Defending Frankenstein's Humanity (a response to Keaton)

I will preface this post by saying two things. First of all, I am winging it in not having the primary text in front of me (it being returned to the library). I will have to work from memory alone and thus this post is not as professional as it could be. Second, I am taking issue only with Keaton's refusal to answer the question of whether or not the monster is human. I wholeheartedly agree with his idea of reflexive humanity running through the book, with it being a romantic idea and with his linking of Frankenstein to Blade Runner. I think Keaton's conclusion about empathy being a distinctly human trait is right on the mark. I only insist he could go further with it and decisively conclude that the monster is a human being.

The question of what it means to be a human being and of whether or not the monster is human is certainly one of the major reasons why Frankenstein is canonical to Romanticism and is widely read today. But I don't think Shelly means it to be just a question. I think we readers are meant to draw away a singular answer of "yes" to the question and that Shelly herself argues this point in her text. I believe her primary argument is in the character of Victor, although various capacities and feelings of the monster himself are also evidence for his humanity.

Of course, the question of "what is a human being ?" is difficult to answer. Perhaps every organism biologically human is a human being. I would argue for that definition of humanity. But there is a certain dignity at stake in the debate over humanness, a dignity depending on a "humanness" transcending biology. Whomever is decided worthy of the title "human" is afforded rights and handed responsibilities so that they might be able to live in society and promote the common good. This dignity presupposes a certain common purpose to life, whatever that might be, beyond mere survival. And as such, biological definitions of humanity simply won't do. Yet the exclusion of groups of biological human beings from the community of humanity is horrific. Such systems of thought are the forces behind the holocaust, the killing fields, slavery, the oppression of women, racism, homophobia, etc. Anytime a group of biological human beings begin to be called something less then human, people are about to lose their rights, their freedom and their lives. Hence we talk about capacities for language, reason, freedom of the will, love, society, and religion as fundamentally human traits. But no one of these capacities defines us as human. Hermits are human, as are retarded people, as are mute and deaf people. These characteristics, as Keaton suggests, are human (adjective), but they are not equal with human (noun). But biological humanity may not be the totality of humanity either, as increased technological capacities may make artificial intelligence possible. If creatures made of metal and plastic, creatures containing no biological humanity, come to us, speak our language and express consciousness, rationality and love, then who are we to turn them away. Perhaps the best answer to the question of what it means to be a human being is in a negation. If you have any human qualities, including biological humanity, it may not make you human, but you cannot be called not human with any certainty. And if you cannot be called not human, the best thing to do is to treat you as human.

Shelly ascribes the monster definite human qualities. First, he is biologically a human being. He is made of body parts reanimated and shares the genes of many human beings. Hence, biologically he is almost more human than humans. He has capacities for language, literature, philosophy and history. He seeks companionship, affection and love. He desires a romantic soul mate and he possess the capacity for altruism. After his alienation from the family who's hovel he lived in, he begins a murderous spree of revenge against Victor's loved ones. These actions lead many to think him subhuman or a monster. But these actions too are human possibilities. Its not like no human has murdered or sought revenge before. And Victor, after the monster kills Elizabeth, is filled with murderous anger and seeks his creation to the ends of the earth for the purpose of destroying him. The monster's story is not unlike many serial killers who grew up hated and abused and returned that hatred to the rest of the world.

Shelly would not have made the interplay between the monster and Victor so ironic if she did not want to emphasize the former's humanity. Victor's misery begins when he seeks the secrets of life and wants to play God by creating his own race of creatures. Victor suffers for it the whole book, but to the end cannot accept the bounds of humanity. He urges Whalton to inspire his sailors to go onward in the Artic, towards their deaths even, in order to become "more than men". In contrast, all the monster desires is inclusion in the community of humanity, despite of his ugliness and deformity. His alienation from humanity is what drives him to murder. Yet, while he is murdering he still has more remorse and empathy for others than Victor. Victor sees only his own misery in the monster's existence and is so self-centered as to think the monster will kill him and not Elizabeth. I think Shelly fills the scenes at the hovel with such pathos as to convince readers that all this misery would not have happened if the monster had only been accepted as human. Overall, I would say the monster's primary motivation is to be human and Victor's to be more than human. If to be a monster is to not be human, and vice versa, Victor is more the monster than the monster is.

Perhaps the category of monster exists because there are some actions so evil, we humans don't want to acknowledge them as possibilities of our lives. But the holocaust was committed by human beings. Slavery was a human system. And Frankenstein's monster is a human being. Only when we throw of the category of "monster" can we truly address the evil in humanity.