METAMORPHOSIS AND THE LIMITS OF THE HUMAN: GENDER, ANIMALITY,
AND THE POSTHUMAN
GER 494
FALL 2023
I. Introduction to Metamorphosis
Defining Metamorphosis in Literature
Metamorphosis works against evolutionary development by creating disruptive events
that question how life changes over time. It often disrupts identity in literature by introducing a
crisis that resists incorporation into a unified self. This rupture breaks the continuity of the
subject, calling into question the humanist idea of the identity as a linear trajectory of growth
and self-actualization. Instead, metamorphosis makes instability central, rendering
transformation an existential displacement that precludes closure. Emerging from this
transformation, the subject becomes a drift, failing to adhere to any essential traits of human,
animal, or machine, which fundamentally reconfigures ontological limits. Asker (2021) states
"Literary metamorphosis deepens the contradictions of essence and becoming, as subjects are
transformed beyond recognition, and resist stable a perceptive meaning-making." This move is
more than an aesthetic device; it is more like a philosophy of confrontation with the limits of
selfhood. Three of them are of interest in the geniological model sketched in previous works,
specifically, the idea that metamorphosis is a necessity in evolution due to its ecological readings
that reject a teleological reading, but literature does the same in discontinuity (Ten Brink, Nick
de Roos & Dieckmann, 2019).
These narratives instead emphasize the fragmentation of a former identity rather than its
refinement, resisting interpretations that regard change as inherently progressive. When
metamorphosis appears instead as fragmentation rather than adaptation, it resists apprehension
within teleologies that endeavor to tie coherence to transformation. Odorcak (2019) mentions
exorganic posthumanism which complicate the persistency of identity by implanting
technological interfaces but organic transformation cannot yet even resist the organizing logic of
augmentation. The lack of control in literary transformations sets them apart from a
technologically mediated posthumanism, and in fact frames metamorphosis as a happening,
something that de-subjectifies, not something that extends subjectivity. This rupture brings to the
fore the limits of a human-centric ontology, where the instability at the site of identity points to
a resistance to reintegration into classical narratives of progress or completion.
The difference between organic transpose and techno-posthumanism exemplifies the
ontological strife of mutation. Whereas technological posthumanism typically presumes agency
in self-modification, organic metamorphosis is defined by its involuntary character that upsets
autonomy and intentionality. Posthumanism is often concerned with cybernetic augmentation
and bioengineering, where the subject maintains an agency role and not passive role in remaking
the self. Literary metamorphosis, by contrast, refuses that framing, treating transformation like
an enforced rupture rather than like a voluntary upgrade. This distinction is important in
mapping out metamorphosis as a manifestation of existential displacement rather than as a
simple enhancement of human faculties. Helberg (2020) takes on Catherine Malabou’s
conception of plasticity as not just the ability to adapt, but as a redistribution of being. Plasticity,
in contrast to technological augmentation, is accompanied by an irreducible immanence that
escapes instrumentalization. Within a literary field, this metamorphosis conforms to Malabou’s
understanding of destructive plasticity, through which transformation obliterates subjectivity
rather than fine-tuning it. The absence of past self-complicates narratives that portray
transformation as a pathway to progress, rendering metamorphoses a spiritual disturbance. Ten
Brink et al. (2019) contend that transformative metamorphosis in evolutionary scenarios has
implicitly adaptive ends, but that literary applications of metamorphosis bypass this teleology
and instead emphasize disintegration rather than anything resembling survival. In contrast to
transhumanist visions that see technology as a means of expanding human potential, organic
metamorphosis is monstrous and uncontrollable, leaving the subject suspended in an in-between
space that will, or cannot, be classified. According to Asker (2021), metamorphosis in literature
acts as an ontological crisis, wherein the transformed can neither assimilate nor return to a
previous state. This heterogeneity underthrows a humanist, posthumanist model of evolution
based on directed enhancement, reaffirming the status of metamorphosis as an imminent,
unguided tear as well as an evolutionary model.
The notion of plasticity developed by Catherine Malabou serves as a critical lens through
which to analyze metamorphosis as a transformative force of identity engendered by the violence
of the world, but which can bring about a change that is even nauseatingly irreversible. In
addition to change and the potential for collapse, Malabou’s idea of plasticity also encompasses a
process of destruction, making it a crucial term for literature that deals with metamorphosis.
Unlike adaptability, which assumes a kind of agency in adjustment to outside forces, plasticity
introduces the prospect of an irreversible rupture, akin to the disorienting effects of
metamorphosis. Helberg (2020) investigates how Malabou’s theory upends the notion of
transformation as an ordered or a positive process. In literary discourse, the trope of
metamorphosis often embodies a destructive plasticity in which the subject experiences
ontological rupture, not simply evolutionary adaptation. This is positioned in contrast to
posthumanist frameworks that emphasize cybernetic or genetic enhancement, treating
metamorphosis as an event that resists instrumentalization. Not so, Asker (2021) maintains; for
the unpredictability of metamorphosis echoes Malabou’s insistence on the inexorability of
transformative rupture, in which one’s identity is not so much altered as shattered. This
insubordinate plasticity, running amok, reorders such linear imaginations of self-development to
suggest that metamorphosis does not play by the rules of teleological development in time. The
subject so transformed thus manifests itself as a site of ontological instability, stubbornly
refusing to be reintegrated as a stable onto-logical form. Malabou’s framework locates
metamorphosis in a discourse of loss rather than gain, with identity being undone rather than
expanded. Applying plasticity to the logic of metamorphosis, it becomes clear that
transformation in these narratives is a matter of crisis rather, causally, than simply enhancement
of selfhood. It thus calls dominant interpretations of metamorphosis that search for resolution,
putting its effect as an unraveling of identity rather in the foreground.
Metamorphosis as Existential Rupture
The potential for metamorphosis as existential rupture also connects to Giorgio
Agamben’s idea of “bare life,” the idea of transformed bodies as politically expendable. In this
schema, transformed beings are outside, legally and socially, and represent a threshold existence
that robs them of agency and rights. Burke (2019) analyzes how the camp paradigm in
Agamben’s writing foregrounds the insecure status of beings whose becoming makes them
abject and unclassifiable. In a similar way, in literary representations of metamorphosis, the
transformed creature becomes part of the same exclusion from society, no longer deemed as
having human value. The ontological instability of metamorphosis is inherently exclusive; as the
subject is expelled from normative structures, Agamben’s assertion that power determines
inclusion through the control of identity is reified. This reading is further elaborated by Sartre’s
existentialism, which treats metamorphosis as a quintessential loss of agency, forcing the
transformed subject to experience their selfhood as contingent and destabilized (Edwards, 2022).
The failure to revert back to a previous state or even acculturate to the new constitutes the
existential malaise of non-belonging, in accordance with Sartrean concepts of freedom as weight
rather than emancipation.
Research Questions and Thesis
Rejecting approaches which privilege resonance with technological media, this paper
argues that metamorphosis becomes a liminal experience enabling rupture and instability in
subjects of being beyond the confines of traditional posthumanist thought. Instead of self-
expansion, the transformation in literature highlights instability, disavowing a coherent path of
development. By refusing the species and gender norms imposed upon them, metamorphosis
becomes a means of resistance, defying incorporation into stable ontological categories. This
interrogation challenges dominant readings of posthumanist theory to ask whether transformation
is enhanced not by extension but by fragmentation of identity.
