This task assigned by Dilip Barad.
For further information: Click here.
“Revolution, Robot, and the Return of the Creature: A Cultural-Studies Reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein remains a startlingly adaptable critique of production, exclusion, and responsibility. Read through a cultural-studies lens, the novel is less a simple Gothic horror and more a sustained interrogation of what modern institutions do with those they produce and then refuse to recognize. This reading advances three linked claims: the Creature functions as a proletarian figure produced and abandoned by emergent systems of knowledge; the novel stages anxieties that resonate with colonial-era othering; and Shelley’s “Frankenphemes” — recurring cultural motifs of creator/creation tension — recur across media and contemporary debates about technology.
Production without responsibility. Victor Frankenstein assembles life from parts but refuses social or ethical care once the Creature opens its eyes. That refusal is not merely personal cowardice; it models an industrial logic in which production is valorized while responsibility is externalized. The Creature’s initial curiosity, hunger, and attempts to join the De Lacey household dramatize fundamental human needs — shelter, recognition, instruction — that institutions routinely reduce to cost centers. When the Creature is denied these, exclusion hardens into political subjectivity: his retaliatory violence reads as the eruption of a created subject denied citizenship and labor rights. Through this mapping, Shelley stages a proto-Marxian critique: those produced by systems that refuse them can radicalize.
Othering and empire. The Creature’s visibility and rejection also echo late-eighteenth/early-nineteenth-century anxieties about the “other” created by empire. Though Shelley does not narrate race in contemporary terms, the Creature’s function as an immediately visible outsider — judged at sight, forced into marginal spaces — resonates with colonial discourses that racialized difference and feared contamination from contact. Victor’s shame and refusal to claim his own creation parallels metropolitan anxieties about the consequences of experiment and contact: the colonial subject, like the Creature, becomes a mirror of metropolitan guilt. Reading Frankenstein within a broader imperial field encourages us to trace how exclusionary structures of identity operate alongside scientific enterprise and how acts of creation are implicated in wider projects of domination and repudiation.
Part II — Cultural Legacy, Applications & Conclusion
Frankenphemes: recurring cultural motifs. Shelley’s narrative gave rise to durable cultural motifs that persist in modern debates — what we might call Frankenphemes. The “mad creator,” the sympathetic yet monstrous product, and the technological threat are repeated from early film to cyberpunk and AI discourse. Early cinematic adaptations often reduce the Creature to spectacle, while later works recast it as a proto-cyborg or an embodiment of social neglect (consider how manufactured subjects in dystopian cinema are abandoned by their makers). Today’s controversies around genetic editing, AI ethics, and automation reuse Shelley’s core question: what duties accompany creation? The novel’s capacity to be remixed across eras shows its central insight — that technological mastery without social responsibility produces profound ethical crises.
Implications and conclusion. The cultural-studies approach reframes Frankenstein as an oppositional resource rather than a cautionary fable for isolated geniuses. The Creature’s tragic arc forces us to ask whether our institutions — scientific, economic, legal — can recognize those they create. If they cannot, the novel warns, excluded beings may become the vehicle for critique, revolt, or transformed subjectivities. Reading Shelley this way invites scholars and students to trace continuities between nineteenth-century anxieties and twenty-first-century technological dilemmas: the Creature becomes both symptom and critic of modernity’s ethical lacunae.
In conclusion, Frankenstein resists being reduced to a single moral. Seen through the lens of cultural studies, it stages the consequences of production without care, exposes how exclusion is inscribed into modern institutions, and supplies durable images and questions that haunt contemporary debates about technology, labor, and belonging. The Creature is not only a figure of horror but a provocation: when creators refuse responsibility, the products of their mastery become a measure of the social order’s failure — and, potentially, the seed of its transformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment