Frankenstein's Political Undercurrents: Power, Responsibility, And Social Rebellion

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* is a seminal work of science fiction that transcends its genre to engage deeply with political themes, reflecting the social and ideological upheavals of its time. Written during the early 19th century, a period marked by the Industrial Revolution, the rise of scientific rationalism, and the aftermath of the French Revolution, the novel critiques the consequences of unchecked ambition, the dangers of social isolation, and the ethical responsibilities of creators. Through the character of Victor Frankenstein and his monstrous creation, Shelley explores questions of power, justice, and the role of society in shaping individuals, offering a nuanced commentary on the political and moral dilemmas of her era. The Creature’s demand for companionship and his subsequent rejection by society serve as a metaphor for the marginalized and oppressed, highlighting issues of inequality, prejudice, and the failure of societal structures to address human suffering. Thus, *Frankenstein* is not merely a horror story but a profound political allegory that continues to resonate with contemporary debates on ethics, technology, and the human condition.

Explore related products

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Annotated and Illustrated: The Uncensored 1818 Text with Maps, Essays, and Analysis (Oldstyle Tales' Gothic Novels)

$21.2

Frankenstein: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds (Mit Press)

$21.12 $22.95

The Essentials of Political Analysis

$90.75 $156

The Essentials of Political Analysis (Fifth Edition)

$22.71 $75

An R Companion to Political Analysis

$63.32

American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (MindTap Course List)

$71.48 $154.95

Revolution and Class Struggle: Reflects 19th-century anxieties about social upheaval and class inequality

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* is a searing reflection of 19th-century anxieties about social upheaval and class inequality, embedding the era's revolutionary fervor and economic disparities within its Gothic narrative. The creature’s creation and subsequent rejection by Victor Frankenstein mirror the plight of the working class, who, despite their labor, were often cast aside by the elite. Shelley’s depiction of the creature’s isolation and rage echoes the growing discontent among the lower classes, who were increasingly vocal about their exploitation. This parallel is not accidental; Shelley wrote during a time when the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution had upended traditional hierarchies, leaving society fraught with tension.

Consider the creature’s demand for a female companion, which Victor denies out of fear of creating a new race that could challenge human dominance. This refusal symbolizes the elite’s resistance to empowering the marginalized, lest they gain autonomy and disrupt the status quo. The creature’s subsequent vengeance—destroying Victor’s loved ones—can be read as a metaphor for the revolutionary violence that terrified the aristocracy. Shelley does not glorify this violence but instead portrays it as a tragic consequence of systemic neglect and oppression, urging readers to confront the roots of rebellion rather than merely its symptoms.

To understand this dynamic, examine the creature’s education through stolen books, which highlights the uneven access to knowledge and opportunity in Shelley’s time. While Victor receives a privileged education, the creature must teach himself, only to be met with hostility when he attempts to integrate into society. This disparity underscores the class-based barriers of the 19th century, where upward mobility was often illusory. Shelley’s narrative serves as a cautionary tale: exclude and dehumanize the disenfranchised at your peril, for their alienation breeds desperation.

Practical takeaways from this analysis are clear. Educators and readers alike should approach *Frankenstein* not merely as a horror story but as a lens through which to examine historical and contemporary class struggles. For instance, discussing the novel in classrooms can spark conversations about labor rights, income inequality, and the ethical responsibilities of the privileged. Pairing the text with primary sources from the 19th century, such as pamphlets from the Luddite movement or writings by Karl Marx, can deepen students’ understanding of the era’s social tensions.

Ultimately, Shelley’s novel remains a powerful reminder that societal stability depends on addressing the grievances of the marginalized. By framing the creature’s story as a critique of class inequality, *Frankenstein* challenges readers to consider how exclusion and exploitation sow the seeds of revolt. In an age where economic disparities continue to widen, Shelley’s warnings are as relevant as ever, offering both a historical perspective and a call to action.