II. Metamorphosis as Identity Crisis
Loss of Self and Subjectivity
In literature, metamorphosis often disassembles the subject’s relationship to their own body,
leaving lived experience unrecognizable, broken apart. Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s embodiment
theory locates the body as the primary site of perception, which means that transformation is a
disruption not only of physical form but also of the subject’s sense of what is real. In tales of
transformation, protagonists grapple with the misalignment of their psyche and their new
exterior, and these transformations, for many, feel like a departure from their previous selves.
Phipps (2018) describes the way that perceived identity change as a result of loss or trauma
ruptures self-perception, a process SON: The Movie echoes in its own literary metamorphosis.
This embodied reshaping becomes a provocative framing device, which is a considered
transformation of the body renders once-familiar movements or engagements alien and difficult,
and this new form is never quite comfortable in its own skin; it no longer serves as a stable
foundation for experience. The result is a loss of corporeal familiarity that resonates with
Asriningtyas and Mustofa’s (2022) reading of Gregor Samsa in Metamorphosis, in which
Samsa’s insectile body resists the possibility of interacting with the world in the same way as
before. This fracturing of lived experience plays out, in the loss of agency, in the subject’s
inability to encompass their alteration in a single, robust self-concept; Giaccherini (2020) takes
this further, claiming that science fiction metamorphosis is frequently a means to dissolve the
concept of self altogether by removing the markers of previous existence, thereby amplifying
existential isolation from others. The alienation which transformed subjects experience is not
only psychological but fundamentally ontological; their metamorphosis allows them no way of
reclaiming a former self. Subjectivity unraveling highlights the fragility of identity, showing
how the coherence of the body is crucial to one’s orientation in the world. Unsettling the limits
of embodiment, metamorphosis confronts us with the limits of the human and underscores the
instability of selfhood, which is shown to be a fabricated and deeply vulnerable phenomenon.
Frantz Fanon’s notion of “the epidermal schema” offers an important framework for
understanding the alienation felt by transformed subjects. As Fanon (as cited in Rajad &
Dasyhosh, 2022) identifies, the body of racialized individuals becomes a social construct
appearing from the outside through the lens of perception, a phenomenon closely associated
with the class discussed in literature metamorphosis. Like Fanon’s racialized individual, the
transformed subject becomes an object (not a self) that is to be gazed upon, an object consigned
to the domain of otherness. In The Metamorphosis, for instance, Gregor Samsa is no longer
perceived as a family member anymore; his modified body is just a representation of an external
rejection of the social world (Atikah, Manalu, & Anggraeni, 2021). This is an example of what
Allison et al. (2019) identify as the hero's metamorphosis, resulting in an alienation from human
society. A subject-object division results, where the subject is reduced to an abject form and
psychologically fragmented, internalizing this otherness. According to Asriningtyas and Mustofa
(2022), Samsa’s alienation is not merely a consequence of his physicality but of his family’s
denial of her subjecthood. In a similar vein, Giaccherini (2020) points out how metamorphosis
in speculative fiction often makes characters unrecognizable, reaffirming their rejection from
both human and social laws. Building on a concept introduced by Phipps (2018), these identity
crises after meaningful upheaval lead to estrangement. Transformed characters banished from
comfortable social systems. It follows that the dissolution of selfhood in metamorphosis is not
an idiosyncratic psychological event but a social one, in which the individual’s identity is
negated by those they encounter. This relates to the wider theme of metamorphosis as an instance
of identity rupture, reassuring readers that transforming is not simply physical but rather an
irrevocable breakdown in subjectivity.
Metamorphosis and social Exclusion
A Foucaultian biopolitics offers a critical framework for understanding the social
exclusion of transformed subjects. Foucault contends that bodies are regulated by power
structures that define whose lives are valuable and whose lives can be discarded. But
metamorphic figures in fiction are typically excluded by the transformative act itself; by the
sheer effusion of meaning, the new body that offers no pre-existing indication or frame to know
them in the telling. Kafka’s Metamorphosis is elucidated upon in Rajad and Dasyhosh (2022),
Gregor Samsa is removed within both familial and societal structures, because of his
transformation, so Kafka presents this systematic disintegration. His body, once a pillar of the
household’s financial stability, turns into one of disorder, making his erasure imperative. This
resonates with Giaccherini (2020), who describes how metamorphosis destabilizes social
hierarchies and “a regulatory force kicks in … that expels” or reconstitutes the social order. And
Phipps (2018) describes how such identity alterations lead to social marginalization, an inability
to reintegrate into structures that no longer acknowledge the transformed self. By looking
through a Foucaultian biopolitical lens when it comes to metamorphosis, we can see how newly
transformed subjects are made disposable. When a body refuses to perform identity according to
prevailing social norms, such a body is relegated outside the bounds of protection under civil
law, suggesting that identity is conditional upon recognizability. Atikah et al. (2021) build on
this by suggesting that Samsa’s state of crisis is not an interior matter of subjectivity but a
reaction to the world’s rejection. This demonstrates how metamorphosis can function as a form
of exclusion, reiterating Foucault’s claim that power is given through the management of bodies.
By locating transformed subjects beyond normalizing systems, metamorphosis reveals the
precariousness of identity as a socially codified idea.
Émile Durkheim’s notion of anomie, social instability caused by the breakdown of
shared norms, drives home the profound implications of metamorphosis by emphasising their
social status in the aftermath of transformation. That systems break down in their failure to
include those who are not expected to be enabled. In accounts of metamorphosis, transformed
characters often have this breakdown to witness firsthand, since their new condition prevents
them from performing earlier social functions. As an example, Samsa cannot work or provide for
his family, resulting in his slow erasure from the workings of the house (Atikah et al., 2021).
Allison et al. (2019) how such heroic metamorphosis narratives often involve protagonists
struggling with social rejection, mapping out the degree to which identity is inextricable to
communal recognition. As Phips has also suggested (2018), this type of personal transformation
can lead to social disbandment, as individuals become unfit to participate in structures they once
operated in seamlessly. This is in line with Rajad and Dasyhosh’s (2022) analysis of
metamorphosis as a disabling process, whereby the (transformed) subject becomes an added
burden instead of an active part of social life. In a more recent essay, Giaccherini (2020) builds
on Hilton's argument, asserting that such narratives of metamorphosis often critique societal
inflexibility, revealing the failure of structures that cannot evolve. Metamorphosis challenged the
foundations of social cohesion and the birth of anomie is the application of Durkheims context
of not only normlessness but the phenomenon whereby the fabric of society was fraying. The
authors Asriningtyas and Mustofa (2022) point out that Samsa’s final demise becomes the final
resolution of his anomic lifeworld, while society, as a collateral label, leaves behind the
criminals who cannot reintegrate. It shows how metamorphosis works, not only as a personal
rupture, but as a confrontation with the limits of communal belonging.
