초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This study is a critical response to the long-standing view that has aligned Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with contemporary political writings in the 1790s. From the critical perspective, Shelley's novel is often labelled a work of “Godwinian school.” However, this paper examines the questions of social justice in Shelley's novel not in the context of political revolution, but in its relations with ethics of Godwinian Utilitarianism. The narratives of social persecution of three outcasts Justine, Walton and the creature suggest that the writer inquires the problem of two kinds of social justice: corrective justice and distributive one. As Brian Barry defines, corrective justice deals with ethical appropriateness of which is due to a person as punishment, while distributive justice concerns which recipient should get which benefits and burdens other than punishments. First, the stories of persecution of Justine and the monster expose the problem of corrective justice in the public execution. Focusing on the vindictive nature of the law as well as that in the concept of justice, Shelley illustrates destructive power of public justice which excludes, extorts and finally kills such marginal characters in the name of public justice. Next, through the cases of Walton and his crew members, Shelley transfers her ethical question from the limits of corrective justice to that of distributive one. Walton's ethical choice with his care of the crew clearly overcomes the predicament of corrective justice along with limitations of Victor's Godwinian utilitarianism, since Walton's ship is presented as an alternative social space based on enlightened negotiation between Walton and his crew without any violence. However, Walton's suspended arctic exploration ironically exhibits the remaining ethical dilemma of distributive justice. In other words, the majority of citizen such as the crew can suppress an individual pursuit of exploration like that of Walton. Shelley's exploration of the boundary of two different forms of public justice poses a challenging counter-example to the principle of utilitarianism by William Godwin and that of John Stuart Mill. The quality of Frankenstein as casuistry in its form of narratives of social persecution opens up the possibility to read the novel as a speculative thought experiment to inquire about the limitations of public justice as a critique of utilitarian ethics.
