石黑一雄《別讓我走》中的反烏托邦呈現

Dystopia Represented in Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go

本文旨在探究石黑一雄《別讓我走》（2005）中的反烏托邦政治再現，透過國際關係理論的新馬克思主義觀點，剖析20世紀新自由制度主義，公共衛生優生學的倫理議題，筆者聚焦於小說中的複製人，即便有自己的意識及情緒，仍被人類豢養而提供移植的器官。即使學者曾在早先研究中，透過馬克斯主義探究歷史流變如何影響大國間的政治光譜、或者新自由制度主義在現代性及全球化的浪潮之下，如何增進人類經濟活動之福祉，亦或是新自由制度主義，回過頭使得貧富差距變大等議題已有著墨；但新自由制度主義下的優生學倫理議題，在國內人文學門中以及小說文本分析應用上卻鮮少被提及與應用。因此本文作者輔以反烏托邦小說裡人物之言說敘事、複製人的口述見證來勾勒二十世紀新自由制度主義下一體兩面中的善與惡，進一步點出新自由制度主義優生學政治光譜的可能不良後果。人類面對有如實驗室功能的寄宿學校，照顧並豢養著寄宿生，但實際上，他們是一群不被當作正常人類的複製人，只是一群提供器官移植的複製人。其最終結果，究竟是為人類集體公共健康帶來福祉，有如烏托邦一般促進社會繁榮；亦或反倒是造成倫理界線崩壞，進而使複製人器官成為財團利益下的犧牲品並被不當利用而犧牲，而導致反烏托邦的下場？再者，新馬克思理論的「孤立」與「疏離」概念符合小說中複製人被豢養著，集體與世隔絕，再再都點出人類以公共健康為名，行不法侵害生命權利為實，使得跨國生醫集團有機可趁。

This paper mainly scrutinizes dystopian consequences with the rise and invention of clones as the production under ''neoliberal eugenics'' in Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go (2005). The problematic reality presented by ''neoliberal eugenics'' through technological advancement is understood and pointed out by many social science humanists as with irreversible consequences. The standpoint in this paper questions the relationship between clones and humans as part of sociopolitical schema. The research result will attest to moral boundary at the price of sacrificing clones' life so as to save humans'. The author intends to contextualize ''neoliberal eugenics'' that has dominated human public health for decades in order to project out the problematic reality forged by it. In IR theories, Neo-Marxism in terms of ''estrangement,'' and ''alienation'' will be adopted to critique on ''neoliberal eugenics.'' Based on Ishiguro's science fiction Never Let Me Go, this paper mainly critiques ''neoliberal eugenics'' under which clones serve as part of modernity project in medication. The author of this paper holds the ground that the invention of clones might not necessarily better humans' life, but instead impairs a certain relationship between clones and humans because the dystopian consequence-- organs theft and trafficking-- is unexpectedly to emerge. And clones serve as the source of surgical transplantation with organs extracted to humans. According to Kathy, Tommy and Ruth as ''donors,'' the world turns out to be ''dystopia.'' The author argues that the creation of clones serving and being prepared as organ donors will not only lead to the collapse of moral boundary between humans and clones, but also put humans into the emotional dilemma to treat clones in the formation of men. A fundamental ethical question is: Are clones humans?