1. Post-Structuralism, Abjection, and the Instability of Human Form
Post-structuralist theory disrupts the idea of the subject as a stable, unified entity. Within this framework, identity is not an essence but a precarious construction maintained through symbolic boundaries—between self and other, human and non-human, inside and outside.
In Frankenstein, these boundaries are not merely questioned; they are systematically dismantled. Through a Kristevan lens, particularly the work of Julia Kristeva, the novel stages what can be called the logic of abjection: the process through which the subject constitutes itself by expelling what it cannot integrate.
Yet what is expelled does not remain external. It returns as disruption, destabilizing the very distinction that produced the subject in the first place. The Creature is not simply an “other”; it is the structural return of what the subject has rejected in order to become “human.”
Thus, the novel does not present a stable human essence but a field of unstable boundaries that fail to hold.
2. Language, Naming, and the Failure of Subject Formation
In Kristeva’s framework, language is not merely communicative but deeply tied to subject formation. The subject emerges through entry into symbolic order, where naming stabilizes identity.
In the novel, however, naming is consistently unstable. The Creature remains unnamed, unclassified, and linguistically uncontained. His lack of name is not absence but refusal of symbolic fixation.
Even Victor Frankenstein’s act of creation does not produce a stable subject; instead, it produces a being that resists integration into linguistic categories of humanity.
The Creature’s learning of language intensifies this instability. As he acquires speech, he does not become more “human” in a stable sense but becomes more acutely aware of exclusion. Language does not integrate him; it exposes his marginalization.
Thus, language in the novel does not resolve identity. It produces alienation as structural condition.
3. The Creature as Abject Figure and the Collapse of Boundaries
The abject, in Kristevan theory, refers to what disturbs identity, system, and order. It is neither object nor subject but something that disrupts classification itself.
The Creature occupies precisely this position. He is neither fully inside the human community nor entirely outside it. His body, appearance, and origin resist symbolic categorization.
This instability generates horror not because of inherent monstrosity but because of boundary collapse. The Creature exposes the fragility of the distinction between human and non-human.
Victor’s reaction is therefore not simply fear but structural rejection of what threatens symbolic coherence. The Creature must be expelled because he reveals that the boundaries of the human are not natural but constructed.
Yet this expulsion fails, because the abject returns in increasingly intensified forms—psychological, ethical, and narrative.
4. Desire, Creation, and the Fragmentation of Authorship
Victor Frankenstein’s act of creation is traditionally interpreted as a form of scientific transgression. However, from a post-structuralist perspective, authorship itself becomes unstable in the novel.
Victor does not control the meaning of his creation once it enters symbolic circulation. The Creature exceeds authorial intention, becoming an autonomous site of signification.
This destabilizes the idea of origin. The “creator” is no longer sovereign over meaning. Instead, creation produces unintended excess that escapes control.
Desire in the novel is therefore not directed toward stable fulfillment but toward an impossible attempt to restore coherence. Victor’s desire for mastery collapses into fragmentation, as every attempt to control meaning generates further instability.
5. Ethical Language, Responsibility, and Dispersed Agency
Ethics in the novel cannot be grounded in stable subject positions because agency itself is dispersed across multiple relational structures.
Victor is responsible for the Creature, yet responsibility is never clearly located or resolved. The Creature is both victim and agent of violence, yet neither category stabilizes his identity.
This ambiguity reflects a post-structural condition in which ethical meaning cannot be anchored in fixed subjects. Instead, responsibility circulates within a network of actions, consequences, and interpretations that exceed individual control.
Language itself fails to stabilize ethical categories. Words like “monster,” “human,” “father,” and “creator” shift meaning depending on context, revealing the instability of moral discourse.
6. Conclusion: Abjection as Structural Condition of the Human
Frankenstein ultimately reveals that the human subject is not a stable entity but a fragile construct maintained through exclusion and linguistic regulation.
Through Kristevan post-structuralism, the novel demonstrates:
- identity is produced through abjection
- boundaries between human and non-human are unstable
- language fails to stabilize subject formation
- authorship is decentered and dispersed
- ethical responsibility is structurally ambiguous
The Creature is not simply a figure of horror but a structural revelation: he exposes the instability at the heart of the human itself.
In this sense, the novel does not tell the story of a monster. It reveals that monstrosity is a condition produced whenever symbolic systems attempt to stabilize what cannot be stabilized.