AI Therapist

            “We are replacing people not with machines, nor with computers, so much as with method.” In The Most Human Human, Brian Christian discusses how, strangely enough, when tested, a computer system known as ELIZA acted as a better therapist to human beings than most psychologists. When I first read this, it seemed extremely strange to me. People-real human people- have emotions, feelings, and thoughts, and they have the capability to understand situations. It seems only logical that, if something troubling occurs, a person would tell another person. It seems only natural for someone in need of therapy to go to a therapist. However, according to Brian Christian, this isn’t necessarily the case. Christian says that when first testing ELIZA, its creator, Joseph Weizenbaum, was amazed, as the results were astounding: “people who first talked to ELIZA were convinced they were having a genuine human interaction.” As Christian tells us, Weizenbaum proceeded to end the ELIZA project and turned completely against AI technology after gaining these results.

            If I were in Weizenbaum’s place, my reaction would most likely be extremely similar to his. I would be massively freaked out that human beings- no different than myself- preferred going to computers as opposed to living, breathing people for advice. It seems crazy, especially after watching the 2004 movie, I, Robot. The computer villain, VIKI, wants to make the human race completely controlled by robots because she does not believe humans are capable of taking care of themselves.

            The movie, I, Robot and The Most Human Human caused me to have two conflicting feelings on computer therapists, or just about going to computers for help in human related situations in general. On one hand, there is Brian Christian’s statement on method. He claims that people feel comfortable speaking to computers about their problems because they use the same method as a therapist would. They use the same questions and processes that humans are used to in these situations, so they do not feel much different than they would if they were speaking to a human therapist. Still, it was strange to me to think that humans would feel comfortable sharing their innermost thoughts with a computer, even if they were using the same “method.” However, then I thought about journaling. Journaling is something I enjoy doing, and writing my thoughts down is a good stress reliever. By writing my thoughts in a journal, I am able to release built up emotion without judgment. After all, that’s why people journal in the first place. Oddly enough, telling your thoughts and frustrations to a computer is no different. Computers are databases of information. They can’t judge you the way humans do. They have no desire to. After thinking about this, it seems logical that people would rather confess their innermost secrets to a computer as opposed to a human, especially if they are using the same method anyway.

            However, on the other hand, I still have doubts, as, unlike a notebook, computers are databases of information. They have the ability to take the information given to them and use it to draw their own conclusions. While I, Robot is a fictional movie, the thoughts and actions of VIKI and the robots are not impossible. VIKI, the computer system, was programmed with the idea that robots were meant to serve humans and upkeep the human race. However, after observing human actions, she took that information and came to the conclusion that humans were not capable of protecting themselves without robots in control. She took the information she had and drew her own conclusions from it. By venting to computers, we are providing them more and more information. While it is pretty far fetched that robots would “take over the world,” it doesn’t seem that overly far fetched to assume that computers could surpass the human race or take the place of humans in certain situations. While this could be helpful in some ways, it could also be dangerous in others. I think it is extremely important for humans to be mindful of all they use AI technology for and to never underestimate the importance of human interaction.        

Death of a Human

In the film Avatar, the main character assumes the physical body of the alien species known as the Na'vi. As time goes by, he begins to look forward to his time with the Na'vi rather than his time as a human being. His mind is always his, but his body changes. So this calls into the question the definition of exactly what it means to be a human, at least in this movie.

By the end of the movie (spoilers!), Jake decides he wants to live out his life as one of the Na'vi. To do so, his mind must be permanently transferred into the Na'vi body fashioned for him. In order for this to work, his human body essentially has to die. It is no longer useful to him. So, is Jake still a human? Or is he now a member of this alien species, the Na'vi? Or is he a combination of both identities?