NonPosthuman-Without Technological Enhancement
Gilles Deleuze’s notion of “becoming-other” upends metamorphosis and posits
transformation, loss, by definition, with other mechanisms of making or unmaking, as an act of
deterritorialization. According to Deleuze (quoted in Giaccherini, 2020), identity is not stable
and is, instead, a matter of process; therefore, metamorphosis can refer to a process of
redefinition, not negation. In contrast to posthumanist frameworks that foreground enhancement
via technology, Deleuzian metamorphosis refuses stability to embrace the becoming of
existence. Completely displaced from their own subjectivity, Phipps (2018) argues, aligning
identity shifts with Deleuzian rejection of grounded selfhood, leaving the site of their own
subjectivity. Rajad and Dasyhosh (2022) observe that metamorphosis narratives often highlight
characters fighting against the confines of existing identity frames and emphasize the radical
potential of change. Here, metamorphosis is not just about exclusion, but rather a way of being
that refuses strict categorization. Allison et al. (2019) propose that plots of heroic
metamorphosis also frequently frame transformation as potentiality not just a dis-junction.
Rejecting the idea of technological augmentation, rather, the Deleuzian metamorphosis
foregrounds the instability of identity at its core allowing an alternative reading of
transformation as a process of continuous becoming.
III. The Human-Animal Boundary
Breaking down species distinctions
Jacques Derrida’s “The Animal That Therefore I Am" operates on this level as it
questions human superiority over non-human animals, deconstructing the historically privileged
status of human subjectivity. This distinction has historically been used as a basis to suppress and
exploit animals, so every animal is understood to be at will and disposal of subjects who have
rights because they can make choices (Holmes, 2021). The sociozoological scale that Holmes
(2021) describes, shows us how animals are placed on a spectrum with some granted a measure
of moral consideration, while others are dinosaur-shaped animals excluded from the moral
world altogether. Such selective empathy echoes Derrida’s critique of speciesism, whereby
human identity and experience are constructed in opposition to the so-called animal, an act that
facilitates the obliteration of the complex and worthy nature of what is non-human. Averett
(2020) takes a similar approach, studying zoomorphic masking rituals in ancient Cyprus, where
anthropozoomorphic hybridity was as much revered as feared. These rituals reflect Derrida’s
argument that the border between human and animal is liquid, constantly performed, always
mediated by cultural and philosophical discourses. In medical anthropology, Brown and Nading
(2019) broaden this argument by examining the blurred lines between human and animal health.
They show that the interdependence between biology and society, where social behaviour is tied
to physiology, questions rigid divisions between species, demonstrating once again Derrida’s
assertion that animality is not a category that exists outside of human life but rather an integral
element of being human. The fallacy of literary metamorphosis as applies here helps to highlight
these wrong distinctions of art, for through metamorphosis, it presents itself as a transcending of
anthropocentricity. Far from entrenching what human exceptionalism, narratives of
metamorphosis reveal the porousness of species boundaries in ways that resonate with Derrida’s
critique of the constructedness of the human-animal divide.
Cary Wolfe’s Animal Rites builds upon Derrida’s critique, interrogating speciesism as a
structural mechanism of oppression, situating animal subjugation within wider systems of power.
The exclusion of nonhumans from moral considerations is thus an analogue of other forms of
marginalization, and speciesism is therefore operating to reinforce human dominance (Shingne
& Reese, 2022; Wolfe, 2013). Metamorphosis in literature often serves as a vehicle of resistance
against this hierarchy, questioning the idea that humanity is a fixed or higher category.
Urbanism and Non-Human Animals The work of Shingne and Reese (2022) shines light on the
(posturoal) egalitarianism of urban environments that are often spaces of oppression for non-
human animals (NHA) as speciesism structures create and reproduce idealized images for
humans while relegating NHAs to marginal spaces of domestication and utility where their
boundaries are often contested. Wolfe’s diagnosis of species-subjugation dovetails with this
dynamic of the urban to show how power operates through spatial and conceptual exclusion.
Adams' (2018) critique takes on similar psychological underpinnings of speciesist reasoning,
pointing out that rationalizing forms of human-animal differences has served to justify
exploitative practices. Literary metamorphosis upsets such ideological schemata, casting
transformed beings in the role of liminal figure who challenges speciesist classification. This
embedded liminality in the ambiguous space humans occupy was explored by Waters, Bell, and
Setchell (2018) in the context of primate conservation, calling attention to the ways in which
non-human primates straddle both categories of human and animal. Such a double-bind reveals
the permeability of the human-animal divide, buttressing Wolfe’s claim that species are a social
construct, rather than a biological reality. In this way, then, metamorphosis resists; it rebels
against mechanisms of classification that render body a human one too easy to elaborate on
metaphoric pathways to some other species all the while avoiding what are those messy
immanence, avoid to define the human, as distinct from the animal; By framing transformation
as an escape from speciesism, literary metamorphosis interrogates the legitimacy of human
superiority, implicitly invoking the interconnectedness of all living things.
Body as Abject Transformed
Julia Kristeva’s theory of abjection offers an interpretive framework for the
metamorphosed figure to be understood as monstrous, a figuration who occupies a liminal space
at once fascinating and repulsive. As Kristeva describes, the abject is on the border of identity,
undermining the categorical order by serving as the element that must be rejected in order for
social and ontological order to persist (Debnath et al., 2021). In stories of transformation, the
bodies that are transformed often serve as sites of horror, their decrepitude and otherness
betraying established definitions of the human. This response echoes Kristeva’s assertion that
abjection occurs when selfhood’s borders are disrupted and the result is existential terror.
Debnath et al. (2021) examine this phenomenon, that of the blurred boundaries between humans
and animals and the fear and social anxiety it generates, through the lens of zoonotic diseases, in
which species boundaries become increasingly unclear as the interactions between humans and
animals increase. Likewise, Holmes (2021) examines how past debates on vivisection rendered
altered or hybridized bodies as sites of moral and scientific transgression. As with the animal in
question, the metamorphosed body is abject because it exceeds human boundaries teetering in-
between, and is not easily placed in cultural classifications. Hedonism and its displacement is
complemented by Averett (2020), who interrogates ritualistic transformations of sacred men in
ancient societies, where human-animal hybridity, both revered and abhorred. Such ambivalence
attests to the paradox of metamorphosis, it enchants and revolts, it represents a transgression that
ought to be contained or dissolved. By representing the transformed body as abject, literary
narratives enact Kristeva’s claim that social and biological order must be maintained through the
exclusion of the monstrous other.
The allegorizing of metamorphosis as monstrosity operates on the level of individual
transformation, but also implicates broader social fears of contamination and destabilization.
Perceptions of disease transmission reinforce human-animal divisions and frame hybridized
bodies as threatening to public health and social order, argue Brown and Nading (2019). That
fear tracks the reaction against metamorphosis found in literature, in which the transformed
figure is too often imagined as a contaminant, invading the sanctity of the human form. Shingne
and Reese (2022) build on this by exploring how urban infrastructures regulate the movement
and existence of nonhuman animals, outlining how these boundaries reveal deeper anxieties
about the porosity of species boundaries. One that often includes the struggle against this
process of metamorphosis, with transformed characters negotiating sites of exclusion, as their
very existence becomes a threat to be controlled. Waters, Bell, and Setchell (2018) and
colleagues (2018) examine similar dynamics in conservation, and how animals that do not fit
nicely into the vegetarian or carnivore ideological framework, like primates with human-like
characteristics, present ethical quandaries surrounding their treatment. These dynamics echo
Kristeva’s analysis of abjection, in which the monstrous body must be jettisoned for a stable
sense of self to endure. They argue that human psychological structures reinforce speciesist
thinking, conditioning humans to fear or disgust toward hybridized forms (Adams 2018).
