Copyright 2021 by Gary L. Pullman
Source: Public domain
What
is “monstrous”? Does the concept
change, thereby altering the understanding of the meaning of the
term; do merely the specific instances, the incarnations, so to
speak, of the monstrous change; or is there a modification of both
the understanding and the incarnations?
Source: Public domain
Certainly,
the idea of the origin
of monsters has changed. Once, monsters were considered omens, or
signs warning of divine displeasure, or anger, concerning various
types of behavior. Later, monsters were regarded merely as mistakes,
or “freaks,” of nature. The origin of monsters, once
supernatural, became natural. The hermaphrodite became Frankenstein's
creature; the Biblical behemoth became the great white shark of Jaws.
(Between these extremes, perhaps, as the great white whale, Herman
Melville's Moby Dick.)
Source: Public domain
Prior
to the shift from a supernatural to a natural cause of monsters,
there had been a shift in the way in which the world, or the
universe, was understood. When God had been in charge of the universe
He'd created, the universe and everything in it had had been
meaningful; in God's plan, there was a place for everything, and
everything was expected to stay in its assigned place. The universe
was an orderly and planned place, because it had been created
according to God's plan, or a design, and existence was teleological.
Monsters were beings or forces that disrupted the orderliness of the
universe, sought to disrupt God's plan, or showed disobedience to
God's will, either by tempting others to sin or by giving in to sin
(and sin itself was, quite simply, disobedience to God's will).
Anything that differed form God's plan was a monster or was
monstrous.
Source: Public domain
When
the idea of an accidental, mechanical universe replaced the concept
of a divinely created and planned universe, only nature existed (or,
if God were to be granted existence, He was seen, first, as
indifferent to the universe, as the Deists viewed him, or as
irrelevant.) Offenses became unnatural actions, behavior which was
not grounded in nature. Anything that “went against nature” was a
monster or monstrous. Indeed, a naturalistic understanding of the
universe is seen in the change in viewing monsters and the monstrous
that is indicated in the etymology, or history, of the word
“monster,” which, according to the Online
Etymology Dictionary,
originally referred to a “"divine omen (especially one
indicating misfortune), portent, sign” and, only about the
fourteenth century became understood as meaning “malformed animal
or human, creature afflicted with a birth defect.”
Source: Public domain
Although
some continue to believe that God exists, that He created the world
and human beings, the latter in his own “image and likeness,”
according to a plan and that the universe is consequently not only
orderly, but purposeful, teleological, and meaningful, many others
believe that God either does not exist or, if He does, His existence
is inconsequential and that human beings must chart their own
courses. In the former conception of the universe, wrongdoing is
evil, and it is evil because it involves intentional disobedience to
God's will; in the latter conception of the universe, wrongdoing is
immoral because it is counter to that which is natural. In the former
universe, the monstrous takes the form of demons and unrepentant
sinners. In the latter universe, evil takes the form of “freaks”
of nature, such as maladapted mutants, victims of birth defects, or
the psychologically defective: grotesques, cripples, and cannibals.
Alternatively,
in a naturalistic universe, monsters may be social misfits. Not only
serial killers, sadists, and psychopaths, but also any group that is
unconventional, or “other,” or is vilified or ostracized by the
dominant social group (e. g., a community or a nation), examples of
whom, historically, include homosexuals, Romani people, “savage”
“Indians,” current or former martial enemies, cult members, and
so forth.
Source: Public domain
Our
line of inquiry leads, at last, a question and a conclusion. First,
what happens when we run out of monsters? As our ideas of the
monstrous change, monsters lose their monstrosity: homosexuals,
Romani people, Native Americans, the nations that joined together as
World War II's Axis powers, members of religious organizations once
condemned as “cults” and “sects” have, today, become
acceptable. Their members are no longer monsters. As the pool of
candidates for monstrosity shrinks, what shall become of the very
idea of monstrosity itself? Who will become the monsters of the
future, when all the monsters of the present and the past are no
longer considered monstrous?
The
answer to this question, it seems, is that we shall be left with the
few actions that are universally condemned, that are unacceptable in
all lands, everywhere. We might list among such behaviors incest,
rape, premeditated murder that is unsanctioned by the state (that is
not, in effect, condoned as a necessary wartime activity), child
abuse, and, perhaps, cannibalism, which leaves, as monsters, the
incestuous lover, the rapist, the murderer, the child abuser, and the
cannibal. These could be the only monsters that remain in the future.
Source: Public domain
But
they won't be. Here's why: horror is a type of fantasy fiction. As
such, it includes characters, actions, places, causes, motives, and
purposes that are unacceptable in more realistic fiction or drama.
There is room for demons and witches, alongside werewolves and
vampires, as well as the monsters embodying truly universally
condemned behaviors and the people (or characters) who perform them.
For this reason, horror fiction will never be without the monsters of
old, even if, metaphysically, epistemologically, scientifically, and
otherwise, they have long ago worn out their welcome. Fantasy has
had, has, and always will have a home for them.
Meanwhile,
however, the history of horror fiction has provided a way to identify
threats that, rightly or wrongly, dominant societies have considered
dangerous to their welfare or survival, and these threats, once they
are seen as no longer threatening, have likewise shown what perceived
menaces, in the final analysis, are not dangerous to social welfare,
just as they identify the true menaces, the true monsters, that are
condemned not just her or there for a time, but everywhere, at all
times.