On Monstrosity
On Wednesday we talked briefly about monstrosity, making speculations as to why Cavendish was so obsessed with how microscopes and magnifying glasses distorted everyday objects (needles and the like) to disturbing degrees. I've always been fascinated by the concept of monstrosity and the fact that society, like Cavendish, is so fixated on singling out examples of gross abnormality. In other words, I often wondered (and continue to do so) why we feel the need label things or people as monstrous.
When I think carefully about it, I realize that I can't come up with a definitive definition of the word monster. All that comes to mind are descriptive phrases along the lines of grossly aberrant, repulsive and hideous, strange and dangerous -- there is no one image that represents a monster (whereas an egg is easily represented by a picture of an egg, a monster could technically be represented by pictures of anything from a vampire to an excessively hairy child). So what does the fact that there are so many representations of monsters mean? Are there really that many weird, freakish 'things' out there, or are we as a society simply overly afraid of the monstrous (or even worse, being monstrous)?
I think it all comes down to a core, innate fear of the unknown. After all, the idea of a troll is especially terrifying because no one has actually encountered one; because no one really knows what a troll is capable of, we all assume that it is capable of doing us harm. The key here is that we as people associate the unknown with danger. So... when we label the things/people we don't understand as monsters, we might be trying to put a recognizable face on the unknown. And by being able to see examples of monsters, we are just a bit closer to understanding or at least defining them. With this understanding, the threat of danger is diminished.
When I think carefully about it, I realize that I can't come up with a definitive definition of the word monster. All that comes to mind are descriptive phrases along the lines of grossly aberrant, repulsive and hideous, strange and dangerous -- there is no one image that represents a monster (whereas an egg is easily represented by a picture of an egg, a monster could technically be represented by pictures of anything from a vampire to an excessively hairy child). So what does the fact that there are so many representations of monsters mean? Are there really that many weird, freakish 'things' out there, or are we as a society simply overly afraid of the monstrous (or even worse, being monstrous)?
I think it all comes down to a core, innate fear of the unknown. After all, the idea of a troll is especially terrifying because no one has actually encountered one; because no one really knows what a troll is capable of, we all assume that it is capable of doing us harm. The key here is that we as people associate the unknown with danger. So... when we label the things/people we don't understand as monsters, we might be trying to put a recognizable face on the unknown. And by being able to see examples of monsters, we are just a bit closer to understanding or at least defining them. With this understanding, the threat of danger is diminished.
posted by Quinn at 12:03 AM
4 Comments:
I definitely agree with your consideration of "monsters" to be rooted in the fear of the unknown. In fact, I would even extend that to include fear, or even hatred, of those who differ in any way. "Monster" is a difficult word to define, so here's a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Dictionary Definition of Monster.
But what exactly is "abnormal form?" In nature, no two things are exactly alike, so how can something be normal or abnormal? On the other hand, the final definition describes a monster as "one that is highly successful." How could a term used to describe hideous beasts and unnatural figures also have positive connotations in different context? I think that reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein will clear some of these thoughts up...
a-ha. I think Jordan is right to look forward to Shelley's contribution to some of the questions raised by Quinn "on monstrosity."
Although the word "monster" or "monstrous" may bring up images of hideous beasts, vampires, and "excessively hairy children" (haha), I think that this word also makes us picture something that is HUGE! So, with that being said, I suppose I can try to understand why or how Cavendish could use such a word to describe the magnifying glass/microscope. This scientific instrument allowed us to magnify a flee to such a size that enabled us to see tiny follicles of hair growing from its back. Before this time, we could only picture what was visible to our naked eye, but once microscopes were invented, a whole new world was opened up to us. Mysteries were being revealed. And I think that this sudden ability or flood of new knowledge and information was so great in magnitude that Cavendish probably felt very small in this new world of discoveries. And to her, it was probably scary...even "monstrous."
The definition of monster describes them as "animals or plants" of abnormal form or structure. Also, extreme ugliness and/or cruelty.
When I see here monsters being defined as simply abnormal things, the question that then comes to my mind is, what is abnormal, and who decides. Also, if there was no abnormal, there would be no normal.
In one of my high school English classes we read an article, I can't remember which one or by who but I did email my teacher to see if she remembers. The article was about beauty, and its main argument was that ugliness was neccessary in order for beauty to exist, because without ugliness, there would be no definition for "beauty" because everything would be the same. Beauty would be status quo if there was no ugliness. I feel like the same argument can be applied here towards montrous and normal.
Also, if monsters can be defined as excessively cruel, then I feel like humans and animals that aren't really "ugly," "abnormal," or "gross" can be considered monsters as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home