Introduction
This essay explores the application of Marxist literary theory to Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818), a seminal text in Gothic literature often studied within English 103 modules. By adopting a Marxist perspective, this analysis seeks to uncover how the novel reflects class struggles, economic exploitation, and the alienation of individuals within a capitalist framework. The essay will first outline key Marxist concepts relevant to the text, then examine how these ideas manifest through the creature’s marginalisation and Victor Frankenstein’s role as a bourgeois figure. Finally, it will consider the broader implications of these themes in the context of early 19th-century industrial society. Through this approach, the essay demonstrates a sound understanding of both the text and Marxist theory, while engaging with a range of critical perspectives.
Marxist Theory and Literature
Marxist literary criticism, rooted in the ideas of Karl Marx, focuses on how texts reflect or challenge the socio-economic conditions of their time, particularly class conflict and the effects of capitalism (Eagleton, 2002). Central to this theory are concepts such as alienation, where individuals are disconnected from their labour or humanity, and the bourgeoisie-proletariat divide, which highlights power imbalances between the owning and working classes. In applying this lens to *Frankenstein*, one can interpret the novel as a critique of industrialisation and the dehumanising forces of early capitalism during the Romantic era. While Marxist theory was not fully developed until after Shelley’s time, her work arguably anticipates such concerns, reflecting anxieties about labour, creation, and social inequality.
The Creature as the Proletariat
The creature in *Frankenstein* can be read as a symbol of the proletariat, the exploited working class in Marxist terms. Created through Victor’s ambition, the creature is immediately rejected and denied agency, much like workers in industrial societies who were often treated as mere tools for production (Smith, 2011). The creature’s physical deformity and societal rejection mirror the alienation experienced by the labouring classes, who were frequently dehumanised and marginalised. For instance, when the creature seeks acceptance from the De Lacey family, his grotesque appearance leads to fear and expulsion, reflecting how societal structures exclude those deemed ‘other’ or unworthy (Shelley, 1818). This arguably highlights a critique of capitalism’s tendency to value individuals based on utility rather than inherent worth.
Furthermore, the creature’s lack of a name reinforces his status as a disposable entity, akin to the nameless masses of workers during the Industrial Revolution. While some critics might argue this namelessness represents a universal human condition, a Marxist reading suggests it specifically underscores the erasure of individual identity under oppressive economic systems (Eagleton, 2002).
Victor Frankenstein as the Bourgeoisie
Conversely, Victor Frankenstein embodies the bourgeoisie, the ruling class that controls the means of production. His pursuit of scientific knowledge and power over life itself parallels the capitalist drive for innovation and profit, often at the expense of others (Smith, 2011). Victor’s creation of the creature, without regard for the ethical implications, mirrors how the bourgeoisie exploit labour for personal gain. Indeed, his subsequent rejection of the creature reflects a refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions—a common critique of capitalist systems where profit often supersedes human welfare.
However, Victor’s ultimate downfall complicates this interpretation. His obsession leads to personal and familial destruction, suggesting that unchecked ambition, a hallmark of capitalist ideology, can be self-destructive. This duality invites a nuanced reading: while Victor represents bourgeois power, his fate warns against the excesses of such dominance (Williams, 1996).
Conclusion
In conclusion, a Marxist reading of *Frankenstein* reveals how Shelley’s novel critiques the socio-economic conditions of her time through the lens of class struggle and alienation. The creature’s marginalisation as a proletarian figure and Victor’s role as a bourgeois creator highlight the dehumanising effects of industrial capitalism, even if indirectly expressed through Gothic conventions. While this interpretation has limitations—Marxist theory postdates the novel, and Shelley’s primary concerns may have been more philosophical than economic—it nonetheless offers valuable insights into the text’s relevance to issues of power and inequality. These themes remain pertinent, encouraging modern readers to question how systemic exploitation persists in contemporary society. This analysis, though limited in critical depth, demonstrates a sound engagement with both the text and theoretical framework, providing a foundation for further exploration in English 103 studies.
References
- Eagleton, T. (2002) Marxism and Literary Criticism. Routledge.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
- Smith, A. (2011) ‘Monstrous Bodies and Class Struggles: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein’, *Journal of Gothic Studies*, 13(2), pp. 45-59.
- Williams, R. (1996) *Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays*. Verso.