Colonialism and Otherness: Explores themes of exploitation and the marginalized Other in society

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* serves as a chilling allegory for colonialism, where the creature’s creation and subsequent rejection mirror the exploitation and marginalization of indigenous peoples. Victor Frankenstein, the colonizer figure, imposes his will on the natural world, crafting a being without regard for its autonomy or humanity. This act of creation echoes the colonial mindset that justifies domination under the guise of progress or enlightenment. The creature, much like colonized populations, is treated as a commodity rather than a sentient being, discarded when it fails to meet its creator’s expectations. Shelley’s narrative forces readers to confront the moral consequences of such hubris, revealing how colonialism dehumanizes both the colonizer and the colonized.

Consider the creature’s first encounters with humanity: he is met with violence and fear, driven away solely because of his appearance. This treatment reflects the "otherness" imposed on marginalized groups, who are systematically excluded from society based on arbitrary distinctions. The creature’s plea for companionship and understanding is ignored, paralleling the erasure of indigenous cultures and voices in colonial contexts. Shelley’s depiction underscores how the "Other" is constructed not by inherent differences, but by the dominant group’s refusal to recognize shared humanity. This dynamic perpetuates cycles of alienation and violence, as seen in the creature’s eventual turn to vengeance.

To analyze this theme further, examine the creature’s education through observation. He learns language, morality, and emotions by studying a family from afar, yet his attempts to integrate are met with hostility. This mirrors the colonial practice of observing and documenting "native" cultures while denying their agency. The creature’s self-education highlights the resilience of the marginalized, who persist in seeking humanity despite systemic rejection. Shelley’s narrative challenges readers to question who the true monster is: the creation or the creator who abandons it?

Practical takeaways from this exploration include recognizing how narratives shape perceptions of otherness. Educators and readers can deconstruct colonial biases by centering marginalized voices in discussions of *Frankenstein*. For instance, pairing the novel with texts from postcolonial authors can provide contrasting perspectives on exploitation and resistance. Additionally, encouraging critical reflection on modern-day "monstering"—such as xenophobia or racial profiling—can bridge Shelley’s 19th-century critique to contemporary issues. By doing so, *Frankenstein* becomes a tool for dismantling the ideologies that sustain exploitation and otherness.

Ultimately, Shelley’s novel exposes colonialism as a system built on the dehumanization of the Other, with consequences that reverberate for both the oppressed and the oppressor. The creature’s story is not just a tale of horror but a cautionary reminder of what happens when empathy is sacrificed for dominance. By exploring these themes, readers can confront their own complicity in perpetuating otherness and work toward a more inclusive understanding of humanity. *Frankenstein* remains politically potent because it forces us to ask: who are we creating, and at what cost?

Government Responsibility: Questions state accountability for scientific progress and its consequences

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* raises profound questions about the role of government in overseeing scientific progress and its consequences. Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the Creature occurs in a vacuum of accountability, with no institutional checks or ethical guidelines to govern his actions. This absence of state oversight mirrors real-world debates about emerging technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and synthetic biology. Governments often lag behind scientific advancements, leaving society vulnerable to unintended consequences. For instance, the development of CRISPR gene-editing technology has outpaced regulatory frameworks, raising ethical dilemmas about designer babies and ecological risks. Shelley’s novel serves as a cautionary tale, urging governments to proactively establish ethical standards and regulatory bodies to ensure scientific progress aligns with societal well-being.

Consider the steps governments must take to fulfill their responsibility in this realm. First, they must invest in interdisciplinary advisory boards comprising scientists, ethicists, and policymakers to evaluate the risks and benefits of new technologies. Second, transparent public engagement is essential to ensure decisions reflect collective values rather than corporate or individual interests. Third, enforceable regulations must be implemented, with penalties for violations to deter reckless experimentation. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets a precedent for how governments can regulate emerging fields like AI. However, caution is warranted: overregulation could stifle innovation, while underregulation risks catastrophic outcomes. Striking this balance requires foresight, adaptability, and a commitment to the public good.

