Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

and territories of both” (13). Bhabha’s concept in “The Commitment
to Theory” addresses a hybridity created in a space outside of colonial
binaries where the “moment” of political change occurs (13). Bhabha
contends that, “in this ‘Third Space’, we may elude the politics of polarity
and emerge as the others of our selves” (22). The third space, when applied
to identity, is, therefore, the space outside of binary constructions where a
fluid identity is allowed to take shape. In this space, identity can be formed
out of the concepts of both the self and the “other.” Simultaneously, the
privileged role and its oppositional counterpart upon which that very role
is built become integrated. When Bhabha’s concept is applied beyond the
colonizer/colonized binary structure, not only gender roles, but also the
very social constructs that make up identity are called into question.
Identity in such a hybrid or fluid form is argued by Judith Halberstam
to exist in the “totalizing monster” (29). Halberstam contends, in “Making
Monsters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” that the monster is “chameleonic”
and that interpretations that attempt to define the Frankenstein monster in
a specific category ultimately deny the “hybrid” nature of its monstrosity
(29). Identity as monstrosity in Frankenstein is the constructed product of
multiple influences, an amalgamation of forms and traditional categories,
specifically of gender. Monstrosity, therefore, becomes a space for an
undefined identity to exist. As Halberstam argues: “The monster, in fact,
is where we come to know ourselves as never-human, as always between
humanness and monstrosity” (37). Monstrosity becomes the “third space”
that enables the existence of the hybrid, fluid identity that questions
the very concept of what it is to be “human.” Within this process of
destabilization, monstrosity in Frankenstein engages the defining roles of
gender, treating the identities of Elizabeth and the creature as plastic and
all-encompassing. As Halberstam states, “The monster is always all of
these figures. By his very composition, he can never be one thing” (36).
Bette London claims that the monster is associated with the female,
80 | Wills
“the traditional locus for ‘the monstrous’ and ‘the body’” (256). Sandra
Gubar connects the monster and monstrousness with Eve and all
women, stating that women have been seen as “monstrous, vile, degraded
creatures, second-comers, emblems of filthy materiality,” a fact “as true as
that women have traditionally been defined as superior spiritual beings,
angels, better halves” (65). These critics fall short in their exploration
of Elizabeth’s monstrosity by overlooking its connection to the creature,
lumping her instead with the monstrousness of all women. Halberstam
argues that “the grotesqueries of human form are linked, in this novel,
to the extreme fear of feminine sexual response” (29). From this idea,
Halberstam connects Elizabeth with the female monster (46), but never
fully explicates the connection between Elizabeth’s fluid identity and
monstrousness.
Not only does Elizabeth as a female invoke the echoes of “monstrous”
perceptions, but, if monstrosity is defined in terms of Halberstam’s
“chameleonic” argument, then Elizabeth’s identity in the text is also
clearly monstrous. Her monstrosity is produced by the third space of
other-worldliness, which she both inhabits and creates for Victor.
The role she occupies in Victor’s life, as well as the life of his family,
deconstructs traditional ideas of identity and creates a space where her
identity achieves a state of openness and adaptability. Victor states, “No
word, no expression could body forth the kind of relation in which she
stood to me” (44). Elizabeth is referred to as his “more than sister” (43).
The relationship between Victor and Elizabeth, her multi-faceted role,
however, can be argued as incestuous, rather than an embodiment of
fluid identity. Gubar argues Elizabeth and Victor’s incestuous connection
as reflecting that of Milton’s Adam and Eve (55). Gubar views incest
in Shelley’s work as a reflection of “solipsistic self-awareness,” extending
the incestuous bonds to Frankenstein and his creature (56). Stepping
beyond incest as an embodiment of the narcissistic reflection of the self,
Wills | 81