Astheovercoatofcreatioexnihiloisturnedinsideout,whatfacesoutis the creation of what remains. The proliferation of being-there is the denouementof the biopoliticalcreation myth,rather than the worst-case scenario thatbio-thanato-powermightcome up against.Viewing from this perspective, little wonder that Moreau’s biopolitical project of human engineering isdoomed to fail.Neitherisitoffthemark to say thatthe small-scalefailureofMoreau’s“humanizingprocess”isacapsulecontaining the large-scale failure of bio-power. Agamben is very explicit about
Being-There: The Ontology of Biopower in H. G. Wells’ … 207
counter-productivenessofbio-powerwhenheaversthattheinstallationof“the anthropologicalmachineofthemoderns”endsupnotsomuchinhumanizing theanimalasinanimalizingthehuman:“itfunctionsbyexcludingasnot(yet) humananalreadyhumanbeingfrom itself,thatis,byanimalizingthehuman”
(2004:37).Itisthesamemechanismsof“inclusiveexclusion”thatareupand running in Moreau’s “humanizing process,” the end-pointof which,not surprisingly,seesthechurningoutofthe“not(yet)human,”the“being-there” of“thestubbornbeastflesh”thatgivesdevastatingtwiststothemorphologyof BeastPeople.Hencethebiopoliticalimportofthe“reversion”ofBeastPeople backtoanimals.AsasuresignofMoreau’sfailure,thediscernible“reversion”
clearlytracesthefatedreversalofthehumanizationoftheanimalsintothe animalization of the human,and correlatively the mutualimplication of bio-powerandthanato-power.The“stubbornbeastflesh,”Iwillargue,ishence the“nakedcorporeality”atonceengenderedbytheanthropologicalmachine andbearingtestimonytoitsmalfunctioning.
Onthesurface,thefailureofMoreau’selaborategraftingsurgeryseemsto arisefrom technicaldifficulties.Therearesomebodyparts,Moreauadmits, whicharenotreadyto“graftingandreshaping,”suchasclaws,hands,brain, andlastbutnotleast,“somewhere...intheseatoftheemotions”(Moreau, 78).Butthehurdlesturnouttobesooverwhelminglytremendousthatthe technicalproblemsbecomedoom:“alwaysIfallshortofthethingsIdream”
(Moreau,78).Howeverresourcefulandarroganthemaybe,Moreauhasto admitdefeatwhenhefindstheanimaltraitshehastakenpainstoeliminate startsneakingbacktotheBeastFolkoneafteranother:“somehow thethings driftbackagain,thestubbornbeastfleshgrows,daybyday,backagain....” (Moreau,77).Prendickprovidesbountifulofevidencetoprovethetruthfulness ofthe“reversionofthebeastfolk,”amongwhichweseethe“losingshape andimport”oflanguage,walkingonallfours,“drinkingbysuction,”andso
Yen-bin Chiou 208
on and so forth (Moreau,122-23).If Moreau has been dreaming of accelerating evolution by vivisection and grafting surgery, the relentless counter-evolutionasisshownbythestriking“reversion”burstshisbubble.
Asthe animalization ofthe human comesto challenge hisprojectof humanizingtheanimal,Moreauisdoomedtotakeahumiliatingbeatingin everyshowdown.Prendickhasattributedallthetragicfailureto“ablindfate” (Moreau,96).The attribution is absolutely justifiable,given the fate is describedas“avastpitilessmechanism”(Moreau,96)thatoperatesalongthe same line with the life-making apparatusofbio-power.Justasbio-power excludeszoē from the always-already-politicized zoē quabios,so thatthe
“blindfate”wieldsitsrelentlesspowerby“cut[ting]andshap[ing]thefabricof existence” (Moreau,96).In otherwords,there isno mysteriousoverlord pullingthestrings.Itisthebio-politicalsynchronizationofcuttingandshaping thatleadsMoreauandhisvictimstotheireventualdownfall.Moreworthyof noteisthefactthatthebiopoliticalfatefallstoitsowndoom.Forallits clutches,theripitcausesin“thefabricofexistence”itweavespredestinesthe wholeattireoflifetofallapartatseams.The“stubbornbeastflesh”isthe threadbareragsthatremain,persistentlystaying“there”tosoundtheknellfor themalfunctioningbio-power.
