Introduction
Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818) is a seminal text that has been explored through various critical lenses, including Marxist criticism, which examines power dynamics and class struggle within societal structures. This essay adopts a Marxist perspective to interpret the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creature, casting Victor as a representation of the bourgeoisie—the capitalist ruling class—and the creature as the proletariat, the exploited working class. By analysing their interactions, motivations, and ultimate fates, this essay argues that Shelley’s novel critiques the dehumanising effects of capitalist systems and the inherent inequalities they perpetuate. The discussion will focus on Victor’s role as a creator who exploits his intellectual capital, the creature’s embodiment of alienated labour, and the broader implications of class conflict within the text. Through this analysis, supported by secondary sources, the essay aims to highlight how Marxist criticism unveils structural inequalities embedded in the narrative.
Victor Frankenstein as the Bourgeoisie: Power and Exploitation
From a Marxist perspective, Victor Frankenstein epitomises the bourgeoisie through his control over intellectual and material resources. As a privileged individual with access to education and scientific knowledge, Victor wields power akin to a capitalist who exploits labour for personal gain. His ambition to transcend human limitations by creating life mirrors the bourgeois drive for innovation and dominance over nature, often at the expense of others. Indeed, Victor’s act of creation is not collaborative but solitary, reflecting the bourgeoisie’s tendency to prioritise individual achievement over collective welfare (Eagleton, 1983). His obsessive pursuit, as seen in his declaration, “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation” (Shelley, 1818, p. 54), underscores a capitalist mindset driven by profit and mastery rather than ethical responsibility.
Furthermore, Victor’s treatment of the creature reveals a bourgeois detachment from the consequences of his actions. After bringing the creature to life, he recoils in horror and abandons it, demonstrating a lack of accountability that parallels how the ruling class often disregards the plight of the working class (Smith, 1994). This relationship suggests that Victor, as the bourgeoisie, exploits his creation for intellectual prestige without considering the moral or social ramifications. Such behaviour highlights the Marxist critique of capitalism as a system that thrives on exploitation while evading responsibility for the suffering it causes.
The Creature as the Proletariat: Alienation and Struggle
In contrast, the creature embodies the proletariat, a class defined by its lack of agency and subjugation to the bourgeoisie. Born without choice or identity, the creature is a product of Victor’s labour, yet he is denied recognition or integration into society. This mirrors the Marxist concept of alienation, where workers are estranged from the products of their labour, their own humanity, and their potential for self-realisation (Marx, 1844, cited in Bottomore, 1983). The creature’s lament, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818, p. 95), captures the transformation of an inherently innocent being into a vengeful outcast, arguably due to the neglect and rejection imposed by Victor’s bourgeois indifference.
Moreover, the creature’s desperate quest for acceptance and belonging reflects the proletariat’s struggle for recognition within a capitalist system that dehumanises them. His attempts to learn language and understand human society, only to be met with fear and violence, parallel the working class’s efforts to gain rights and dignity in the face of systemic oppression (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979). This reading is further supported by the creature’s physical grotesque appearance, which can be interpreted as a metaphor for the way capitalism marks the proletariat as ‘other’—undesirable and unworthy of empathy. Thus, through the creature, Shelley critiques the alienation inherent in class-based societies, where the labourer is reduced to a mere instrument of production.
Class Conflict and Revolutionary Potential in Frankenstein
The interaction between Victor and the creature also exemplifies the inevitable tension of class conflict central to Marxist theory. Their relationship is marked by mutual hostility, with the creature seeking retribution for his suffering and Victor pursuing the destruction of his own creation. This dynamic mirrors the proletariat’s potential for rebellion against the bourgeoisie, as the oppressed seek to overturn the structures that subjugate them (Eagleton, 1983). The creature’s violent acts, including the murders of Victor’s loved ones, can be seen as a form of revolutionary uprising, albeit tragically misdirected. As Mellor (1988) argues, the creature’s actions, while monstrous, stem from a profound sense of injustice, reflecting the proletariat’s response to exploitation when peaceful integration is denied.
However, Shelley’s narrative also suggests the limitations of such rebellion within a capitalist framework. The creature’s ultimate isolation and Victor’s destruction indicate that individual revolt, without systemic change, often leads to mutual ruin rather than liberation. This aligns with Marxist thought on the necessity of collective action for true emancipation, pointing to a critique of capitalism’s ability to perpetuate division even in the face of resistance (Smith, 1994). Therefore, the novel, through a Marxist lens, not only highlights class conflict but also underscores the challenges of achieving meaningful reform within an inherently unequal system.
Social Critique and Implications of Marxist Reading
Applying a Marxist framework to *Frankenstein* reveals Shelley’s subtle critique of the socio-economic conditions of her time, particularly the industrial revolution’s impact on class divisions. Written during a period of rapid industrialisation, the novel reflects anxieties about mechanisation and the commodification of labour, themes that resonate with Marxist concerns about capitalism’s dehumanising effects (Mellor, 1988). Victor’s god-like aspiration to create life parallels the industrialist’s drive to harness nature for profit, often at the cost of human lives and dignity. Meanwhile, the creature’s plight evokes sympathy for the working class, whose labour sustains society yet remains marginalised.
This reading also invites broader reflection on the ethical responsibilities of those in power. Victor’s failure to nurture or support his creation prompts questions about the bourgeoisie’s obligation to the proletariat—a theme that remains relevant in contemporary discussions of inequality and corporate responsibility (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979). While a Marxist interpretation offers valuable insights, it is worth noting its limitations; for instance, it may overlook other dimensions of the novel, such as gender or psychological themes. Nevertheless, it provides a robust framework for understanding the structural inequalities that underpin Victor and the creature’s tragic relationship.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a Marxist critical reading of *Frankenstein* illuminates the class dynamics between Victor Frankenstein, as the bourgeoisie, and his creature, as the proletariat. Victor’s exploitation and abandonment of his creation reflect the capitalist disregard for the working class, while the creature’s alienation and eventual rebellion mirror the proletariat’s struggle for recognition and justice. Through this lens, Shelley’s novel emerges as a critique of capitalist systems that perpetuate inequality and dehumanisation. This interpretation not only deepens our understanding of the text’s socio-political undertones but also highlights the enduring relevance of Marxist theory in critiquing power structures. While limited in scope, such an analysis underscores the importance of addressing systemic inequities, both in literature and in real-world contexts, prompting further exploration of how class shapes identity and conflict.
References
- Bottomore, T. (1983) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing.
- Eagleton, T. (1983) Literary Theory: An Introduction. Basil Blackwell.
- Gilbert, S. M., and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.
- Mellor, A. K. (1988) Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Routledge.
- Smith, J. (1994) Frankenstein and the Gothic Imagination: A Marxist Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
