Under the Skin and We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves as contributions against Human Exceptionalism
1. Focusing in detail on two of the texts you have studied on the module, analyse how they contribute to a critique human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism.
Fowler’s We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves (WAACBO)(2013) and Faber’s Under The Skin (UTS)(2003) blur the boundaries of what it is to be human in their stories. They utilise the deception literary, non-visual, narrative allows for to twist perceptions of readers, and, in the process, underline to them their own exceptionalism.
‘I tell you Fern is a chimp and, already, you aren’t thinking of her as my sister.’ (Fowler,2013,77) Therefore Rosie, Fowler’s protagonist, or ventriloquist (however you see it) plays with time in the telling of her story, starting in the ‘middle’ and continuing to jump backwards and forwards throughout the text such that we know Fern as sister first, chimp second. We can infer why Fowler does this, as a novelist, from some of the other anecdotes she writes and Rosie tells.
They suggest there is "something incomprehensibly strange about the way any of the laboratory rats could transform from data point to pet, with names and privileges and vet appointments, in a single afternoon." (Fowler,2013,66) Highlighting the ‘strange(ness)’ of characters changing status instantly, underlining that there is a discipline of character development for a reason. Instantaneous development ‘from data point to pet’ ‘in a single afternoon’ is ‘incomprehensibly strange’. Fowler suggests it is impossible for Rosie (and therefore we can infer she believes the same is true for other people) to wrap their heads around a change so quickly. Therefore, we can infer she uses her “bait and switch” with Fern to create a blurred phase through the novel where we, as Rosie does, view Fern as a sister still, with background knowledge of her as a chimp. Rosie presents her sister with the hope that "love… can't be lost" (Fowler,2013,28).
In contrast to Rosie, who underlines that "that’s my sister in that cage" (Fowler,2013,125) in UTS for most of the novel we do not relate to non-human animals thanks to our main character, but inspite of her. Faber utilises long periods of dialectics 'Zaddafact?' (Faber,2000,52) and inner monologues to create an empathy between us and the Vodsels. I resist Caracciolo’s(2017) suggestion that we ‘resist their ‘perspective(s)’-Faber presents them, through these narrative techniques, as human, individual. Nevertheless, Isserely, our primary narrative perspective, suggests ‘these creatures were all exactly the same fundamentally.' (Faber,2003,79) Therefore Faber’s use of multiple perspectives and dialects creates dramatic irony that emphasises, via our own knowledge, the inequality, the irrationality, of Isserley’s exceptionalism.
In contrast Fowler, via Rosie’s unreliable narrating, her playing with time, presents Fern as sister first, and subsequently a chimp. In her story we have less information not more, no knowledge of Fern from her own inner monologue. We are like Isserely, with no insight into the non-human animal’s mind. Because Fern is less human, not more, than initially presented, Fowler gives us less information, not more, initially so that we do not judge Fern as anything other than human without context that her novel needs time to present. To avoid anthropocentric tendencies, that make it impossible for Isserely to view her passengers objectively, affecting our interpretation.
Part of this context is presented when Rosie highlights the importance of first naming (Fern, not chimp) as she reflects ‘I can't believe that being called Fredericka my whole life wouldn't have taken a toll. I can't believe it wouldn't have mind-bent me like a spoon.’ (Fowler,2013,62). Rosie highlights the ‘toll(ing)’ effect ‘being called Fredericka’ could have (Fern, not chimp, Rosie, not Fredericka) with this telling noun ‘toll’. It presents the nature of the suffering, as an unavoidable hassle. As if every journey, every encounter, might be marred by it. The deep plosive sound of the ending double ‘L’ presents this marr-ing as a weight on her life, dragging down how she is perceived. Fowler suggests the “mind bending” effect names can ultimately have on our perception of even ourselves.
