Hobbes, Rousseau, and Ambiguity in “Blade Runner” (1982)

Blade Runner (1982) is a film defined by ambiguity. While exploring fear, reality, and humanity, the movie poses more questions about these topics than it answers. Even the so-called “conclusion” of the movie asks the audience to determine whether Deckard is human rather than plainly providing the answer. This ambiguity accomplishes one of the main purposes of the film, which is to blur the line of what it means to be human. While the replicants are man-made, they look and act in many ways as human as their human peers. The Tyrell Corporation’s motto is “More human than human,” after all (Scott). This ambiguity also serves to create uncertainty about human nature. The film presents two conflicting ideas regarding human nature: Hobbes’s State of Nature, comprised of fear and lack of justice, is demonstrated in the style of the film, reminiscent of film noir. Rousseau’s State of Nature, comprised of pity and a lack of knowledge, comes through in the film’s characters. The ambiguity surrounding what it means to be human allows these conflicting ideas to be applied to both humans and replicants, which in turn raises more questions about human nature. However, by questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between humans and replicants at all, the film ultimately sides with Rousseau.

1. Summary of Hobbes’s Leviathan

In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, he explores the origin of government by first establishing the state humans are in before it is created. He considers this to be the State of Nature or the State of War. Hobbes’ State of Nature begins with all men being generally equal in all traits (strength, knowledge, etc.). Hobbes sees this group of generally equal men fighting over a set of limited resources. If there is not enough of each resource to go to each man, there will inevitably be a conflict between those who have and those who want to have. Seeking another man’s resources is not unjust in the State of Nature. In fact, there is no justice in the State of Nature at all. Hobbes considers justice/injustice and right/wrong to be manmade constructs, just like laws and government. Until there can be laws against something, man cannot do anything wrong. Upon exiting the State of Nature, justice and injustice will begin to exist.

Fear of death and a desire for what he doesn’t have are the two guiding principles in the State of Nature that allow mankind to reach beyond it. Each man is inclined to fear every other man because he could pose a threat to him. Constant fear for his life creates a desire for the opposite: security. By creating a social contract rather than fearing one another, mankind can reach a state of peace. In creating this social contract, man also gives up his right to oppose it. According to Hobbes, “nor can any law be made, till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it” (Zink, 16). The act of “signing” the social contract is also the act of accepting the person who will make the laws and the laws themselves, which are one and the same. Because of this distinction, and because no laws exist before the signing of the social contract, the laws then become equivalent to justice.

Hobbes also identifies the three reasons behind conflict: “First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Hobbes, 15). The first and second reasons refer to competition over limited resources. A man who intends to take something from another man in order to gain for himself is fighting for competition. A man who intends to protect that which is already his from others who might desire to take it, including his life, is fighting for diffidence. A man who fights for glory intends to gain credit, be it for his strength or for his victory. Without one of these three reasons for conflict, there will be peace by default.

2. Summary of Rousseau’s Second Treatise

In Rousseau’s Second Treatise, he explores human nature and the origin of inequality. He blatantly rejects Hobbes’s State of Nature, preferring nearly the opposite. Rousseau’s State of Nature assumes a man with limited mental capacity but much stronger physical ability and an impulse for compassion, something Hobbes does not identify in man. He highlights compassion in many cases, from a motherly instinct to an emotional man at the theater. Compassion, he argues, is so fundamental that it existed even when mankind knew the least. Compassion is the quality that makes man in the State of Nature inherently good, as opposed to Hobbes’ man who is neither good nor evil.

There is little difference between men and animals in this state, but the differences are significant. One of the most important qualities Rousseau identifies in humans and not in animals is that of free agency. Unlike animals who follow their instincts unconditionally, Rousseau sees humans as “at liberty to acquiesce or resist” these instincts (Zink, 36). This concept comes primarily from knowledge and human’s ability to conceive of alternative actions. Rousseau identifies a pigeon who would rather starve than eat a steak, because it could not conceive of even eating a steak, even if the steak could allow the pigeon to survive. Man, on the other hand, would be able to conceive of eating a steak and would choose to survive, even if he had not eaten steak previously (Zink, 36).

