The “race” arms race in P.D. James’ Children of Men
The subject of “race” plays an interesting and largely unacknowledged role in the novel Children of Men. The term gets used without explanation or explication, but runs like a thread throughout the narrative, and I think plays an unexpectedly central role in the novel (which is overtly centralized in the film – but deflected from the character of Theo).
Theo Faron uses the term rather uncritically for an academic: he speaks of different nations undertaking a reproductive science arms race, and discussions about, if one nation solves the fertility crisis first, will it be shared with the rest of humanity? Evidently not, and this raises the possibility of a “master race” narrative for the country that solves the crisis first.
“The European Centre for Human Fertility . .. co-operated, at least overtly, with the United States. . . But there was no inter-race co-operation; the prize was too great. . . In particular we watched Japan, half-fearing this technically brilliant people might already be on the way to finding the answer” (7).
Race is the unacknowledged factor in the Sojourner debate. One does not hear of French, Belgian, Dutch “sojourners” – one is left to think that they are from the Third World. If Britain is underpopulated, why tighten the borders, and keep immigrant labor in segregated camps? Fear of contamination by miscegenation?
Theo’s own investment in race comes out in more deflected ways, but still I think plays a paramount role in the text. He is a scholar of the Victorian era, when Britain saw its empire as inheriting the civilizing mission of Greece and Rome – to bring “progress” and learning to the benighted Africans and Asians. His desire (acceptably expressed as academic interest and research) for the verities of the Victorian era come out in his attachment to the Cast Museum – plaster replicas of classical artwork. The Diadoumenos seems to be a representation of Theo’s fantasy of an earlier “Omega” – classically beautiful, aloof, triumphant. It’s clear he regards the Omegas of his own era with a kind of fear and awe. Even during the attack by the Painted Faces, his knowledge of them betrays a kind of guilty fascination (which he uses to their advantage to allow Julian to escape).
Caught up in his desire for Julian, perhaps needing to feel redeemed for the death of his own child, and perhaps to answer Huxley’s accusation of the failures of education to forestall global disaster (expressed in his 1946 Introduction to BNW – “si requiris monumentum, circumspice” – look around at Hiroshima, Auschwitz), Theo takes up the Ring of Power. Xan may have been a monster, but one thing he never did was deceive himself about his motives. Theo’s desire to protect Julian and her newborn may be genuine, but his other motives may have their origin in a nascent and unacknowledged fantasy of a reascendant Britain, and a brave new world repopulated and (re)dominated by Whitey.
alison wrote:
I don’t have anything too brilliant to contribute to what is already a very comprehensive post, but I feel a need to say something since I actually underlined the quote above in my copy of the book. I just find the entire concept of a great public debate with terms for disclosure to be fascinating. Despite the lack of “inter-race co-operation” it was “accepted that the cure, once found, would have to be shared; this was scientific knowledge which no race ought to, or could, keep to itself indefinitely.” But the issue was a privatized and secretive and suspicious one. If one race were to control the secret to reproduction they could conceviably create a world of one race. How powerful is that? But what about intra-race cooperationg? Could an entire race even unite if it tried to? Would it not be racist to do so, and then ironic that in doing so racism would be erradicated (since there would not be be multiple races)?
Posted 14 Nov 2007 at 4:17 pm ¶
Holler wrote:
As mentioned, race, although never explicitly referenced, plays a consistent if understated role in Children of Men. However, I feel that race often becomes loosely equated to culture. This may be only a technicality or difference in definitions, but I see race as the same class or kind of people and culture as what defines a race (beyond physical characteristics). Clearly the race to reproduce becomes a battle exteriorly described in physical terms. However, if we apply Theo’s historical knowledge and professorship to the situation, he wishes to brings more than Diadoumenos’ perfect form to the mix. He brings culture. During Theo’s reign, we see the Greek culture and ideologies of freedom, equality and justice in the policies he, or we assume he, will enact. Perhaps this distinction cannot separate the motives of race from culture clearly enough, but I feel that simply labelling the race for reproduction a “race” race neglects less superficial implications.
As a short response to Professor Pollack’s last paragraph, I would argue that Theo does not deceive himself as to his motives: he simply does not know what his motives are. Whether he recognizes it or not, they are grounded in the successes of classic civilizations and idealized tenets of ruling. Even if his visions of leadership are fantastical, has he deceived himself or is he simply operating in an illusion? One may argue that these are the same, but deception seems to require a level of conscious intent, whereas operating in an illusion seems to arise from an unconscious desire. Theo can be genuine without fully realizing his intentions.
Posted 15 Nov 2007 at 5:11 pm ¶
sean wrote:
Short response to Holler:
“I would argue that Theo does not deceive himself as to his motives: he simply does not know what his motives are. Whether he recognizes it or not, they are grounded in the successes of classic civilizations and idealized tenets of ruling. Even if his visions of leadership are fantastical, has he deceived himself or is he simply operating in an illusion?”
I wouldn’t disagree with this at all. And my discussion did not intend to imply that Theo is some Neo-Aryanist style racist. He is simply not conscious of his own investment in discourses of race. He does rationalize his assumption of the ring and its symbolism, the same way Xan did. It’s similar to how he says that Miriam died “in order to bring” the water to Julian – not precisely. She had her own agency and life, she was not merely the minor player in birthing the new avatar of the New World Order.
Posted 19 Nov 2007 at 10:28 am ¶
dayne wrote:
I think it is interesting how similar the depiction of race and nationalism in Children of Men is similar to the depictions of race in V for Vendetta. In that movie, homosexuals are systematically exterminated, the detective is discriminated against for being part Irish, and the movie does not show any Muslim, Asian, or Black faces, although these populations are very numerous in Britain.
It’s interesting how the concept of pure racial and national unity are central to dystopia and Utopia. After all, Hitler, in trying to make his Third Reich, espoused the virtues of aryan international brotherhood. China, despite being composed of 56 ethnicities, indeed 56 distinct cultures and races, denies any of its minorities the right to be independent or have political mainstream power. Japan and America both decimated and marginalized the native populations that lived in their respective countries before they were repopulated with the people that live there today.
I think that the idea of national purity is often a central drive in Utopia because Utopia is concerned with the perfection of society. This impulse is expressed in both the Children of Men and V for Vendetta.
Posted 03 Dec 2007 at 2:05 am ¶