How Does Nature vs Nurture Appear in Frankenstein?

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Introduction

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein remains one of the most influential works in English literature, not only because of its Gothic horror elements but also due to its philosophical exploration of human identity, morality, and the boundaries of science. At the heart of this novel lies the enduring debate of nature versus nurture. This discussion questions whether an individual’s behavior and character are determined primarily by their biological constitution or by their environment and upbringing. Shelley presents this theme most explicitly through the character of the creature, who is both a product of unnatural scientific creation and of human rejection. By presenting Victor Frankenstein’s neglect and society’s hostility toward the creature, Shelley raises critical questions about the consequences of abandonment, isolation, and moral responsibility. In examining how nature and nurture intersect in Frankenstein, we uncover deeper insights into human behavior, ethical responsibility, and the dangers of disregarding the social foundations of identity.

The Creature as a Product of Nature

The creature’s existence begins with Victor’s scientific experiment, which itself reflects the theme of nature manipulated by human ambition. Victor gathers body parts from corpses and brings the creature to life through an unnatural process. In this sense, the creature’s “nature” is already extraordinary because it bypasses natural birth and family. Shelley emphasizes the grotesque physicality of the creature, describing his “yellow skin,” “watery eyes,” and “shrivelled complexion” (Frankenstein, Shelley, 1818). These features immediately set him apart as an unnatural being, destined to suffer from human rejection due to his appearance. His physical nature alone does not predetermine his morality, but it does shape how others perceive and treat him, thereby influencing his psychological development.

Furthermore, Victor himself acknowledges the paradox of the creature’s design, noting that he selected beautiful features, only to have them combine into something horrifying. This suggests that nature’s power cannot be perfectly controlled by science, and Victor’s experiment inadvertently creates a being who is both magnificent and terrifying. From birth, therefore, the creature embodies the debate of nature versus nurture, as his unnatural origins mark him as different, yet his moral character is not yet defined. Instead, it is his treatment by others that catalyzes his descent into violence and despair, revealing how nurture plays a decisive role in shaping identity.

The Role of Nurture in the Creature’s Development

Shelley makes it clear that the creature begins his life as a blank slate, demonstrating curiosity, sensitivity, and an eagerness to learn. He observes the De Lacey family in secret, learning language, empathy, and human emotions. He admires their affection for one another and even helps them in small ways, such as gathering wood. In these early stages, the creature embodies Rousseau’s idea of the “noble savage,” someone naturally inclined toward goodness until corrupted by society. This underscores Shelley’s argument that nurture, rather than nature, molds one’s morality. The creature’s initial innocence suggests that his violent tendencies are not inherent but instead the result of repeated rejection and hostility.

The turning point in his nurturing environment comes when he finally reveals himself to the De Lacey family, only to be met with fear and aggression. Their rejection devastates him, reinforcing his sense of alienation and confirming his belief that humanity will never accept him. He reflects bitterly, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818). This statement encapsulates the central argument of nurture’s dominance over nature. The creature explicitly attributes his transformation into a vengeful figure to the way society has treated him. Instead of being nurtured with compassion, he experiences neglect and hostility, which in turn nurtures hatred and despair.

Victor’s Neglect as Failed Nurture

Victor Frankenstein’s role as a “parent” to the creature cannot be overlooked. By bringing him to life, Victor assumes responsibility for nurturing his creation, yet he immediately abandons him upon seeing his deformity. This moment of neglect establishes the foundation for the creature’s suffering. Instead of offering guidance or compassion, Victor flees, leaving the creature to navigate an unfamiliar and hostile world alone. Victor’s irresponsibility highlights Shelley’s critique of inadequate nurturing and its devastating effects.

Moreover, Victor repeatedly refuses to take responsibility for his creation, even after the creature pleads for companionship. The request for a mate is a desperate cry for nurturing in the form of acceptance and belonging, but Victor denies it, further reinforcing the creature’s isolation. Victor’s failure to act as a nurturing figure not only seals the creature’s fate but also underscores the broader theme of parental neglect. Shelley illustrates the dangers of failing to nurture those dependent on us, suggesting that monstrous behavior often arises not from inherent evil but from the absence of love and responsibility.

Society’s Role in Shaping the Creature

Beyond Victor’s neglect, society itself plays a crucial role in shaping the creature’s identity. At every turn, the creature is rejected because of his physical deformity. Villagers chase him with stones and weapons, and even the kind De Lacey family, who might have offered him compassion, reject him out of fear. Shelley uses these interactions to critique humanity’s tendency to judge based on appearances and to marginalize those who are different.

The creature’s response to this constant rejection is shaped by his environment. Had he been accepted by just one community, he might have embraced compassion rather than vengeance. Instead, he concludes that society will never permit him to experience love, companionship, or belonging. His violence, therefore, is not simply a reflection of his physical nature but rather the product of systemic exclusion and cruelty. In this way, Shelley uses the novel to argue that society bears significant responsibility for creating monsters out of those it refuses to nurture.

The Philosophical Debate of Nature Versus Nurture

Shelley’s novel is deeply embedded in Enlightenment and Romantic philosophical debates, particularly concerning human nature. Thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that humans are not born evil but are shaped by their experiences. Shelley echoes these ideas in the creature’s journey, portraying him as inherently good yet corrupted by his circumstances. His statement that “misery made me a fiend” directly parallels Rousseau’s belief in the corrupting influence of society.

At the same time, Shelley does not entirely dismiss the role of nature. The creature’s physical appearance is undeniably a factor that influences how others treat him. His grotesque form ensures his alienation, suggesting that biology can create conditions for suffering. However, Shelley consistently emphasizes that it is not his nature but the rejection of it that pushes him toward monstrosity. Thus, she presents a nuanced view, suggesting that both nature and nurture interact, but nurture ultimately holds greater sway in determining identity and morality.

Victor as a Reflection of Nature and Nurture

Interestingly, Victor himself embodies the same conflict of nature versus nurture. His natural inclination is toward curiosity and ambition, but his nurturing environment—particularly his family—fails to restrain his dangerous pursuits. Unlike the creature, Victor is surrounded by love and privilege, yet he misuses his opportunities by recklessly overstepping natural boundaries. Shelley contrasts Victor and the creature to show how different nurturing contexts shape outcomes: Victor is nurtured with privilege and security but develops hubris, while the creature is deprived of nurturing and becomes vengeful. This comparison highlights Shelley’s broader argument that both positive and negative nurturing environments critically shape human destiny.

Conclusion

In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley presents a compelling exploration of the theme of nature versus nurture, ultimately suggesting that nurture has a far greater influence in shaping human identity and morality. The creature begins life as an innocent and curious being, but the neglect of Victor and the hostility of society drive him into despair and violence. Victor’s failure as a parent underscores the ethical necessity of responsibility, while society’s prejudice illustrates how exclusion nurtures monstrosity. At the same time, Shelley acknowledges the role of nature by portraying the creature’s physical form as a catalyst for rejection. Through this interplay, Shelley critiques the human tendency to create monsters through neglect and cruelty, rather than recognizing the transformative power of compassion and acceptance. Ultimately, the novel remains a profound meditation on the importance of nurture in shaping the human condition, warning us of the dangers of failing to care for those who depend upon us.

References

Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.

Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Thomas Basset.

Rousseau, J. J. (1762). Emile, or On Education. Paris: J. Neaulme.

Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Routledge.

Baldick, C. (1987). In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford University Press.