Mankind’s quest for scientific knowledge is as old as civilization. Yet, never before in history have humans had such a profound impact on the natural environment as now. Frankenstein was written before the advent of the modern scientific enquiry. But it predicts and cautions against the pursuit of knowledge. The book repeatedly points out knowledge, instead of making our life happier, only makes it miserable. The book also points out that irresponsible behavior on the part of scientists could be extremely detrimental. This irresponsibility may be seen as a one off incident of a particularly maverick scientist by some critics. However, this paper argues that even the best intentioned and responsible acts of scientific enquiry can result in consequences which only passage of time can predict. Since humans can never really know what the consequences of their actions will be, it is always better to err on the side of caution. And Shelley’s tale tried to caution mankind long before humans started tinkering with nature. Yet we did not heed, and the ill affects of humans tinkering with nature are now becoming visible to mankind.
In her novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley presents the account of Dr. Victor Frankenstein and his quest for scientific knowledge in early nineteenth-century Europe. Frankenstein achieves his ambitions by giving life to an inanimate object; however, instead of feeling any elation at his achievement Frankenstein is filled with horror and dread. As a result, not only does Frankenstein suffer, but so too does his creation, the Monster. Shelley uses the anguish of both Frankenstein and the Monster to warn readers of the negative consequences of the pursuit of knowledge. In this sense, Frankenstein is a cautionary tale that demonstrates that the natural world, created with a purpose, functions in perfect harmony if left to itself; by breaking the laws of nature, mankind upsets this delicate balance and risks dire consequences.
The act of giving life to an inanimate object using unnatural means could be considered one of the greatest aims of scientific enquiry. Even in the twenty-first century, all research in this field remains at the cutting edge of technological innovation. However, for centuries, humans have endeavored to play God by trying to manipulate the forces of nature that were once beyond their control. The invention of the airplane is one example where humans have succeeded in a quest that was once deemed pure fantasy. But there are hundreds of other fields of inquiry where success has eluded scientists, even after centuries of study and experimentation. The creation of artificial life forms belongs in this latter group. In this sense, Frankenstein is an example of science fiction in that Dr. Frankenstein manages to create life artificially by applying a level of scientific expertise that is at present beyond human capabilities. However, he did not consider the consequences of his actions just as the scientists of the twenty-first century, in their rush to come up with groundbreaking inventions, do not consider the consequences of their actions, some of which may be extremely undesirable. This essay will also discuss some of the ill consequences of this mindless pursuit of scientific knowledge which are already becoming apparent.
Frankenstein could be considered merely a story of one particular scientist and his inability to handle such a massive moral responsibility. According to Lisa Nocks, the pursuit of scientific enquiry, such as cloning and genetic engineering, should not be condemned because “the human condition cries out for these improvements” (137). She argues that such science is noble and appropriate as it seeks to “extend and revive and improve human life” (137). However, although not all science should be condemned, and although a great deal of scientific inquiry actually benefits mankind, one cannot ignore the many ills generated by scientific research.
One such ill highlighted by Shelley in Frankenstein is the alienation of humans from society as they pursue scientific enquiry. While Frankenstein suffers the most from his invention, even the simple pursuit of knowledge causes both Frankenstein and the narrator, Robert Walton, mental, physical and emotional anguish. For Walton, the main source of anguish is that he is stuck in the frigid arctic ice and may neither be able to achieve the object of his pursuit, which is to reach the North Pole, nor be able to go back home. Walton had, in fact, subjected himself to physical anguish even before he embarked on his travel when he “voluntarily endured cold famine, thirst and want of sleep” as he prepared himself for the expedition (Shelley 8). Later, in Frankenstein’s narrative, we see that he too endures similar hardships and anguish in pursuit of his quest to give life to an inanimate object. During the pursuit of this scientific quest, Frankenstein neglects his own health, stops corresponding with his family and friends, and abandons all kinds of social life. And yet, as soon as he succeeds in his endeavor, he does not experience any joy: the horror at what he has created drives him to run away from his own creation. Thus, in their pursuit of knowledge, both characters relinquish simple worldly pleasures. An older and wiser Frankenstein later tries to caution Walton when he says “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind” (Shelley 33). Also, both Walton and Frankenstein find themselves lonely and companionless during the pursuit of their respective passions. Thus, Shelley tries to caution that the pursuit of knowledge must be balanced with other worldly pursuits; otherwise, it stands the risk of becoming unhealthy because such a single-minded obsession is unnatural for humans, who are generally accepted to be social creatures.
