The film Gattaca (1997) offers an interesting view of what life could be like if science perfected the ability to determine all aspects of human life prior to birth. The social element related to discrimination was particularly intriguing, as I could certainly see it becoming a reality. Humans seem to crave a power structure of dominance, and if everything were able to be controlled genetically it seems reasonable that those who were not crafted to be perfect would be considered lowly, even if they had the potential to be amazing.
The conflict between talents and gifts, determination and fate, though common, is presented in a refreshing way. A story of triumph, Vincent is able to succeed once he is given opportunity to do so, despite the potential for him to die of a heart condition at any moment. He finds a loophole to operate within, albeit an illegal one, and disproves the notion that one is limited by their perceived potential. Raw talent and determination is able to beat those genetically engineered to be better. At the end of the film Vincent achieves his dream to go to space, while Jerome, a 'near perfect specimen', kills himself in a fire, unable to live with himself because he failed to succeed despite given every possible opportunity.
Interestingly enough, however, the film does not directly argue for or against eugenics itself. While those who are designed to be perfect are portrayed as snobby and judgmental, there is more emphasis on the need to the end discrimination, and there is in fact no call to end eugenics altogether. This makes sense as the use of eugenics within the film seems to simply be a metaphor for other social issues. Gattaca argues that all people have value, and that to hold someone back because of perceived potential does nothing to aid anyone.
Though a bit odd, I would like to tie this message back to the American school system. Schools judge children from an early age, categorizing them even in the first years of their elementary careers. "Smart" kids are told they are so, and are praised and awarded. "Dumb" kids are those who don't immediately shine, who aren't able to learn at the same pace as the "standard" kids in the middle, and who certainly don't compete with the "smart" kids. Children are divided into these levels, "smart", "standard", and "dumb" for the first time in kindergarten, and upward mobility is nearly impossible after this initial year. The "smartest of the smart" are often further tested, and categorized as "gifted", an elite bunch that are given special opportunities to shine outside of the classroom, presented with activities that the "lesser" children "simply cannot handle". As one goes down the scale opportunities are lessened and lessened as hope is lost and the children are set aside, their fate decided for them. School systems tend to disregard the potential of their lowest-achieving students without giving them opportunity to prove themselves otherwise. Half the time it seems these kids are only "lesser" because they were treated as lesser in their early educations, demotivated early on and determined to fulfill the prophecy they were given.
I had a lot of personal experience with these different intelligence levels in my public school career. Though tested for the gifted program, I failed, which came as a surprise. My sister and most of my friends were in the program however, which made me feel lesser. It actually really screwed up my self-confidence during elementary and middle school. Anyway, this hurt myself and the other elementary non-gifted students in multiple ways. First off, the best teachers were always put in charge of the gifted classrooms. While there weren't gifted enough kids to fill an entire class, they took up a good chunk of it, and on the day of the week when they were all gone to do their special activities the loss of their presence was really felt. Secondly, they were able to learn a lot more valuable material, which gave them real world applications to concepts the rest of us were merely imagining. While we lesser children were left to learn the basics, they spent the day playing brain games and solving puzzles, learning what was at that point upper-level (really just middle school) science, learning the fundamentals of engineering, and bonding into a tight-knit group. Finally, they would become upset if anyone else got to do a special activity, as they couldn't see how we were limited. To them the gifted activities were work, something that they had to do. They didn't appreciate what they had because they didn't know what it was like to go without. It seemed unfair to them that we ever got to "have fun" without them, despite us constantly living with the reverse.
In middle school, it didn't get much better, as the gifted kids from all the elementary schools were combined into the same "team", once again being given the best teachers and more advanced classes. The truest example of the division of better and worse students came in seventh grade, when my schedule forced me to be in the remedial science class. It was the only one that fit with my other classes, and I was told that there was no other option. I asked to be with the gifted students, which would have solved the issue without causing anyone else trouble (same team, would have simply flipped two of my classes), but they wouldn't allow it. God forbid they put me with kids who were, as they all admitted, on my level (but labeled above me). The class I was in was eye opening. The kids were considered hopeless, tossed together so that they wouldn't "burden" anyone else. Thankfully the teacher did not see them that way, and though she sometimes had to explain things a bit differently she treated them the same as she did all the others. What I learned in that class was that those kids were good, valuable, worth the damn that the school wasn't willing to give them. Sure, there wasn't the "miracle story" where they all suddenly cared about their educations more than anything else, but while they were in there they really tried. The teacher saw that they had potential, and she worked to unlock it rather than just get them through. The second major division example came in eighth grade, when I was told the non-gifted history classes were learning only up to the late 1800s, while the gifted class continued through the roaring twenties and the two world wars. When I asked why we were being shorted such knowledge my teacher looked me in the eye, smiled, and said, "Well, although you could probably handle it, your peers probably couldn't." Limitation based on potential. Just as Vincent was held back, so were we. Reminder: we were twelve and thirteen. A bunch of preteens told we couldn't handle the truths of the world we would have to face as adults. In the years where we could be most influenced by the words of those around us, we were told that we were unworthy.
My high school didn't have anything to do with the gifted program, as most don't, and the leveling of the playing field allowed myself and many others to properly compete with and surpass many of the gifted kids (I was third in my class, beating out all but two of them). Once we were given opportunity we ran with it, proving that this categorization which had once held us back was nothing more than an obstacle for our success. Even kids who were told they would certainly fail enrolled in honors (and to a more minor extent AP) courses, where even if they didn't get A's they were treated like actual students. Limitations in the school system clearly did more harm than good for us.
Although more roundabout and less about Gattaca than I had intended, I think that it's important to note that limitation based on potential can affect a person's entire life. Categorization by the school system, while somewhat necessary, is handled entirely incorrectly. Kids who fall below the highest level are withheld from opportunities that could spark their passions or give real-world value to concepts on textbook pages. Kids who fall below the standard line are considered a burden and typically have few to no opportunities, often sitting in classrooms doing busy work rather than learning anything of value. Students carry the labels they are given until they graduate, and they are treated differently because of them. I was told many a time that I had the intelligence and talents to succeed in the gifted classes, but was refused access because my transcript said that I couldn't. Though all students could take honors and AP classes in high school, many were talked out of them because guidance counsellors assumed they would fail and used this belief as a scare tactic. I'm not saying that everyone can succeed in all situations, because I know that's unrealistic. But everyone should be given the chance to succeed or fail. The problem with the school system is far more complicated than I could possibly get to here, as I could talk about it for hours. What I'm basically trying to say is that I think I enjoyed Gattaca as much as I did because I could relate to it. I'd experienced a struggle similar to Vincent's, and was able to succeed despite it.
People shouldn't be held back based on perceived potential, especially when the circumstances are out of their control. Kids shouldn't be considered lesser because they learn more slowly than their peers. Some kids talk sooner than others, but the later talkers sometimes communicate more clearly. Rather than forcing students forward we should focus on the learning itself. Students should be allowed to master concepts before moving on to the next one, and slower learning needs to be de-stigmatized.
Sorry to go off on another tangent there, and sorry about the length of this post. I'm just really passionate about the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment