Perhaps when Shelly’s (2006) unnamed ‘creature’ walked the streets, beseeching to be loved, held, and understood, he wondered what horrors he invoked in the minds of people, to be faced by such brutality and abhorrence. Under what circumstances is a being, relegated to the status of the ‘other’, the ‘abnormal’, and the ‘deviant’? Which lives are consigned to abject precarity? And who under such circumstances, takes the status of the ‘human’, the ‘sublime’? Wars germinate at an epistemic plane, creating ripples that breed and eventually materialize into violence and hatred. Moraña, (2018) observes how the monstrous is shaped by the socio-cultural, political, and religious institutions, which are defined by various forms of control, censorship, and marginalization (29). Furthermore, the monster becomes a symbol of what ought to not be, setting itself in opposition to notions of normativity, and conventionality (30). ‘Otherness’ is placed in opposition to one’s identity – ‘the self’. Such dichotomy is often represented in rigid binarism, of polarised and opposed distinctions. The Self is not forged at birth but rather is constructed over time, through social experiences (Mead, 1934, 104). The dehumanized other often composes the limits of our being and teaches us the boundaries of our identity and the definitions of what we are. In doing so, the monstrous other creates borders while simultaneously crossing them, (Steinhart, and Compagna, 2020, ix) into the realm of the uncanny, ugly, abnormal, and inhuman (ix). Goffman, (1986) in his study on stigma, coined the term “tribal stigma” to denote groups who have been stigmatized based on race, nationality, religion, and so on (4). Gendered transgressions are often culturally perceived through the lens of the monstrous. The already ‘othered’ gender, comes into being doubly ‘othered’ by the designation as a monster (Steele, 2020, 3). Should or can the feminist imagination move beyond the ‘monstrous other’ while discussing patriarchal violence?  

Our conception of gender has historically been dictated by psychological and biological essentialism which claims that gender, or rather gender differentiation, along with gendered roles are psychologically and biologically given attributes of women and men. (Stanley, 2002, 31) Therefore, the gendered differences are seen as intrinsic and natural. Feminist thought has often fallen victim to such essentialist ideals of gender when contending with patriarchal oppression. The two sexes are seen as inhabiting opposingly different psychological and physical attributes. Around the 1960s and 1970s, the growth of radical feminism reproduced biological essentialism to further women’s rights. Central to the ideology was to suggest that “males and females are, on either the biological or the ontological level, two kinds of creatures: the men corrupt and the women innocent” (Tong and Botts, 2017, 67). Such an understanding was also seen in patriarchal notions of gender, which argued that the gendered differences, are the basis of male dominance, and naturalised the existence of patriarchy. Many early feminists, relied on an essentialist understanding of gender, to assert a universal and monolithic conception of women, whose biological identity, is the basis of oppression. Violence against women was seen through the same lens. Men were seen as naturally oppressive and violent. Such arguments, rest on biological accounts of “male aggressive-ness”, which heavily rely on the study of animals.

When faced with patriarchal violence, one often hears comments invoking such essentialism, which sees men as unchanging, inherently violent, and animistic. The ‘Other’ is often invoked, over and over again veiling implications of caste, class and race. The myth of the ‘monstrous outsider’, is undermined by statistics¹ which show us that most violence against women takes place within the confinements of the house. The institutions of family and marriage are central to the patriarchal subjugation of women. Nevertheless, the conception of the vilified outsider persists in the minds of people. What does it mean for feminists to re-produce such a notion of violence? Where women are absolute victims and men are absolute perpetrators of violence?

I believe that such an assertion prevents us from playing a proactive role in transformation, and possibilities of emancipation are debilitated. Transformation is necessary for the possibilities of emancipation to be actualized. And this is to believe that human beings are capable of change, and growth. It is not enough to question whether men are inherently violent or not; but rather to ask, why despite not being inherently violent, men commit acts of violence. Which socio-cultural and political intuitions give way to such violence? Herein lies the dialogue which would help one better contend with patriarchal violence.  

Therefore to tackle patriarchal violence, the foundation of any feminist inquiry needs to be embedded in a Social Constructionist standpoint. Berger and Luckmann (1966) assert, that people are constantly creating, through the interactions they have with others, a common and shared reality, that is experienced and thought to be objectively factual and subjectively meaningful (49-61). This shared reality, is based on social norms and rules set by our society. One cannot view our social identities as being essential or innate, but rather a product of historical discourses and cultural variations. Hence, one’s identity is both temporally and spatially variant. To encompass what it means to be any identity, one cannot invoke psychology or biology alone. Hence, it becomes necessary to investigate the larger social milieu within which the gendered self is constituted, and in what ways legitimizing powers of socio-cultural sanctions and, the maintenance of taboos and deviances; manipulate the ‘doing of gender’(Butler, 1990, 271).

Thus, it is pivotal that one brings into question the very structures that maintain and normalise such an oppressive milieu. Essentialist binaries often reproduce hegemonic patriarchal ideals rather than opposing them; often overlooking how such tyranny germinates in the minds of men. The epitome of the ‘monstrous Other’ often produces the image of a sacrificial lamb, untouched by humanity and dictated by the laws of bestial disposition. On the contrary, identities should not be affirmed as fixed and unchanging, rather it is pivotal to recognise their mutability for transformative change to take place.

1. UNODC and UN Women (2024). Femicides in 2023: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides. United Nations Publications. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2024/11/femicides-in-2023-global-estimates-of-intimate-partner-family-member-femicides

References

Shelley, M. (2006) Frankenstein. United Kingdom, Penguin Books Limited.

Moraña, M. (2018) The Monster As War Machine. Trans.  Ascher, A., New York: Cambria Press.

Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Steinhart, S. and Compagna, D. (2020) “Introduction”. In Steinhart, S. and Compagna, D. (eds.) Monsters, Monstrosities, and the monstrous in culture and society. Wilmington: Vernon Press, ix-xiv

Goffman, E. (1986) Stigma. London: Penguin.

Steele, R.E (2020) “Revealing the Autonomy of the Seductive Unknown: German Sirens on the 19^th Century.” (Ed) Steinhart, S. and Compagna, D. Monsters, Monstrosities, and the Monstrous in Culture and Society (pp. 3-26). Wilmington: Vernon Press.

Stanley, L. (2002) “Should Sex Really be Gender or Gender Really be Sex” (Ed) Jackson, S. and Scott S. Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge.

Tong, R. and Botts, TF. (2017) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. New York: Westview Press.

Berger, P.L and Luckmann, T. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London:Penguin Books.

Butler, J. (1990) “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory”. In S. Case (ed.) Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

***

Aranya Vadera is a gender theorist from Delhi with a master’s degree in Gender Studies from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Their research interests focus on Sexuality, Masculinity, Desire, and Queer Studies. Beyond Academia, they are an avid reader and enjoy doing art.