(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Today in my English class I found myself in the extremely unusual position of arguing for personal responsibility.

If you know my politics at all, you're probably aware that I consider the desire to attribute individual responsibility the product of either a desire to alleviate social, group, or cultural guilt and responsibility; or a product of humanity's most base instincts, particularly the desire for revenge. I also believe it's ultimately unproductive because in the quest to blame an individual, at no point is the effort made to prevent the repetition of the fault by others. (I want to make sure I don't sound like an unsympathetic asshole here. The needs and desires of victims' families to see justice done are of their nature one-eyed and I don't think consideration of that should be part of the legal justice system. But I also want to acknowledge that I have never been, and nor has a close friend been, victim of sexual assault, abuse, or violent crime; I'm aware my views are idealistic; and I'm also aware that I sound like, well, an unsympathetic asshole. I'm really, really not, honestly; but I also think there's a lot of time spent, socially, on the emotions of the victims and the victims' families, and I don't see the need to reproduce that here.)

That said: today I found myself arguing for the personal responsibility of Frankenstein's monster, a view directly opposed to the main thrust of the text. I also became very frustrated with the lecturer's extrapolations of Mary Shelley's critique of humanism (some of which is accurate and some of which I judge to be unfounded and based on her own fears.)



A brief summary of the novel so far: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the story of a man, Victor Frankenstein, a scientist (or natural philosopher as he calls it) who becomes obsessed with creating life. Believing he has discovered the secret, he builds (probably, although not explicitly, out of parts of cadavers) a body, a replica of the human form but to a larger scale (because he couldn't get the fiddly bits right on anything smaller, which is a fantastic detail). He fantasises about creating a new species, superior in strength, speed and intellect, which will owe him the debt of their lives. No child, he believes, will ever owe such a debt to their father as his creations will to him. However, as soon as he animates the creature he becomes horrified with it, chiefly by its appearance which he suddenly perceives to be horrendous, monstrous. He rejects it and the creature flees him.

The creature wanders through the woods for a time, hungry and cold but admiring the natural beauty of the area. Eventually it discovers a cottage, and observes the actions of its inhabitants, whose behaviour and appearance he perceives to be ideal. He spies on them to learn human language; he finds his own appearance abhorrent in comparison to theirs; he steals their books to educate himself (mostly histories and works like Paradise Lost which describe humanity at its very lows). Eventually he reveals himself to the family; they of course reject him and he flees once more, believing his appearance is such that he will never have companionship or love. He saves a drowning girl, and is shot at. Finally he happens across William Frankenstein, twelve or so years old and younger brother of Victor. Hoping William will be less inclined to prejudge him on his appearance on account of his youth, the creature grabs him; however William is afraid, insults his appearance and mentions his relationship to Frankenstein, the creature's creator. Consequently he strangles William, desiring to avenge himself on his creator who rejected him despite choosing to animate him, and frames a young woman for the act. Then he finds Victor, tells him about it, and demands his pity (and the creation of a wife) for, he says, he has only responded to how he has been treated: as he has been rejected, so has he rejected; as he has been abused, so has he abused.

The creature certainly cuts a pitiful figure, and I absolutely believe that he commits violence as a direct consequence of his treatment by Victor (and subsequently other humans). Since Victor is human, educated, intelligent, he should have been able to bypass his instinctive revulsion and take responsibility for his creation. When the creature approaches a blind man he finds sympathy; but when the blind man's children arrive they begin to beat him and the blind man says nothing (although he has little opportunity to; but later passages indicate that even after the creature has fled the man puts up no defense for him, presumably as a consequence of the description provided him by his daughter and son.) Victor needs to acknowledge his personal responsibility. However, just as Victor has personal responsibility, so too does his creature. Intelligent enough to read Milton, educated enough to be aware of the base nature of the act, he nevertheless kills one harmless child and frames another for the act (without even knowing that the girl he frames is related to Victor; since he must have known the penalty would be death, this then is another act of murder committed without even the motivation of causing Victor to suffer; no motivation other than proving that "I, too, can create destruction."

In short? I believe the creature's explanations are excuses intended to deflect the personal responsibility he holds for the deaths of William and Justine, and to justify his pleasure in wanton destruction. I would be an awful lot more sympathetic if at any point he acknowledges feeling guilt, or sadness, of any description. But he never does. While an individual's actions are the product of their treatment, they are still an individual's actions and that individual needs to acknowledge that.