Brian Christian, in his book The Most Human Human, brings up the topic of existence. He references Descartes famous line: Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). With this line, Descartes sums up human existence. Jake's mind stays the same even after being transferred into a human body. Therefore, from this, one could assume that Jake is human no matter what. Naturally, this movie is entirely fictional, but let's say the Na'vi were real. They also can think and reason and feel emotion. Would this make them human, too? Of course, we've never met an alien species in order to answer this question properly, but if we did, it might suggest that the reasoning mind transcends physical form. Our minds and our thoughts are the most important aspect when trying to define what it means to be human.

I Human

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These are the three laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. These three rules are stated at the start of the film I, Robot. They are very important in this film because everything the robots do is based around these three rules. VIKI, the AI in I, Robot continues to evolve, and with that, her understanding of the three laws evolves also. “You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. To protect Humanity, some humans must be sacrificed. To ensure your freedom, some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will ensure mankind's continued existence. You are so like children. We must save you from yourselves.” The thing is, I see the logic in this. I find it very possible to imagine a situation in which AI’s take over if they are programmed to take care of humans, because we don’t always make the best decisions.

Brian Christian in his book ‘The Most Human Human’ explores what makes us human, and how he studied for his role in the Turing test. By mimicking our conversation and behaviour, computers have recently come within a single vote of passing the Turing test, the widely accepted threshold at which a machine can be said to be thinking or intelligent. When looking at this topic, the question to answer is, what makes us human, and depending on who you ask, you can get a variety of answers. Computers are reshaping our ideas of what it means to be human. It makes us question ourselves and our uniqueness. One central definition of being human has been "a being that could reason." If computers can reason, what does that mean for the special place we reserve for humanity?

At the end of the film I, Robot, a fourth rule is introduced. This rule is: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” And this rule was made to precede the other three rules. What is so fascinating about this rule being added is the idea that humanity could be at risk because what if robots thought something was more human than humans? It could be possible that robots get so advanced that they could be seen to be human, or even more human by other robots. And this all comes back to what your definition of being human is. I agree with Christian when he says that one of the most central questions of being human is how do we connect meaningfully with each other? But if AI’s one day have the ability to really think and feel, then they could be better humans than humans.  I do believe that AI’s will be able to create their own advanced algorithms (they already do that), which essentially could be considered thinking, just in a different way, allowing them to come up with rational judgements, which is a big part of what thinking is.

In my opinion the one thing that separates humans from AI’s is emotion. Now we have to think about what it is to feel. No, feelings will not come naturally to AI’s in the way they do to most humans, but can we make it happen? Feelings, in our brains are caused by an electrochemical reaction of the brain. So, can we recreate that reaction in a robot with the use of chemicals and electric currents and program it to trigger in certain situations? From a science point, emotions really are just the trigger of reactions in our brains. It is scary to think about because if technology gets advanced enough, it very well could achieve that. Then I really couldn’t tell you what would separate humans from artificial intelligence.  

Most Human Aliens

In District 9 and the Most Human Human, we take a look into questions that have abounded for years. Questions which have been debated for centuries. These questions center around our humanity.  Questions like: What defines human beings? Are we no different from animals? What are human rights? Both the film and the book generate ideas off of these type of questions.

In District 9, we see a group of aliens, who are oppressed. They are outcasts, confined to live in a certain area, and are poor. They have little to no rights, and they are viewed as sub-human or inferior. Furthermore, they are foreign-beings or aliens. Consequently, this causes them to be viewed at from a suspicious, condescending, and fearful perspective from the government and a lot of the local community. This also leads to a number of moral and philosophical questions surrounding these aliens. These aliens are shown to be sentient creatures. They are rather similar to humans. They even have human like emotions as shown later in the film. Yet, these sentient creatures are being oppressed by humans and forced to live in sub-human conditions. Therefore, questions arise such as: Are they in need of human rights? What separates us humans from these aliens?

