Nature vs.

Nurture in Marry Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus

The debate of nature vs nurture sits at the core of many discussions regarding what makes
us inherently human. As Jesse Prinz puts it, “The nature-nurture debate is a debate about human
nature. Are we, by nature, primarily driven by innate, evolved and genetically controlled traits,
or are we primarily driven by experience?” (Prinz, 13). The disagreement between these two
stances could be traced back many centuries ago, being explored from the perspective of many
sciences, philosophical and cultural movements. In this essay, I will try to identify how this
debate is illustrated in the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, and how various
ideas expressed by Jesse Prinz in Beyond Human Nature could be applied when trying to further
understand the way in which characters act in Marry Shelley’s gothic story. Even though a lot of
the knowledge we have today which furthers the debate between naturism and nurturism wasn’t
available at the time when Mary Shelley wrote the book, I think it would still be interesting to
see how these opposed and yet compatible views on human nature could reflect in a novel
written in England at the beginning of the 19th century.
Victor Frankenstein, an Italian-Swiss scientist born in a wealthy family shows interest in
alchemy and natural sciences from a young age, but soon goes towards other domains. However,
this will change during his studies at the University of Ingolstadt, in Bavaria. After the death of
his mother, Frankenstein will isolate himself from the outside world, using his extensive
knowledge of science and the nature of life in his experiments, with the intention of bringing and
inanimate body back to life. His aspirations are a reference to galvanism, which was a very
popular scientific theory during the 18th and 19th century, which claimed that electric shocks
could reanimate dead tissue.
His experiments are finally a success, and Victor Frankenstein manages to give life to a
hideous creature composed of various parts taken from other bodies. Frightened by its
appearance, the scientist leaves his apartment and returns the next day, to find his creation gone.
In the following months, Frankenstein’s monster will learn how to survive, talk and read, while
also coming in contact with information about human history, literature, traditions and beliefs.
Angry at the way he is treated by others, the scientist’s experiment will swear revenge on the
human race and start spilling its frustrations upon his creator. First, he murders his brother,
William, and frames his nanny, Justine, for the crime, which will lead to her being hanged. After
that, he kills Clerval and Elizabeth, Frankenstein’s future bride. Victor will try to pursue the
creature across Europe in order to gain revenge and even reaches the North Pole where he
collapses and is rescued by Captain Walton, on whose ship he will die. The creature then
expresses regret over his actions and vows to commit suicide.
In his first chapter of Beyond Human Nature, Jesse Prinz states the core beliefs from
which thoroughgoing naturism and nurturism start advancing theories about human nature.
While naturists would argue that “The mind comes furnished with an extensive inventory of
innate ideas and rules for reasoning about different kinds of ideas in different ways. This
constitutes our universal human nature, shaped by the forces of natural selection. In addition to
these universals, there are individual differences in character traits, vocational dispositions and
aptitude. These differences are not necessarily adaptive, and they can be affected by experience,
but they are largely the result of heritable differences in our genes” (Prinz, 11), nurturists would
argue that “The mind comes furnished with few, if any, innate ideas, and the innate rules of
thought can be used for a wide range of different cognitive capacities. Most of our specific
capacities are learned, and the cognitive differences between humans and our close animal
relatives stem largely from small improvements in the general-purpose mechanisms that we
share with them. Character traits, vocational dispositions and aptitude may be influenced by our
genes, but they also are heavily influenced by experience” (Prinz, 11).
As he also points out, these two points of view don’t reject one another completely. Even
more so, they both acknowledge the fact that both nature and nurture are defining elements
which make humans think and behave the way they do. In a similar manner, philosophers of the
17th and 18th century expressed competing views upon how humans tend to act because of
biological predispositions. The examples given by Jesse Prinz in his Introduction are taken from
Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and David Hume (all three of them having a great
influence upon the time during which Marry Shelley lived and wrote her novel) who argue for a
certain innate goodness or evilness of all humans. However, this intrinsic nature of all humans
can be changed by nurture (for Hobbes through the intervention of a totalitarian regime, for
Rousseau through the inherent corruptness of society, for Hume through belonging to a certain
nationality).
Whether the behavior of Frankenstein’s monster is the result of nature or nurture remains