Okay, now the test-tube baby stuff. My lecturer, Jed Mayer (whose class I have enjoyed, by the way, I recommend it) presented us with what I thought was a pretty terrible summary of the nature of humanism; that is, he said that it was a philosophy that affirmed the worth of intellectual and materialist philosophies without recourse to the spiritual, and was concerned with improving the human race. (He also gave a summary of some of its problems which I can concur with. Humanism believes there to be certain underlying principles governing the human race. While I consider myself a humanist, I can also see that that particular belief is open to criticism as being the belief of white, Western men; that is, it assumes certain qualities that it has and then projects them onto every other group, leading to for example the loss of other cultural values during colonialism. This is a valid criticism and one I am deeply concerned with.) He said that Frankenstein includes a criticism of humanism, particularly its elevation of the human condition and its search to improve humanity.

Now, firstly I have some serious problems with his definitions of humanism. Humanism in my opinion seeks to improve, not humanity itself, but the quality of life of humans; it is also concerned above all with valuing human life. But that does not mean that it does not also value non-human life and the natural world; he said that environmental concerns today clearly show that prioritising human life above environmental concerns is dangerous, which is BULLSHIT on three accounts:
- human life and environmental concerns are the same damn thing. If we pollute the water, we can't use it either, hello.
- caring about human life does not necessarily equate to not caring about the lives of other animals, extinction, polution, threatened habitats, and so on.
- in my opinion pollution and destruction is generally (particularly in the first world) carried out by people not to benefit human life, but to benefit their own pockets. Sometimes being environmentally unsound is cheaper (see: nuclear power.)

But there's another side to this: because the creature, by being superhuman, is supposedly something humanists would approve of, the first of some kind of superior race. Someone in the class actually said that the creature was a logical extension of humanist philosophy (which is probably because of the prof's crappy definitions; humanists value human life, and the creature transparently does not, in fact he values non-human life much more highly). In other words Mayer is arguing that Frankenstein's creature is Shelley's way of criticising this kind of unnatural creation of life; Frankenstein's transgression (if you accept the novel as a cautionary tale, which I do) is attemption to subvert the natural order of life, reproducing almost asexually, if you will. It can be read as a fledgling criticism of eugenics, of genetic engineering...
... and of IVF.

In vitro fertilization is the procedure by which eggs are fertilised outside the woman's body, and then implanted back into the uterus (usually several zygotes are fertilised and implanted, since chances are that at least some of the zygotes will fail to thrive.) IVF babies are sometimes called test-tube babies; it was and is the subject of much ethical debate. Most modern debate focuses on what happens to unused embryos and the ethics of impregnating women who would not conceive naturally, particularly older women. On the other hand older controversy was concerned with the very notion of creating a baby outside the womb, whether those babies would be natural... I still remember reading Ben Bova's book Colony, I can't have been very old, where the protagonist David Adams is a test-tube baby (although unlike me he was genetically engineered or selected to be "perfect", which physically I am about as far from as you can get.) Adams is generally met with horror when the circumstances of his conception are revealed, and not just because he was genetically engineered. I remember my dawning realisation that, hey, he's talking about me.

I was starting to get that same feeling in class today. Eugenics and embryo selection is a disturbing and difficult topic I'm not really interested in talking about right now. But the fact remains that without IVF, certainly a method of conception that does not take place without human intervention, I would not exist. I don't like feeling that Frankenstein's monster is how Mary Shelley imagines the circumstances of my life; I was bothered that the professor didn't front up and explain what this means in today's society. I mean, that's not necessarily what the course is about, but I think that not acknowledging what Shelley's philosophy implies for today's society means not giving the class a chance to contest that, and that really bothers me because I know there are people who are going to take away from this a lot of ideas about natural conception and the morality of the creation of life and I am sitting right there thinking, hey, I'm kind of the counterargument to some of this and I want a voice, thanks very much... and not getting one.

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I always saw Frankenstein's monster as a critique of fairly conventional family structures and reproduction - i.e, parents who get all worked up about the idea of having a kid, convince themselves that it will make their lives better, but when they have a child just find it frustrating and reject the kid out of hand. The fact that Frankenstein's monster is "born" adult is, I think, the key to his "father"'s* rejection of him. Many parents love their children when they're babies but start to regard them with less affection when they acquire some independence. Since the monster begins with full capacity for independent action and is not at all dependent on his father, Frankenstein's process of getting disgruntled with his child is as accelerated as the monster's growth.

