Anne Thériault wonders if human-like robots would help people move past stereotypes, or whether they’d only reinforce them. AMC’s new series, “Humans” offers an opportunity to explore that question.
–
One reader will win $2,500 by commenting on this or the other GMP “HUMANS” articles! See the bottom of this post for the Rafflecopter button – leave a comment and then confirm by clicking through on the Rafflecopter button.
As robotics technology grows increasingly sophisticated, it becomes easier to envision a time when we will rely on robots to perform even the most basic household tasks. But as we move closer to that day, one thing is becoming eminently clear: we want our robots to look and sound like us.
It makes sense that we would feel most comfortable with robots who seem more like people. Having a robot who can mimic facial expressions, body language and vocal patterns is much less unnerving than a sleek faceless bot that delivers information in a flat monotone. Seeing robots give out the nonverbal social cues we’re used to receiving from humans – smiling, nodding along as we talk, raising their eyebrows, chuckling at our jokes – makes it easier for us to trust them. And, depending on the job the robot is doing, our ability to relate connect to them on an emotional level could be incredibly important.
Our desire to anthropomorphize robots means that we like to give them all kinds of human qualities, including – and perhaps especially – gender. Even robots like Roombas that don’t display any kind of gender traits can’t escape our desire to slot everything neatly into boxes marked “boy” and “girl“; studies show that Roomba owners often referring to their robot vacuum as “he” or “she”. It’s no accident that systems like Siri are available in a variety of male and female voices; gendering robots helps humanize them. This is probably because gender identity, as we understand it, is something that is specific to humans. So when we assign gender to robots, that helps us sort them into social groups. This, in turn, makes them easier to relate to.
But as our robots begin to look and sound more like people, we need to wonder how their human traits will perpetuate the harmful stereotypes that exist in our society.
In Humans, AMC’s groundbreaking new Sci-Fi series, the Synths – highly developed, artificially intelligent servants – look very much like our friends and family. And, like people, Synths are diverse; they’re created to appear as if they have a specific gender, race and age. Take Anita (Gemma Chan), a Synth purchased by Joe Hawkins (Tom Goodman-Hill) to help organize his chaotic household. Anita, who specializes in tasks like cleaning, cooking and childcare, is built to look and sound like a beautiful woman who oozes sweetness and compliance. On the surface, this seems like a smart design choice – most of the Hawkins family immediately warm to her, and she quickly transforms their home into a much happier, tidier place.
No doubt Anita’s creators felt that owners would be most comfortable having a “female” robot performing domestic tasks. After all, this is traditionally considered to be women’s work, and stereotypical female traits like empathy, submissiveness and a natural ability to nurture make it easier for the families like the Hawkins to accept such Synths into their homes. But how do robots like Anita impact how we view gendered tasks like housework? And how does that, in turn, impact how we view women?
Caregiving is not the only highly gendered role we see being taken on by female Synths; several of the ones shown in the trailers appear to be created for sex. One snippet from a preview shows a blond Synth in bustier running her hands over her body, as her not-quite-human voice purrs, “Hi, handsome, I’ve been waiting for you.” Another preview has a shot of three women from behind, their clothing fluttering to the ground as they disrobe. Even Anita, a model designed for household tasks, is clearly built for the male gaze. I suppose the argument would be that if you’re going to have human-looking robots, why not make them as young and beautiful as possible? That being said, it’s hard not to get a Weird Science sort of vibe from some of the interactions between the humans and female Synths.
♦◊♦
The issue of gender stereotypes isn’t the only one raised by Humans. There’s also the matter of racial prejudice. In one of the trailers, we see a Synth designed to look like a black man; he’s wearing coveralls and rubber boots, and seems to be built for some kind of agricultural labor. As he runs through a row of plants, a voiceover asks “Did you think that we’d still want to be slaves?” The mental image that naturally accompanies this scene is of rows of black men and women working in cotton fields in the deep South, which is uncomfortable in exactly the right way: not only does it question what it would mean for humans to own sentient robots, it also asks what role racial bias might play in artificial intelligence.
It’s easy to believe that using robots for our most thankless, labor-intensive tasks will help promote equality. In theory, having robots performing the unpaid work that typically falls to women frees up time for women to go out and do all kind of things. But when many of the robots built to do domestic labour look like women, are we reinforcing our gendered views of the work they’re doing? The same thing goes for the impact that seeing groups of dark-skinned robots doing hard agricultural labor might have on our racial biases. And if those specific stereotypes not only persist, but are furthered by robots, what other prejudices will be brought along with them?