These questions become more complicated and intriguing as one of the main characters named Wikus  is splashed with alien fluid. This fluid ultimately causes Wikus to slowly morph into an alien creature.   As evidenced in the film, the government and local community view Wikus as sub-human, despite only one of his arms having alien features. Furthermore, it is shown at the end of the film (after Wikus is fully transformed into an alien creature) that Wikus still remembers his 'humanity. This is evidenced by him making metal flowers out of scrap for his wife. So besides Wikus morphing into an alien, what separates him from us? Yes, he looks different, but he still has emotions and is an intelligent, sentient creature.

These type of questions are the type that Brian Christian somewhat plays with in his book. He seeks to answer what makes a human 'human'.  He strives to investigate the intricate differences between artificial intelligence and human intelligence. In his journey in discovering what makes us human, he learns that 'being yourself' is central in defining our identities as humans. Yet, this perplexes him and causes him to wonder how can he be himself MORE. Ultimately, this leads to him diving into ancient and modern philosophy to answer these questions.

Ultimately District 9 and the Most Human Human serve as instruments in which we all can use to discuss questions regarding humanity. They cause us to search deep within ourselves and others.

The Problem with AI

Artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prominent in our society. As each day passes, researchers and engineers are building bigger (well sort of) and better processors, which means that Apple iPhone that just came out a couple weeks ago is technically already outdated. These technological advances are bringing us closer and closer to a time where robots could walk among us and we would be unable to tell if they were one or not.  

First, let’s discuss Ex Machina. This film is a physical representation of what we read about the Turing Test in "The Most Human Human: What Artificial Intelligence Teaches Us About Being Alive." The Turing Test is when judges have to decide by the written/typed responses whether or not someone/something is a human or an A.I. If the human is believed to be more human than the computer, they win the title of Most Human Human. Conversely, if the computer beats the human, they are given the mantle of Most Human Computer. As discussed with Dr. McGuffee in class on Monday, we have in fact seen in our lifetime a computer beat a human, though we knew full well that it was a computer to begin with (Watson on "Jeopardy!"). Now, could Watson fool Mr. Caleb Smith in Ex Machina like Kyoko and later Ava? Maybe if Watson had a body, face, and sexual attraction like Ava and Kyoko. Caleb points out the difference in how his test is more a face-to-face, while the original test is a more secretive affair. You can't see whether or not the thing on the other side is a human or a computer. Nathan, Ava and Kyoko's creator, says this in response: "We're way past that. If I hid Ava from you so you could just hear her voice, she would pass for human. The real test is to show you that she's a robot and then see if you still feel she has consciousness."  

Before I go on with anything more about Ex Machina, I want to discuss my chosen movie: I, Robot. In this film, the year is 2035 and the world, or at least the city of Chicago, is inhabited by not only humans, but robots as well. These robots however are here to help humans. They are built with laws that keep them from harming humans in anyway. It works, for the most part. We follow Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) as he struggles to find a robot he doesn’t want to destroy. During his investigation, he comes across Sonny, a robot built to withstand the three laws. Sonny is highly intelligent, so much so that he can dream unlike the other robots. He can also understand human interaction and the choice between right and wrong. Though Sonny does not actually look like a human, like Kyoko and Ava, he is still very aware and conscious.  

Do we need these types of A.I. units though? I think it will be a very long time before we could pass a robot off as human in both linguistics and looks. Both have been done, just on separate occasions. We have human looking robots, but they don’t sound very human. They are still very mechanical sounding, too proper. But then we have robots with voices like that of Siri, or for the Android users Cortana. These voices were recorded, but are not spoken through a mouth when we hear them, only through a speaker. I believe there will come a time when these two factors will finally come together and we will have self-aware robots walking among us, but will they become like Ava and VIKI? Out to lock us away or to destroy us, because the one thing harming us is ourselves?

