Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus and Social Identity Theory

Megan Varney

Abstract


This paper delves deeply into the intricate themes woven throughout Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, illuminating critical aspects such as family dynamics, societal expectations, isolation, the pursuit of ambition, and the inherent fallibility of human nature—all of which play pivotal roles in the formation of identity. The analysis begins with a thorough exploration of the complex relationships within families, highlighting how these connections can both nurture and hinder personal growth. It scrutinizes the rigid structures of society that dictate individual roles and aspirations, particularly in light of the sweeping changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. This period not only transformed economies but also reshaped social hierarchies, leading to pronounced class disparities that are crucial to understanding the text’s context. Employing social identity theory as a framework, the paper enriches our comprehension of how individual ambition can be stifled or propelled by societal rejection. This dynamic is particularly relevant during the Romantic era, when class struggles were at the forefront of social consciousness. Moreover, the investigation of identity in relation to ethical considerations and the intricate nature of human connection reveals significant insights into how Frankenstein was perceived by nineteenth-century audiences. By examining the societal factors that contributed to the text’s mixed reception—from fears surrounding unchecked ambition to anxieties about the moral implications of scientific advancement—this paper provides a nuanced understanding of why Shelley's work initially faced adversity and controversy, enriching its relevance then and now.


Keywords


Alienation; identity; oppression; relationships; society; humanity

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adrees, Mohd, and A.K. Paliwal. “Evolution And Place Of Gothic Fiction In Modern Society.” International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, vol. 11, no. 8, 2023, pp. 979-983. IJCRT, https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2308320.pdf.

Altun, Mustafa. “Literature and Identity: Examine the Role of Literature in Shaping Individual and Cultural Identities.” International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, 2023, pp. 381-385. ResearchGate, http://dx.doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i3p381.

"An Introduction to Frankenstein." Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism, edited by Jessica Bomarito and Russel Whitaker, Gale Literature Criticism, 2006, pp. 198-200. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/XTSCWO322969620/LCO?u=nhc_main&sid=bookmark-LCO&xid=1dbb93f6.

Arcilla, Felix E. Jr. “Poetic Devices, Thematic Significance and Social Realities in Poetry: A Critical Literature Review.” Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science (RIELS) Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, 2024, pp. 70-85. ResearchGate, http://dx.doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v5i1.935.

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Duke Classics, 2012.

Beenstock, Zoe. “Lyrical Socialibility: The Social Contract and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Philosophy and Literature, vol. 39, no. 2, 2015, pp. 406-421. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/lyrical-sociability-social-contract-mary-shelleys/docview/1787817879/se-2.

Cambra-Badii, Irene, et al. “The Ethical Interest of Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus: A Literature Review 200 Years After Its Publication.” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 26, no. 5, Oct. 2020, pp. 2791-2808. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x.

Chen, Yutong. “The Pursuit for Identity and Community of Monster in Frankenstein.” Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, 2023, pp. 5-10. Francis Academic Press, https://francis-press.com/uploads/papers/Yw48PhsnG6EnEOdEBRQDlacBgxZliMZnVIQyWSnp.pdf.

Conboy, Kieran. “Being Promethean.” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, 2019, pp. 119-125. Taylor & Francis Online, https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1586189.

Fishelov, David. “The Indirect Path to the Literary Canon Exemplified by Shelley’s Frankenstein.” CLCWeb, vol. 18, no. 2, 2016, pp. 1-9. ProQuest, https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2847.

Gigante, Denise. “Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein.” ELH, vol. 67, no. 2, 2000, pp. 565-587. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/elh.2000.0015.

Graubard, Mark. “The Frankenstein Syndrome: Man’s Ambivalent Attitude to Knowledge and Power.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 10, no. 3, 1967, pp. 419-444. Project Muse, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1967.0038.

Groumpos, Peter P. “A Critical Historical and Scientific Overview of all Industrial Revolutions.” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 13, 2021, pp. 464-471. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.10.492.

Heringman, Noah. "Romanticism." The Routledge Companion to Literature and Science, edited by Bruce Clark and Manuela Rossini, Routledge, 2010, pp. 462-473. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203848739-42/romanticism-noah-heringman.

Hogg, Michael A. “Radical Change.” Scientific American, vol. 321, no. 3, 2019, pp. 84–87. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27265333.

Jackson, Hannah. “Creating a Monster: Attachment Theory and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” The Oswald Review: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Criticism in the Discipline of English, vol. 20, no. 7, 2018, pp. 51-69. Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/tor/vol20/iss1/7.

Kao, Chen-Yao. “Similes, Metaphors, and Creativity.” Educational Psychology, vol. 42, no. 2, Feb. 2022, pp. 163–184. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1929850.

Melander, Eric, and Martina Miotto. “Welfare Cuts and Crime: Evidence from the New Poor Law.” Economic Journal, vol. 133, no. 651, Apr. 2023, pp. 1248–1264. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac083.

Moses, Julia, and Julia Woesthoff. "Romantic Relationships Across Boundaries: Global and Comparative Perspectives." The History of the Family, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019, pp. 439-465. Taylor & Francis Online, https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2019.1634120.

Mpofu, Raphael, and Angelo Nicolaides. “Frankenstein and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR): Ethics and Human Rights Considerations.” African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, vol. 8, no. 5, 2019, pp. 1-25. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, https://www.ajhtl.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_71_vol_8_5__2019_unisa.pdf.

Oldmeadow, Julian A., and Susan T. Fiske. “Social Status and the Pursuit of Positive Social Identity: Systematic Domains of Intergroup Differentiation and Discrimination for High- and Low-Status Groups.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, vol. 13, no. 4, 2010, pp. 1-25. National Library of Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209355650.

Sarkar, Proshanta. “Frankenstein: An Echo of Social Alienation and Social Madness.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 9, no. 3, 2013, pp. 29-32. IOSR Journals, https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol9-issue3/F0932932.pdf?id=6138.

Schouten de Jel, Joshua. “Fathers, Son, and Monsters: Rousseau, Blake, and Mary Shelley.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 5, no. 78, 2019, pp. 1-9. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0286-x.

Schug, Charles. “The Romantic Form of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 17, no. 4, 1977, pp. 607-619. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/450311.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Barnes & Noble Books, 2003.

Stets, Jan E., and Richard T. Serpe. “Identity Theory.” Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by John DeLamater and Amanda Ward, Springer Dordrecht, June 2013, pp. 31-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_2.

Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Duke Classics, 2012.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Duke Classics, 2012.

Waham, Jihad Jaafar. “The Art of Gothic Literature: An Analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” International Linguistics Research, vol. 6, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1-7. Ideas Spread, https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v6n2p1.



View Counter


Abstract - 298
PDF - 136

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Megan Varney

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                                                       

ISSN: 2454-2296

E-ISSN: 2395-0897