Science of Creation and Science of the Mind

Obsession, murder, revenge. We are repulsed by the actions undertaken by both Victor Frankenstein and his nameless creation, but is Shelley not hinting that within us exists the same evil?

This is not a new concept and it has even come up in the unrelated realm of psychology. During the summer, while I was trying to juggle all the summer work I had to complete, the two subject’s paths unexpectedly intertwined. I noticed the similarity when I switched out my novel Frankenstein for Roger Hock’s 40 Studies that Changed Psychology. Previously pondering the roles of Frankenstein and the creature as doubles I flipped straight to a study called “The ego and the mechanisms of defense”  by Anna Freud which read, “Freud believed that dark, antisocial, and dangerous instinctual urges (especially sexual ones) are present in everyone’s id and that these constantly seek expression… if you were lacking the other parts of your personality and only had an id, Freud would expect your behavior to be amoral, shockingly deviant, and even fatal to you and others” (Hock 237). This description is especially fitting to the behavior of the creation, who Freud would argue was acting on his id, the principle within us that only seeks to gratify our desires. After reading this, I was inspired to flip back through my psychology book in search of other parallels. I was not disappointed with what I found.

“Most psychologists agree that your experiences as an infant with closeness, touching, and attachment to your mother (or other primary caregiver) have an important influence on your abilities to love and be close to others later in life” (Hock 127). This quote explains the creation’s lack of ability to love others because of his miserable past full of abandonment. Similarly, Victor’s actions towards the end of the book are described in a study about control where it states that “…if someone tells you that you have to do something, you may respond by either refusing or by doing exactly the opposite. Or, conversely, try to forbid someone from doing something and they will find that activity more attractive… This tendency to resist any attempt to limit our freedom is called reactance” (Hock 151). Victor clearly exhibits reactance when he is on the verge of finishing a mate for his creation then dramatically tears it apart, ruining any hope of peace that existed within the two beings. Lastly, the theme of rebellion and isolation is apparent in many characters throughout the novel. Hock summarizes a societal study by stating that  “…rebellion (within certain socially acceptable limits) and an independent streak in individualistic cultures are seen as personality assets, whereas in collectivist societies they are seen as liabilities. The messages from the culture to the children, via the parents, about these assets or liabilities are loud and clear and exert a potent influence upon the kids’ development into adulthood” (Hock 225). This quote caused me to look back within the culture Shelley lived in and question whether she would consider rebellion a liability or an asset. By the consequences seen in her novel that were a result of rebellion, I concluded that she considered it a transgression, an act that led to isolation.

There are a vast amount of similarities between Frankenstein and Forty Studies that Changed Psychology and it was interesting to see how concepts that are widely accepted across the psychological world are present within Mary Shelley’s novel written more than a century before. Extraordinary, really.