A lack of knowledge is the exact thing that keeps men in the state of nature. Until man has knowledge, he will be unable to conceive of a social contract or a society. He can only conceive of the things he already knows: his immediate wants and instincts. Once many is aware of the possibility of a social contract, or merely aware of himself, he has begun to rise from the state of nature. Any natural laws presumed to exist before the state of nature could only have been conceived after man began to rise from it.

3. The Hobbesian World of Blade Runner

While analyzing a film that mimics film noir, the style must be at the forefront of the conversation. The terse dialogue of film noir is not where the majority of philosophical questions can be asked and answered. Instead, it’s the style that both creates and communicates the characters’ worldviews (Place 30). Blade Runner’s style, like much of film noir, deftly conveys a Hobbesian world filled with constant fear and moral ambiguity.

Unlike other styles of film, which strive to show actors’ faces clearly to convey meaning, film noir utilizes darkness. Shadow, the dark of night, and fog are all used extensively throughout Blade Runner and other film noir examples. These elements all share the ability to mask the truth: a shadow across a face hides intention, fog obscures what is happening behind it, and the dark of night makes it more difficult to see the truth. Consider the scene where Deckard administers the Voight-Kampff test on Rachel at Dr. Tyrell’s office. We enter a relatively bright room, with light streaming through the high windows. Once Dr. Tyrell asks Deckard to perform the test on Rachel, Deckard responds “It’s too bright in here” (Scott). Dr. Tyrell closes the shades, and the room is plunged into darkness. Two beams of light fall on the side of Rachael’s face and the bottom of Deckard’s face just below his eyes (see fig. 1 and fig. 2 in the Appendix). This visual of obscured faces is repeated throughout the rest of the movie, making it harder for the audience and characters to accurately judge who they are meeting. This is a theme in much of film noir, where “strange highlights are introduced, often on the faces of the sinister or the demented” (Place 30). When every face is cast with unusual highlights and shadows, it’s difficult to distinguish the sinister and demented from the rest. Without being easily identified as good or bad, the characters become neither, as is man in Hobbes’s State of Nature. This implies a lack of justice or good in the Blade Runner world, inherently making every new character less trustworthy. A world where no one can be trusted is also indicative of Hobbes’s State of Nature, where each man is inclined to fear every other man because everyone poses a potential threat to him.

Unlike classic film noir, which is visually if not ethically black and white, Blade Runner has the opportunity to utilize color to convey meaning as well. The majority of the characters in the movie are white, and color will reflect off of their skin in a similar way. Warm tones like ambers, reds, and oranges bring out the pink undertones in their skin. Cool tones, like the blue/green used throughout the movie, have a different effect. The green undertones make the skin look eerie and sickish - almost inhuman. A blue/green color is consistently used to light the Replicants and the places where Replicants are made (such as the eye lab or J.F. Sebastian’s apartment where he makes “toys”). One of the best examples of the distinction between replicants and humans is the scene with Rachel and Deckard after Rachel shoots Leon. This is one of the few scenes where a human and a replicant are in the same place without being in conflict or in fear, making it easier to identify the color difference. When the camera zooms in on each of their faces, Deckard is standing next to a warm, amber light in his apartment, reflecting off of his face to highlight the warmth in his skin. Rachel, on the other hand, is being backlit by a window (see fig. 4 and fig. 5). She is highlighted by a very subtle, green/white light that shapes her face with shadow but also reflects rather eerie tones. Meanwhile, the dialogue in this scene is acknowledging the difference between Deckard and Rachael:

Deckard: It’s just part of the business.

Rachael: I’m not a part of the business. I am the business. (Scott)

Here, Deckard casually refers to his job as a blade runner, acknowledging that danger and death are a part of it. Rachael, on the other hand, reminds Deckard that although she just saved his life, she is also one of the replicants he is supposed to retire. The design of this scene is also highlighting the differences between them. Rachael is a replicant in fear for her life, fleeing from blade runners like Deckard. His “business” is one that directly affects her, one where death for her means profit for him. These cooler tones continue to show up throughout the film, and all of the fight sequences between Deckard and the replicants have a similar blue/green hue. This both calls Deckard’s nature into question, indicating the potentially even the main character can’t be trusted, and highlights multiple instances of fear. Most scenes containing the four replicants, especially the fight scenes, show the replicants in fear for their lives. In these cases, the color has an additional purpose of highlighting Hobbesian fear.