Therefore, the monstrousness of metamorphosis does not reside in the metamorphosis itself but
rather in the response it elicits, disclosing the underlying anxieties that animate human efforts to
demarcate species. By situating metamorphosis in terms of Kristeva’s theory of abjection,
literature reveals the weak underbelly of these distinctions and draws attention to the
mechanisms through which identity is maintained through exclusion and othering.
Beyond the More-Than-Human
Val Plumwood’s eco-philosophy also resists any synthesis of human and animal identity
into a harmonious whole by calling for recognition of difference that does not enforce hierarchy.
Plumwood is critical of this impulse in the ecological discourse that seeks to abolish distinctions
between species and produce interconnection; Yet, the very homogenization of species is in
itself an anthropocentric belief which re-imbues the discourse with this bias (Holmes, 2021).
Within narratives of metamorphosis, this tension between integration and distinction is key, as
transformed beings exist in a state of non-belonging, neither human nor animal. This liminality
disrupts the assumption that identity must bent the same way of rigid categorizations, supporting
Plumwood’s call for an ethico-political standpoint that recognizes difference without coercing
order. Brown and Nading (2019) build upon this argument by drawing on human-animal health
interdependencies to signify the limitations of binary thinking but also call for caution against
reductionist approaches that flatten the complexities of multispecies relations. Waters, Bell and
Setchell (2018) also critique such conservation efforts that seek to humanise non-humans,
strengthening Plumwood’s theoretic stance that ethical recognition needs to take both
connection and distinction into account. Owing to their resituatability, metamorphosis narratives
wrestle with and through these tensions; neither total integration nor absolutely separate, they
offer an ontology that accepts flux without subsuming new difference under new sameness.
Through exploring urban ecologies, where a variety of non-human species occupy
traditionally human dominated spaces and enacting boundaries in unexpected ways, Shingne and
Reese (2022) make things even murkier in terms of the human-animal divide. And these
manifestations of the urban elicit skepticism regarding a stubborn image of urban life as human-
dominated, which ignores that species interactions are fluid and take place in common space.
This mirrors the role of metamorphosis in literature, in which transformed subjects embody the
instabilities of identity categories, and challenge stable definitions of what it means to be human
or animal. Such narratives unmask the arbitrariness of species distinctions, revealing that, like
everything else, identity is constructed through exclusion rather than some intrinsic difference.
Plumwood’s eco-philosophy aligns with this view, opposing simplistic ideas of assimilation that
seek to erase vital differences of species. Plumwood thus advocates for an idiom which affirms
interdependence and opposes hierarchies of domination, because human and non-human lives
are interwoven in systems that exceed strict delineation (Holmes, 2021). Narratives of
metamorphosis often exhibit this tension, depicting transformed creatures who dwell in liminal
realms, neither human nor animal, something beyond classification. This vagueness throws into
disarray anthropocentric visions of the world that depend on definite species limits to uphold
human exceptionalism. Brown and Nading (2019) elaborate this line of argument by examining
how interdependences between human and animal health expose boundaries between species as
inherently porous, but also by calling for a reframing of all life into a single ecological account.
Waters, Bell, and Setchell (2018) argue for similar caution about the conservation strategy of
tribute that imposes human values on non-human species, thereby reifying Plumwood’s
argument that ethical recognition ought to re-establish a balance between connection and
differentiation.
IV. Gender, Power, and Transformation
The Transformed Body as Defiance
Literary metamorphosis often reveals the unsteadiness of identity, destabilizing the
assumption of its immutability or biological determination. Judith Butler's theory of gender
performativity argues that identity is constructed through repeated actions rather than having an
innate essence. The logic of transformation stories demonstrates this through ruptures in the
relationships of power that are newly challenged through and by or with physical change.
Characters who suffer metamorphosis experience a crisis of identity, a realization that their new
form no longer fits the roles they once occupied. As Weston (2018) argues, visual media both
affirm and destabilize identity norms, showing the ways transformation narratives work against
those expectations. Johnson (2020) discusses identity fluidity in the southern Philippines,
claiming that cultural outlooks allow change and do not fight against it. This contrasts with
Western frameworks that often posit transformation as a synthetic or threatening thing.
Transformation has long been used, particularly by the marginalized, to create an act of politics,
breaking through hierarchal structures, (Lind, 2018). Clavero and Galligan (2021, p. 541) argue
that institutions typically set rigid limits on identity, but transformation narratives resist this by
featuring characters who exceed institutional identities. When characters undergo
metamorphosis, they often acquire an agency that was previously denied to them. That change
makes other people have to re-evaluate what is normal, highlighting how identity is molded in
relation to outside forces. Literature wields the body as more than an instrument of physical
change; it makes bodily transformation a means of challenging limiting social codes. These
stories show that identity is more than just appearance; it is about how people are treated based
on that appearance. Literature, by way of metamorphosis, interrogates categories once viewed as
fixed, creating space for being beyond the bounds of logic. This resistance found in
transformation stories is a part of a larger fight for self-determination.
There is a strong correlation between power and transformation, but power does not
always translate into liberation. Elizabeth Grosz’s Volatile Bodies makes the case for how the
body is formed by cultural forces that reveal what is embraced and what is shunned. When
characters undergo metamorphosis and their altered bodies provoke rejection, it reflects how
society responds to anything that upends the status quo. Note (2019) describes how narratives of
the Second World War depict transformation both as strength and as something to fear. The
classifying power of the transformation of the body becomes apparent in the perception of the
body, which operates differently in differing contexts and demonstrates how power itself moves
through categorizations, disciplines, rules, and regulations. Halford (2018) has described how
organizations manage identity, constraining how far an individual can change and still be
accepted. Such sharp prescriptions make tangible the fact that identity is not personal but rather
regulated by social structures. According to Buchbinder (2018), transformation is often framed
as a duality of destruction and renewal, capturing the uncertainty sewn into change. This tension
haunts many literary characters, who find themselves newly liberated yet also upended, with
metamorphosis comes isolation.
The theme of transformation stories is that exclusion breeds resistance (Lind, 2018).
Nonetheless, people who are written off due to their transformation very often resist the
frameworks that dispossess them. The literature you are trained to uses metamorphosis to bring
the dramatic to the surface, to show how the power of society’s foundations works to strengthen
stability by punishing heterodoxy. Stories that depict transformation as monstrous expose how
fear is frequently a reaction to losing control over boundaries that once appeared immutable.
Literature reveals how fragile identity is by focusing on the rejection of transformed people.
These stories point to fear as not about change but about the fact that identity may be more
malleable than people would like to think. Transformation thus becomes a test of whether
difference is tolerable.
Gendered Metamorphosis and Monstrosity
When transformation is considered monstrous, it is because it hints at larger fears about
who we are and what happens when we lose control. Julia Kristeva’s theory of abjection shows
how societies blanket a distancing tarp over what feels unstable or threatening. In literature,
metamorphosing characters tend to enter the abject, existing somewhere between categories and
making the distinction annulled. Their altered bodies elicit discomfort, not because of what they
are becoming, but because they disrupt the notion that identity should never be altered. Debnath
et al. (2021) explain how anxieties about shifted boundaries emerge from interactions between
humans and animals, much as anxieties about stories of transformation disrupt stable boundaries
of the self. Holmes (2021) mentions historical debates regarding vivisection, where hybridized
beings attracted as much intrigue as fear in people. This response is consistent with Kristeva’s
claim that societies strive for homeostasis by excluding whatever complicates identity. Averett
(2020) examines ancient rituals in which individuals dressed in masks to embody animals,
revealing the power, and the discomfort, of transformation.
