The Thing: Thoughts on Morality and Humanity (Extra Response)

Cierra Larson
Extra Response: Addison and The Thing

The Thing: Thoughts on Mortality and Humanity
    Addison says that, “[The Thing] eradicates the distinction between humans and animals by reminding humans of their mortality and showing them that they can easily be ‘blended’ with other animals” (159). It’s true that being blended with other animals takes away one’s humanity, because the Thing doesn’t care what species its victims are; it will take over the body of a human or a dog, and it isn’t affected by humans’ superior mental capacity. However, Addison says that the Thing reminds humans of their mortality, which erases the difference between being human and being animal; however, isn’t the major difference between humans and animals the fact that humans know that they’re going to die? Animals live life off of instinct and senses, while humans have the capacity to feel and think critically. Animals instinctively avoid death, but they do not consciously know that they’re going to die. The Thing does remind humans of their mortality, because it reminds them how fragile their lives are, and how easily their bodies could be influenced by the power of the Thing, but this reminder of their mortality is not what blurs the line between them and animals. The Thing “blends” humans with animals and each other, thus it takes away both humans’ humanity and individuality.
    Addison notes that the Thing forces the characters to reckon with important questions, such as, “Is there a difference between humans and aliens imitating humans?” (159). The Thing can perfectly imitate human behavior--so much that the characters cannot tell who has been taken over. The only way they can test each other’s humanity is through the blood test. My question is: do the characters being taken over know they’ve been taken over? Does their soul “die” when the Thing takes them over, or do they remain conscious of their own thoughts and memories? If the characters keep their old memories, does it even matter if they’re taken over by the Thing? They remain the same person, but with the ability and desire to take over others’ bodies. If the Thing were to completely take over the world, I don’t think the world would be any worse; it would only be full of slimy, oozing things who presumably don’t need food or water to survive. It might end up improving the environment.
    Addison notes that the characters’ concern with who is human and who is not is kind of ironic, because “being human” means caring about one another and working together as a team, but the characters never do this. They’re dysfunctional from the start, and don’t seem to particularly like each other. This is the reason the film is so scary: the human / nonhuman characters bear similarities to one another, and even the human characters have a lack of humanity. They’re all more concerned with survival than with trying to make connections with one another. I wonder if this is a concern that only Americans and other individualistic cultures have; in the U.S., expressions such as “follow your dreams,” and “express yourself,” are common. Everyone is taught to work hard for personal success and gain. Everyone is taught that they are a unique individual whose talents will help contribute to the world. In contrast, other cultures depend on one another much more, especially for survival in third-world countries. I feel like cultures such as these would not be as freaked out about the idea of the Thing, because the idea of becoming one amalgamated organism isn’t that far from their everyday goals. However, these cultures would probably also be better at fighting against the Thing, because they would display more unity and more care for one another. Addison notes that the characters in The Thing “narcissistic, unwilling to put anyone else’s needs or desires above their own” (161).
    Something I noticed about the film was a paranoia similar that of to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It’s impossible to tell who’s been taken over by an unknown life form, which causes suspicion and paranoia among the characters. However, Snatchers is different in its use of love/humanity. Miles claims that his love for Becky is the only thing worth having, since the Pod People cannot feel emotions. However, every sentiment of love that Miles expresses for Becky seems forced, fake, and rehearsed. The fear in Snatchers is that love will die and humans will be replicated through asexual reproduction, which draws a strange parallel to The Thing, because its characters seem a little asexual to begin with, as Addison also notes in her essay. There are no female characters in the film, and the male characters display no homosexual feelings towards one another. Yet the characters still fight against the Thing, possibly for their own individuality. This actually seems more plausible to me than Miles’ assertion that he’s fighting for love in Snatchers; survival for one’s own behalf is more likely.