The stuck on the end parenthetical statement ‘not that I haven’t been mind bent’ (Fowler,2013,62) suggests that whilst Rosie is not called Fredericka she has seen a similar process in action. The parenthetical end framing underlines how difficult being ‘mind bent’ is to avoid - even if we escaped it once. When Rosie tells us how ‘everybody thought Fern had done it, until I spoke up.’ (Fowler,2013,57) She highlights the instinctive blaming of Fern. Exemplifying the ‘toll’ names can bring. For scientists Fern is “named” the chimp ‘demonstrating how this distinction is introduced and maintained differentially for Rosemary and Fern’ (Calarco,2014,7) despite Rosie’s understanding of the ‘many things Fern could do that I could not'(Fowler 2013,252) agreeing with Rotpeter’s take on human superiority(Kafka,1917). She suggests her father and fellow scientists ‘methods’ are ‘mind-bent’ against Fern because of her first naming, aligning them with Cartesian view of those named animal.(Harrison,1950,3)
Faber also highlights how words can be manipulated 'Right now, the words "voddissin" and "Vess" are inseparable; anyone who yearns for a taste of something unimaginably divine just thinks "Vess"’ (Faber,2000,126). Indicating how words enable us to disconnect us from reality: beef not cow, chimp, not Fern. In this way, Fowler critiques studies that do not put preventions in place, as she has for Fern, against anthropocentric tendencies.
In hindsight, Rosie blames herself for the extent of the prejudice Fern experiences. It is not just her name that mind bends people against her, but language which names seem to represent. We come to understand that Rosie had once used language as Todd uses Japanese -to hold it over others to place herself above them. (Fowler,2013, 33) People wonder "if (she) was maybe in training for the talking Olympics. (She) was gold-medal material’. Little do they know ‘she had already won.’ (Fowler,2013,61)
We wonder why she uses language to elevate herself so. Fowler presents Rosie’s worry that 'everyone else will see Rosemary as the monkey girl she really is'. (Fowler,2013,189) Differentiating yourself from animals is a motif through the text, when a ‘number of policemen were called to watch as Harlow obligingly squatted and stepped’ she ‘deflect(s) their enthusiasm’ (Fowler,2013,12) we infer that were she not to, Harlow might be seen as a non-human animal (trying to exceptionalise herself with physicality). We infer that to not suggest it is all just a bit of fun might be dangerous, from examples of the disrespect to those on such boundaries. ‘Why won't anyone help me?" a character asks in jail. ‘No one, myself included responded and she didn't speak again.’ (Fowler,2013,13) Underlining that failure to use language correctly will lead to being ignored. By extension Fowler suggests that any action that is not perfectly human could get you disrespected. A disrespect which we infer non-human animals are therefore constantly dealing with. This argument is validated by the anger of some when treated like a non-human animal in public, retaliating by ‘thr(owing) a snowball at me with a rock inside, because I'd said he was ineluctable, which he didn't like the sound of but proved true.’ (Fowler,2013,45)
The same fear is demonstrated in UTS 'I don't know what you expect of me,' Isserley burst out, suddenly near tears. 'I'm a human being, not a vodsel.’(Faber,2003,99) Her hope that they would ‘treat her as if there was nothing odd or ugly about her at all, for she and they were all the same under the skin, weren't they?' (Faber,2003,88) suggests from the very fact she questions it, the doubt, the worry, in Isserley’s mind.
'Isserley pushed the thought (of similarity) away. Just look at these creatures! Their brute bulk, their stink, their look of idiocy...' (Faber,2003,98). Faber underlines in this sequence the irrationality of Isserley’s thoughts through the lexical field of extreme language, the likes of which we are used to hearing extreme political commentators use. When she described Vodsels previously, in the wild, we are yet to hear her think of their ‘stink’, ‘idiocy’, or their ‘brute bulk’, the alliteration of which suggests a childlike puffing anger - reflective of the stone throwing child of Rosie’s school. It is an emotional response that Faber implies comes from fear that ‘If she wasn't careful, she would end up living among them, cackling and mooing in meaningless abandon like the cavorting oddities'.(Faber,2003,98) Both texts highlight the fear present in our lives when we prejudice against non-human animals. Fear they imply comes from the risk we might be perceived as them. Fear that underlines the significance of the harm we perceive them to go through in their lives, from our own deep desire not to experience it.