Medical discourses, according to Brown and Nading (2019), amplify anxieties about the
transgression of boundaries, and fears about transformation subsequently bleed into real-world
discourses on contamination and purity. These tensions find expression in literature, where
metamorphosis is depicted as both a broadening of identity and a disruption of social order.
Characters who change are often seen as dangerous and reaffirming identity has to be controlled.
These narratives remind us that monstrosity is not intrinsic to change but is something that is
thrust upon those who are fearful of the instability change entails. These transformed bodies are
viewed as abject, a discomfort that speaks to deeper fears about the rigidity of identity, which
many people take to be relative but for others is absolute certainty. This discomfort, the
literature suggests, is a proxy for deeper anxieties about power and difference.
Metamorphosis stories tend to feature transformed characters in a battle between control and
exclusion. As an example, Shingne and Reese (2022) discuss the ways in which urban spaces
govern the presence of non-human animals, which mirrors how characters that are transformed
in literature are ostracized. Waters, Bell, and Setchell (2018) examine conservation policies that
raise ethical dilemmas when non-human species engage in generally human-like behaviour. This
same tension in literature arises when metamorphosis renders characters hard to pin down.
Adams (2018) notes that psychological biases support the belief that transformation is
threatening, ultimately making people afraid of change in themselves and others. That exclusion
operates as a mechanism of control permits to clarify why these reactions occur, and Kristeva’s
theory of abjection helps do this. Because transformation makes identity categories seem less
like the natural facts of our differences and more like construct, literature treats transformation as
monstrous, exposing how identity categories are maintained through exclusion. The fear of the
altered body is frequently a fear of disruption than of change itself. Characters who
metamorphose are treated as dangerous, not because they have lost their identity, but because
they expose that identity was never as fixed as people thought it was. According to Adams
(2018), these stories illustrate how powerful identity is as a concept, and its vital relationship to
power, in terms of defining and enforcing it. The positioning of transformed bodies in the realm
of the monstrous, literature wonders, why the difference often put on trial as a threat. The idea
that transformation is by definition dangerous reveals a desire for control and manipulation, an
idea that not only is scary, but is not universally true about identity. These narratives indicate
that the thing that terrifies most people is not change per se but the fear that identity is always in
flux.
Feminist Posthumanism vs. Limitations of Metamorphosis
Such traditional perceptions have been challenged by feminist posthumanism, but
feminine transformation in this way has few precedents in the written word. Clavero and
Galligan (2021) argue that identity, then, does not need to be defined by fixed categories, and
they thus speak to the idea of identity being relational and fluid. Visual media allow for
transformation and disrupt rigid labels (Weston 2018). Feminist posthumanism valorizes
hybridity as a means of resisting regulatory norms, but have concurrent tradeoff narratives of
metamorphosis cast transformation as a loss of self rather than liberation? Johnson (2020) offers
cultural frames that would support flexible identity expressions, narrations in which, in contrast,
the transition becomes isolating. In this, Lind (2018) identifies how transformation has been
used as a mechanism of oppression, imprisoning groups within liminal zones where they are
neither tendency nor inclusion. The difference is that feminist posthumanism, rather than seeing
change as something that redefines oneself, usually presents it as something that marks oneself
with erasure, that we lose ourselves in becoming metamorphs. Literature often depicts
transformation as something that obliterates the past, not a widening of possibilities. This
contrast begs the question of whether identity can endure radical transformation.
Stories of transformation are really about the push and pull between reconstituting
identity and the anxiety of losing it forever. Transformation is more than physical, it alters how
people view themselves and how others respond. According to Buchbinder (2018),
transformation is, on the one hand, a psychological phenomenon signifying a change inherent in
self-perception; and, on the other hand, a social event signifying a change in the way individuals
are treated in society. This redirection is seldom neutral; it either broadens identity or breeds
isolation. Halford (2018) describes how, as institutions, organizations help regulate bodily
autonomy; they create rigid, organizational structures that will define how to be and who can
exist in these boxes. This means that the transformed will always be a less trans-formal, making
it hard for them to be accepted as part of the wider community, suggesting that identity is
determined by social forces rather than one's choice. Along similar lines, Plain (2019) analyses
historical narratives that frame physical change as either freedom or destruction, revealing how
transformation is frequently understood within the pre-existing cultural belief-system. Evidently,
others see it as a loss of what used to be, while some see it as an opportunity to grow. Feminist
posthumanism countermands these stringent readings, positing that identity can change and adapt
without being cancelled. As Clavero and Galligan (2021) note, identity need not be bounded by
rigid classifications, and transformation is not to be understood as conflation but rather as
extension. But literature often shows metamorphosis as an isolating phenomenon, rendering
people outcasts rather than bestowing them with new potential. These narratives question
whether change is really freedom or merely a new way of being hemmed in. Transformation
brings both characters and societies to the precipice of identity, asking if those borders can be
rewritten. The tension between empowerment and alienation takes center stage in the literature
of metamorphosis.
V. Queering the Non-Human
Liminality and Hybrid Identities
For characters who exist outside the bounds of traditional identity categories, stories
about transformation are common. Jack Halberstam’s “The Queer Art of Failure” pushes back
against the notion that success entails performing according to a prescribed set of roles. Instead,
failure can simply be a form of defiance against social norms. Transformation narratives
exemplify this notion because they all involve characters whose development makes them
difficult to classify. Davidson and Rooney (2018) describe not just objects that become
meaningless after losing their original function, but rather gain new meanings in the embrace of
metamorphosis, just like metamorphosed protagonists cocoon new conceptions of what we call
identity. According to Troughton (2020), non-human agents in literature disrupt human-centered
views, complicating any boundaries that these readings might draw around what constitutes a
legitimate identity. Küpers (2020) writes queering identity entails leaving behind rigidity and
allowing ourselves to explore more fluid ways of being. In literature, metamorphosing
characters often find themselves between categories, never able to fully return to what they were,
but not able to assimilate into a new something either. This sense of intermediacy can make
identity itself feel unstable. According to Adsit-Morris and Gough (2021) change is both
biological and social, revealing the potential for transformational processes to threaten cultural
ideation and individual identity. When characters decline to coalesce into a singular definition,
they reveal the shortcomings of the systems proposed to contain them. Rather than treat change
as a problem to solve, these stories portray it as a way of life. Transformation does not have to
be a disaster, and it does not have to be repaired. It can be a means of turning away from
definitions never intended to include everybody. These stories question if identity must be
something forced upon people to stabilize or if it can exist in perpetual motion.
The stories of transformation are often a reflexive challenge to the notion that identity
needs to be stable to be real. According to Halberstam’s work, disappointments can liberate, not
constrict. So, Davidson and Rooney (2018) argue queerness resists stability of meaning because
identity is an always-abiding flux. This resistance is embodied in the metamorphosis narratives,
where characters’ physical transformations render them unrecognizable, even to themselves.
