Many of Hawthorne’s characters are plagued by internal conflicts that are never resolved into an orderly resolution. “The Birthmark”, however, has a more clearly defined moral than some of Hawthorne’s other works. The social significance of this story that was written more than 150 years ago lives on in our modern age with startling clarity. An obsession with physical perfection and the battle between scientific progress and human morality are foremost in the minds of many in today’s society. This article will explore two main points: first, it will focus on how “The Birthmark” compares to Hawthorne’s other works with similar themes; he will then weave these themes together to show how his work explores these themes in haunting detail and could serve as a mirror of modern values.
Hawthorne’s mistrust of science is evident in the “mad scientist” motif employed in many of his short stories. In “The Birthmark”, Aylmer is a megalomaniac scientist who believes himself to be omnipotent: “No king on his guarded throne could keep his life if I, in my private position, considered that the well-being of millions justified my depriving him of it.” . . In “Rappaccini’s Daughter”, Dr. Rappaccini is a “mad scientist” who performs experiments on his daughter that involve poisonous plants. And in “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment”, the protagonist experiments with a fountain of youth elixir on his friends. Although Heidegger’s results are not fatal, as in the other two accounts, they are indeed dismal and no less subject to ethical criticism.
To put the subject of “The Birthmark” into a modern perspective, we need only reiterate that the pursuit of physical perfection and the willingness to go to any lengths to achieve it is one of the great themes of modern thought. Georgianna’s birthmark symbolizes her propensity for sin, pain, decay and death, and she is willing to forego the danger involved to have it removed: “There is only one danger: that this hideous stigma may be left on my cheek.” … Take it away, take it away, whatever the cost.” We only need to remember the Phen-fen and Redux debacle of a few years ago and reflect on the current “perfection” techniques that are now widely used, such as breast implants, liposuction, and many other dubiously “safe” cosmetic surgery procedures for seeing that Aylmer and Georgianna’s mindset is still quite relevant today. While it’s true that Georgianna didn’t seem to have a problem with her birthmark until Aylmer made it an issue, it should be noted that the influence of family and peers play a big role in how people think about themselves. and in decision making. . Let’s compare Georgianna’s response to that of a modern woman contemplating plastic surgery. Author Kathy Davis takes us into the exam room of a health insurance agency in the morning for applicants seeking coverage for cosmetic surgery:
I have no idea what to expect when the patient walks into the room. She’s a slender, pretty woman in her early twenties who looks a bit like Nastassia Kinski… Hunched forward with downcast eyes, she begins to explain that she’s “unhappy with what she’s got.” “I know I shouldn’t [compare] other women,” she whispers, “but I can’t help it.
The Aylmers of today are the plastic surgeons and drug-dealing doctors who feed the unrealistic notion that a woman’s body is unacceptable unless she appears to be the jackpot winner in the “genetic lottery.” Despite changes in cultural ideals of beauty over time, one characteristic remains constant according to Davis; namely, that beauty is worth spending time, money, pain, and perhaps even life itself. The hand-shaped birthmark that invaded Georgianna and Aylmer’s world also has an obsessive control akin to a vice in our century: It’s squeezing the life out of some and the humanity out of others. As H. Bruce Franklin points out, “The Birthmark” is both intricately crafted science fiction and a commentary on what Hawthorne saw as science fiction.
“Rappaccini’s Daughter” is another story that explores the investigation that went haywire when the doctor created a daughter who lives in a poisonous garden and is poisonous herself. Like Aylmer, Rappaccini sees himself as a god. This argument is advanced by Franklin’s interpretation of the basic allegory in the tale: “Rappaccini, creator of the [poisonous Eden], in trying to be God, exposes his daughter, the Adam of this inverted Eden, to a modern serpent in the grass, Baglioni, who persuades the Eva Eva Giovanni to introduce the fatal food into the paradise of wise fools.” Rappaccini’s delusions of grandeur are evident when he tries to justify his experiment to his dying daughter: “Do you think it’s a pittance to be endowed with wonderful gifts… Pity to be able to suffocate the most powerful with a breath? Misery, to be as terrible as it is beautiful.” This air of omnipotence is nowhere more evident than in today’s doctors, whose life-extending machinery allows them to literally decide life and death. And we, of course, cannot forget the good Dr. Kevorkian and the issue of euthanasia which has become a battle of rhetoric that theologians and scientists will probably never agree on.Aylmer and Rappaccini may be best liked by making a comparison of Georgianna and Beatrice.In In her critical response to the stories, Madison Jones observes: “Both women die as a consequence of attempts, devised by human science, to purge their natures.”
“Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” features a scientist who shares Aylmer’s confidence that he can reverse natural processes with the same result: bad science that puts others at risk. At first glance, Heidegger seems more playful and less dangerous than Aylmer and Rappaccini: “My dear old friends… I want your help in one of those little experiments that I amuse myself with in my study.” But according to Madison Jones, our response to his virtues doesn’t make him any less evil. Heidegger’s attempt to manipulate nature by granting it eternal youth could be paralleled by current problems of genetic engineering and cloning. Both are attempts to manipulate the natural order of things. The dichotomy of Hawthorne’s time and our own can merge when we consider a topic like cloning. Dr Bruce Donald of the Church of Scotland offers: “Faced with such a fertile prospect, the human imagination runs wild…we could clone humans to select for genetic defects or select for desirable traits (Donald). Some would argue that this is a good thing , but Donald maintains that the proposed motives turn out to be for the benefit of the person who wants the cloning to take place, not for the person so produced.This sounds remarkably close to Dr. Heidegger’s motives, because we have evidence to support that he created the elixir “for his own amusement” rather than primarily for the benefit of his friends. With these three tales, Hawthorne expands his list of scientific grievances.
While these three stories offer an immediate insight into modern concerns, other Hawthorne tales do the same, though they may not be quite as straightforward. “Ethan Brand” introduces another scientist whose pride leads him astray. In this story, Hawthorne creates a model of self-defeating perfectionism; Brand is ruined just as surely as Aylmer kills Georgianna (Bunge 30-32). In “The Artist of the Beautiful,” Owen tries to make machinery seem natural, but his art, like Aylmer’s science, is a desperate attempt to evade reality. And “The Prophetic Pictures” introduces us to a painter who believes that he can predict the future and, therefore, control time. He has a madness not unlike Aylmer’s and with similar consequences. The modern meaning of all these stories can be neatly summed up with a remark by Richard Harter Fogle: “Man’s chief temptation is to forget the limits and complexities of himself…”
Hawthorne’s foresight into the future was quite remarkable. Although his work is dated, the ethical questions he raises are still relevant today. Georgianna’s absorption of Aylmer’s obsession can be compared to today’s women jumping on the bandwagon of fad diets and questionable cosmetic procedures. At another point, Hawthorne’s suspicion of science seems a little less unreasonable now than it was in his day when we consider our ability to destroy the planet with nuclear weapons. Fogle comments that while Hawthorne’s conception of science has generally been considered outdated by his critics, the joke seems to have turned against them with the growth of modern science and technology. Aylmer, Rappaccini and Heidegger represent the claims of modern science, from miracle diet pills, cosmetic surgeries, and anti-aging creams and potions, to Minoxidil and Viagra, which allows KP’s permanent duty “soldier” to finally issue a sharp military salute. Some of our “miracle” science seems to work, but some has dire consequences.
Finally, we have examined how Hawthorne’s themes form a common link with today’s practical and ethical issues. Hawthorne himself was obsessed with his ancestral past, so it is ironic that he produced work that would prove to be a prelude to the future. Hawthorne wants us to see that “human perfection” is an oxymoron. At this point, Fogle points out that Aylmer’s tragic flaw is not seeing humanity’s tragic flaw. Hawthorne’s “mad scientists” can’t accept the fact that humanity and imperfection are inseparable. But even today, we’re no less likely to accept the rantings of our own mad scientists and snake-oil salesmen on late-night infomercials that plague our society and promise us perfection. Madison Jones sums up Hawthorne’s foresight supremely: “Like many reformers today, Aylmer would have reconstituted human nature or not at all. Hawthorne, albeit unconsciously, was looking to the future. But genius has always been al minus one part. prophecy.” Hawthorne’s moral invites us to accept our own imperfections. This moral can be expressed through a quote from, of all people, David Letterman. In an interview I remember from a few years ago, an actress asked Letterman what he would change about his physical appearance if he could. Letterman’s response was, “Well, I wouldn’t change a thing. I figure these are the cards I was dealt, what the hell, I’ll play them.” Hawthorne probably would have liked Letterman.