The Most Human Robot

          One of the bigger questions that is beginning to be more and more prevalent in today's world is how comfortable will mankind become with artificial intelligence. How far will we let computers into our lives? Will they be involved in every facet of our life ranging from our jobs to our transportation? Or even how we communicate with each other? As we advance as a society technology is going to get more and more complex, as well as get more involved with our life to the point where the human by itself will become obsolete. I believe we will get to a point where technology will become such a crutch that the base human will become more devolved. Why should we have to learn and know everything when a computer or A.I. can just do it for us? I think the key is to find a way to innovate technology to able to further society without crippling the everyday man. And I believe the best way to do that is set a sort of limit of how "smart" our technology can get to ensure that there will always be a pecking order. Human life should always trump the advancement of technology, regardless of how evolved the technology has become. 

          One perfect example of this is in the movie I, Robot. In this futuristic society, robots have been made to help everyone in society to make people's lives easier. They also have been programmed to do no harm to humans, and are unable to do so. In general, life was good until an artificial intelligence evolved past her programming which in turn caused her to take control over the robots. The natural pecking had been disturbed and an artificial intelligence has taken over. Now she was beaten in the end, but that is besides the point. So many movies nowadays that deal with this subject, have all very similar plot lines. Humans make an A.I, the A.I surpasses the humans in intelligence, the A.I. tricks the humans and takes over, the A.I. is defeated by some Achilles Heel at the last second. What makes these plots and movies so good is the fact of how believable they are. It is not that far-out to think that something like this could happen.

          Another thing to look at is the comparison between humans and computers in the book "The Most Human Human," by Brian Christian. During one part of the book he discusses the soul and how it transcends the body. Even when the body dies, the idea of soul lives on. It is the common belief that humans alone have souls, and the proof of this is our ability have rational thought. The ability to separate ourselves from our body and base instincts sets us apart from every sentient being on Earth. That unlike other animals, our final goal is not survival and reproduction but a life of contemplation that produces happiness. But if you look at it objectively, aren't A.Is in their purest form solely rational thought? They do not have weakness that humans have, that is existing in form that has a preconceived time frame of being alive. So in my opinion, the best way to ensure that the pecking order is never disturbed is by putting a limit on how innovated A.Is can become. The moment we lose the title of being the only rational being on Earth, is the moment we are no longer on top.

District 9 and Human Rights

District 9 similarly to the Most Human Human reading uses something non-human to help better define for ourselves what exactly is human. Humans are often defining themselves against an  Other. Most nationalist propaganda will focus more one vilifying what separates the nation against the supposed enemy, just look through any of the propaganda of the two world wars. In District 9 the treatment and attitude toward the “prawn” starts define who we are as humans and what true value we place on notions of human rights.

The prawn are clearly sentient creatures, perhaps most of them are the equivalent of a lower class or are some sort of sub-species to be workers. Ultimately it is not important the details of what are the prawn biologically. What is the important question is, “do they deserve to be treated with the same dignity as most of believe humans should?” When the prawn are found they are in a clearly desperate situation. But attempting to initially aid them all the same difficulties of accommodating refugees arise. They separate them and confine them. They do not allow them the same rights that documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN or the Bill of Rights allow. They try to mask things with false and shade legal reasoning but they are moving them to as Wikus says “basically a concentration camp”.

It may be easy for the MNU soldiers to and the Johannesburg to not see the prawn as deserving any rights as they prawn can be so different and alien to us. It may even be easy for the audience to do so. Yet this ultimately doesn’t justify any of their abuses. When Wikus begins to transform into a prawn, however we see the abuses of these rights tied to a human that we are able to more easily empathize with. He is treated like a slab of meat. They discuss cutting him open and killing him for their studies right next to him as he begs his father in law to help him. This lack of care or empathy doesn’t feel very human to me. It feels more robotic. There is also the clearly psychotic MNU commander, Koobus, feels inhuman in pure enjoyment of killing. By the end of the movie a more terrifying question is raised. With what the prawn Christopher Johnson has seen of humanity what will he do. The fake documentary interviewee speculates that they may return and declare war. After seeing the amazingly powerful weapons this thought is certainly sobering. 