According to Troughton (2020), acknowledging non-human agency necessitates a critical
assessment of what identification actually entails, particularly as ontological shifting
problematizes the notion of a self that must be human (or, at least, human-centered). Building on
this, Küpers (2020) argues that moving past stable notions of who we are allows for a more open
and inclusive sense of who we are. Adsit-Morris and Gough (2021) in fact emphasize just how
difficult change is, which makes transformation in literature often refuse closure. When
metamorphosed characters are compelled to define themselves, they demonstrate that identities
are constructed by social demands rather than internal facts. Some of these figures will not go
back to what they were before, and the argument is that transformation does not have to mean a
return to stasis. Others discover they no longer belong to any category, turning their continued
survival into a form of resistance. These stories push back against the notion that people always
need to search for clarity, arguing that ambiguity can be powerful. Through the messy unknown
of transformation, literature challenges the notion that identity must be tidy. These narratives
point to the futility of trying to pin down any single definition of selfhood. Identity is not only
about who someone was but about who that person is entitled to be.
Nonhuman, Animal, and Gender
Mel Chen’s Animacies asserts that the hierarchy of life forms influences the way identity
is conceived. Literature on transformation is often unsettling precisely because changed bodies
do not fit into established social hierarchies. According to Heffernan (2022), cyborgs, animals,
and machines muddle conceptions of kinship and blur the boundaries between metaphysical
categories. Davidson and Rooney (2018) explain that queerness withers in the clarity of the
overview, and blossoms in uncertainty, in much the same way responded those mutated creatures
who were, and are, caught between human and non-human. According to Troughton (2020),
turning towards nonhuman agency compels a redefinition of what it means to understand oneself,
that identity need not be situated in a human experience. Küpers (2020) suggests that without
shifting away from deterministic definitions to sustain our grasp of sustainability (also an
inherently transient concept) the latter movement may be bound to fail, analogous to how
metamorphosis stories deny the fiction of identity needing to be necessarily solidified into being.
As Adsit-Morris and Gough (2021) describe, evolutionary narratives frequently serve to uphold
hierarchies and frame transformations as failures rather than expansions. Literature that does
not fear transformation does not offer it as something to be transcended but rather as something
which exposes the limited nature of identity categories. These stories hint that all identities are in
flux, recalibrated in the midst of internal shifts and external pressures. Rather than treating
transformed characters as exceptions, they reveal that all identities live on a fluid spectrum. That
metamorphosis is not a special case; rather, it reminds us that no identity can ever be definitive.
According to these stories, people are not the end product of some inherent characteristics, but
rather a result of who they are in context.
More generally, queer theory challenges the idea that transformation must result in a
stable identity. Chen’s work demonstrates how social structures determine what counts as
human, even as some transformed bodies are stripped of recognition. Posthumanist writing
“transgresses and breaks free from the centrism of human-centered life narratives,” and “begs us
to acknowledge that identity does not have to be encompassed or defined by singular human
experience” (Heffernan 2022). According to Troughton (2020), recognition of non-human
agency requires a rethinking of identity, selfhood is not just a personal characteristic but a
relational project. Queer movements, Küpers (2020) explains, are resistant to the insistence of
clarity, implying identity is something to be fluid and left untamed as opposed to controlled.
According to Adsit-Morris and Gough (2021), transformation is not a barrier, but rather another
form of being. Literature that leans into this notion believes that metamorphosis is not
something that must be resolved. Rather than bringing characters back into their original form or
demanding they adapt, these narratives allow them that space to be in transition. The instability
of the transformed body reflects the instability of all identities, revealing how fixed definitions
cannot contain the complexity of selfhood. When a character will not conform to a single
category, they push against the idea that identity is something that must be readily grasped.
These stories propose that the demand for legibility is really about control rather than a
reflection of reality. It does not have to be recognizable to people, it can exist beyond the
recognizable. These stories claim that identity thrives when given the freedom to roam.
Muñoz’s disidentification establishes a critique of the validity of identity itself and the
assumption that in order for it to be validated, it needs to be recognized. Religious imagery
complicates ideas about selfhood with tensions between the transformative and the legible
(Blokhin 2018). But Davidson and Rooney (2018) argue that queerness never had true shape; it
occupied a space of indeterminate relations, a fiercely resisting identity, stronger the less
leverage it had on clear definition. According to Küpers (2020), queer movements challenge any
notion of fixed identity, demonstrating that an authentic selfhood does not require a clear sense
of self. According to Troughton (2020), non-human agents complicate anthropocentric notions of
recognition, showing how identity is about more than social endorsement. Adsit-Morris and
Gough (2021) write, “Transformation should not be seen as a problem to be fixed, but rather is a
legitimate way of being in the world. Those narratives refuse the notion that identity must be
decipherable; they suggest that being unknowable is its own brand of power. Transformation is
not going back to what was or conforming to what is. It is about existing beyond definitions that
were never intended to include everyone.
VI. Consumption and the Body as Meat
The Paradox of Transformation and Objectification
In literature, metamorphosis tends to rob characters of not only their ability to relate to
others but also their status as people, and to reduce them to sources of fascination, fear or
exploitable power. Carol Adams’ “The Sexual Politics of Meat” makes a similar argument about
the idea of meat in Western culture, that it is only after a body has been somehow “objectified”
that we can let it “fly.” This process is at work in transformation narratives, in which characters
who undergo physical change are typically commodified. Objectification operates by breaking
the body into pieces, carving it from the identity that inhabits it, and thereby increasing its
manipulability (Adams, 2018). In these narratives, altered bodies are inspected, objectified, or
exploited, confirming the idea that those who differ exist to serve others. According to
Quesenberry (2015) this pattern is not isolated to gender, it is an all-encompassing theme that
shapes the manner in which society bestows value across individuals. The interactive
transformations influence the transformations of characters and the treatment of converted
characters as described by Guschke et al. (2022) that apply emotional responses. Some are made
into spectacles, paraded around as entertainments or curiosities, and others are seen as menaces
to be managed or annihilated. In either scenario, they have no agency; they only exist through
someone else’s gaze. The Adams (2018) piece frames this process as one about power, arguing
that all objectification is about control. In metamorphosis stories, the body is no longer the
character’s own, it is something for others to judge, exploit, or cast aside. This reconfiguration
reveals how our society decides who gets to remain fully human and who becomes something
less than fully so. The literature in this area suggests that metamorphosis is not simply a matter
of outward transformation, but a matter of how this transformation is understood by others.
These accounts underline how quickly difference can become a reason to objectify, feeding into
the systems that determine who is considered a person and who is an object.
Characters who evolve often become defined by the way others view them. To objectify
means to make someone an object, one of the things with the least power, which is the least
amount of essence, amount of agency, the root of what makes them. (Adams, 2018) In literature,
too, figures who have undergone metamorphosis are often treated as symbols rather than human
beings, affording the species an escape from its own physical difference. According to
Quesenberry (2015), people who resist this treatment become even more disruptive and
eventually lose their sense of belonging. Guschke et al. Emotional reaction, argue Mersky et al.