The style of the film creates a distinctly Hobbesian world, “where every man is enemy to every man” (Zink, 15) and all men live in fear. By imitating a genre in which characters are “almost exclusively…villains and victims,” Blade Runner is able to achieve moral ambiguity. (Cohen 27). Without being identified as either, each character is able to exist in a state between the two – neither villain nor victim, not quite good and not quite bad, but certainly not trustworthy. However, the characters’ many Rousseuian moments directly contradict the Hobbesian world so painstakingly set up by the film’s style.

4. The Rousseauian Characters and Events in Blade Runner

Rachael is the audience’s first experience with a character that is difficult to identify as human or replicant. Her Voight-Kampff test is the opposite of Leon’s. She appears just as sure of herself as Deckard is of his test. Once Deckard determines she is a Replicant, it becomes obvious why Rachael was so calm:

Deckard: She doesn't know.

Tyrell: She's beginning to suspect, I think.

Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is? (Scott)

Rachael is the first character to break the clearly defined human/replicant “line.” The audience’s own Voight-Kampff test, their perception, can’t be trusted. They can’t immediately identify all replicants, they can only identify those who know they are replicants. If one replicant exists that doesn’t fit into the mold, how many others might there be?

The potential existence of other replicants that could pass the Voight-Kampff test is another way in which the audience is made to distrust the characters. However, Rachael’s moral ambiguity is different than that of the other replicants. The audience does not see Rachael commit the atrocities the other replicants have been accused of committing. Her very existence contradicts Deckard’s mission to eliminate all replicants if she is not inherently dangerous to him. In fact, her biggest violation is running away once Deckard informs her that she is a replicant. Rachael presents the Rousseauian idea that knowledge causes fear. As Rousseau suggests, “for we cannot…fear anything, except from the idea we have of it” (Zink, 37). While Rachael is in danger by existing as a replicant, she can’t fear that danger until she can conceive of herself as a replicant. If fear is unable to exist without knowledge, it directly contradicts the Hobbesian assumption that the state of nature is based primarily on fear of other men.

Roy demonstrates Rousseau’s concept of pity. Upon his return to J.F. Sebastian’s apartment building, Roy finds Pris’s dead body. While his connection with Pris isn’t entirely explained, we see him express sadness at her death. He leans over her body, cries her name, and kisses her one final time. This action directly applies to Rousseau’s examples of pity. Rousseau states, “pity…[is] so natural, that the very brutes themselves give evident proofs of it…one animal never passes by the dead body of another of its species” (Zink, 38). This display of emotion is contrary to the purpose an expectation of replicants. The four-year lifespan is intended to eliminate the risk of emotions developing, but this is clearly not the case for Roy. Pity is not only demonstrated by Roy, it is also demonstrated by Deckard. After Roy’s death, Deckard returns to his apartment looking for Rachael. He finds her under a sheet, strikingly still. He slowly lowers his hand to move the sheet, afraid of what he might find underneath it. Deckard can only assume that Rachael, like Roy, has expired from her presumed four-year lifespan. He leans down to listen for her breath and begins to cry once he realizes that she is still alive. In a nightmarish Hobbesian dystopia, the existence of any pity is a direct contradiction.

Deckard is the ultimate example of a character who blurs the line between human and replicant. As Rachael points out, Deckard has either never taken the Voight-Kampff test himself or the audience hasn’t seen it. After the doubt created by Rachael’s character, there is some question about whether the audience can trust that Deckard is human. It isn’t until the end of the film that an answer to this question is attempted. Gaff leaves an origami unicorn outside of Deckard’s apartment, acknowledging that he knows about a memory Deckard has shared with no one else. This can only mean that Deckard’s memories are not his own, like how Rachael’s memories actually belong to Tyrell’s niece. Without directly answering the question of Deckard’s humanity, the audience is left to draw their own conclusions about this exchange.