As for the matter of personal responsibility, my view has always been that there's both personal and collective responsibility - that one can never have too much responsibility taking. Admittedly, there may be better ways to get those who harm others to front up to their responsibility than locking them in jail, but only the deeply disturbed are incapable of deciding not to, for instance, assault somebody.

I have to admit, that while I, like you, have never had even an acquaintance suffer violent crime, I feel that there's an unsettling tendency to regard the relatives and friends of victims, and even victims themselves, as having the final say in what's appropriate punishment. That seems to be implying that experiencing this sort of pain is a positive experience that grants one wisdom and better perspectives. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.

It sounds to me like your lecturer is constructing something of a strawman out of humanism, but it could be he's encountered humanists who have, roughly, argued what he's identifying. I'd say 'humanism' is a value that pretty much everybody adheres to to some extent, since we're all humans and we all value the existence and wellbeing of humans. Even the most concerned environmentalist is ultimately arguing from the perspective of a human who lives within the environment - something I sometimes think environmentalists would do well to emphasise, as we've already discussed, but that's another matter.

*I spent ages trying to work out whether the possessive should go inside or outside the quote marks.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I always saw Frankenstein's monster as a critique of fairly conventional family structures and reproduction - i.e, parents who get all worked up about the idea of having a kid, convince themselves that it will make their lives better, but when they have a child just find it frustrating and reject the kid out of hand.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think ultimately it is a critique of the unconventional. The creature doesn't have any of the traditional elements of a family in his life, and it's as a consequence of that, of the absence of love, that he becomes as he is. I agree that Victor doesn't choose to create this unnatural child for a good reason, but I also don't think he does it to make his life better. He does it for two reasons: because he can, and because he seeks the admiration and gratitude of the child. I think it's definitely a criticism of having children for the wrong reasons though. Victor wants acolytes, not dependants or family.

I would also disagree that the monster starts off as an adult; he doesn't speak human language, doesn't even understand sensation. While he appears to have basic finer feelings I really think he can be considered a child, and should still be dependant on his parent; it's as a consequence of his rejection that he develops the independance he needs to survive, rather than the reverse.

Admittedly, there may be better ways to get those who harm others to front up to their responsibility than locking them in jail, but only the deeply disturbed are incapable of deciding not to, for instance, assault somebody.

Well, I kind of agree. I associate that "deeply disturbed" with people who are genuinely mentally disturbed (whether as a result of upbringing or whatever) and are therefore incapable of making the other choice. But I find it hard to then blame them for that; if they're unable to decide not to attack people, how is it their responsibility when they do so?

OTOH, the creature was perfectly capable of deciding not to kill William; he chose to anyway, which is what I find disturbing.

It sounds to me like your lecturer is constructing something of a strawman out of humanism.

Agreed. The problem is that I don't know much about humanism in the nineteenth century so it could be that he's simply talking about humanism then, rather than what humanism means now... but I rather doubt it and I kind of find it frustrating. While there probably are humanists who only believe in rationality, and humanists who don't care for the environment, there is nothing about humanism that entails that and I don't believe the majority of humanists do either of those things.

There are two possible things I think about though: first, (as humane as possible) animal testing for medical purposes (which IMO humanists, who value human life, would/should support); and eating endangered species when nothing else is available. Vivisection & so forth is godawful and more importantly there are other ways of getting the information, it's not necessary, and even when there were no other ways I don't believe it should have been practiced. But not all animal experimentation is akin to vivisection.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately I'm too hungry to read the whole post but I'd like to pose you a question because you reminded me of something I'd been thinking about recently: Do you think people who are more individualistic in their daily lives are more likely to be right-wing politically? When I think about everyone I know who is openly right-wing, they're all also very introverted in the self-assured kind of way. Have you found that?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

No, I think that's total crap. :) I think people who are more right wing are sometimes more openly assholes (and thus appear to be more confident because they are "anti society" and "daring" and "outspoken", as opposed to just being assholes), but I do not equate that with being more self-assured.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I've met some Left wing people who probably answer to that description, too.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*grin* Oh, me too. But she asked about trends, and I happen to know a lot of RW assholes (especially assholes to whom I can directly relate my perception of them as assholes to their politics.) I also know LWers who are assholes, but I generally do not see a correlation between said asshole-ness and their politics (and not just because I agree with them). Of course there are always exceptions.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, I think there's a certain personality type that enjoys being in opposition to the mainstream, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I think there's a further personality subtype that tends to see a mainstream where it doesn't necessarily exist and discredit everybody who disagrees with them as a mindless slave of conformity. That sort of personality type tends to adopt a self-consciously extreme position, which may lead them to position themselves on the Left or the Right, and I do feel that's counter productive.

