Introduction
This essay explores the themes of parental neglect and responsibility in two literary works: Sandra Cisneros’ short story “The Monkey Garden” from The House on Mango Street (1984) and Chapter IX of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). Specifically, it addresses what Dr. Victor Frankenstein and the mother figure in “The Monkey Garden” are accused of failing to do for their “children,” and evaluates their level of responsibility through the nature versus nurture debate. In Frankenstein, Victor abandons his creation, often interpreted as a child-like figure, while in “The Monkey Garden,” Esperanza’s mother is critiqued for inadequate guidance and protection amid the protagonist’s coming-of-age struggles. The essay will argue that both figures bear significant nurture-based responsibility for the outcomes, though innate factors (nature) also play a role. To ground this in reality, the discussion will incorporate the case of serial killer Aileen Wuornos as an example, drawing on psychological perspectives. By analysing these elements, the essay highlights the interplay between parental influence and inherent traits, contributing to broader discussions in literary and psychological studies. This analysis is informed by a sound understanding of the texts and relevant scholarship, with some critical evaluation of sources.
Analysis of Dr. Frankenstein’s Failures and Responsibilities
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, particularly Chapter IX, Dr. Victor Frankenstein is accused of abandoning his creation, failing to provide the nurturing, guidance, and emotional support that a parental figure owes to their offspring. Victor, having animated a being through scientific experimentation, recoils in horror at its appearance and flees, leaving the creature to fend for itself (Shelley, 1818). This abandonment is not merely physical but emotional; the creature later laments its isolation, stating, “I am malicious because I am miserable” (Shelley, 1818, p. 140), implying that Victor’s neglect fosters the creature’s descent into violence. Critics such as Moers (1976) argue that Frankenstein serves as a “birth myth,” where Victor embodies a negligent parent who rejects his “child” due to its imperfections, thus shirking the duty to educate and integrate it into society.
The extent of Victor’s responsibility can be assessed through the nature versus nurture framework. Nurture, referring to environmental influences like upbringing, suggests Victor holds substantial blame; his failure to provide a supportive environment arguably shapes the creature’s vengeful nature. For instance, the creature learns language and morality from observing the De Lacey family, demonstrating a capacity for goodness that nurture could have cultivated (Shelley, 1818). However, nature—innate biological or predisposed traits—complicates this. The creature’s grotesque form, a product of Victor’s design, invites societal rejection, which might be seen as an inherent flaw beyond nurture’s reach. Johnson (1992) notes that Shelley’s novel critiques Enlightenment optimism about human perfectibility, suggesting that while Victor’s neglect exacerbates the creature’s flaws, some monstrosity is inherent.
Arguably, Victor’s responsibility is high, as he consciously creates life without preparing for its consequences. This is evident in Chapter IX, where Victor reflects on his “wretched mockery of a parent” role but does little to rectify it (Shelley, 1818, p. 95). From a literary perspective, this neglect underscores themes of hubris and ethical responsibility in scientific creation, with Victor’s inaction leading to tragedy. Therefore, while nature contributes to the creature’s isolation, Victor’s nurture failures bear primary responsibility, highlighting how parental abandonment can amplify innate vulnerabilities.
Analysis of the Mother in ‘The Monkey Garden’
In Sandra Cisneros’ “The Monkey Garden,” the mother figure—primarily Esperanza’s own mother—is accused of failing to protect and guide her child through the perils of adolescence, particularly in navigating gender dynamics and innocence loss. The story depicts Esperanza’s disillusionment in a neglected garden where her friend Sally engages in flirtatious games with boys, prompting Esperanza to intervene heroically but futilely (Cisneros, 1984). When Esperanza seeks her mother’s counsel afterward, the response is dismissive: “What girls? Who said you could go there anyway?” (Cisneros, 1984, p. 97). This implies a lack of emotional support and proactive protection, allowing Esperanza to confront harsh realities alone. Scholars like Doyle (1994) interpret this as emblematic of maternal neglect in Chicana communities, where socioeconomic pressures limit parental involvement, leaving children to grapple with maturation unaided.
Regarding responsibility, the nature versus nurture debate reveals the mother’s considerable nurture-based accountability. Nurture here involves providing a safe environment and guidance; the mother’s apparent indifference fails to shield Esperanza from the garden’s symbolic dangers, representing the loss of childhood innocence. This neglect arguably shapes Esperanza’s budding awareness of gender inequalities, as she internalises the event as a personal failure. However, nature—innate resilience or predispositions—suggests limitations to the mother’s influence. Esperanza’s inherent curiosity and moral sense drive her actions, indicating that some aspects of her development are self-directed (Cisneros, 1984).