a debatable fact. The novel is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to answering questions
regarding human nature, allowing us to contemplate the liminal state in which the creature finds
itself in (neither alive nor dead, neither human nor animal, capable of understanding and judging
history and culture but lacking any appurtenance to a group capable of producing it) and come
with our own conclusions. Jesse Prinz exemplifies three important nature-nurture debates that
marked human history. In the following arguments I will show how arguments given by both
sides could explain the monster’s behavior.
The first dispute was started by the ancient Greeks, which questioned whether there are
any innate ideas (ideas that we have without learning). Plato argued that humans come to earth
with a basic understanding of morals, culture, religion and even a basic understanding of more
complex domains like mathematics. His contemporary, Aristotle, argued that humans can only
acquire knowledge through experience.
When Frankenstein’s monster comes to life he doesn’t seem to be gifted with any human
specific capabilities like language or the capacity to understand complex human emotions.
However, we are told that in the span of a few months he learns how to speak through observing
others, he teaches himself how to read, learns about human history and culture and even starts
feeling inherently human emotions (it needs affection, it shows empathy and kindness, it wants
to socialize). His quickness of picking up human habits and grasping seemingly complex
concepts could point to the fact that when he came to life he also received the capability of
accessing a core set of innately human principles, moral beliefs and abilities. However, the
discovery of these after coming in contact with humans also points towards its behavior being
the result of nurture.
The following debate centered around the differences between groups of people or
individuals, the origins of these differences and whether they are acquired or innate. “Some
people are smarter than others, some are nicer, some are more artistic, and some are more
gregarious…Men are more physically aggressive than women” (Prinz, 9). When thinking about
Frankenstein’s monster, a question coming to mind is whether he was biologically predisposed to
murder or whether he was pushed towards it by society.
The rejection of the creature by society could be a strong reason for his later viciousness.
At first, he shows itself capable of feeling love and affection. He secretly helps the De Lacey
family, but when he appears in front of them, hoping to also be treated with empathy, they run
away scared. When he saves a young girl from drowning he is badly wounded by people
thinking that he is actually responsible for endangering the girl’s life. Later, when his attempt of
making Victor give birth to a mate for him fails, he resorts to violence and goes on to murder the
scientist’s friends and family. In the end, the monster shows remorse, but this doesn’t excuse him
for his horrible crimes.
Even though isolation and society’s hatefulness towards him might have driven the
creature towards murder, the brutality of its crimes seem to also point to its inherent
predisposition towards aggression. Instead of taking revenge upon the person responsible for his
condition, he decides to kill an entire family and frame innocents for murder. The source of the
monster’s body parts is intentionally obscure, but it is known that many scientists of the 18 th
century employed the services of grave robbers to steal bodies for their experiments. These
bodies would often come from cemeteries not blessed by the Church, mass graves or other places
from which corpses could be easily stolen. Also, many of these experiments would also be
conducted on ex-prisoners or people executed for various crimes, so an argument for the
creature’s violent nature could also be made.
The third and most recent debate is that around evolutionary biology, which is a research
field trying to prove that human behavior could be explained through evolution. Even though
Marry Shelley couldn’t have possibly been aware of Charles Darwin’s theories regarding human
evolution, they could be used to argue in favor of the monster’s behavior being determined by
nature. His way of running towards wilderness, where he learn how to survive, how to speak and
so on reflects the evolution of humans (though at a much faster pace) and his desire for a mate
could reflect the fundamental human need of reproducing. However, the need of finding a mate
could also be corelated with him coming in contact with society and its way of understanding
love, marriage and family.
 Frankenstein’s monster is a liminal creature, sitting at the border between humans and
animals. His portrait which combines both inherent and learned traits can be better understood
through applying Jesse Prinz’s ideas regarding nature and nurture.

Bibliography
https://study.com/learn/lesson/galvanism-frankenstein-summary-response-experiments.html. fără an.
05 02 2023.

Prinz, Jesse J. Beyond Human Nature. New Yotk: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.

study.com/academy/lesson/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein.html. fără an. 05 02 2023.