Infact,therepulsivemorphologyofBeastPeoplehasshownthesignof the failure ofMoreau’sbiopoliticalenterprise,way before the irreversible degenerationbefallinghiscreatures.Atfirstglance,thetechniquesinvolvedin Moreau grafting surgery are the technologiesofbio-powerasdefined by Foucault.Whenherecallshisearlyforay,Moreauthusdescribeshow heputs ahugeamountofworkintochangingagorilla:“Alltheweek,nightandday, Imouldedhim.Withhim itwaschieflythebrainthatneededmoulding;much hadtobeadded,muchchanged”(Moreau,76).Moreau’sremembranceofhis toil repeats Foucault’s genealogical description of bio-techniques almost
Being-There: The Ontology of Biopower in H. G. Wells’ … 209
verbatim.Tohumanizetheanimalentails“moulding”andaddinghumantraits to theanimallife.Involved in thisundertaking isnoticeably aprocessof addition,ofshapingzoē intobiosbyinvestingitwitheveryneededaptitude, withaview toformingaparadisiacalbodyintheend.
However,theeeriehybridityofBeastPeoplemarksthepointwhereWells and Foucaultdiverge.Moreau’s“humanizing process” ispresented in this novellaastheAristotelianmomentofhisexperimentalphysiology,inabidto travestythebiopoliticaldream ofhumanengineering.Revealedinthehybridity oftheBeastPeopleisthefirstpeculiarityofbiopoliticalontology:i.e.zoē (animallife)isalwaysalreadyimplicatedinbios(goodhumanlife),sothat zoē is the always-already-politicized zoē qua bios. Wells pushes this Aristotelianmomenttoitslogicalend,satanicallyturningtheproductofthe anthropologicalmachine from the qualified good life,as is intended by bio-power,into grotesque hybrids.Isthere any otherfigure thatismore suitabletoembodythealways-already-politicizedzoē quobiosthanBeast(zoē) People(bios)?Giventhedeformedlifeisconsideredasthemostaptfigurefor thegoodform oflife,itmakeslittlesensetodistinguishhumanbeingsassuch from BeastPeople.A fundamentaltruth revealed in TheIsland ofDoctor Moreauisthat,beitthemalecitizenswhoareentitledtohumanintercourse inthepolis,orthosewell-disciplinedbodiesontheshopfloor,theyareall BeastPeople,aslongastheyarehumanbeings.LittlewonderPrendickfinds ithardtodifferentiate“oneofthebovinecreatureswhoworkedthelaunch treading heavily through theundergrowth,”from “somereally human yokel trudginghomefrom hismechanicallabours”(Moreau,84).Itcomesasstill lessofasurprisethathe,when back in London,findsiteven harderto convincehimselfthat“themenandwomenImetwerenotalsoanother,still passablyhuman,BeastPeople,animalshalf-wroughtintotheoutwardimageof human souls”(Moreau,130).Prendick’scynicism bespeaksnotso much a
Yen-bin Chiou 210
tributetoGulliverashisappreciationofAristotle,whosepoliticaldiscourse, oncereadthroughtheAgambenianoptic,hasalreadyanticipatedtheupending ofthehumanengineeringprojectandprefiguredthefatedfailureofbio-power.
