Values and Motivations Guiding Scientific Practice in Frankenstein

  • Elena Denia
    Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Università Ca’ Foscari de Venecia elenismou[at]gmail.com

Abstract

The novel Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus (1818) is a rich source of information on the image of science in early nineteenth-century society, revealing clear aspects of the social dimension of scientific research at the time. The purpose of this paper is, after contextualising the scientific environment at the time of the work and the education that Mary Shelley, its author, received, to carry out an exhaustive analysis of the original text in order to reveal characteristics of the scientific practice of the time, in particular the values and motivations that guide the practice of science in the narrative. The analysis reveals that: (1) the values that characterise scientific practice in the Frankenstein universe are: rigour; altruism; endeavour and perseverance; determination; courage; imagination; serenity; recognition; and responsibility; while (2) the motivations for undertaking scientific activity are: curiosity and interest; passion or enthusiasm; ambition; and will. The characterisation of scientific work derived from the book exhibits a conceptualisation of what is considered good science that seems to be current in the imaginary of science today.
  • Referencias
  • Cómo citar
  • Del mismo autor
  • Métricas
Bacon, Francis ({1620} 1878). Novum organum scientiarum. In Novum Organum, sive indicia vera de Interpretatione Naturae. En Thomas Fowler (Ed.), Bacon’s Novum organum. London: Clarendon Press.

Bahar, Saba (2001). Jane Marcet and the limits to public science. The British Journal for the History of Science, 34(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087401004289

Bieri, James (2008). Percy Bysshe Shelley. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bryan, Margaret ({1797} 2012). A Compendious System of Astronomy: In a Course of Familiar Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burdiel, Isabel (2007). Introducción. En Isabel Burdiel (Ed.), Frankenstein o El moderno Prometeo (1818) (pp. 9-65). Madrid: Cátedra.

Butler, Marilyn (1996). Frankenstein and Radical Science. En J. Paul Hunter (Ed.), Mary Shelley, Frankenstein. New York: Norton.

Descartes, René (1637). Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences. Leiden: Leyde.

Edgeworth, Maria (1861). Harry and Lucy, Concluded. Boston: Crosby, Nichols, Lee and company.

Encyclopædia Britannica (1911). Whewell, William. En Encyclopædia Britannica (11 ed., Vol. 28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fara, Patricia (2008). Educating Mary: Women and scientific literature in the early nineteenth century. En Christa Knellwolf y Jane Goodall (Eds.), Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romantic Culture, 1780-1830 (pp. 17-32). Aldershot y Burlington: Ashgate.

Finger, Stanley (2000). Minds behind the brain: A history of the pioneers and their discoveries. Oxford University Press.

Godwin, William (2010). The diary of William Godwin. En Victoria Myers, David O’Shaughnessy y Mark Philp (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford Digital Library.

Goulding, Christopher (2002). The real Doctor Frankenstein?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(5), 257-259.

Hindle, Maurice (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and romantic science. Critical Survey, 2(1), 29-35.

Kaplan, Peter (2002). The real Dr Frankenstein: Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(11), 577-578.

Kitson, Peter J. (2017). The Romantic Period, 1780-1832. En Paul Poplawski (Ed.), English Literature in Context (pp. 306-402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316493779

Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lucas, John Randolph (1979). Wilberforce and Huxley: a Legendary Encounter. The Historical Journal, 22(2), 313-330. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638867

Malet, Antoni (2002). Divulgación y popularización científica en el siglo XVIII: entre la apología cristiana y la propaganda ilustrada. Quark, 13-23.

Marshall, Florence Ashton (1889). The Life & Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. London: Richard Bentley & Son.

Merton, Robert King (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of legal and political sociology, 1(1), 115-126.

Merton, Robert King (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.

Montañés Perales, Óscar (2011). Problemas epistemológicos de la comunicación pública de la ciencia [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Salamanca]. Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes.

Moreno Castro, Carolina (2011). La construcción periodística de la ciencia a través de los medios de comunicación social: hacia una taxonomía de la difusión del conocimiento científico. ArtefaCToS. Revista De Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La tecnología, 3(1), 109-130.

Myers, Mitzi (2000). Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley: The Female Author between Public and Private Spheres. En Betty T. Bennett y Stuart Curran (Eds.), Mary Shelley in Her Times (pp. 160-172). Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nieto-Galán, Agustí (2006). Libros para todos: la ciencia popular en el siglo XIX. Quark: Ciencia, medicina, comunicación y cultura, 37, 46-52.

Norton Antology (2012). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. En Stephen Greenblatt (Ed.), The Norton Anthology English Literature Volume 2 (Eighth Edition) (pp. 958-971). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Pollin, Burton R. (1965). Philosophical and Literary Sources of Frankenstein. Comparative Literature, 17(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.2307/1769997

Popper, Karl (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, London: Basic Books.

Pulido Tirado, Genara (2012). Vida artificial y literatura: mito, leyendas y ciencia en el Frankestein de Mary Shelley. Tonos digital: Revista electrónica de estudios filológicos, 23, 1-17.

Rieger, James (1982). Mary Shelley’s life and composition of Frankenstein. En James Rieger (Ed.), Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 text (pp. 11-24). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson, Charles (2017). Introducción. En David H. Guston, Ed Finn y Jason Scott Robert (Eds.), Frankenstein. Edición anotada para científicos, creadores y curiosos en general: Bicentenario 1818-2018 (pp. 23-36). Barcelona: Ariel.

Rodríguez, Gemma y Baños, Josep (2014). Frankenstein: un mito más allá del cine de ciencia ficción. Revista de Medicina y Cine, 10(1), 37-44.

Ruiz-Castell, Pedro. (2021). Diálogos entre ciencia y literatura: notas sobre Frankenstein o el moderno Prometeo, de Mary W. Shelley. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 43, e55061.

Sannazzaro, Jorgelina (2012). «Black Mirror»: la ciencia ficción como punta de lanza para una reflexión ética de los usos sociales de la tecnología. ArtefaCToS, 5(1), 185-193.

Scholes, Robert y Rabkin, Erik (1982). La ciencia ficción: historia, ciencia, perspectiva. Madrid: Taurus.

Shelley, Mary ({1818} 2017). Frankenstein. Edición anotada para científicos, creadores y curiosos en general: Bicentenario 1818-2018. David H. Guston, Ed Finn y Jason Scott Robert (Eds.). Barcelona: Ariel.

Shelley, Mary ({1831} 1982). Mary Shelley’s Introduction to the Third Edition (1831). En James Rieger (Ed.), Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 text. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

St Clair, William (1991). The Godwins and the Shelleys: a Biography of a Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Vasbinder, Samuel Holmes (1984). Scientific attitudes in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.

Vinck, Dominique (2015). Ciencias y sociedad: sociología del trabajo científico. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Wollstonecraft, Mary (1787). Thoughts on the education of daughters: with reflections on female conduct, in the more important duties of life. London: Joseph Johnson.

Wollstonecraft, Mary (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects. London: Joseph Johnson.
Denia, E. (2021). Values and Motivations Guiding Scientific Practice in Frankenstein. ArtefaCToS. Revista De Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La tecnología, 10(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.14201/art2021102153174

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
+