♦◊♦
We tend to think of science fiction as a nerdy adolescent indulgence, more occupied with cool laser guns and hot alien babes than anything else. But Isaac Asimov had it right when he said: “Science fiction is the branch of literature that deals with the responses of human beings to changes in science and technology.” At its best, the genre does even more than that: it also uses speculation about the future as a way to look at our current society through a more objective lens. This is what Humans does – through its exploration of a world where highly advanced robots are omnipresent, it teaches us about how we live now.
The brilliance of Humans is that it holds up the treatment of Synths – who are literal objects – to showcase the ways in which we objectify different types of people based factors like gender, race, ethnicity and age. It demonstrates the type of future we are inevitably hurtling towards: one in which reliance on robot servants not only fails to create a race-less, gender-less, class-less utopia but instead perpetuates the deeply entrenched prejudices we already hold. When we watch Humans, we don’t just see an imagined universe that describes things as they might be; we see ourselves, replete with all of our flaws, just as we are now. And that’s exactly what science fiction is supposed to do.
–
Watch the series premiere of Humans Sunday, June 28 at 9/8c on AMC.
This post was written in partnership with AMC
–
Readers also have the opportunity to win $2,500 during the week of June 21 to June 28. Fans are encouraged to post their thoughts here (and confirm with Rafflecopter below), on the four HUMANS posts on The Good Men Project, and one comment will be chosen at random for the grand prize.
Read the rest of our authors’ thoughts and insights about HUMANS and the future of robots, and see more exciting trailers from this groundbreaking series:
Synthetic Love, Could a Human Fall In Love With a Robot? by Lisa Hickey
Do Androids Dream of Informed Consent? by Harris O’Malley
Could a Robot Make Your Relationship Better? by Thomas G. Fiffer
I don’t know if androids could really teach us anything about our own prejudices. While the androids themselves might be “pure” in a sense (e.g without any bias) humans would simply use androids in ways that reinforce our current stereotypes.
If they were to teach us anything, they would have to have a level of control (think all mayors, hiring mangers, CEO’s being androids) over society that would violate the three laws…and probably incite riots to boot!
Wouldn’t the robots be a-sexual, no matter how masculine or feminine they are made to look? Just thinking out loud. Think this will be a great show as AMC has delivered well in the past. Hopefully Walking Dead doesn’t get mixed in there. Would that be like…..*gasp* Terminator?
Science Fiction fan reporting in. The genre has always done a great job of holding up a mirror to society for better or for worse. I think the obvious prejudices in this new series will be a great launching pad for discussion and will only serve to highlight where we can do better as a whole. I look forward to seeing where they take this (and if they are brave enough to raise some very difficult issues for us to ponder).
I could use an intelligent robot to answer this question right about now.
Robots freak me out when they look too much like humans. Regardless of anything else, I can’t get past it!
I would prefer that my domestic servant robot is a sexy women over a sexless or manly servant, although if I didn’t have a choice I would happily let it, whatever it is, cook and clean for me. I’m sure my wife would prefer the opposite. Maybe we would need one of each, they could be friends.
To answer the question in the title, “Could a Race of Highly Intelligent Robots Teach Us About Our Own Prejudices?” I think the answer is no. I think the appearance and the jobs these robots would be designed for would be reflective of our prejudices but as far as teaching us? No. In order for anything to truly “teach” us about our prejudices we would have to be willing to learn which we, as a society, are not. If we were, we wouldn’t need robots we could simply look at past and present events. For instance, unemployment is twice as… Read more »
AI scares me.
Interesting concept, especially that we as humans desire gender of our innately gender-less “things”. I’m curious to watch this show now.
I, for one, welcome our new android overlords…
Sounds like this show might help fill the gaping void in my soul from a lack of Battlestar Galactica. 😉
Female caregiving robots. This makes me think a bit of AI and Jude Law’s character. He gave care as well.