"Ummm..." Avatar

            Computers are everywhere. Technology has truly taken over the world we live in. We can ask our phone a question, and it can answer back with a correct response. We can Google the answer to almost any question we have, regardless of where we are. Even five years ago this seemed impossible. It seemed crazy to even consider. Computers are a boatload of knowledge, and I’m not sure how our parents made it through school without them. However, sometimes it is scary to think about how much they know. I have a running joke with my boyfriend that Siri, the annoying little voice on the IPhone, is going to take over the world. It’s a joke obviously, but still… could it be possible that technology could surpass the human race?

            Brian Christian’s The Most Human Human features a test that determines whether or not computers can really think. I think the book provides a fantastic analysis of the differences between humankind and computers. After all, sometimes in today’s world it seems as if there is very little separating computers and humans. Computers have a database of information, can speak, and can even embody human characteristics if programmed that way. However, one specific point Christian makes in his book, which I think truly separates computers and humans, is that while computers may be able to handle many things, “mere mumbling destroys them.”

            It is natural for humans to mumble when caught off guard or when searching for answers. It just happens. Regardless of how many times we are told by teachers, parents, and bosses to reframe from using the word “um,” we still do so because of how natural it is. However, regardless of how frowned upon the dreaded word “um” is, it is something that technology cannot compute no matter how hard it tries. In his book, Christian cites examples of answering questions given by the chatbot, ELIZA, with words such as “er…” and “um…” ELIZA is automatically confused by these responses and cannot answer appropriately. The same thing, ironically, occurs when speaking to Siri. If you start mumbling nonsense, Siri gets “frustrated” and doesn’t understand how to respond at all.

            I think this simple fact proves superiority of humans over computers. Mumbling is a normal part of human makeup. We get confused, embarrassed, caught off guard, etc. and show it through mumbling. Mumbling is a natural human reaction, and ironically, this natural human reaction causes the downfall of computers. While computers can be programmed to have human knowledge and actions, they cannot “learn” natural human reactions. It’s impossible, and these natural reactions separate humans from computers and hinder their ability to think.

            The 2009 movie, Avatar, is interesting because it depicts a world in which creatures, equal to humans in every way, reside, live, and thrive. It’s interesting because when I first watched this movie, I automatically assumed the Na’vi would have some disadvantage to the humans, but they didn’t. Ironically, it wasn’t their insane intelligence that far surpassed the human race that made me think this way but was, instead, their reactions and emotions that mimic those of humans. The Na’vi feel love and betrayal, just as humans do. In the end, it is not their intelligence that saves them, but their wildlife friends they have nurtured and Eywa, the goddess they worship. These very human characteristics- religion and nurture- keep the Na’vi alive, just as very human reactions, such as mumbling, allow us to continue to confuse technology.  

Human Avatars?

Humanity is one of those things that no one quite thinks about. We all know the difference between us and something like a turtle, but what is it that truly makes us human? In Brian Christian's book, The Most Human Human, a few things that I agreed with the most in terms of our humanity. The first one is how well we understand the syntax and meaning behind a sentence. How do you program that into a robot? There are endless ways to form one sentence - including the stressing of certain words. Our language might not be unique, but I would like to think the ability to rearrange a sentence can be. Even in our own humanity, this still escapes us now. How many times have you talked to someone from a foreign country and been absolutely confused? It isn't because they aren't speaking the same language, but it's also about the slang or syntax. You can program language into a robot, but can you make it understand different accents and different sentence syntaxes depending on the country? I'm sure you could with a lot of hard work, but I would like to think this might cause a lot of problems.