Wells’critiqueofbio-powerwilllosemuchofitstrenchancyifhedoes notunderlinethedeliberateinflictionofexcruciatingpainimposeduponBeast People.Theprocessofaddition,asI’veargued,doesnotexhausttheoperation ofanthropologicalmachineinitsentirety.Wellsseemstobefullycognizantof thecomplexitiesinherentinthebiopoliticalprojectofhumanengineering.The inflictionofpain,whichcorrespondstotheprocessofsubtractionIdiscuss above,isthenthrowninforgoodmeasuretoaccountforwhythebiopolitical projectfallsthrough.Thecitizensinthepolisortheablelaborersontheshop floorwouldfindtheirdoppelgängerin BeastPeople,primarilybecausethe humanityandanimalityinthem arenotjustbeingaddedupandmeldedintoa pleasingunity.Beastpeopleisnotahybridspecieswhichisatoncehuman and animal,butneitherhuman noranimal.Assoon asMoreau’sscalpel incisionleavesitsfirstpainfulmarkonhisvictims,thefabricofBeastPeople thuscreatedisrippedoff.Alongsidetheself-declaredprocessofaddition,the extrememeasuresofsubtractiongetsunderwayatthesametime,whichare generally intended to search, isolate, and then exclude, or in Wells’ phraseology,“burn out” the undesirable animaltraits from the emerging qualifiedlife.Thuscreated,Beastpeoplearereducedtothemereexistence deprivedofthegoodform ofhumanlife,insofarastheincisionamountsto themutilationofzoē quabios.NeitherareBeastPeopleanimalsanylonger,in thattheincisionscaristestimonytotheexclusionofzoēfrom withintheir being.BeastPeoplehenceareneitherhumannoranimal,andthat’swhythey arebornwithrepulsivelooks.Theinflictionofpainthusbringsthebiting critiqueinherentinthehideousmake-upofBeastPeopletoitscompletion.The painrequisiteforthemakingofbiosturnsthebenignityofbio-powerinside
Being-There: The Ontology of Biopower in H. G. Wells’ … 211
outandshowsusitshorridfront.Atthispointintime,ajointventureof bio-powerandthanato-powerrearsitshead,somuchsothatthewell-meant creationofbiosendsupbecomingtheruthlesschoppingofthebiosinthe making.Inview ofthis,itisforgoodreasonstotakevivisectionliterally:
vivi-section,the“life-dissecting.”Thusunderstood,vivi-sectionturnsouttobe a metaphor for the mutualimplication of bio-power and thanato-power. Vivi-section,which involvesa setofelaborate medicaltechniquesforthe creationofaqualifiedlife,isatthesametimeacuttingwhichslitslifeopen withaview toisolatingandbanishingzoē (animaltraits)from thealways alreadypoliticizedzoē quabios(thequalifiedlifeinthemaking).
Wells’polemicsagainstbio-powerdonotleaveoffatthispoint.Moreau’s failureistwiceassuredwhenthereversionoftheBeastFolkismoreandmore perceptible.Ifthecrosscontaminationofthepoweroflifeandpoweroverlife assuresthefirstdefeatofbio-power,itistheninthegripofanotherbeating:
the zoē itexpels turns monstrous and persistently returns to harass and challengetheorderingitimposesonlife.“Thestubbornbeastflesh”growing backontheBeastPeopleisexactlythezoē whichisexcludedfrom thealways already politicized zoē quabios,the“naked corporeality”which cannotbe explained,defined,andaccountedforbythebiopoliticalgridofintelligibility.
Asanimalityisfoundwaxingandhumanitywaning,theregrettablereversion oftheBeastFolkisprettyconclusive.Thereversioninquestionisactuallyan actofdenudationthatstripstheBeastFolkofonehumantraitafteranother, and theanimality they gradually regresstoward isin turn created by this
“event.”Itistheincreasinglossofhumanitythatmakesfortheincreasinggain ofanimality,notviceversa.Itcannotbearguedtheotherwayroundbecause everysignofreversionisestablishedwiththe“Law”astheultimatepointof reference.“Nottogoonall-Fours;thatistheLaw.ArewenotMen?”the Law thusdictates(Moreau,59),soanyBeastManwhoisfound“runningon
Yen-bin Chiou 212
