Monday, October 31, 2016

Imaginary Monsters or Real-Life Issues?

In Asma’s “Monsters and the Moral Imagination, Asma argues against current “liberal” theory on monsters, which holds that monsters are dramatized and then used to “scold ourselves and our intolerant society for alienating the outcast [the monsters] in the first place” (2) and will likely disappear once we “embrace the difference[s]” (5) of the outcasts. Instead, Asma explains that “the monster concept is still extremely useful” and can “virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way” (5). Asma’s argument that the concept of monster is still relevant in today’s society is interesting, although I am not sure I agree with him.

First off, it seems like Asma’s argument is not supported by the examples he gives. Although he does list some stories of monsters – like Frankenstein for example – that’s just it: he simply lists these stories with no analysis of how they represent real-life obstacles. Instead, the majority of Asma’s support in the article consists of real-life anecdote. The anecdote of Bruce Shapiro, for example, was a real-life scenario in which real-life people were put into a terrifying situation in which they feared for their lives. The same thing goes for his anecdote of Malim Abdul Habib. Again, a scary situation featuring a monstrous group of attackers that actually happened.

My point is this: why do we need “virtual representations of real-life obstacles” when real life gives us those obstacles point-blank? Don’t get me wrong, I love fantastical stories as much as the next person does, but as far as all of them representing many different real-life obstacles like 9/11 or the economy, Asma does not have me sold. How can “monster stories” which are so similar that they can even be grouped into a category called “monster stories” (5) all represent different conflicts? Especially when, as Asma states himself, these stories focus on the “hero phase,” and not the “threat phase” (5).


I think that the term “monster” is still very relevant in today’s society. People definitely still act monstrous and create real-life issues from those monstrous actions. However, I am unsure whether or not monsters in recent literature and media represent current real-life issues. For example, what issue does Edward from “The Twilight Saga” (1) represent…? He is a vampire, after all. Obviously, that is an extreme example, but still, even the author himself mentioned Twilight. I think that in general, and in older literature, monsters can represent real-life issues, especially general societal issues; and that monsters can take on the worst qualities found in real-life people. But I am not so sure that in recent literature monsters represent obstacles found in daily life.

3 comments:

  1. Alyssa, you make an intriguing point about the necessity of using fictitious monsters when we have human monsters in real life. As I mentioned in class, I think your behavior in real life monstrous situations will depend on your natural fight or flight instinct. However, if we saw as many real-life heroes as we do real-life monsters I wonder if we would see an increase in heroic behavior regardless of our initial instinct. I do agree with you on the point of why have monsters in fiction when we have them in real life. What purpose can the fictional monster provide that the real-life monster can't? Perhaps it's really the hero in the story that we need, to confirm our hope that there is still good in the world despite all the monstrosity. And if that's the case, I think seeing real life heros would be far more beneficial than fictitious ones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do agree with you about Asma's article - I also had a bit of a hard time figuring out just what he meant by "moral philosophy." Sure, I can buy that monsters (and their universal presence around the world) are a way by which we are enculturated into our societies, but I think monsters serve a variety of other purposes, like reflecting US and our fears. This isn't to say that Asma wouldn't agree with me, but I don't think monsters are purely representative or indicative of morality. I don't know - I see Asma's point and I think I agree with it, but I also don't think it's necessarily fully developed in his article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What purpose can the fictional monster provide that the real-life monster can't? I think people want to be heroes, and it is much easier to fight fictional monsters than real ones. By fighting fictional monsters people can explore and express their morality in a safe manner. It appears to be more about moral escapism than about being morally prepared for a situation to me.

    ReplyDelete