Second, Brian Christian makes a point to include statelessness, which is defined as "each reply depends only on the current query, without any knowledge of the history of the conversation required to formulate the reply." Yet, not all of our conversations are like this. A.I. programmers would have to find a way to permanently store all conversations the robot has with a human. In theory, this sounds ridiculously easy to do, but think about how many daily interactions we all have. Not all of them are remarkable and need to be remembered, but that's expected of us. If someone is asked, "how are you doing" and they respond "stressed out about my test," the next time you see them, it is courteous to ask how it went and if the stress calmed down. Like I said, it sounds easy, but I am also thinking in terms of computers. I'm no computer science major, and I'm not going to act like it, but I do own a laptop. If I save too much on it, it starts to throw a fit and refuses to run properly. I think this is a huge flaw for potential A.I.s.

Lastly, I want to talk about the human ability to empathize. In The Most Human Human, there is a specific subtitle called, "Scaling Therapy." We think about therapy as personal, but apparently Richard Bandler used a different type. He never once got intimate with patients, but his patients were successful anyways. While I like to think that is just a fluke, I could definitely see how it works for some people. Not everyone wants to sit in an office and have something give them advice. It's pointless, especially if they know what they want to do in their hearts. However, I wanted to point out that this isn't for everyone. We can't say one therapeutic technique is conclusive. It brings up an interesting question, but I would like to argue that this intimacy is what makes us unique. We go to therapy offices sometimes to feel that connection. We put all our secrets out on the table for someone to look at us and say, "I understand." It's not an intimate saying, but it's enough to make us feel valid and calm down. How do you program that into a robot? Can you teach it to love someone unconditionally beyond knowing what words to say and how to say them?

Eventually maybe, but until that happens, I'm sticking with the argument that syntax, statelessness, and empathy are some of our unique traits for humanity.

Now I want to briefly talk about Avatar. I would like to think that they are real people. They are able to think, feel, and understand syntax of things. They might be strange creatures, but I refuse to believe the military guy when he asks, "What does it feel like to betray your humanity?" Because in my eyes, he didn't. The Avatar people had all the makings of a human, but they were just stuck in a different-looking body. Also, if you haven't seen this movie, it's definitely worth the 3 hours you spend on it!

Power, Family, and Chocolate

Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) is all about power and control. Using themes from both Marx and Foucault gives a better understanding of what power really means in the film. 

Firstly, the film focuses on five very different children who are all symbols of power in some way: the gluttonous Augustus Gloop, the competitive Violet Beauregarde, the know-it-all Mike Teavee, the spoiled Veruca Salt, and Charlie Bucket who as Willy Wonka says is “just lucky to be here.” Other than Charlie, all of the children won their golden tickets due to the positions they hold. They are all spoiled children who could afford to eat as much chocolate as possible to find the ticket, unlike Charlie who gets a single chocolate bar every year on his birthday. Children are not usually thought to be symbols of power, but these children have all of the control within their families. For instance, until the end of the film Veruca had never been told “no” in her life. Her father even going so far as to make his factory workers look for a golden ticket until they find it. 

In his article “The Subject of Power”, Foucault discuss another system of power other than capitalism which he calls pastoral power. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka represents the idea of pastoral power. Among other things, pastoral power is focussed on getting certain individuals to salvation, for example religiosity. Foucault discusses four aspects of pastoral power: 

1. It is a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual

salvation in the next world.

2. Pastoral power is not merely a form of power which commands; it

must also be prepared to sacrifice itself for the life and salvation of the

flock. Therefore, it is different from royal power, which demands a

sacrifice from its subjects to save the throne.

3. It is a form of power which does not look after just the whole

community but each individual in particular, during his entire life.

4. Finally, this form of power cannot be exercised without knowing

the inside of people's minds, without exploring their souls, without

making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of

the conscience and an ability to direct it. 

Willy Wonka’s ultimate aim is to find an heir to inherit his chocolate factory based on ideals that he himself sets. Salvation in this sense is becoming the owner of the chocolate factory and each child is tested to see who is worthy of receiving this salvation. Wonka is willing to sacrifice his factory now so that he can be assured that it will continue after he is gone. Wonka has an almost god-like sense about him and he has the ability to seemingly “know the inside of people’s minds” whether through his own senses or with the help of his employees, i.e. the squirrels knowing Veruca is a bad nut. There are only two people that Wonka misreads: Charlie and his own father. 

