“I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health.” – Victor Frankenstein in describing his work in Mary Shelley’s novel “Frankenstein”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
As an English<\/a> and political science<\/a> double major who expects one day to take up the study of law, Socci heeded the advice of associate professor Dwight Codr and looked at Mary Shelley\u2019s 1818 novel \u201cFrankenstein\u201d through a legal lens.<\/p>\n What started as an honors conversion paper became a much larger Summer Undergraduate Research Fund (SURF)<\/a> grant proposal, replete with a reading plan of an admittedly ambitious 37 works, including dense legal case studies, she says. The funding allowed her the space in June, July, and August to focus on her work, without worrying about money.<\/p>\n \u201cResearch in the humanities is very rare to begin with,\u201d she says, \u201cand I don\u2019t think a lot of people understand what it entails. When you\u2019re a STEM major, you can lay out lab steps, you can show people graphs, diagrams, and lab methods. It\u2019s very quantitative, whereas humanities research is reading, taking notes, thinking, and writing.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s nonetheless important, she argues.<\/p>\n One of the first things Socci says she was shocked to learn when reading \u201cFrankenstein\u201d the first time two years ago was that the character of Frankenstein, contrary to popular belief, is not the monster depicted in the story.<\/p>\n Victor Frankenstein is the young doctor who brings to life an 8-foot-tall monster \u2013 born of inanimate body parts he stole from graves and mortuaries. Most contemporary depictions of Frankenstein wrongly show him as the flat-headed, green, almost zombie-like monster with bolts in his neck.<\/p>\n That is, in fact, Frankenstein\u2019s \u201ccreature,\u201d who in Shelley\u2019s book is never given a name, referred to only by such descriptors as \u201cdevil,\u201d \u201cthing,\u201d and \u201cogre.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe other thing that struck me \u2013 and this might just be my poli-sci brain at work \u2013 was that she included three legal proceedings in the novel, three specific examples of courtroom trials, and that\u2019s not something that\u2019s talked about. You typically think of \u2018Frankenstein\u2019 as a very science-fiction text,\u201d Socci says.<\/p>\n Those trials, in which the defendants aren\u2019t in fact guilty of the crimes they\u2019re accused, got Socci thinking about how the law weaves itself through the novel and found herself wondering: What if Frankenstein\u2019s monster was granted legal personhood and able to stand trial for his wrongdoings?<\/p>\n Before she could answer, she needed to tackle the idea of what it means to be a legal person and how that idea has been used over time. She turned to legal theory, philosophy, history, and Shelley\u2019s text for answers.<\/p>\n \u201cLegal personhood is a status, which means someone has rights and privileges but can also be held responsible for their actions,\u201d she explains. \u201cIt\u2019s twofold and it\u2019s been expanded and contracted over time to include and exclude so many different things and people.<\/p>\n \u201cSlaves had a very limited form of personhood. Women had a very limited form of personhood. Animals at one time were granted legal personhood and could be put on trial, which is completely absurd,\u201d she continues. \u201cThe law is flexible and almost subject to the politics of the time. That reminded me, as a citizen, as a woman in contemporary times, the importance of paying attention to that.\u201d<\/p>\n “My cheek had grown pale with study, and my person had become emaciated with confinement. Sometimes, on the very brink of certainty, I failed; yet still I clung to the hope which the next day or the next hour might realise.” – Victor Frankenstein in describing his work in Mary Shelley’s novel “Frankenstein”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Things like cognition and competency are used in helping distinguish personhood, even intent and mental capacity. And when Socci looked to the novel for these characteristics as they relate to the monster, her conclusion was clear.<\/p>\n \u201cHe is a completely cognizant being who acted with intent,\u201d she says. \u201cHe was very aware of what he was doing. He could express himself. He was extremely human in every way but his physical appearance. Violence is never the answer, and his reasoning for violence is flawed, but it\u2019s reasoning, nonetheless. He\u2019s angry, and he\u2019s acting in a very methodical way. He is totally eligible to stand trial.\u201d<\/p>\n Socci says that at the outset of her research, when telling people how she was spending her summer, she started to wonder why she was even bothering. Arguing about whether Frankenstein\u2019s monster could be held criminally liable for his actions is an exercise in the abstract.<\/p>\n Except it is relevant, she was reminded.<\/p>\n In an interview with an Australian professor who\u2019d written about personhood, she asked why any of this mattered.<\/p>\n \u201cHe said abstractions rule our lives. These legal definitions, these philosophical foundations are what govern our whole being,\u201d she says. \u201cWe don\u2019t really think of ourselves in legal terms that often, so it can seem unimportant. But it\u2019s how we have the right to vote. It\u2019s how we have the right to express ourselves. It\u2019s how we\u2019re seen by the government.\u201d<\/p>\n Suddenly, what once was hypothetical was much more concrete.<\/p>\nNot the Frankenstein you might imagine<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Gianna-Socci-300x201.jpg\")
\u2018Abstractions rule our lives\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"Illustration](\"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/AdobeStock_162337029-188x300.jpeg\")