Desexualisation of the Species or Frankenstein and Possibility of an Island

ABSTRACT

This article attends to two key literary considerations of desexualisation, namely Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), the world’s first science fiction novel, and a significant contemporary rewriting of it, Michel Houellebecq’s Possibility of an Island (2007). Literature, like other forms of art, often reflects fundamental discontents with sex in ‘civilisation’ and the various inflections of power that ripple through them – including knowledge and its role in forms of exploitation. Grounded in sex and death, literature is not only a reflection of and upon social power, but also an expression of our experience of the forces of nature we cannot control, those that remind us we are social animals. In this context, a close reading of Frankenstein’s depiction of failed sexuality and meaning is linked to Possibility’s narrative of transhumanism and its critique of technological solipsism.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexuality
• desexualisation
• Frankenstein
• Houellebecq
• Anthropocene
• loneliness

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The first survey was undertaken in 1990–1991, the second in 1999–2001, and the fourth is currently in progress.

2. These Japanese surveys are heteronormative, failing either to gather or consider data on same-sex relationships; nevertheless, the data is still revealing.

3. Most of this data is in Swedish, with a very small English summary in the 2019 report: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/public-health-reporting/regional-comparisons-public-health-2019/.

4. China Daily ran an article in 2017 on the infrequency of sex among young single adults living alone, or ‘young empty nesters’, based on one survey and news service big data. It stated: ‘Sexual relations, too, have become a luxury. Nearly half of the young empty-nesters had only one sexual encounter in the past year. Another 31% made love once in the past six month. Only 5% said that they had sex more than 10 times per month. On the other hand, 64% of gay empty-nesters said they have sex at least once every month. That said, only 1% of all respondents placed a sexless or low-sex life as their biggest concern. Their top three concerns: no house, no partner, no hope’. Mengwei, Chen (Mengwei 2017). ‘Survey: Young, alone, no house, and not much sex’. China Daily. May 5, 2017. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017–05/05/content_29210750.htm.

5. Such as RealDoll’s AI-powered sex robots with customisable personalities.

6. ‘Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it’ (15).

7. In this article, Posthumous observes that ‘these two novels question the overcoming of the biological constraints of the reproduction of the species while insisting on the struggle of the fittest as a fundamental principle of animal societies’, theorising that reading ‘the two novels together while taking account of their differences allows us to see how Darwinism enters into dialogue with posthumanism to pose the problem of the animal world and human nature’ (Posthumous 2014, 361). Interestingly, Carole Guesse sees Possibility itself as ‘torn between posthumanism and anthropocentrism’ (Guesse 2020, 36).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Helena Feder

Helena Feder has published essays, poems, interviews, and articles in ISLE, J/ASAP, Guernica, North American Review, Orion, The Writer’s Chronicle, After the Art, Radical Philosophy, Another Chicago Magazine, Critical Read, Green Letters, Twentieth-Century Literature, The Georgia Review, Women’s Studies, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Western American Literature, and other venues. She is the author of one book and editor of two more, including You Are the River, a book of ekphrasis in response to works in the permanent collection of the North Carolina Museum of Art. Helena is Professor of Literature and Environment at ECU.