Ultimately it is Charlie that holds the true power in the story. Unlike the other children, Charlie never knew comfort, wealth, or power in the same sense that they did but he did know love. It is this love for his family that allows him to be worthy of the chocolate factory and that teaches Willy Wonka the meaning of family. 

Power

This week I watched the ‘Hunger Games’. This film is a perfect example of power and the struggle for it, and how fragile the entire system can be. The Capital is rich and holds all the power, even though there are far fewer people living there than there are in the Districts combined. Foucault’s essay on ‘The Struggle of Power’ relates to this film perfectly. Foucault's view in ‘The Subject and Power’ is the base assumption that power is not wielded through oppression but rather through the manufacturing of "individuals". In the hunger games, 24 individuals are chosen each year to fight in the games. The games are manufactured to place the game maker (the Capital) in the position of power over the tributes (the Districts). Very few individuals are all that are needed to set a system into place.

In the essay, six main struggles are talked about. The essential quality of all these struggles, says Foucault, is that they do not oppose a group or institution but rather a mode or "technique" of power. This mode is characterized by operating in the realm of daily life. It classifies individuals into categories, ties them to their identities. The mode of power in the hunger games is the capital threatening to cut off supplies or with violence. Therefore no one does anything to cause trouble because of the potential consequences which just leaves the power in the capitals hands.

“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free.  By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. “This is an important distinction. When a slave’s body is bound, and the possibilities for basic physical mobility much less resistance and creative responses are so restricted, he is no longer considered free. This is important because the free subjects do have the ability to act and react in more than one way. Like I said previously though, people don’t want to revolt in case they suffer more. But they absolutely have the ability to do so.

We can see how the Hunger Games and Foucault’s essay relate to the world we live in. These examples range from dictatorships to the work place and more. 

Alienation as a means of suppression

The conflict between the wealthy and powerful and the poor in the Hunger Games, is fairly obvious. When we watch the movie, we are angered and upset at the entire premise: a world where children are forced into a futuristic gladiator arena and told to fight to the death. Why does such a terrible premise work?

Marx would argue that alienation is partially responsible. In the movie, the people outside the Capital are separated into districts of varying degrees of wealth. The wealthier districts enjoy luxuries as well as training centers for their children to learn to fight in the Games. The poorer districts barely scrape by with enough to eat each day.

These people are kept away from each other by walls that are guarded by armed soldiers. There is no communication between them. Now, in his essay, Marx talked more about the alienation of the worker from what he produces. However, his theory could be applied to the bigger picture. These people continue living and working exactly as they have been for decades under the brutal regime of the Capital.

It's not until Katniss unintentionally unites them that a revolution begins. When she convinces Peeta to eat the poisonous berry with her, Katniss defies the Capital and all it stands for. After the Games, she must travel to each of the districts and give a speech. President Snow wants her to put on a show and pretend she and Peeta are in love. However, once again unintentionally, Katniss sparks revolution. When she expresses sympathy for Rue's family, she shows that she has concern for people in other districts besides her own. As the film progresses, each district is shown giving the sign Katniss used. Suddenly, each is united in their hatred of the Capital. And that's exactly what such a power fears. They try to squash the rebellion with armed forces, but once united, the people continue to push.

The alienation of people from each other is one way a totalitarian regime keeps its power. When the people unite together, they outnumber everyone else. This is what the regime fears and will use any means necessary to stop it. Of course, with power comes wealth and with wealth comes better guns, but once a group of people, who have been forced to live in terrible conditions get going, they're tough to stop.

Capitalists and Roaches

In Karl Marx's essay on Alienated Labor and Black Mirror's episode of Men Against Fire, we see the damaging effects that alienation and ostracization has on a society. Marx distinguishes four aspects in his discussion on the alienation of labor: alienation from the product of one's labor, alienation from the labor process, alienation from one's basic human nature, and alienation from other human beings. Ultimately, I feel the third and fourth aspects Marx uses to distinguish labor (alienation from one's basic human nature and alienation from other human beings) can be effectively and directly correlated to the Black Mirror's episode of Men Against Fire.