If we cast back to the many images of ‘things Fern could do that I could not.' (Fowler,2013,252) What Fowler clearly presents is that ‘What you accomplish will never matter so much as where you fail" (Fowler,2013,25). Isserley seems inherently conscious and worried about this as she 'scaled these little steps... with clownish difficulty...Any normal human could have leapt over' (Faber,2003,87). Both protagonists highlight their understanding that their species are ‘a hard club to join’. (Fowler,2013,22) Faber ironically demonstrates that the exclusionary nature is mirrored in Vodsels (in us) as ‘Other cars beeped at her as she tried to turn into their midst. She had her lights on high beam. If she wanted to join their peaceable procession, that was not allowed.' (Faber,2000,107)
On (Fowler,2013) 265 Rosie continues her different memories of Fern’s being ‘taken away’, of Fern not being allowed into her life’s ‘peaceable procession’. At first she doesn’t tell at all. Then she tells her truth. Then she discovers she might not remember correctly which ‘flies in the face of many things I remember.' (Fowler,2013,269) This narrative dishonesty from the text highlights the possibility of literature, or language, to be dishonest. Demonstrating how it ‘simplifies, solidifies, codifies, mummifies.’(Fowler,2013,51) as Kafka’s Rotpeter suggests.(Calarco,2014) Rosie suggests 'language is such an imprecise vehicle I sometimes wonder why we bother with it.' (Fowler,2013,85) And ultimately, underlines that sometimes ‘no words are sufficient.' Fowler, via Rosie, takes away the power we might suggest words and language have to differentiate us as superior. Furthermore, Fowler underlines to critics who suggest that animals who use language have an "obvious and iniquitous agenda" (Fowler,2013,22) how frequently our own does. Rosie’s primary agenda of her ‘gold medal’ level language seems to be to differentiate herself from Fern.
Faber presents such critics like Isserley, responding simply, without truly being honest with their answers -'No-one told me they had a language,' marvelled Amlis.
'It depends on what you classify as language, I guess,' said Isserley.'(Faber,2003,98) Underlining how possible it is to differentiate, re-‘classify’ again, yet how cheap it appears when we watch another species do it to us.
Similes throughout WAACBO underline our endless similarities to non-human animals: 'polished by the wet air.. a little migratory myself, just a little wild' (Fowler,2013,7) "gape silently, like a goldfish" (Fowler,2013,30) "Heart flopped in my chest like a hooked fish". (Fowler,2013,44) They highlight that we differentiate ourselves from other species so alike to us that we use them to understand ourselves. Whilst Faber demonstrates our vulnerability to differentiation from species: ‘vodsels couldn’t do any of the things that really defined a human being. They couldn’t siuwil, they couldn’t mesnishtil…’ and therefore implies, given the extent Isserley seems ‘human’ to us, and is ‘human’ in the text, the concern that we could use such ‘classify’(ing) to differentiate ourselves from ourselves, if no major biological difference is needed to affirm superiority.
Losing language is just one of these minor, non-biological things used, Fowler suggests, to assert our superiority. In jail where language is frowned upon Rosie instinctually looks to other things to connect her to herself. ‘good morning, good night, good morning, good night. It would have been nice to be wearing shoes.’ (Fowler,2013,13) Fowler suggests Rosie looks to time then, as it blurs, looks to her material possessions. By playing with our own knowledge of time in text, bouncing us around, Fowler disconnects the reader with one of the things, one of the forms of knowledge that we might otherwise use to exceptionalise ourselves. In effect Fowler animalises us, the reader. Makes us see what it is like to be a plaything.