If Deckard is a replicant, his decision to spare (and even love) Rachael becomes more significant. A replicant blade runner implies that the state creates blade runners with the sole purpose of eliminating other replicants. Deckard’s only instinct would be that of his intended purpose: to kill. Sparing Rachael is an additional expression of free will, and one that further accomplishes the goal of the movie. In looking for a character to blur the line between human and replicant, I can think of no better option than a replicant who thought he was a human, discovered he was a replicant, and exercised free agency. In the same vein, there is no better example of a Rousseauian character.

However, if Deckard is human, his decision to spare Rachael serves another purpose entirely. Deckard’s character is the typical film noir protagonist, one who is “at no time…in possession of all the vital facts, since he’s misled and deceived by nearly everybody” (Cohen 27). In this case, Deckard’s relationship with Rachael demonstrates Rousseau’s concept of knowledge and how society corrupts man. Deckard was entirely willing to operate as a blade runner, fully under the assumption that replicants are as bad as everyone says they are. It’s not until he meets Rachael that he can even fathom a replicant that isn’t also seeking to kill him. It is through Rachael that Deckard is able to conceive of a replicant as something human or nearly human. His ability to love her clearly demonstrates that looking at replicants with a new set of eyes altered his perception of them. The same could be said for his final interaction with Roy. In that case, he finally sees a replicant other than Rachael showing pity. If Roy can show pity, perhaps the other replicants would have been able to as well.

5. The Climax of Blade Runner Siding with Rousseau

The conflict between the Hobbesian world and Rousseauian events is most effectively shown during the climax of the film, the fight scene between Roy and Deckard. This scene utilizes another design element unique to Blade Runner’s style: near constant movement. This movement is used to reflect the chaos and fear of the Hobbesian dystopia in which the film is set. In every scene, there is always something moving: light reflecting off of a pool during Rachael’s Voight-Kampff test, the light from candles flickering in Tyrell’s bedroom, the flashing neon lights outside of Deckard’s apartment, and so on. The final fight scene between Roy and Deckard is the apex of this visual theme. As Deckard enters J.F. Sebastian’s apartment building, spotlights from the above aircraft chase each other over the walls and around him. From this point on, the lighting chaotically flashes around the scene, from lightning to reflections to flashing neon. As Roy chases Deckard around the apartment, the flashing and movement get faster. It culminates with Roy asking Deckard, “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it” (Scott). Here, the fast movement reflects the fear that Batty is trying to instill in Deckard, the same fear that is always present in Roy’s life and Hobbes’s State of Nature.

During the fight, it’s reasonable to assume that Roy is fighting for his survival. Deckard comes to the apartment building with the intent to retire him. When Deckard is hanging off the side of the building and could easily fall to his death, Roy saves him. All of the previous moments where Roy has killed another character have followed Hobbes’ idea of the causes of conflict. He killed Hannibal Chew, Tyrell, and J.F. Sebastian on his quest to gain extra life. All four of the replicants fought back against Deckard for security. In this final case, any gain or security will be rendered useless by his death, but glory could live on after him. Killing Deckard could be his final act, ensuring that he is not forgotten or “lost in time, like tears in the rain” (Scott). By instead choosing to save Deckard, Roy directly contradicts Hobbes and demonstrates free will. Rousseau’s concept of free will (or “free agency”) is one of his ways of distinguishing between man and beast, a particularly relevant distinction in a film that blurs the line between human and inhuman. As a replicant constructed by men for combat, killing is as close as Roy could have to an instinct. Since Roy’s only defined instinct is for killing and he is giving up an opportunity for glory, it must have been a conscious choice to save Deckard. It wasn’t merely an inaction by deciding to leave him there, but rather an active decision to save him, even in the face of his own death. This highly dramatic moment contradicting Hobbes and favoring Rousseau is significant because it is the climax of the film. The remaining moments will continue to side with Rousseau, including the film ending with Rachael and Deckard escaping the society that is potentially trying to kill them both. This is not an image of a Hobbesian world inevitably controlled by fear, it’s an image of Rousseauian knowledge that causes fear and uses that awareness to survive.