Another parallel between Frankenstein, Walton and the Monster is the psychological price they each pay for succeeding in their quest for knowledge. Spatt points out that all three suffer as a result of their knowledge and “yearn for a return to some mythic state of natural grace” (529). The monster laments that his sorrow has “increased with knowledge”, while Frankenstein feels that humans would be free of all hardships if their “impulses were confined to hunger, thirst and desire” (Shelley 81, 64). Walton too hopes to return to a more natural world. As Shelley repeatedly tries to convey to readers, humans do not need much more than food and water to be happy. In this sense, she likens humans to animals, which are content with their ignorance. The Monster may be leading a difficult life when he lacks knowledge. But the knowledge that he is unwelcome in human society, which he longs for after becoming aware of the virtues of companionship, renders him miserable. Thus, even for the Monster, who starts his life almost like an animal, advanced knowledge proves to be his downfall.
This unhealthy pursuit of knowledge also seems to attract mostly the young: both Walton and Frankenstein are youthful when they start their respective journeys. The young are most vulnerable perhaps because in their naivety and inexperience, they do not think through the consequences of their actions. As a man grows older and realizes that all actions have consequences, he becomes much more cautious. Such pattern is shown in the novel as the older and wiser Frankenstein tries to warn Walton of the dangers of unhealthy pursuits by stating “how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (Shelley 31). Here, Frankenstein suggests that there is a natural limit to what a man can achieve, and crossing that limit can bring unhappy consequences.
Another recurrent theme throughout the novel is the influence of the natural world on the psyche of the characters. In the initial pages, both Frankenstein and the Monster find comfort in nature’s beauty, but this apparent solace is set against their feelings when confronted with the unnatural creation of the Monster. For example, Frankenstein’s obsession with his pursuit results in his alienating himself from nature, a loss which causes him to fall ill. But, in the company of Henry, he soon regains his “strength from the salubrious air” (Shelley 43). Similarly, when the Monster first comes across the beauty of nature, it has the power to cheer him “by the loveliness of its sunshine and the balminess of the air” (Shelley 95). However, as the narrative progresses, nature’s ability to offer comfort progressively decreases. This shift is important because the unnatural act of creating the monster slowly comes to foreshadow all that was naturally intended until the unnatural completely consumes the natural. The natural world is juxtaposed with the unnatural to show the healing effects of the natural and the destructive effects of the unnatural.
After the Monster meets Frankenstein and tells him his story, we realize that Frankenstein’s mistake lies not only in creating the monster but also in not taking responsibility for his creation. In abandoning his creation, Frankenstein becomes even more to blame for the actions of the monster. By taking responsibility for his creation, he could perhaps mitigate to some extent the Monster’s miseries and make him less inclined to seek revenge on his maker. By creating a new life form, Frankenstein becomes God-like in the eyes of his creation, the Monster. The Monster compares himself to Adam, with whom he “was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence” (Shelley 87). However, unlike Adam, the Monster is not created a perfect creature and is not provided with any knowledge by his creator. And because mankind is so much happier than he can ever hope to become, the Monster is consumed with envy. Here, Shelley shows that, in the process of trying to create a new life form, Frankenstein unconsciously tries to become God, but unlike God, he is not perfect, and so his creation is more like Satan in that it is much more natural for the Monster to pursue evil than good.