(2022), is central to whether transformation inspires reverence or dread. Some characters are
miraculous; their altered bodies become objects of worship or fetish. Others are seen as a threat,
their metamorphosis rendering them into something that needs to be contained. Adams (2018)
shows that this reaction can be viewed through a wider lens of society, and that objectification
and the act of categorizing and disposability relates back to a system and not just isolated
reactions. There is not much neutral about transformation in these stories, it always changes how
a character is placed in society. Wanted, resented, dismissed, their new shape determines how
they are treated. As is known from literature, objectification is not only a possibility for those
whose bodies experience change. It is a continuing process, affected by the expectations and
biases of the world around them. These accounts compel readers to grapple with the unpalatable
reality that identity is largely imposed on you as it is rarely so much a question of who you are
as a question of who someone else decides you are. Transformation does not cancel out
personhood, but it does demonstrate the fragility of how personality is built and how easily it
can be snatched away.
Consumption Refusal as Defiance
Examples of metamorphosed figures tend to avoid being consumed and for what it is
worth, refuse to give in to an awaiting beak. Sara Ahmed’s Willful Subjects identifies
willfulness as an act of defiance and how nonconformity itself is seen as a disruption to social
order. Ahmed (as quoted in Quesenberry, 2015) specifies that those who do not consume,
literally or metaphorically, are often punished for not consuming. Narratives of transformation in
persecutory contexts assess characters who refuse to fall within imposed roles as problematic
rather than as agents of control over their own identity. Resistance does not necessarily need to
be overt rebellion (Stonecipher, 2020). At times, it is found in the basic act of not allowing
oneself to be used. Guschke et al. (2022) convey that emotion drives perceptions of defiance,
which influences whether a character’s refusal is considered courageous or selfish. Literature
often foreshadows willful transformed characters as threats, indicating that individuals who
reject objectification undermine not only personal relationships, but all structures of power. It
has been framed as irrational, thus the resistors themselves can be easily dispensed with
(Ahmed, cited in Quesenberry, 2015). In these narratives, consumption denial is not simply tied
to survival. It is about reclaiming the right to exist, on one’s own terms. Refusing to be
consumed is a statement, however a painful one, which challenges the world demanding
compliance. So literature depicts this defiance as dangerous but also necessary, showing us that
autonomy never comes without sacrifice.
Characters who resist objectification often pay for it, exposing the price of resistance.
Ahmed (cited in Quesenberry, 2015) describes willfulness as a threat to power, one that is often
(always? usually?) punished. In literature, transformed protagonists who reject their assigned
role often end up exiled, violently victimized or destroyed. According to Stonecipher (2020), this
reaction is not to punish a person but rather to keep things in order. Guschke et al. (2022)
contend, emotional responses drive conflicts such that these conflicts and their resolution reflect
how resistance is framed between justified or threatening. In literature, transformation must be
managed or eliminated, another way of telling the reader that difference is death. Acting, then, is
a way to resist the meaning that the hegemonic project would impose on bodies that have
changed (Ahmed, cited in Quesenberry, 2015). These stories feature characters who do not let
themselves be consumed and force others to consider why difference must always be met with
assimilation or extermination. Their defiance unsettles the logic that insists transformed bodies
must exist for the service of others. In denying this role, they claim their own agency, refusing
to conform to the demands of outsiders. Real defiance is survival as resistance, moving beyond
mere defiance to reconstructing the world that requires submission. But these transformation
narratives demonstrate that this refusal of consumption is not simply about withstanding harm. It
is also about interrogating the very systems that make objectification possible, exposing the
ways in which power operates through the assumption that when it comes to difference, it must
always be controlled.
Overcoming Ecofeminism: Thinking Through Metamorphosis
Val Plumwood’s “Crisis of Reason” critiques the idea that humans are fundamentally
separate from nature, that this separation is used to justify domination. Metamorphosis-themed
literature also responds to this line of criticism, displaying why transformed characters’ reject
reintegration into a world that would tend to turn them into replicas, something that can be
controlled. As Plumwood (cited in Lloyd, 2018) explains, "Western thought has construed
rationality as the distinguishing characteristic of humanity. Characters who disrupt the dictates
of humanity challenge the parameters of human functioning in transformation narratives; they
defy the categories forced on them. Calhoun (2019) explains that the process of making identity
meaningful is conditioned by social structures, producing hierarchies determining what has
value. Transformation is what interrupts these hierarchies to reveal their absurdity. In fiction,
metamorphosed characters might well be described as fighting against forces that would try to
impose a self on them, as survival depends on non-integration, but this is not a fully conscious
choice. It is not so much what you choose that matters, but what you overthrow, for as
Plumwood (cited in Lloyd, 2018) noted, challenging these structures must rework the human
logic of people and property that governs inclusion and exclusion. Metamorphosis narratives
show the cracks in this reasoning, putting forth transformed characters who push back against
containment. Not the rejection of inclusion, but the rejection of systems that demand submission
in order to be made whole.
It is thus assumed that rejecting integration is unnatural, crystallizing the notion that
people who cannot assimilate must be eliminated. Non-conformity is seen as having irrational
roots in Western philosophy (Plumwood, cited in Lloyd, 2018) and the nonconformist, the one
who resists outside the boundaries of Western philosophy, is portrayed as a failure. These
suggestions are fueled by particular verbs around a sordid, social structures that frameworks
how transformation is read (Calhoun, 2019). Metamorphosed characters are commonly depicted
in literature as dangerous, in part because they challenge the assumption that identity needs to be
stable. Plumwood (in Lloyd, 2018) makes the point that this framing serves the purpose of
preserving power, whereby difference must be contained. In these stories, the characters who
refuse integration compel others to face their own ideas of identity and belonging. Their refusal
reveals the fallibility of inclusion; acceptance is conditional. Transformed characters, by
refusing to play into a system that would obliterate them, claim their right to exist unabashed.
Metamorphosis as rejection of structures that require conformity, literature asks whether a place
of belonging even exists in a world made to exclude difference.
VII. Conclusion
Metamorphosis as a Site of Rupture
In literature, transformation seldom results in self-discovery or growth. Instead, it upends
identity, producing a mangled life no narrative can easily contain. Characters who undergo
metamorphoses are often beset by feelings of displacement, stranded between who they were
and who they have become. Yovel (2018) discusses the duality of identities that arise from
compulsory transformation, that, too, can be a transformative process, if one in which motion
leads to disorder instead of expansion. This rupture ripples outward, distorting not just the
individual but informing the perception others have of them. Cohen (2018) notes that political
and social fissures create subjectivities that never truly reconcile, and thus make reparation
impossible. Migrant figures are thrown out of the literature, too, when they take on their
metamorphosed forms, existing outside any given space. Wakefield, Chandler and Grove (2022)
argue that while resilience is often framed as adaptation to the status quo narratives, where this
is the case, it is rarely enough to give rise to specifics regarding transformation. These characters
are not only forced to adapt, they are forced to live in a condition of disintegration. Some try to
get back into their old shape, and discover it no longer suits. Others resist classification,
relegated to a liminal space in which nothing remains stable. Their struggle underscores the
fragility of identity itself, which is never actually fixed. But literature tells us that some kind of
transformation does not make a character more powerful or enlightened. Instead, it forces them
to face the extremes of their mortal selves, proving, perhaps, that in the end we are not really in
control of our own story. What emerges from these stories, each of such wretchedness that
metamorphosis’s promise of progress crumbles under its weight, is the very basic truth that
change does not inevitably lead to clarity. Instead, it can leave a character with no grasp on
anything, caught between who they were and something unrecognizable.
