Monsters Essays Example

What do we think of when we envision monsters? Is it the stuff of children’s nightmares, or something more difficult to categorize? Cohen’s monsters are difficult to categorize because, externally or internally, they are not always the archetypal monsters we expect. We cannot categorize a monster based on its outward appearance because sometimes the monsters live inside an individual’s head, dictating their actions. Sometimes, actions make the monster. Therefore, sometimes we cannot know who is a monster until it is too late.
There are many examples of monsters that cannot be so easily categorized because they do not initially appear to be monster. “Normal” looking individuals could be monsters based on their actions, while they may look like average men and women. A nice, meek looking woman, for instance, may be the face we see on the nightly news, having drowned her children in the bathtub. Similarly, the media have criminalized many breeds of dog. Pit bulls, at one point, were even banned in the city of Denver, Colorado. As a result, many individuals see the breed and cower in fear, assuming they are about to be attacked. However, the owners of the animals often understand them to be friendly, loving dogs who act similar to Golden Labradors or other lovable breeds. Essentially, outward appearances cannot always be used to categorize monsters.
Because monsters are often so difficult to categorize, and because actions are sometimes so opposite of what we would expect, it opens up many new possibilities for interpreting its significance. For example, the mother, a typically loving and maternal figure that normally stands for affection and compassion is never seen as a monster. Consequently, the mother who drowns her children in a bathtub is then seen as a monster, forcing others to reexamine how they define monsters and the significance of a monster’s outward appearance. The existential perception of the world and its inhabitants is open to a new interpretation when we realize that we cannot rely on judging a book by its cover, or a stereotype, in this case. A Pit-bull, suspected of ripping children limb from limb at every chance they get, will force people to reexamine their perception if they notice the breed being loving and affectionate with enough children. Eventually the population begins to understand that fangs and red eyes do not define monsters, glowing in the night, but by treatment of one another. Greed, selfishness, and those who cause pain to others overtake the general appearance of individuals. We begin to see who the real monsters are.
Not only does the realization that outward appearances to not define monsters, but it forces more categories on the spectrum. There are not just “monsters” and “not monsters.” There are many more categories that can be considered. For example, though somebody may not look like a monster and may act like a monster, their reasons should be accounted for. If they are acting in a specific way for a justified reason, should there not be a separate category for these individuals? Cohen’s conception of who is a monster, and who is not, not only opened up a question about who everybody else is, but we are and how we judge others.
In sum, monsters cannot always be defined by their appearance. Outward appearances can only be accounted for so much of an individual’s character. There are situations, of course, where an individual may be defined by outward appearance. A vicious bear, for instance, may look like a monster based on their appearance. However, even this is arguable because the bear may be protecting its young and, as such, have a good reason for looking so aggressive. Nevertheless, the inner being of the monster is far more important than outward appearances. The realization of this forces the world to stop judging others by their looks, and instead attempt to understand their actions before categorizing them so simplistically.