Embodying The Monster Shildrick Analysis

In “Embodying the Monster,” Margrit Shildrick defines the word “monster” using the different representations present throughout human history. The dilemma of concern is how humans identify monsters, as well as what these definitions reveal about humans themselves. Humans have repeatedly developed binaries in order to separate the human from the nonhuman. However, monsters blur these binaries. As stated by Shildrick, “And yet time and again the monstrous cannot be confined to the place of the other; it is not simply alien, but arouses always the contradictory responses of denial and recognition, disgust and empathy, exclusion and identification” (9). The definition of a monster becomes muddled as we peel away their layers and learn the truth within. Shildrick states that, “...embodiment is always a dynamic process of development, growth and adaption...” (3). She analyzes a few examples of what was considered “monstrous” during certain eras of Western history. A common pattern between these representations is the increasing understanding, with each succeeding generation, of what establishes a monster. Whether these monsters were explained using science or philosophy, they would always return. They morph and adapt to the times as any living being would. What …show more content…
Such a conclusion may be obvious, as humans created the concept of “monsters.” We loathe monsters but yet, we recognize ourselves within them. Little similarities become blatant. It is with this idea that, “The monstrous is not thereby the absolute other, but rather a mirror of humanity: on an individual level, the external manifestation of the sinner within” (Shildrick, 9). We project our insecurities, or our “sins,” onto monsters in order to cope with our inability to confront them. Humans attempt to alienate the monsters this way, but this simply reinforces the fears. Thus, the monstrous become a scapegoat for our