Anthropomorphism is the actual history of all human devices. We believe in gods that created us in their images (anthropotheism) which is -in fact- our own image. We write fables and stories about animals that behave like us. Why wouldn’t we make our own cybernetic creations in our image?! Everything that we spawn proceeds from and anthropocentric matrix; it’s inescapable. Thus, if we create real AI (artificial intelligence), this is gonna operate very much in the same manners as we do. It’s gonna learn from us not by inputted algorithms but by observation and mimesis. They gonna learn from watching… Read more »
Love your articles! Always thoughtful & original. Looking forward to the premier of “Humans.”
Excited to watch the show.
Anxious to see this. My first thought is Stepford Wives.
This is one of the most captivating series i’ve ever watched. I think the show does a job with portraying the synths in different genders and ethnicities. If synths ever become accepted in the mainstream, I reckon they would reflect human demographics around the world (and stereotypes, unfortunately). Another problem is the female AI’s being overly produced solely for sexual use by male audiences.
Entertainment always reflects and informs our inner desires and beliefs. You’ve done a good job of identifying ways that a show could both perpetuate AND challenge what is accepted with little awareness in our culture.
It absolutely reinforces stereotypes. However I agree with the person above that mentioned I think people would likely originally choose the models that resemble themselves much like buying dolls for children. Most people (excluding sexual purposes ) probably would gravitate toward the familiar to normalize it. Also I don’t know that more females would be chosen. As a woman I would more likely choose a male model. It would clean etc the same despite gender. I would gain the added stereotypical advantage of a male presence around to deter pervs, make my service calls, and there may be additional strength… Read more »
I think the creation of these types of robots would have little effect on stereotypes, except perhaps to reinforce them marginally. Profiling is ingrained in humans’ minds so fully that I don’t think it would matter whether the subject was human or robot. Rather, I think a reduction in profiling will naturally occur as our society becomes more open-minded (e.g. segregation and equal rights.) When that occurs, the robots too will be less susceptible to prejudice. They will be a reflection of a broader trend, however, not the cause of the change.
Sustainability is what makes hierarchies so powerful.
For them to have a “male” robot doing domestic labor would be seen as an opposition to “normalcy”; it wouldn’t even be a neutral non-statement.
@ Erin It gets even more nuanced and complexed than that. Here are some reasons why women were “forced out” of mining in England. “The greatest scandal was not the brutal work, which damaged women’s health, but revelations that they worked topless alongside naked men.” “Where union activity was taking hold, miners reckoned that restricting the supply of labour led to higher wages” “The mine owners also reaped greater profits with a male workforce because teenage boys were generally st” http://www.historyextra.com/feature/scandal-female-miners-19th-century-britain I’m unsure how many women even today would be uncomfortable with topless women working with naked men. Doesn’t it… Read more »
I can see female AI’s being a lot more popular irl. I would assume that a female would be able to be programmed with the same skills as a male and vice versa. But, women tend to be more relatable and approachable even if they are used for hard labor. What scares me about that is we may lose our ability to form real relationships.
Looks interesting, and AMC has a good track record for series, We’ll have to see how they do.
I’ve been curious about what images the Synths will be in relation to the tasks they are assigned.
If a coal mine workforce is replaced with a group of Synths that are all male in appearance.
Or if someone decides to use them in a military purpose and they are all male in appearance.
What does that say about people and their own thoughts on who should be doing what work?
I think it says that stereotypes exist around every single person in the world. But that doesn’t mean that white men don’t have privilege even when they may get stereotyped. Danny, women actually have a long history in coal mining. From the US to Europe to even Japan. The fact that we exclude these bits of history about women is actually pretty telling about our respect for women’s experience throughout history. While I knew that women did coal mining work but I couldn’t tell you the details so I of course “googled” it. Not only did women work beside men… Read more »
But that doesn’t mean that white men don’t have privilege even when they may get stereotyped.Never said they did. While I appreciate you trying to add context at the end though it still doesn’t account for the overall attitude of those jobs being considered a man’s place even today. When you look at industrial disasters most of the time the casualties are listed as “workers” or (-ers, for whatever job it was) when in fact the casualties were 100% male. Just like in terms of civilian deaths in war time where adult male civilians are simply erased. I never said… Read more »
Looks like my last response was modded away (not sure why all I did was address the points you made). Anyway. It doesn’t surprise me someone would try to say that the things that affect men are their own fault (and just ignore the role that women play in them). Long story short it doesn’t matter if all the prejudices are the same or have the same history, context, or whatever. They exist and if we pick and choose which ones to challenge then in the long run it won’t do anyone any good. So while a male coal miner… Read more »