In Never Let Me Go, the donors are required to produce artwork, as a way to prove their humanity. One of the main purposes of Hailsham seems to be to prove the existence of souls within the donors. And most of the donors do produce artwork, that is apparently significantly astonishing to convince at least some people (like Madame and Miss Emily) of their humanity.

Identity is a huge theme in this book, since the donors don’t really understand where they came from, who they were copied from, or how to negotiate the short amount of person hood they get to have. This identity is largely framed by the rest of society’s perception of them and their souls. Before Hailsham and its art, they were not seen as people.

However, Tommy doesn’t seem to have artistic skill. He struggles with being creative early on, and is later told by one of the guardians that he shouldn’t stress too much over it. Eventually though, she retracts this statement, and repeats how important it is for him to produce art. Later into his adulthood, he pushes himself to concentrate on producing art, and eventually creates some interesting pieces.

However, I don’t think this is very realistic. Some people just don’t have the inclination to produce art. Maybe they feel they are lacking in ability, or it is too frustrating, or its simply not something they want to do. It not as if you can just “work harder”, as Tommy did, and achieve that. Some people can, some people can’t. But the absence of artistic inclination doesn’t mean they’re any less human.

There is a strange value that our culture puts on things like art, literature, music, etc. They’re often seen as very high class things, for “educated” people. Less privileged artists often have a harder time breaking into the field, since their art not as visible. But more privileged people who have artistic talent are placed on some sort of pedestal. The “special-ness” of the Hailsham students, when seen through other donor’s eyes, is a reflection of this, to some extent. This is honestly a terrible thing. If Tommy doesn’t want to do art, that doesn’t make him any less human.

In fact, on a broader scale: If Tommy, or anyone for that matter, wanted to sit and stare at a wall for their entire life, without producing anything of “value”, that doesn’t mean they aren’t human. The idea that you must make yourself worthwhile for society is a very capitalistic one. Its one I uphold, given that contributing to society fulfills my own personal goals, but it shouldn’t define one’s personhood.

I think that we, as well as the donors, are human because we are born human. Our skills, abilities, interests, actions, etc. don’t make us human. “Humanity” is not reserved for the great artists, the scientists, the elite, whatever. Humanity for is everyone: from the newborn babies who do little but eat and sleep, to poets, to musicians, to politicians, to criminals, to psychopaths, to dictators, to manual labor workers, to the very old, who also do little but eat and sleep. Everyone is human.