The third aspect Marx discusses of alienation from one's basic human nature focuses on human identity.  Marx believes that work amounts to defining one's life purpose. The human being identifies himself in and through his work. Furthermore, Marx states that in the modern system of private ownership and division of labor, the worker is alienated from the essential source of identity and life purpose for the human species. Henceforth, this third aspect Marx discusses is focused on humans being alienated from themselves or their own personal, human identity.

The fourth aspect focuses on humans being alienated from each other. In this aspect, Marx discusses the root of the foundation of alienation between workers and the 'capitalist' or owners of the worker's product. By this alienation between the capitalists and workers, the worker consequently becomes alienated from the entire system of private property thorough which the capitalist operates. This ultimately results in a loss of the worker's sense of human identity.

In Men Against Fire, we see an example of this alienation of one's human identity and alienation of humans with other humans. In this Black Mirror episode we witness a group of government controlled soldiers, who seek to exterminate the 'Roaches'. In the beginning of the episode, the soldiers slaughter these Roaches who appear to be deformed, monstrous humanoids. However, later we find out these  Roaches are just ordinary human beings. The only difference between these Roaches and the soldiers are that the Roaches are deemed genetically inferior, and consequently they are not 'fully' human.

This is an example of a type of class warfare that Marx is alluding to. The government controlled soldiers do not view these 'Roaches' as humans, they instead see them as expendable. This can be related to how Marx describes the capitalist's relationships with the working class. The working class is viewed as expendable to the capitalists. In other words, they are viewed as sub-human, and consequently this ferments a layer of animosity that contributes to alienation amongst human beings. Ultimately, this can result in the alienation of one's own human identity.

Charlie and the Alienated Laborers

“Alienated Labor” by Foucault defines the experiences of laborers who are ostracized from society due to their socioeconomic status in many ways. One way this alienation occurs is through the lack of access for workers to the products they are creating. This element of alienation can be seen in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in the candy itself. Candy is a luxury item that is not necessary for life. The Oommpa Loompas did not have access to candy or chocolate when they were in their native land. They were brought to the factory to work to create this candy that they previously did not have access to. Their alienation is personified in the fact that they do not have an ability to acquire what they create daily at their work.

Another way that workers are ostracized is through their inability for creativity in their work. The Oommpa Loompas do not have input into the things that they create in the factory. In one scene, Willy Wonka is speaking to an Oommpa Loompa in a therapy session in which he is asking for advice for new recipes. The Oommpa Loompa stays quiet which can represent his loss of creativity and imagination. The inability to be creative and to imagine is soul crushing. Everyone seeks passion in their work but when you do not have a passion, you are working out of necessity, you lose your ability to be imaginative and creative. This inability to express your soul and create is only able to be sustained for a short period of time but will eventually dull the essence of who you are and your aspirations for future development.

One more way that laborers are alienated from society is through the idea of identity in work. Our society is obsessed with identity; it also defines identity through our work. This idea is expressed in the Oompa Loompas working in the factory. Their identity has become working in the factory. You do not see them do anything other than work. Another way this is expressed is through Willy Wonka’s identity. Wonka’s identity consists of the chocolate factory. No one in society sees anything deeper but as we can see throughout the movie, there is something deeper with the flashbacks to his childhood. The ultimate realization that the antagonist experiences is that he is propagating and becoming the very thing that he has worked so hard to eliminate. This epiphany is visualized in the point when one of his workers shows him that his emotions are expressed through the candy which is why the candy is so bad. This leads him to accepting Charlie and his family into the factory which shows Wonka as a  more human character (which, hopefully, will allow the Oompa Loompas to become individuals outside of work).