The Modern Meaning of Hawthorne’s Suspicion of Science

Many of Hawthorne’s characters are plagued by internal conflicts that are never resolved in an orderly resolution. “The Birthmark,” however, has a more clearly defined moral than some of Hawthorne’s other works. The social significance of this story that was written more than 150 years ago lives on in our modern age with startling clarity. An obsession with physical perfection and the battle between scientific progress and human morality are paramount in the minds of many in today’s society. This article will explore two main points: first, it will focus on how “The Birthmark” compares to other Hawthorne works with similar themes; he will then weave these themes together to show how his work explores these themes in haunting detail and could serve as a mirror of modern values.

Hawthorne’s mistrust of science is evident in the “mad scientist” motif employed in many of his stories. In “The Birthmark”, Aylmer is a megalomaniac scientist who believes himself to be omnipotent: “No king on his guarded throne could maintain his life if I, in my private position, considered that the well-being of millions justifies depriving him of it” . . In “Rappaccini’s Daughter”, Dr. Rappaccini is a “mad scientist” who performs experiments on his daughter involving poisonous plants. And in “The Dr. Heidegger Experiment”, the protagonist experiments with a fountain of elixir of youth on his friends. Although Heidegger’s results are not fatal, as in the other two accounts, they are indeed disastrous and no less subject to ethical criticism.

To put the theme of “The Birthmark” into a modern perspective, we need only reiterate that the quest for physical perfection and the willingness to go to any lengths to achieve it is one of the great themes of modern thought. Georgianna’s birthmark symbolizes her propensity for sin, pain, decay, and death, and she is willing to forgo the danger involved in having it removed: “There is only one danger: that this horrible stigma remains on my cheek.” … Take it off, take it off, whatever it takes.” We just need to look back on the Phen-fen and Redux debacle of a few years ago and reflect on the current “perfection” techniques that are now widely used, such as breast implants, liposuction, and many other questionably “safe” cosmetic surgery procedures for see that the mindset of Aylmer and Georgianna is still quite relevant today. While it’s true that Georgianna didn’t seem to have a problem with her birthmark until Aylmer made it an issue, it should be noted that the influence of family and peers plays a big role in how people think about themselves. and in decision making. . Let’s compare Georgianna’s response to that of a modern woman contemplating plastic surgery. Author Kathy Davis takes us into the exam room of a health insurance agency in the morning for applicants seeking coverage for cosmetic surgery:

I have no idea what to expect when the patient walks into the room. She is a slender, pretty woman in her early twenties who somewhat resembles Nastassia Kinski…Hunched forward and with downcast eyes, she begins to explain that she is “unhappy with what she has”. “I know I shouldn’t [compare] other women,” she whispers, “but I can’t help it.

Today’s Aylmers are the plastic surgeons and drug-dealing doctors who feed the unrealistic notion that a woman’s body is unacceptable unless it appears to be the jackpot winner in the “genetic lottery.” Despite changes in cultural ideals of beauty over time, one characteristic remains constant according to Davis; namely, that beauty is worth spending time, money, pain, and perhaps even life itself. The hand-shaped birthmark that invaded Georgianna and Aylmer’s world also has an obsessive control akin to a vice in our century: it’s squeezing the life out of some and the humanity out of others. As H. Bruce Franklin points out, “The Birthmark” is both intricately crafted science fiction and a commentary on what Hawthorne saw as science fiction.

“Rappaccini’s Daughter” is another story that explores the investigation gone haywire when the doctor created a daughter who lives in a poisonous garden and is poisonous herself. Like Aylmer, Rappaccini sees himself as a god. This argument is advanced by Franklin’s interpretation of the basic allegory in the tale: “Rappaccini, creator of the [poisonous Eden], by trying to be God, exposes his daughter, the Adam of this inverted Eden, to a modern snake in the grass, Baglioni, who persuades the Eva Eva Giovanni to introduce the fatal meal into the paradise of the wise fools.” Rappaccini’s delusions of grandeur are evident when he tries to justify his experiment to his dying daughter: “Does it seem misery to you to be endowed with wonderful gifts… Misery to be able to suffocate the most powerful with a breath? Misery, to be as terrible as beautiful.” This air of omnipotence is nowhere more evident than in today’s physicians, whose life-prolonging machinery allows them to literally decide life and death. And we, of course, cannot Forget the good Dr. Kevorkian and the issue of euthanasia that has become a battle of rhetoric that theologians and scientists will probably never agree on. Aylmer and Rappaccini may be better liked by making a comparison of Georgianna and Beatrice. her critical response to the stories, Madison Jones observes: “Both women die as a consequence of attempts, devised by human science, to purge their natures.”

“Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” features a scientist who shares Aylmer’s confidence that he can reverse natural processes with the same result: bad science that puts others at risk. At first sight, Heidegger seems more playful and less dangerous than Aylmer and Rappaccini: “My dear old friends… I wish your help in one of those little experiments with which I amuse myself in my study.” But according to Madison Jones, our response to his virtues doesn’t make him any less diabolical. Heidegger’s attempt to manipulate nature by granting it eternal youth could parallel current problems with genetic engineering and cloning. Both are attempts to manipulate the natural order of things. The dichotomy of Hawthorne’s time and ours can be conflated when we consider a topic like cloning. Dr. Bruce Donald of the Church of Scotland offers: “Faced with such a fertile prospect, the human imagination runs wild…we could clone humans to select for genetic defects or select for desirable traits (Donald). Some would argue that this is a good thing.” , but Donald argues that the proposed motives turn out to be for the benefit of the person who wants the cloning to take place, not the person so produced This sounds remarkably close to Dr. Heidegger’s motives, because we have evidence to support that he created the elixir “for his own amusement” rather than primarily for the benefit of his friends. With these three tales, Hawthorne expands his list of scientific grievances.

While all three of these stories offer immediate insight into modern concerns, Hawthorne’s other tales do the same, though they may not be as straightforward. “Ethan Brand” introduces another scientist whose pride leads him astray. In this story, Hawthorne creates a model of self-defeating perfectionism; Brand is ruined as surely as Aylmer kills Georgianna (Bunge 30-32). In “The Artist of the Beautiful,” Owen tries to make machinery appear natural, but his art, like Aylmer’s science, is a desperate attempt to evade reality. And “The prophetic paintings” introduces us to a painter who believes that he can predict the future and, therefore, control time. He has a madness not unlike Aylmer’s and with similar consequences. The modern meaning of all these stories can be neatly summed up with an observation by Richard Harter Fogle: “Man’s chief temptation is to forget his limits and complexities…”

Hawthorne’s foresight about the future was quite remarkable. Although his work is dated, the ethical questions he raises are still relevant today. Georgianna’s absorption of Aylmer’s obsession can be compared to women today jumping on the bandwagon of fad diets and questionable cosmetic procedures. On another point, Hawthorne’s misgivings about science seem a little less unreasonable now than in his day when we consider our ability to destroy the planet with nuclear weapons. Fogle comments that while Hawthorne’s view of science has generally been considered old-fashioned by his critics, the joke seems to have turned against them with the growth of modern science and technology. Aylmer, Rappaccini, and Heidegger represent the claims of modern science, from miracle diet pills, cosmetic surgeries, and anti-aging creams and potions, to Minoxidil and Viagra, which allows KP’s permanent-duty “soldier” to finally emit a sharp military greeting. Some of our “miraculous” science seems to work, but some has dire consequences.

Finally, we have examined how Hawthorne’s themes form a common link with today’s practical and ethical questions. Hawthorne himself was obsessed with his ancient past, so it’s ironic that he produced a work that would turn out to be a prelude to the future. Hawthorne wants us to see that “human perfection” is an oxymoron. At this point, Fogle points out that Aylmer’s tragic flaw is not seeing the tragic flaw in humanity. Hawthorne’s “mad scientists” cannot accept the fact that humanity and imperfection are inseparable. But even today, we are no less likely to accept the ravings of our own mad scientists and snake oil salesmen in late-night infomercials that infest our society and promise us perfection. Madison Jones sums up Hawthorne’s foresight supremely: “Like many reformers of our day, Aylmer would have reconstituted human nature or not at all. Hawthorne, however unconsciously, was looking to the future. But genius has always been minus one part.” prophecy”. Hawthorne’s moral invites us to accept our own imperfections. This moral can be expressed through a quote from, of all people, David Letterman. In an interview I remember from a few years ago, an actress asked Letterman what would he change about his physical appearance if he could. Letterman’s response was, “Well, I wouldn’t change a thing. I guess these are the cards I was dealt, what the hell, I’ll play them.” Hawthorne probably would have liked Letterman.