When she loses her sense of time, Rosie next looks to her ‘shoes’. Fowler suggests the next thing, the next superiority ‘not timeless… but temporary’(Calarco,2014) we jump to is material possessions, by extension, money- when language and time are lost. 'Humans announce ... here is the thing that makes us unique, be it time or language, and some other species comes along to snatch it away.' (Fowler,2013,302) she underlines, that whatever is ‘snatch(ed)’ we will attempt to replace. Fowler(2013) tells us 'money is the language humans speak,' (305) 'if you want to communicate with humans, then you have to learn to speak it.' (305)
Fowler mirrors Faber’s fear that the problem with the ‘snatch’ and replace (reclassifying) cycle is that eventually those things we look to differentiate ourselves will differentiate between our own species, telling us the 'value of money is a scam perpetrated by those who have it over those who don't'(228). The effect is perpetuated, ‘almost’ exaggerated to the point of ‘subhaman(ness)’ in Faber’s world, as Isserely suggests 'there was an unmistakable ugliness about Estate trash, an almost subhuman taint.'(Faber,2003,40) A presentation reflected in the unemployed Vodsels who she had ‘found… were often cast out from their society, isolated and vulnerable.' (Faber,2003,100) she continues suggesting the 'Vodsel community itself seemed to be selecting those of its members it was content to have culled' (Faber,2003,100). Faber implies the track we are on will, already has, lead to inequality for intangible, non-biological reasons. In this way Faber suggests the harm that anthropocentrism has lead to, against ourselves. Fowler expands upon the harm anthropocentrism causes. Her novel begins with a definitive focus on words. Rosie tells us ‘What my parents valued was (words) extravagant abundance, their inexhaustible flow.’ (Fowler,2013,2) highlighting the extent of this ‘value’ with an example of how she “tr(ied) desperately to keep him (her father) in my room with only my voice.”(Fowler,2013,2) With this disturbing verbal phrase Rosie suggests the power language had to affect her physical world, ‘keep(ing)’ her father there for longer. However, pairing this sequence with a lexical field of effort, of ‘inexhaustible flow’, ‘trying desperately’ and ‘speak(ing) without taking a breath’ (Fowler,2013,2) begins to imply that language, ‘valued’ so, begins to matter more than anything, more than even Rosie’s own ‘breath’, her own health. With this pairing Fowler implies the foolishness of taking language’s importance to this ultimate extent, a focus on words only, on literature and language, but never getting involved in the real world, exercising for example, could quite literally take our ‘breath’ away; foreshadowing some of what is to come, with her father’s, an academic who values language so, ultimate demise. This demise highlights the harming effects maintaining a differentiation between us and animals causes, implying the harmful amount of effort differentiation on ambiguous, ever changing grounds, requires.
It is an effort similar to that which Faber underlines Isserley makes. Agreeing with the critical perspective that suggests Issereley is ‘no less a victim of the aliens' industry than the hitch-hikers. (Caracciolo,2017,8) She tells us ‘a Vodsel might do something which resembled a human action; it might make a sound analogous with human distress, or make a gesture analogous with human supplication, and that made the ignorant observer jump to conclusions.'(Faber,2003,99) The constant ‘analogous’ interjections imply the never-ending nature of the effort. Furthermore, repeated so frequently it begins to make us wonder where the boundary between ‘analogous’ and same really lies. If action, sound, and supplication, are analogous, what is it that is truly different?
Faber expands upon the harm of differentiation. It is not just Isserley, or the father, Faber suggests ‘The price everyone paid for it was the death of trust.’ (Faber,2003,114) Faber highlights how linguistic judgement to maintain differentiation against non-human animals leads to linguistic harm between humans. Fowler highlights, with powerful historical interjects at the beginning of many of her sections that physical harm against non-human animals leads to physical harm against humans, agreeing with Derrida that ‘torture damages the inflictor as well as the inflicted. It’s no coincidence that one of the Abu Ghraib torturers came to the military directly from a job as a chicken processor.’(Fowler,2013,238) This reflection is presented in UTS through Isserley’s lack of understanding of the Vodsel’s internal monologues. Reflective of the fact Isserley is not even empathetic to her own, who she believes ' couldn't hope to understand'(Faber,2003,88). In such a world we notice ‘Shared suffering… was no guarantee of intimacy.'(Faber,2003,34)
The pain differentiation leads to, Fowler implies, is such that we try and avoid it in our love lives. Harlow is monkey like when she "cleared the table with one motion of her arm.’ Which leads Rosie to think ‘She had beautiful biceps;’ (Fowler,2013,7). The theme continues as Reg says ‘Don't do this, baby,’(Fowler,2013,8). We could read this as Harlow’s physical behaviour as being seen by others as childish, as acting like a ‘baby’. But from Rosie’s, and Reg’s, perspective I think we read "Baby" as an endearing term for lovers, and children, alike. Fowler, through its use here, pointedly implies we, and certainly Rosie, crave the animalistic “innocence”, a lack of consciousness some of Coetzee’s characters agree with,(1999,44) in love that ‘baby’ implies. Fowler suggests we desire the lack of language, and therefore their lack of deception, the lack of pain.