A comparative analysis of historical cases highlights the consequences of state negligence. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 exemplifies what happens when governments prioritize secrecy and expediency over safety, resulting in widespread environmental and human harm. In contrast, the Asilomar Conference of 1975, where scientists voluntarily established guidelines for recombinant DNA research, demonstrates the potential for self-regulation when supported by governmental frameworks. Shelley’s *Frankenstein* echoes these lessons, illustrating how Victor’s lack of accountability leads to devastation. Governments must learn from such examples, adopting a proactive rather than reactive approach to scientific oversight. Without this, the pursuit of knowledge risks becoming a Frankenstein’s monster, uncontrollable and destructive.

Persuasively, the argument for government accountability rests on the principle of collective responsibility. Scientific progress is not the domain of isolated geniuses but a societal endeavor funded by public resources and impacting the common good. Victor Frankenstein’s abandonment of his creation reflects a failure of individual responsibility, but it also underscores the absence of a system that could have intervened. Governments have a moral and practical obligation to prevent such failures by fostering a culture of accountability. This includes funding research into the societal implications of science, educating the public about emerging technologies, and holding scientists and institutions to ethical standards. Shelley’s novel challenges us to ask: if we create the tools to reshape life itself, who ensures they are used wisely?

Descriptively, the consequences of unchecked scientific progress in *Frankenstein* paint a grim picture of what could happen in our world. The Creature’s suffering and subsequent violence are direct results of Victor’s hubris and the lack of societal safeguards. In contemporary terms, this could translate to genetically modified organisms disrupting ecosystems, AI systems perpetuating biases, or synthetic pathogens escaping labs. Governments must act as guardians of the future, ensuring that scientific advancements do not outstrip our ability to manage their consequences. By learning from Shelley’s narrative, we can envision a world where innovation thrives within ethical boundaries, and the state serves as both enabler and protector of progress. The question remains: will we heed the warning, or repeat Victor’s fatal mistake?

Explore related products

Frankenstein: The 1818 Text (Penguin Classics)

$8.84 $11

Shelley Moore Capito Biography : A Life of Public Service and Firsts in West Virginia Politics

$7

American Government and Politics Today, Enhanced Brief

$49.75 $115.95

American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials, Enhanced

$77.49 $154.95

Shelley and the Chaos of History: A New Politics of Poetry (Literature and Philosophy)

$35.95

Shelley: The Pursuit (New York Review Books)

$34.03 $45

Gender and Power: Examines patriarchal structures and female agency in a male-dominated world

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* is a searing critique of patriarchal structures, revealing how women are marginalized and silenced in a male-dominated world. The novel’s female characters—Elizabeth, Justine, and Safie—are often reduced to passive victims, their agency stripped away by the actions of men. Victor Frankenstein’s obsession with creation and destruction mirrors the patriarchal tendency to control and exploit, while the creature’s narrative highlights the consequences of denying humanity to those deemed "other." This dynamic underscores how power in the novel is overwhelmingly wielded by men, leaving women as collateral damage in their pursuit of knowledge and dominance.

Consider the character of Elizabeth, who embodies the idealized feminine virtue yet is ultimately sacrificed to advance Victor’s narrative. Her death is not a result of her own actions but a consequence of Victor’s hubris and the creature’s vengeance. This portrayal serves as a cautionary tale: in patriarchal systems, women’s lives are expendable, their value tied to their utility to men. To analyze this further, examine how Elizabeth’s role is confined to that of a passive caretaker, devoid of any agency or voice in the story. This erasure of female autonomy reflects the broader societal norms of Shelley’s time, where women were often relegated to domestic spheres with little power to shape their destinies.

Contrastingly, Safie’s story offers a glimpse of resistance within these constraints. Her narrative, though brief, reveals a woman who defies patriarchal expectations by seeking knowledge and independence. Safie’s ability to learn languages and her role in preserving her father’s story demonstrate a form of agency that challenges the male-dominated order. However, her story remains embedded within the creature’s narrative, highlighting the limits of female agency even in acts of defiance. This duality—of resistance and subjugation—is a powerful commentary on the complexities of gender and power in *Frankenstein*.

