perceivedas equiva- ogist to inquireinto the extent to which lent to humans,and the ways it is not. the manufacturedequivalent of a human Afterall the alienis knownto all human has reflectedthe particularperceptions societies,but thereis considerablevaria- of the alien that is characteristicof tion from one to anotherabout the sup- Europe-derivedsocieties. posed characteristicsor attributesof the I also emphasizethe word"manufac- alien-that human/nonhuman. Is the tured"because it is the most satisfactory robot, for example,marriageable or just solution I could find for the rather sexuallydesirable? This is not a flippant knotty problem of defining what is question: we shall see that it is worth meant by "robot." I intend it, however, pursuing. ROBOT IN SCIENCE FICTION 173 Some readers might observe with have to say that they are machinesthat impatiencethat most of the foregoing look, and to a great extent act, like questions become irrelevantif we but humans. turn our attentionto the actualcontem- Capek'srobot, in fact, was remark- poraryindustrial robot: unquestionably ably similarto Mary Shelley'screature a machine, and a particularkind of in her famous novel, Frankenstein, or machine, with specific capacities and the Modern Prometheus, written limitations. I would argue, however, approximately 100 years earlier, first that it is preciselyfor this reasonthat a publishedin 1817.2Why then do we not, brief review of the fictional history of at least retroactively,refer to Shelley's the robot becomes a useful exercise. creatureas a robot? Further,why did From its first appearance, the term sciencefiction writersof mid-century- "robot"has undergonea seriesof trans- obviously fully aware of their debt to formations, though no living-non- Capek for the term-proceed to trans- fictional-human had ever actually form the robot into a sentient, vaguely encounteredone of the entitiesencom- humanoid,but neverthelessthoroughly passed by the term. It follows then that mechanicalmachine? Still further,let us an analysisof thesetransformations will note that this remarkablechange was illuminate what people find attractive fully endorsedby the readersof science about robots-about even the notion of fiction and ultimatelyby our society at robots-and what they find disturbing large, that latter endorsement being or even frightening. reflectedin the recentappearance among us of actual machines that are every- ?APEK'S ROBOT wherecalled robots. AND SHELLEY'S CREATURE I would arguethat thesetwo issues- The term was introduced to the the apparentreluctance to referto Mary creatureas a and the world with the Shelley's robot, English-speaking pro- swift transformationof the robot in duction in 1922 of Karl Capek'splay, sciencefiction and popular usage from a R. U.R. (Rossum 's Universal Robots),' and is derivedfrom the Slavic root for flesh-and-blood being to a thing of metal, and much "work"or "worker."Let us observe, glass, plastic-are very relatedto each other. Examiningthem therefore,that in Capek'splay the robots together us with areplayed by humanactors; they are not provides important insights. machinesof any kind, but ratherproto- Mary Shelley's creature was, one plasmic beings that not only resemble might argueto begin with, actuallythe but are supposedto resembleordinary firstandroid to in fiction,not the humanbeings. differfrom appear They humans, first robot. The term "android"came however,in a numberof ways-perhaps into use the 1930sin sciencefic- most,significantly in that they are not during born but are manufactured.Thus if we tion to denote protoplasmiccreations, of the can call them machinesat all we would kind Shelley and Capek had de- scribed, or at least beings, whatever 1. R. U.R. (Rossum's UniversalRobots),

Load more