Monsters and the Moral Imagination review
The article “Monsters and the Moral Imagination” by Stephen Asma is about the role played by monsters in the human imagination. By presenting horror films released in 2009, the year of article publication, and 2010 in the introduction, the author connects with the audience. In the article, the author makes a convincing argument of the role of monsters in human imagination by proving fitting examples but fails to convince the audience that monsters are on the rise and makes logical fallacies in the process including post hoc, non sequitur, and strawman.
The introductory and closing statements of the article contain post hoc fallacies “People can’t seem to get enough of vampires lately, and zombies have a new lease of life” (Asma B11). The author attributes the rise of monster culture to people’s fascination with them but fails to provide any evidence to the claim (Miller & Miller 1). In the following statement, the author talks about the release of “usual” movies while the audience expected an unusual occurrence following the claim. In the last paragraph, the author states,”…inhuman threats are great reminders of our own humanity. And for that we can all thank Zombies” (Asma B12). He assumes that zombies are the reason people remember their humanity.
In the second paragraph contains a non sequitur fallacy, where the author tries to link monster culture to the economic downturn, two unrelated events (Asma B11). In this case, he was referring to the financial crisis of 2008 (Miller & Miller 1). The fourth paragraph contains a bandwagon appeal fallacy,”…monsters journeys were considered cathartic journeys into our unconscious – everybody contains a Mr. Hyde” (Asma B11). The author suggests that each person has a hidden dark side. In paragraph 19, the author makes a strawman argument by suggesting that his opponents think that monsters are disappearing. “Believers in human progress, from the Enlightenment to the present, think that monsters are disappearing…I disagree” (Asma B12). The author suggests to the audience that his opponents agree with the views held by a minority.
Additionally, the information contained in some of the paragraphs is not arranged logically. In the third paragraph, where the author talks about the varied use of monsters, typically, he would have started with ancient views of monsters before liberal views (Asma B11). Had the writer provided information in the paragraph chronologically, then ancient views of monsters would have provided a background for the audience to understand liberal views better.
However, the second part of the article is compelling, where the author provides examples that perfectly illustrate his point: “imagining monsters is not just the stuff of fiction” (Asma B11). The story of Shapiro presents a scenario where real-life events mirror the events in horror stories. The author points out that the horrifying events share a lot of similarities with the imagined monster attack. In the eyes of the victims, the attacker was a real monster.
In the second paragraph, the author suggests that the conflict in Iraq is one of the reasons for the rise in monster culture and that some people think during wartime monster culture elevates. Toward the end of the article, the author sufficiently supports this claim with the two examples: the beheading of a headmaster and the torture of the innocent by American soldiers. The inhumane acts committed by the perpetrators only serve to propagate monster culture.
The author of the article makes an interesting observation that the concept of monsters cannot be erased from human language and thinking. By referring to both ancient and liberal views of monsters and using fitting examples, the author shows how human thoughts on monsters evolve with culture and time. However, the author fails to convince the audience on the rise of monsters and tries to persuade the audience to agree with his views by using logical fallacies.