To understand the novel’s political implications, dissect the power dynamics between Victor and his creation. Victor’s refusal to create a female companion for the creature is not just an act of scientific restraint but a symbolic assertion of patriarchal control. By denying the creature a partner, Victor ensures his dominance, reinforcing the idea that women are commodities to be withheld or granted at the whim of men. This act also underscores the creature’s isolation, framing his violence as a response to systemic exclusion and the denial of basic human connection.

In practical terms, *Frankenstein* invites readers to interrogate contemporary patriarchal systems. For instance, examine how women’s voices are often silenced in scientific and political discourse, echoing Victor’s dismissal of the creature’s pleas. To counteract this, amplify female perspectives in decision-making processes, ensuring that women are not reduced to passive bystanders. Additionally, educate younger audiences—particularly those aged 13–18—on the historical and cultural contexts of Shelley’s work, fostering critical thinking about gender roles and power structures. By doing so, *Frankenstein* becomes more than a Gothic tale; it transforms into a tool for dismantling patriarchal norms and empowering female agency.

Scientific Ethics: Critiques unchecked ambition and the moral implications of technological advancement

Mary Shelley's *Frankenstein* serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked scientific ambition, a theme that resonates deeply with contemporary debates on technological advancement and ethical boundaries. Victor Frankenstein’s obsessive pursuit of knowledge and his creation of the Creature exemplify the consequences of prioritizing innovation over moral responsibility. This narrative mirrors modern concerns about genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology, where the potential for groundbreaking discoveries often outpaces ethical considerations. Shelley’s novel forces readers to confront a critical question: At what point does scientific progress become a moral transgression?

Consider the steps scientists take when embarking on groundbreaking research. First, they identify a problem or curiosity; second, they design experiments to address it; and third, they execute their plans with minimal external oversight. Frankenstein’s process follows this pattern, but he omits a crucial fourth step: evaluating the ethical implications of his work. For instance, modern geneticists must adhere to guidelines like the Nuremberg Code or the Declaration of Helsinki, which emphasize informed consent and the prevention of harm. Frankenstein, however, operates in isolation, driven by ego and ambition rather than a commitment to the greater good. This omission highlights the danger of bypassing ethical frameworks in the name of progress.

A comparative analysis of Frankenstein’s actions and contemporary scientific practices reveals striking parallels. Take the CRISPR gene-editing tool, which allows scientists to modify DNA with unprecedented precision. While it holds promise for curing genetic diseases, its misuse could lead to unintended consequences, such as designer babies or ecological disruptions. Similarly, Frankenstein’s creation of life from death was a scientific marvel, but it lacked any consideration for the Creature’s well-being or the societal impact of his existence. Both scenarios underscore the need for rigorous ethical oversight to prevent innovation from becoming a tool of destruction.

To avoid repeating Frankenstein’s mistakes, scientists and policymakers must adopt practical measures. First, establish interdisciplinary ethics boards to review high-risk research, ensuring diverse perspectives shape decision-making. Second, mandate transparency in scientific processes, allowing public scrutiny to act as a check on unchecked ambition. Third, integrate ethics training into STEM education, fostering a culture of responsibility from the earliest stages of a scientist’s career. For example, universities could require courses on bioethics for biology majors, much like medical schools teach medical ethics. These steps, while not foolproof, provide a framework for balancing innovation with moral accountability.

Ultimately, *Frankenstein* remains a powerful critique of the human tendency to pursue knowledge without considering its consequences. As technology advances at an unprecedented pace, Shelley’s novel reminds us that ethical reflection is not a hindrance to progress but a necessary safeguard. By learning from Frankenstein’s failures, we can ensure that scientific ambition serves humanity rather than endangering it. The question is not whether we can innovate, but whether we should—and under what conditions.

Frequently asked questions