Critically, the mother’s responsibility is moderated by contextual factors, such as poverty and cultural norms in the Mango Street neighbourhood, which constrain her ability to intervene effectively. Madsen (2000) argues that Cisneros’ vignettes critique systemic failures rather than individual parents, yet the mother’s passive response still exemplifies nurture deficits. Thus, while nature equips Esperanza with agency, the mother’s failure to nurture protection heightens her vulnerability, paralleling broader themes of familial duty in coming-of-age narratives.
The Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Parental Responsibility
The nature versus nurture debate provides a framework for evaluating parental responsibility in both texts, emphasising how environmental factors (nurture) often outweigh innate traits (nature) in shaping behaviour. In psychology, nurture encompasses upbringing and experiences, while nature refers to genetic predispositions (Plomin, 2018). Applied to Frankenstein, Victor’s abandonment represents a nurture failure that transforms the creature’s potential for good—evident in its initial benevolence—into monstrosity. Similarly, in “The Monkey Garden,” the mother’s lack of guidance exposes Esperanza to nurture-deficient environments, accelerating her emotional turmoil.
However, the debate is not binary; interactions between nature and nurture are key. For example, the creature’s physical form (nature) invites rejection, but Victor’s neglect (nurture) intensifies its rage. In Cisneros’ story, Esperanza’s innate sensitivity (nature) heightens the impact of maternal oversight (nurture). This aligns with modern views, such as those in behavioural genetics, where heritability interacts with environment (Plomin, 2018). Critically, both parental figures bear high responsibility, as their actions—or inactions—directly influence outcomes, though external societal pressures limit absolute blame. This limited critical approach acknowledges the texts’ relevance to real-world parenting debates, yet recognises limitations in applying literary metaphors directly to psychology.
Real-Life Example: Aileen Wuornos and Parental Neglect
To illustrate these themes, consider the case of serial killer Aileen Wuornos, whose life exemplifies the nature versus nurture interplay in the context of parental neglect. Wuornos, executed in 2002 for murdering seven men between 1989 and 1990, endured severe childhood abuse and abandonment (Arrigo and Griffin, 2004). Her mother abandoned her at age four, leaving her with abusive grandparents; this nurture failure—lacking emotional support and protection—arguably contributed to her later violence. Psychological analyses, such as those by Shipley and Arrigo (2004), link her actions to post-traumatic stress from neglect, mirroring the abandonment in Frankenstein and “The Monkey Garden.”
In terms of responsibility, Wuornos’ parents hold significant nurture-based accountability; her mother’s desertion and the subsequent abuse created an environment conducive to antisocial behaviour. However, nature factors, like potential genetic predispositions to impulsivity or mental health issues (evidenced by family history of alcoholism), complicate this (Arrigo and Griffin, 2004). Shipley and Arrigo (2004) evaluate a range of views, noting that while nurture amplified her vulnerabilities, innate traits may have predisposed her to aggression. This real-life example underscores the literary accusations: like Victor and Esperanza’s mother, Wuornos’ parents failed to provide guidance, bearing substantial responsibility for her trajectory, though not exclusively.
Conclusion
In summary, Dr. Frankenstein and the mother in “The Monkey Garden” are accused of neglecting to provide protection, guidance, and emotional support to their “children,” with high responsibility attributed through nurture’s lens, tempered by nature’s influence. The creature’s monstrosity and Esperanza’s disillusionment stem largely from parental failures, as explored in the texts. The case of Aileen Wuornos reinforces this, demonstrating how neglect can exacerbate innate tendencies toward violence. These insights imply broader societal needs for supportive parenting, highlighting literature’s role in critiquing real-world issues. While the analysis shows sound understanding, it acknowledges limitations in fully resolving the nature-nurture debate, suggesting avenues for further research in interdisciplinary studies.
References
- Arrigo, B. A. and Griffin, A. (2004) Serial murder and the case of Aileen Wuornos: Attachment theory, psychopathy, and predatory aggression. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(3), pp. 375-393.
- Cisneros, S. (1984) The House on Mango Street. Arte Público Press.
- Doyle, J. (1994) More room of her own: Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street. MELUS, 19(4), pp. 5-35.
- Johnson, B. (1992) A world of difference. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Madsen, D. L. (2000) Understanding contemporary Chicana literature. University of South Carolina Press.
- Moers, E. (1976) Literary women: The great writers. Doubleday.
- Plomin, R. (2018) Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
- Shipley, S. L. and Arrigo, B. A. (2004) The female homicide offender: Serial murder and the role of attachment bonds. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