When Rosie describes the rest of the room of onlookers as ‘at large’ (Fowler,2013,8) it is a subtle use of language to imply the room of normal humans are guilty of something. Guilty of deception, of acting like we are different to Harlow, above acting physically. They are guilty of deception, inherent in language that they all value so. Deception highlighted as she “threw the glass onto the floor. It broke and splashed milk”. No use crying over spilt milk, we have all been told. And yet this language is clearly not true, as Rosie is arrested.
Meanwhile lack of language, in the physical act of love, in sex, is key to relationships. In this most sublinguistic time we can be our true selves together. When we act physically together. Intrinsically, Fowler highlights, we want to avoid deception and look for someone we can be ‘baby(s)’ with. Love is presented similarly by Faber as Vess suggests 'what I'm really interested in is the inner person'. (Faber,2013,128)
Both novelists might agree that it is foolish to think ‘what Amlis didn’t know wouldn’t hurt him’ (Faber,2000,98). Hiding knowledge, deception, evidently leads to ‘hurt’. Isserley knows 'all she had to do in return, when it came right down to essentials, was walk on two legs.'(Faber,2000,41) Therefore maintaining blissful ignorance, to attempt to keep ‘(his) face beatific’(Fowler,2013,24) is not the solution. These stories are not trying to ‘impart the holy bliss’ (Oxford Languages 2024,Google). They use their mediums (Science fiction for Faber to create an imaginative entertaining tone) (a chatty, friendly tone ‘Bookmark that thought. We'll come back to it later.’ (Fowler,2013,57) for Fowler’s Rosie) to create an informal and ultimately relatable tone. Being relatable, (or for Faber entertaining) they understand, allows for a certain power. Her ‘charges were dropped’ as ‘Arnie’ and ‘Vince’ chat as dads (Fowler,2013,16). Therefore, in being relatable to us, they achieve what they might not via a different, less chatty and more affronting tone, which might result in swift dismissal, a turn away to attempt to maintain blissful ignorance.
The tone allows Fowler to present modern science which validates her perspective 'chimps do see that mental states, such as purpose and knowledge, combine to produce deliberate action.' (Fowler,2013,188). And the perspective that ‘in the phrase human being the word being is much more important than the word human' (Fowler,2013,158). Faber underlines the same point to us, in taking away our very name human, and whatever power it brings us.
Word count:3294
Bibliography
Calarco, M. (2014) Boundary Issues: Human-Animal Relationships in Karen Joy Fowler’s We Are All Completely beside Ourselves. Modern Fiction Studies Vol.60, No.3 pp.616-635.
Caracciolo, M. (2017). “Murky Mercy”: Michel Faber’s Under the Skin and the Difficulty of Reality. College Literature.
Coetzee, J. (1999) The Philosopher and the Animals.
Faber, M. (2003) Under the skin. Cannongate Books
Fowler, K. (2013) We are all completely beside ourselves. Serpent’s Tail. London.
Harrison, P. (1950) Descartes on Animals. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol42 pp.219-227 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2220217 (Accessed:14/1/25)
Kafka, F. (1917) A Report to an Academy.
Oxford languages (2024) ‘Beatific Definition’.