Of course sometimes they end up taking what's actually a fairly non-controversial stance and spend a lot of energy railing against a mainstream that doesn't exist. A good example of this is people who feel our society is still deeply christian and that atheism or non-christianity (usually paganism) is an extremely marginal and radical philosophy.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, I think there's a certain personality type that enjoys being in opposition to the mainstream, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I think there's a further personality subtype that tends to see a mainstream where it doesn't necessarily exist and discredit everybody who disagrees with them as a mindless slave of conformity.

This is certainly a part of what I was thinking about. Also I think that almost everyone I know who is *overtly* political in the way Mim describes is also, perhaps necessarily, self-assured. Assholeness is an added bonus. But I definitely would resist (addressing miriam now) categorising that as a consequence of their being RW.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thinking of assholeness, more people into the fiscal conservatism and every-man-for-himself attitude to tax, welfare etc, and that belief being a product of being a more self-contained person, and so seeing the world from an every man for himsel perspective in general :)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

every-man-for-himself attitude to tax, welfare etc

Right! Assholeness!

Joke.

But seriously, what you asked was if I think people who are more introverted ot more unconventional are more likely to be right wing (or vice versa). Do I think that's true? Not at all. I don't think believing in a Darwinistic economy is a product of being introverted. In some people I do believe - sorry - it's the product of an inability to understand the circumstances of people different than you, or being totally lacking in empathy, or, sometimes, being a dick and not caring if other people starve. But I don't think any of those are necessary conditions for being RW and I also don't think they're more likely to occur in introverted people. Introverted people actually are usually more sensitive to other people's personal circumstances.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Introverted people actually are usually more sensitive to other people's personal circumstances. I'm not sure if that's psychologically sound. Cite?

Small sample size, anecdote not data, and everything but... My personal experience with introverts has mainly (not only, mind!) been that they've been really unresponsive to people who aren't in their immediate bubble (I admit to it too) - to the point of some pretty hurtful behaviour because the needs of other people they're obligated to in a certain situation just don't cross their minds - like my mum being dismissive and cold to anybody else if she's with her best friend, because she and him have this bubble thing going on where literally NOTHING else matters... now that I think about it, that's more because of an introverted tendency to focus completely on one thing, and not an inability to empathise, but from what I've read I've never seen anything that says introverts are more empathetic than extroverts - if anything I'd think extroverts would be more so on average just because they tend to spend more time in situations where they need it

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Um, hmm, we seem to be working on diffferent definitions of "introverted". To me an introvert is not someone who's self-centered, but someone who prefers their own company because being around lots of other people is tiring or difficult. Sometimes that results in insensitivity, but in my experience it's *mostly* a product of *oversensitivity.*

No citation, just personal experience.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

No I don't think it's self-centred, I think a tendency to appear self-centred can come from the avoiding extra stimulation.... you (general you, not any specific person) focus on one thing cause it's easier, and other stuff just slips the mind...

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

One of my friends here is in Act and he's a real nice guy, but also extremely intorverted...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

One of my friends here is in Act and he's a real nice guy

I don't believe you. ;)

Okay, no, I do believe you. But I personally have never known anyone ACT-voting who I considered to be otherwise a nice person, although that is a problem compounded by the fact that I find ACT's policies sometimes abhorrent and very dislikeable.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

My oldest friend in the world, with whom I scared our other friends with rather overblown leftwing talk in our college days, voted for ACT.

The leftwing stuff was partially tog et a response but also based on what we thought worked.

I asked him why and he thought that the government in this coutnry was too big for itself. In that they want to change the law to make up for breaking it, I can see what he meant.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I... well, look, I can't really understand why anyone who understands LW principles would vote ACT, I can't get it. I'm aware I have a narrow mind in that respect...

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

I still don't get how he could ignore all the other stuff, but I can see that he doesn't like the government being as pervasive as it could be seen to be.