In Frankenstein, Shelley also tries to show how obsessive behavior can completely destroy people and hence must be avoided. By the time the novel ends, both Frankenstein and the Monster are obsessed with each other and they only seem to live with the sole purpose of revenging one another. This is apparent from the fact that Frankenstein is constantly following the Monster, who is leading him on and actually ensuring that he never loses the track. As Frankenstein mentions, “he left marks in writing on the barks of the trees, or cut in stone, that guided me and instigated my fury” (Shelley 142). And when Frankenstein dies, the Monster feels that his “work is nearly complete” (Shelley 155) and resolves to die so that what he “now feel be no longer felt” (Shelley 156). Also, this obsessive behavior leads to Frankenstein and the Monster both hating themselves. As Frankenstein confesses, his life is “indeed hateful to me” (Shelley 142) and the Monster states that “your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself” (Shelley 155). This is an apt culmination to a story full of obsessive behaviors on the part of all the major characters. After being consumed with his obsession, Frankenstein tries to warn Walton against becoming fanatical about his pursuits. Yet, Frankenstein himself is unable to give up this obsession; only death can stop him from carrying out his vain pursuit. In these final pages, and indeed throughout the whole novel, Shelley repeatedly demonstrates that obsession of any kind is not natural for humans since it prevents them from enjoying the simpler pleasure of life.
Through this novel, Shelley warns scientists, and indeed all mankind, against the consequences of the thirst for knowledge, which drives humans to tinker with the natural order of things. Just as Frankenstein is alienated from the natural world as a result of his pursuit of knowledge, mankind is increasingly becoming alienated from nature as we rely more and more on the unnatural. Today’s scientists are becoming increasingly God-like in the way they try to manipulate even the building blocks of life: the genetic code and DNA structure. Cloning, for instance, has been a reality for some years. Despite all the precautions taken by scientists, no one can really predict the impact of human cloning on the survival of the species. Even ignoring the deep moral questions pertaining to human cloning, can we really guarantee that a being which is not really human but has all the human faculties will serve the best interests of human progress? The real reason why Frankenstein’s creation becomes a monster is his alienation from society combined with an innate superhuman force. A similar level of discrimination against cloned humans could turn even the best of scientists’ intentions on its head and trigger a new, desperate level of warfare for the survival of the human race.
Shelley’s novel also raises questions that can be applied to other commonly accepted scientific practices. Genetic engineering, for example, is still a relatively new science, but it has already been embraced wholesale by agribusiness. For years, genetically engineered foods were purported to be safe for human consumption. However, recent research has shown that the health risks of GM food are much greater than any benefits they may have. Anslow lists some of the experiments which highlight these health risks. A 1998 experiment on rats fed on blight-resistant GM potatoes “found damage to every single internal organ in rats” (Anslow 25). Another experiment on female rats fed herbicide resistant soybeans saw the rats give “birth to severely stunted offspring, of which half died within three weeks.” (Anslow 25). These experiments and many other prove that interfering in nature can never have positive results. By tinkering with nature, we may irreversibly damage the natural order of things, wrecking the delicate balance that cannot then be fixed by human intervention.
Nock’s argument in favor of continuing scientific research is that it is for the good of mankind. Much of the scientific research carried out to date was conducted with the well-being of mankind in mind. For example, the automobile was invented to make it easier for humans to travel from one place to another. The inventor of the motor car could never have imagined that, in just over a century, his invention would become a major contributor to pollution, global warming, the proliferation of seemingly endless suburbs, and a staggering annual toll in deaths and injuries, to say nothing of the military applications of the motorized vehicle.
Thus, Frankenstein can indeed be read as a cautionary tale which warns mankind against the ills of scientific knowledge when pursued without full awareness of its possible dire consequences. Since mankind’s pursuit of knowledge far exceeds what Shelley could have envisioned, her warning is even more relevant today than it was when the book was written. The harmful effects of technology, such as pollution and global warming, are there for everyone to see, yet mankind’s thirst for knowledge is not yet satisfied: we seem intent on continuing this self-destructive path into an unknown future. For Frankenstein, this vain quest to play the role of god ends in his death. In this way, Shelley cautions readers that an obsession with the pursuit of knowledge may ultimately end in a similar demise, not just for the curious scientist, but for all of mankind.
Works Cited
Anslow, Mark “…and 10 Reasons Why GM Food WON’T Feed the World.” CCPA Monitor 15.6 (2008): 24-25. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.
Nocks, Lisa. “Frankenstein, In a Better Light.” Journal of Social & Evolutionary Systems 20.2 (1997): 137-155. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Norton, 1995. Print.
Spatt, Hartley S. “Mary Shelley’s Last Men: the Truth of Dreams.” Studies in the Novel 7.4 (1975): 526-537. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.