The question and debate of nature vs. nurture
is ever present in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Not only is the
question applicable to the way the monster was treated, but it also
speaks to modern technologies and medicine. Is there a moral dilemma in cloning
animals or regenerating body parts? Where does society draw the line in what scientific
processes are considered too unnatural?
In addressing the question of nature vs.
nurture in regard to the monster, it is fairly clear that Shelly's story argues
that nurturing has a greater effect than nature. Throughout the story, I kept
wondering to myself 'what if Victor hadn't acted so horrifically to the monster
originally?' or what if all those who saw him and were abhorred by the monster's grotesque
exterior didn’t treat him with such distain? The monster was self-aware from inception and was driven to commit evil crimes because of a lack of connection
and affection from his selfish and weak creator.
Personally, the ending of the novel left me to reflect on the morality and dangers of the direction of modern science. After all of the reflection and thought, I still cannot come to a definitive conclusion as to where the line should be drawn. Just like Frankenstein's wish to be able to bring those from the dead back to life, much modern science is aimed at bettering peoples lives. However, there must be a point at which it goes too far. I was left wondering about the next 50 years of modern medicine. With advancements in genetic manipulation, it seems as if we are headed away from natural relationships and toward calculated and scientific creations. The trend is seemingly becoming more similar to the relationship of creator and creation rather than parent and offspring.
I really like this connection to the "nature vs. nurture" question. It is interesting to think about what contributes to human nature: is it learned from our relationships and our experiences, or is it part of our DNA as human beings? The Creature is definitely not human: he is created out of bits of people and animals, and is given life as an adult rather than via sexual reproduction. However, his newborn innocence is lost when he learns about other people acting out of vengeance or with malicious intent. He murders due to anger because he learns from human beings that getting revenge is an "okay" thing to do. I think that Mary Shelley promotes the "nurture" side of the nature vs. nurture debate by writing the Creature as deserving of our pity when he is first created, but ultimately becoming evil as he learns from the evils of humanity.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this discussion as well. I think that this is very applicable to modern times, making it that much more interesting. Today, the majority of our fruits and vegetables are genetically engineered, we genetically enhance our produce, and we can even screen fetuses to determine their genetic code. At some point, science will reach a point at which technological gains do more harm than good to our society. This novel is a complicated commentary on this idea of technological progress, which I believe is part of the reason it is still popular today.
ReplyDelete