Through Frankenstein and real world contexts, we will be examining how the rhetoric/fallacy of reducing the "unnatural" to the "other" often legitimises the persecution of minorities and more vulnerable groups of society.
After examining how the naturalistic fallacy can be used as an exclusionary weapon in socio-political contexts, we will also examine how it affects society's attitudes towards technology, and the use of it.
A. Unnaturalness in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
It has been said that “Nature prevents Victor from constructing a normal human being: His unnatural method of reproduction spawns an unnatural being, a freak.” (Philip Ball, 2017 for The Atlantic)
I’m sure most of you have some vague impressions of Frankenstein’s creature: Vile, hideous, horrendous, part human part monster (or mostly fully monster in physical terms), and HUGE.
Frankenstein’s "unnatural" creature is the result of his attempt to create life through artificial /unnatural means, building his creature from scavenged body parts, and thus bringing the dead to life.
Unfortunately, it is the Creature who bears the consequences of Frankenstein's perversion of nature: He quickly becomes aware of his monstrous appearance, deemed unnatural by human society/by human aesthetic standards:
“I had sagacity enough to discover that the unnatural hideousness of my person was the chief object of horror with those who had formerly beheld me. ” (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley)
B. Ramifications of the labelling something as “unnatural” (Frankenstein)
“Unnatural” is not a neutral description but a morally laden term, and dangerous for that reason: Its use threatens to prejudice or shut down discussion before it begins." (Philip Ball, 2017)
In Frankenstein, the Creature’s horrific and unnatural appearance result in its alienation from and condemnation by human society. This social rejection of the Creature on the basis of unnaturalness and perceived monstrosity is highly problematic as it not only denies the Creature a place in society, but ignores the very much human-like sentience that he is equipped with.
This is exemplified in the novel through the quote below:
“Begone! I will not hear you. There can be no community between you and me; we are enemies.” (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley)
Here, the reader observes Frankenstein's adamant rejection of connecting and empathising with the Creature's suffering that is very much articulated on human and emotional terms, which is solidified by Frankenstein's absolute assertion of their permanent animosity, "we are enemies". Echoing Ball's observation then, we can conclude that it is through the rhetoric of naturalness that the Creature has been shunned and rejected from its human society, seen as an alien other with indurate hostility. Yet, if the reader recalls and acknowledges the Creature's sensitive consciousness and articulate (even masterful) use of human language, it becomes difficult to deny the humanity operates underneath the “hideous” or “inhuman” corporeality.
As such, in labelling something as "unnatural", particularly real people and communities, we risk dehumanising real people, negating the validity of their existence, and thus justify atrocities committed against them on all scales. (Ken, A Way With Literature)
C. The naturalistic fallacy: Socio-political consequences? Sexuality and Penal Code 377A (GP/Real World Contexts)
Previously, through examining Frankenstein, we established that labelling people as "unnatural" effectively dehumanises, discounts and erases the validity of their existence. How about real world-contexts?
In socio-cultural, religious and political contexts, a salient example of the problematic nature of labelling something as “unnatural” is the discourse on sexuality. This is often a logical fallacy!
What is the naturalistic fallacy? It is the "[f]allacy of treating the term “good” (or any equivalent term) as if it were the name of a natural property." (Britannica)
Many things are "good" things are natural, but so are "bad" things. As such, the "unnatural" is not necessarily "bad", and it is untrue that "unnatural" cannot be "good". Similarly, many poisons can be naturally occurring, but would consuming them be "good" for us? Obviously not.
For far too long, socially conservative critics have defined and framed non-heterosexual identities as deviant and “unnatural”. Such arguments that invoke the authority of “naturalness” are at best arbitrary, and at worst, logical fallacies that abet to the persecution of innocent demographics of people such as the LGBTQ community.
Such a rhetoric of "naturalness" can be seen in the Penal Code 377A in Singapore. The Penal Code arguably an inherited colonial relic from its British (largely Protestant/Christian) colonisers, seen when...
