‘Under the Skin’ – Linked Oppressions and Farming Humans for Consumption

by Elecia

TW: Violence

This post contains spoilers. You have been warned.

A brief plot introduction: Under the Skin by Michel Faber was published in 2000, and is one of my favourite contemporary SF novels. Isserley, the protagonist of the story, is a female extraterrestrial who leaves to work in Scotland. She works at Ablach farm and is employed by a company from her home planet to pick up male hitchhikers to be killed, processed, packaged and sent home as a delicacy for the extraterrestrial elite. The arrival of Amlis Vess, the son of Isserley’s employer and voice of animal rights in the text, forces Isserley to question some of her preconceived and learned beliefs. [Side note:  in reality, the majority of animal rights activists are women (1, 2011, Gaarder) and the decision to use an upper class male to represent the movement really bothers me]. Isserley refers to herself and other members of her species as ‘human’ although they are described as appearing more like our perception of nonhuman animals – they have four legs, a tail, long ears, a snout, large eyes and are covered in fur (110). This produces a hierarchy where the extraterrerstrial species are superior to Earth humans – who are referred to as ‘vodsels’ or ‘animals’. Straight away, language sets up a distinction between extraterrestrials and Earth humans which prevents Isserley from identifying with or even seeing Earth humans as sentient beings.

I want to begin by highlighting the interconnected oppressions at work in Under the Skin, as Faber accurately accentuates hierarchy and conditioned discrimination to show how those who experience one type of oppression can often be unconsciously supporting another. ‘Oppression is propagated by ideologies and institutions, whereby individuals are socialized to oppress and be oppressed. This creates a system of linked oppressions.’ (13, 2011, Kemmerer). Classism, sexism and speciesism are the inequalities this essay will focus on, and I am attempting to show how impossible/hypocritical it is to fight one injustice without recognizing others. These oppressions all stem from the same patriarchal root of dominance and are often codependent.

The class division between elite and working class on Isserley’s home planet is the reason she leaves. Anyone who does not belong in the upper class are forced to live and work underneath the surface of the planet in extremely crowded conditions with ‘bad food’, ‘bad air’ (64) and no medical care. Facing a life of poverty as well as ‘[d]ecay and disfigurement’ (64), Isserley sees no alternative but to accept the job on Earth. Just as a quick reality check, US factory farm workers are often undocumented immigrants who are exploited by working long shifts for little money to maximise profits. In the UK, a quarter of ‘farmers’ live below the poverty line with little opportunity to work at different occupations. I am in no way attempting to justify factory farming, merely pointing out one point of intersection between speciesism and classism. Furthermore, despite being from the lower class herself, Isserley has internalized class hate and often calls the farm butchers ‘estate trash’ (91). Isserley’s perception of herself as superior because she believes her role as deliverer of ‘goods’ is more valuable is just one example of how the oppressed in turn becomes the oppressor of another group.

In order for Isserley to live and work amongst the Earth humans, she is forced to undergo incredibly painful surgery. She is told to only obtain male ‘vodsels’ as, typically, they have more muscle mass than females and so produce more meat. The company decided that a female extraterrestrial would be more effective in enticing and easing the hitchhikers into revealing any family who might notice an absence. So, using Earth magazines containing pictures of Earth women, Isserley has surgery to force her body into an upright ‘vodsel’ shape, removing her tail, ears and teats. She is given large artificial breasts designed with the magazines as a guide. As a result, Isserley is plagued with incessant back pain, not to mention having to frequently shave her entire body to remove her natural fur – practically eliminating her personal identity. Faber’s ability to present the narrow portrayal of women in media is quite accurate, demonstrating how attempting to attain the contemporary Western beauty standard often results in both physical and mental suffering. When Isserley becomes particularly upset ‘over what had been done to her once beautiful body’ (64), she imagines what her life might have been like on the New Estates, thus competently weaving issues of sex and class together.

Consequently, Isserley is oppressed by being both working class and female. How can she continue to oppress other groups after experiencing the misery of oppression herself? I have already discussed the role of language in creating a barrier between ‘humans’ and ‘vodsels’. This is intensified by the myth widely spread by the extraterrestrial species that Earth humans are merely ‘vegetables on legs’ (171), as if ‘vodsels’ are insentient, unconscious, unaware or unintelligent objects. In reality, it is (for the most part) known that nonhuman animals are sentient beings capable of emotions and thought. However, despite gorillas and monkeys being able to communicate through sign language and pigs having higher cognitive abilities than dogs and young humans, the argument that nonhuman animals are less intelligent than (and thus, inferior to) humans is used as a justification for consuming them. Using intelligence as a reason for discrimination should not be tolerated in relation to humans, yet it is the norm for subjugating nonhuman animals. In 1780 Jeremy Bentham wrote ‘The question is not Can they reason? Or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?’ Yes, they can suffer. So why do humans exploit them?

