The Hypothetical Need For a Mate
I will admit that I am not as well read in the social sciences as might be appropriate for a dedicated academic like myself. (We can debate whether social science should truly qualify as ‘sciences’ at all at a later date.) In my defense, medical biology has little to do with social science concepts like ‘cultural hegemony’ and ‘social conditioning’. I’ve always been much more concerned with the tangible workings of our actual world. Does this lung work? Yes? Great. No? Let’s figure out how to fix it before this person dies. You know, trivial stuff like that. But as things have become more… complicated in my research, questions of patient experience and psychology are becoming relevant. When the Creature asked me to make him a friend, he was making claims about his experience that require examination. In his own, grunting, inarticulate way he was saying: “This social isolation is painful. I need a friend.” It’s the least I can do to look into his claim by examining the relevant psychological literature – for the little value it may provide.
The Creature’s position is not unique. Abraham Maslow’s famous Hierarchy of Needs theory was the first to identify the human need to belong. Maslow’s theory states that only as our most basic needs are fulfilled will we be motivated to fulfill our lesser needs. According to his theory, the most urgent needs are physiological (thank you very much). Only then can one pursue safety, and once one is safe one can pursue belonging etc. Maslow’s theory was the first time someone declared the socialization of humans to be a need rather than a desire. Of course, because Maslow was a social scientist, he provided absolutely no empirical evidence for this claim. What’s more, many people have found his idea of hierarchy to be very problematic. Basically, the implication is that if someone cannot satisfy their need for safety or resources, they will not concern themselves with things like love, self-esteem, or even morality. Which is ridiculous. But Maslow served to inspire further research that showed that even partial social deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions. Which, admittedly the Creature has demonstrated.
Baumeister and Leary finally provide empirical evidence in a paper that you can read here. They argue that “need” is the correct framing for belongingness (over simple desire) because a lack of social belonging can lead to both immunodeficiency problems and mental illness. The paper certainly held my attention and I recommend reading it. They argue that if the need for belonging isn’t fundamental, then lack of it wouldn’t have such dire consequences. Their analysis is detailed and I find some believability in their work.
However, even once we conclude that there may exist a fundamental human need for belonging, there is a further consideration. Beyond the psychological question is a metaphysical question. What is the Creature? To what extent is he a human? If we agree to treat him as a human, where does he fit in psychologically? Do we treat him as a human child? His initial behavior suggests a certain childlike perspective. Do we treat him as a human adult? His brain is fully developed. When we first brought him into existence, I was convinced we were creating a new form of being. And while there are glimmers of humanity in him, I still believe that we must resist the urge to anthropomorphize him. Beneath the appearance of humanity is something else. In which case, there is little use in applying human psychology to his situation.
And, what if we do treat him as a human? Many philosophers would argue that loneliness is a fundamental part of the human condition. In fact, studies have shown that 20% of the US feels lonely. And another study found that 12% of Americans have no one with whom to spend free time or to discuss important matters. In which case, the Creature is in good company. Well, not literally. He’s not in any company. But you understand.
Of course, there are the biological issues to attend to as well. There are brain regions associated with extreme psychological pain. According to one study, the stress of isolation is linked to activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. We’ve already posited that Robert’s brain damage is contributing to his dysfunctional emotional state. What if this brain damage is also contributing to his psychological state? Making him a mate cannot solve brain damage. And then we’ve brought another abomination into this work for no cause or effect.
Loneliness can lead to lack of happiness and health. Intellectually, I can easily grasp that the Creature’s life thus far has been riddled with pain and rejection. Intellectually, I know that his pain is my responsibility. Because I have the ability to mitigate his psychological anguish, I should do everything in my power to do so. But the fact remains: Rory is dead. He killed her. And somehow my concern for his health cannot exceed that fact. I don’t want him to live a long happy life. I want him to die. And I certainly don’t want to bring another being into this world that could do similar harm. But to the extent that relieving some of his stress might assuage him – might prevent him from killing again- for this reason I must consider it.
Comments
Filed in: Editor's Blog
About the Author (Author Profile)
Hi, I’m Victoria Frankenstein, almost-doctor and host of the web series “Frankenstein MD.” You can go ahead and start referring to me now as “Dr. Frankenstein,” just so you’re used to it when it actually happens. Which will be any day now.Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (15,432)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post