"[Singapore Minister of Law] Shanmugam said that there is a need to look further back to Section 11 of the UK Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was passed by the British parliament in 1885 and which was "an almost word-for-word copy" of Section 377A." (Justin Ong for Today Online, 2022)
Here is an extract of the Penal Code, Section 377A: "whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine" (Singapore Penal Code 377A)
The implication here is that the rhetoric of naturalness, or protection of an arbitrarily defined "natural order", is a far too easy means of framing non-heterosexual individuals as "unnatural" persons by virtue of their "unnatural" sexual acts and orientation, despite having much scientific basis suggesting that homosexuality is naturally occurring.
Those collectively deemed as “unnatural” are thus, “othered”, and made vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. In the case of Singapore, non-heterosexual Singaporeans found it difficult to find societal acceptance/inclusion, and in the eyes of the law, mostly criminals. It is also further perceived as a zero-sum game, advancements in gay rights/freedoms necessarily meant an erosion/desecration of conservative values in the eyes of many Singaporeans for decades. As such, the law was maintained in the government's consideration of a strong "conservative majority" in Singaporean society, understandably so in considering its priority of maintaining a stable social fabric, albeit at the painful (and unfair) expense of the sexual minority. (Update: The law has been officially repealed as of 2023.)
The "naturalness" fallacy then, has real-world implications in deciding who is included in political and social decision-making, and decides who can participate in the political space, who is valued in society, who is deserving of respect, who can be seen, who can be heard and who matters in society. (Ken, A Way With Literature)
D. The naturalistic fallacy: Fear of GMOs (GP/Real World Contexts)
"Just as more Americans grow wary of GMOs, the scientific community is moving in the opposite direction. There is now near unanimity among scientists that GMOs are safe to eat." (Robert A. Ferdman, 2015 for The Washington Post)
Genetically modified organisms are often deemed as dangerous, and thus avoided, particularly in the context of GMO food/crops. Such a fear often stems from questions on its "naturalness" or how "organic" these crops are, and a poor understanding of science altogether, despite scientific consensus that shows GMO food is safe to consume.
Why do such misconceptions persist? Let's consider naturalistic fallacy and the psychology of human fears!
Human Psychology:
"negative representations of GMOs are widespread and compelling because they are intuitively appealing. By tapping into intuitions and emotions that mostly work [subconsciously], but are constituent of any normally functioning human mind, such representations become easy to think. They capture our attention, they are easily processed and remembered and thus stand a greater chance of being transmitted and becoming popular, even if they are untrue." (Stefaan Blancke, 2015 for Scientific American)
Naturalistic Fallacy:
Institutions, such as religion and non-scientific ones, render us "vulnerable to the idea that purely natural phenomena exist or happen for a purpose that is intended by some agent. These assumptions are part and parcel of religious beliefs, but in secular environments they lead people to regard nature as a beneficial process or entity that secures our wellbeing and that humans shouldn’t meddle with. In the context of opposition to GMOs, genetic modification is deemed “unnatural” and biotechnologists are accused of “playing God”. The popular term “Frankenfood” captures what is at stake: by going against the will of nature in an act of hubris, we are bound to bring enormous disaster upon ourselves." (Blancke, 2015)
So there you have it, despite scientific consensus on the safety of consuming GMO foods, public perception on such foods as dangerous continue to persist because of deep rooted human fears and the naturalistic fallacy. What/who we deem strange or unnatural is often a perception stemming from our deepest illogical fears. Once we are able to escape these restrictive ways of thinking/seeing, we begin to see the world and each another with greater clarity, and perhaps, treat each another with greater kindness, or at the very least, respectful neutrality.
References
Ball, Philip. ‘“Frankenstein” Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era’. The Atlantic, 20 Apr. 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/franken-science/523560/.
Blancke, Stefaan. ‘Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says They Are Safe’. Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/.
Ferdman, Roberto A.. 'Why we’re so scared of GMOs, according to someone who has studied them since the start', The Washington Post
コメント