While the existence of these contradictions does not entirely undermine the Hobbesian nature of Blade Runner’s dystopian Los Angeles, it does call its fundamental assumptions into question. Rousseau’s Second Treatise both corrects some of Hobbes’s Leviathan and takes some of its ideas to their logical conclusion. Rousseau began by throwing out previous assumptions about natural man, asking “how can he distinguish what is fundamental in his nature from the changes and additions which his circumstances and advances he has made have introduced to modify his primitive condition” (Zink, 30). As Rousseau suggests, in order to understand man’s nature, he must be considered as he is now instead of how he was. It isn’t enough to compare a replicant to previous versions of replicants, or even a previous version of itself. As demonstrated above, replicants like Roy and Rachael can develop emotions, free will, etc., all characteristics of humans as described by Rousseau. Considering replicants as they were – without emotions or free will – is akin to defining human nature by only the earliest of humans, as Hobbes does, or trying to distinguish between humans and replicants. Attempts like this are both futile and inaccurate, leading to ineffective tests like the Voight-Kampff and potentially incomplete theories like Hobbes’s.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the ambiguity of the characters in Blade Runner contradicts the distinctly Hobbesian style of the world by providing Rousseauian alternatives. By using shadow, movement, and color, Blade Runner is able to create a chaotic, untrusting environment that mimics Hobbes’s State of Nature. Every man is for himself, because the true natures of other men are hidden from them. They are constantly on alert for fear of their lives. This is especially true for the replicants in the movie, but also true in the chaos of dystopian Los Angeles. It is the characters that provide some alternatives to this Hobbesian narrative. Rachael demonstrates that fear is not always a part of human nature. Instead, as Rousseau would suggest, it requires knowledge and an ability to conceive of such a thing. Once Rachael has knowledge of her replicant status, she has can conceive of her fears. Roy demonstrates free agency by choosing to save Deckard instead of leaving him to die. By acting opposite his instincts, Roy secures himself a spot within Rousseau’s definition of a human. Finally, Deckard’s existence is purely ambiguous. He serves to truly blur the line between humans and replicants. However, regardless of his replicant or human status, his relationship with Rachael demonstrates Rousseauian characteristics that again conflict with the Hobbesian narrative of the world. Unlike film noir’s contrast of light and dark, Blade Runner’s implications on human nature and society are not quite so obvious. It takes examining the Rousseauian characteristics of Rachael, Roy, and Deckard to identify that a Hobbesian understanding of human nature may be an inadequate one.

Sources

“Blade Runner (1/10) Movie CLIP – She’s a Replicant (1982) HD.” YouTube, uploaded by Movieclips, 28 May 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ.

“Blade Runner (4/10) Movie CLIP – Time to Die (1982) HD.” YouTube, uploaded by Movieclips, 27 May 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1YN9QMKpBo&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpOurhK3_v7BJLXyCFmYzKH&index=5&t=0s.

Cohen, Mitchell S. "FILM NOIR: THE ACTOR: VILLAINS AND VICTIMS." Film Comment, vol. 10, no. 6, 1974, pp. 27-29. ProQuest, https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/210230062?accountid=12725.

Farber, Stephen. "FILM NOIR: THE SOCIETY VIOLENCE AND THE BITCH GODDESS." Film Comment, vol. 10, no. 6, 1974, pp. 8-11. ProQuest, https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/210240958?accountid=12725.

Place, J. A., and L. S. Peterson. "SOME VISUAL MOTIFS OF FILM NOIR." Film Comment, vol. 10, no. 1, 1974, pp. 30-35. ProQuest, https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/210286238?accountid=12725.

Ridley Scott, Vangelis, and Vangelis. BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT. USA, 1982.

Zink, Jim. “Week 1 Readings.” Political Theory in Science Fiction. Received 13 Jan 2020, North Carolina State University. Course handout.

Previous
Previous

Theatre Must Get More Creative

Next
Next

Shedding Light on Political Power