toesand finger-tips,and quite unable to recoverthe verticalattitude” is diagnosedwithreversionbeyondanydoubt(Moreau,123).Everydemeanor dictatedbyanimalityisinterpretedasadeviationfrom thecourseofhumanity, sothateveryrevelationofanimalityisrenderedpossiblebythedeprivationof humantraits.Thereisnosuchthingasunalloyedanimalitytogobackto, preciselybecauseitisthedwindlingofhumanitythatbringsanimalityinto view.Thuscreated,animalityisnota“state,”butadynamicprocessinthe midstofwhich“thestubbornbeastfleshgrows,”asifthefleshwerefreshly sprouted.Bywayofillustration,Iquotethefollowingpassageatfulllengthto seehow thefleshoftheBeastPeopledevelopsshortlyaftertheyaredenuded of“humansemblance:”
Itwould beimpossibleto detailevery step ofthelapsing ofthese monsters;to tellhow,day by day,thehuman semblanceleftthem;
how theygaveupbandagingandwrappings,abandonedatlastevery stitch ofclothing;how the hairbegan to spread overthe exposed limbs;how theirforeheadsfellawayandtheirfactprojected;how the quasi-humanintimacyIhadpermittedmyselfwithsomeofthem inthe firstmonthofmylonelinessbecameahorrortorecall.(Moreau,123)
Createdinthemidstofdenudation,thegraduallyemergingfleshcomesto traptheBeastFolkinaprocessthatisevenmoreliminalthanthebeast-man state.WhenMoreau’sscalpelincisionleavesitsfirstmarkonhishandpicked beasts,they becomebeast-men,coming into existence asahybrid species whichisneitherhumannoranimal.Hideousthoughtheymaylook,thereisno shortageofthefleetingmomentsof“quasi-intimacy”inwhichPrendickmay findsolaceduringhislonelysojournintheisland.Thisisnottoaverthat BeastPeopleareunambiguouslyhumanbeforethesignsofreversionarein evidence.Nothing isfurtherfrom hismind than theharmoniousunion of
Being-There: The Ontology of Biopower in H. G. Wells’ … 213
animalityandhumanity,zoē andbiosin BeastMen whenthey areinhis company.Theintimacyhethenisluxuriatinginiswaymoreapparentthan real.Afterall,it’s“quasi-intimacy.”Therepulsivenessofthealways-alrea dy-politicizedzoē quabiosbecomestolerable,simplybecause“thestubbornbeast flesh”juststeppingintohisview ismorehorrifyingthanever.
IfBeastPeople are neitherhuman noranimal,the flesh justrapidly sprouting from theirbodiestransfiguresthem into non-BeastPeople,so to speak.The processinvolved in the making ofthe non-BeastPeople has nothingtodowith“makingapositivebymultiplyingtwonegatives.”IfBeast Peopleisasfarfrom beinghumanasfrom beinganimal,non-BeastPeopleare nottheBeastPeopleturning positive,eitherbecomingBeastsorPeopleas such.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatnon-BeastPeoplecan’tpossiblybehuman, insofarastheirhideousexistence isnoticeably furtherremoved from the category of humanity.Neitherdo the degenerating BeastPeople become ordinary animals,because“thesecreatures,”asPrendick observes,“did not declineintosuchbeastsasthereaderhasseeninzoologicalgardens”(Moreau, 124).In consequence,the being ofnon-BeastPeople are relegated to an ontologicaldoublebind,assuminganexistencethatisallthemoreliminalthan the interstitial being of BeastPeople.If Beast People are non-huma n-and-non-animal,“thestubbornanimalflesh”makesthesepatheticdegenerating
IfBeastPeople are neitherhuman noranimal,the flesh justrapidly sprouting from theirbodiestransfiguresthem into non-BeastPeople,so to speak.The processinvolved in the making ofthe non-BeastPeople has nothingtodowith“makingapositivebymultiplyingtwonegatives.”IfBeast Peopleisasfarfrom beinghumanasfrom beinganimal,non-BeastPeopleare nottheBeastPeopleturning positive,eitherbecomingBeastsorPeopleas such.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatnon-BeastPeoplecan’tpossiblybehuman, insofarastheirhideousexistence isnoticeably furtherremoved from the category of humanity.Neitherdo the degenerating BeastPeople become ordinary animals,because“thesecreatures,”asPrendick observes,“did not declineintosuchbeastsasthereaderhasseeninzoologicalgardens”(Moreau, 124).In consequence,the being ofnon-BeastPeople are relegated to an ontologicaldoublebind,assuminganexistencethatisallthemoreliminalthan the interstitial being of BeastPeople.If Beast People are non-huma n-and-non-animal,“thestubbornanimalflesh”makesthesepatheticdegenerating