Although Isserley is aware that Earth humans have a language, she attempts to justify their oppression by telling herself that ‘vodsels couldn’t do any of the things that really defined a human being’ (174). Therefore, difference to the extraterrestrial species is the only reason for their persecution. Isserley feels an affinity towards nonhuman animals because she is able to identity with their appearance. She describes a sheep by saying ‘[i]t was so hard to believe that the creature couldn’t speak … there was something deceptively human about it’ (63). Despite her obvious sympathy, she still objectifies the sheep, most likely because the power structure is so deeply ingrained within her consciousness.

Finally, the oppressions discussed combine to create the continuity of Ablach farm. After capture, the Earth humans are ‘shaved, castrated, fattened, intestinally modified, chemically purified’ (97) until they look like ‘hairless pink animals’ (97). In reality, ‘[f]armed animals are genetically and physically manipulated from birth to premature death’ (19, Kemmerer). Chickens, for example, have been intensively selectively bred to increase their size in a very small amount of time, reaching twice the size of chickens living 50 years ago. Unnatural growth puts pressure on their legs and causes horrible suffering. In Under the Skin, there is an instance where some ‘vodsels’ attempt escape. They can barely walk under the excess weight, let alone make a dash for freedom. The natural lifespan of a chicken is around 7 years. In a factory farm, laying hens live for 2 years or less. Broiler chickens (chickens raised for consumption) are slaughtered from 6-14 weeks of age. In the novel, Isserley doesn’t capture men over middle-age. All ‘food’ animals die young, after experiencing unnatural grown and severe pain.

Isserley has never actually entered the farm or slaughterhouse until the arrival of Amlis Vess. Have you ever heard the quote ‘if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian’? The farming industry is very secretive and hidden from most of our experiences. Isserley separates her work from the process of mutilating, feeding and killing the earth humans, much like how people who eat meat are distanced from the living being that died to become their food. After deciding to visit the farm, she notes that the cages are grimy and cramped, and that a horrid stench fills the air (168). Isserley escaped the crowded and dirty environment of the New Estates, but cannot comprehend that the farm setting is very similar to the life she faced. Again, language helps her block the connection as she refers to caged Earth humans as ‘livestock’ (168) and maintains that the ‘vodsels’ are ‘slowly maturing towards their destiny’ (170) as if they fundamentally exist to provide food for Isserley’s species. In truth, the majority of farmed nonhuman animals are kept in dirty, small cages for the entirety of their lives, exploited for human ends. Following this visit, Isserley also asks to watch the slaughter of the Earth humans. The butcher ‘slashed the arteries in the vodsel’s neck, then stood back as a jet of blood gushed out’ (219). Afterwards, the Chief Processor tells Isserley ‘We are doing a job here… Feelings don’t enter into it’ (219). His perspective clearly shows that separation of emotion is necessary when slaughtering living beings. Therefore, the perceived inferiority and otherness of the ‘vodsels’, combined with their objectification and finally the divorce of emotional and ethical obligation from consciousness allows their continued subjugation. This is the foundation systematic oppression blooms from.

I wish I was able to provide a smooth conclusion to this (rather long) post. If you’ve made it this far, I hope this has been somewhat concise, but I am guilty of poor planning and almost engaging in a stream of consciousness style (that’s the only problem with writing, once I start I find it difficult to stop). Honestly, I was unsatisfied with the ending of the novel. I’ve spilled enough, I really recommend you read it and form your own opinion. There has been so much content I wanted to discuss – the differences between class and types of food, the relationship between Isserley and Amlis Vess, sexual violence, SF and otherness, Isserley’s identity as both extraterrestrial and human… I also haven’t completely captured how disturbing killing and eating humans is, and I experienced a large amount of discomfort following the descriptions of the farm. Under the Skin is particularly thought-provoking and while I don’t agree with some of Faber’s choices, I’ve been contemplating this novel for weeks.

A few notes:

I found a brilliant essay available online by Sarah Dillon discussing how language creates species differentiation in the text for further reading here.

Strangely for me, I watched the film before I was aware the text existed. The film is interesting, but focuses on the journey of a female alien beginning to sympathise with humans. In my opinion, the main theme of the book concerns the ethics of industrialised farming, and by erasing this, the emotional impact of the original story is removed. 

Surprisingly enough, Michel Faber is not a vegetarian, he just doesn’t agree with present farming techniques. I have no time for the ‘humans are naturally omnivorous’ debate as just because we can process both plants and animals doesn’t necessarily mean we should.  

 

Other Resources

Under the Skin. Michel Faber (2000), 2014.

Women and the Animal Rights Movement. Emily Gaader, 2011.

Sister Species: Women, Animals, and Social Justice. Ed. Lisa Kemmerer, 2011.