The Limits of Traditional Posthumanist Theories
So transformation in literature does not sit well with optimistic notions of posthumanism.
Cybernetic posthumanism envisions a future society where technology extends human
capacities, enabling for seamless integration. In Palmer (2022), Palmer also describes cybernetic
systems that do not so much destroy humanity to become better humans but rather presents
transformation as a tool to increase our evolving identity. This vision stands in contrast to
popular representations of metamorphosis in literature. Wakefield et al. (2022) resist the
proposing of an arc of resilience to stability, noting that more often change begets more severe
fissures in the fabric of a society. Nowhere do these stories depict transformation as an easy
passage to something superior. Rather they underscore how change can destabilize identity until
most characters seem to have no fixed sense of self to call their own. In a seminal paper on
hybrid identities in literature, Kaminski (2022) argues that transformation (the basic condition of
hybridization) does more to resolve the human-animal divide. Rather than, as in ecological
posthumanism, a vector of solidarity and connection, the metamorphosed subjects of these
narratives are often portrayed as alienated from others, stranded halfway through their transition,
stranded even from their former bodies. Cousins (2023) examines contemporaneous literature
that resists resolution, rendering metamorphosis a process that breaks rather than sharpens.
These stories call into question posthumanist notions that treat change as always an expanding
one. Rather, they argue, transformation can leave a character with an unstable identity
altogether. The belief that change leads to empowerment gives way to the understanding that
change can usher in a profound uncertainty. These stories are not celebrations of transformation
as progress. They treat it as a crisis, one that has characters wondering if they can ever really
belong.
The Future of Transformation Narratives
Literature hammers away at the rigid notions of self, using transformation to knock
down the assumptions about the self. Metamorphosis in older narratives was often viewed as
punishment, used as a tool to establish moral or social boundaries. More recent tales, however,
resist this framing, leaving transformation open. As Cousins (2023) shows, contemporary short
fiction refuses to have metamorphosis as either good or bad but simply as something that
happens without legible consequence. Such narratives resist the logic that transformation needs
to be followed by a return to stability. Kaminski (2022) points out that hybrid identities disrupt
the categories of human and non-human, rendering transformed characters unclassifiable.
Wakefield et al. (2022), challenge resilience as a survival mechanism, suggesting that
transformation does not always produce stronger people. As with literature, so with these
characters who can no longer yet will not return to who they had been before. It departs from
posthumanist traditions that see change as a renegotiation of identity. But such stories suggest
that transformation can render a character utterly unmoored. Many lean into this instability and
even reject the very idea that identity should ever be nailed down. Some fight against it,
reluctant to define themselves even when no clear definition exists. It does not have to solve
anything; literature suggests, the transformation. It can be a permanent condition; identity is
always in motion rather than arriving at a final form. And these narratives are not seeking
answers. They consider what it means to exist in uncertainty, refusing to be driven by the
demands that change be purposefully directed somewhere.
It is this Trinitarian structure that helps to make future narratives of transformation even
more interesting since they will continue to challenge conventional notions of identity through a
refusal of the need for resolution. Forced transformation divides people into skeletons of
themselves that may or may not be reconciled (Yovel, 2018). Literature mirrors this instability,
treating metamorphosis as something that breaks, not bonds. Cohen (2018, p. 69) argues that
political rifts reflect personal and existential transformation, and that change too often leads to
division rather than unity. Palmer (2022) critiques optimism in posthumanism, arguing that
transformation is a site of rupture instead of progress. He examines in depth the way hybrid
identities break down traditional categories, but do not in themselves produce new forms of
stability (Kaminski, 2022). These stories posit that identity is never complete, always at risk of
unraveling. Future transformation stories will be more likely to embrace the fact that change
does not lead to clarity, and that metamorphosis is something that complicates rather than
explains. Literature spurns the impulse to rationalize or justify change. It lets it be something
that disrupts certainty, pushes characters into spaces where meaning itself is precarious. These
stories suggest that transformation need not be subject to logic. It can stay as a work in
progress, existing as an object that refuses to be described. This refusal to impose order
confronts not just traditional notions of identity but posthumanist theories that signify
transformation as a progressive force. By conceiving of metamorphosis as rupture rather than
resolution, literature continues to interrogate what it means to exist in a milieu in which identity
is perpetual flux.
References
Adams, C. J. (2018). The sexual politics of meat. In Living with contradictions (pp. 548-557).
Routledge.
Adams, M. (2018). Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations. Social and
personality psychology compass, 12(4), e12375.
Adsit-Morris, C., & Gough, N. (2021). Queering evolution: The socio-political entanglements of
natural and cultural evolutionary mechanisms. Queer Ecopedagogies: Explorations in
Nature, Sexuality, and Education, 95-121.
Allison, S. T., Goethals, G. R., Marrinan, A. R., Parker, O. M., Spyrou, S. P., & Stein, M.
(2019). The metamorphosis of the hero: Principles, processes, and purpose. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 606.
Arzano, M., & Kowalski-Glikman, J. (2023). Quantum particles in noncommutative spacetime:
An identity crisis. Physical Review D, 107(6), 065001.
Asker, D. B. D. (2021). Aspects of metamorphosis: fictional representations of the becoming
human (Vol. 36). Brill.
Asriningtyas, D. L., & Mustofa, A. (2022). Gregor Samsa’s Self Alienation in Franz Kafka’s
Metamorphosis: Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Humanitatis: Journal of Language and
Literature, 8(2), 261-276.
Atikah, N., Manalu, H. F., & Anggraeni, D. (2021). A Psychological Analysis of The Main
Character in Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis. Medova: Journal of Islamic Media Studies, 1
(2), 150, 166.
Averett, E. W. (2020). Blurred boundaries: Zoomorphic masking rituals and the human-animal
relationship in ancient Cyprus. World Archaeology, 52(5), 724-745.
Blokhin, A. (2018). Behold the Monkey: Queer Jesus and the Queer Posthumanist Account of
Art.
Brown, H., & Nading, A. M. (2019). Introduction: human animal health in medical
anthropology. Medical anthropology quarterly, 33(1), 5-23.
Buchbinder, E. (2018). Metaphors of transformation: Change in male batterers. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 19(3), 352.
Burke, L. (2019). Dementia and the paradigm of the camp: Thinking beyond Giorgio Agamben’s
concept of “bare life”. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 16(2), 195-205.
Calhoun, C. (2019). Indirect relationships and imagined communities: large-scale social
integration and the transformation of everyday life. In Social theory for a changing
society (pp. 95-130). Routledge.
Clavero, S., & Galligan, Y. (2021). Delivering gender justice in academia through gender
equality plans? Normative and practical challenges. Gender, Work &
Organization, 28(3), 1115-1132.
Cohen, L. J. (2018). Broken bonds: Yugoslavia's disintegration and Balkan politics in transition.
Routledge.
Cousins, H. (2023). Morphing Forms: Metamorphosis in Twenty-First-Century British Women’s
Experimental Short Fiction. In Rethinking Identities Across Boundaries:
Genders/Genres/Genera (pp. 165-182). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Davidson, G., & Rooney, M. (2018). Queer objects. Angelaki, 23(1), 3-4.
Debnath, F., Chakraborty, D., Deb, A. K., Saha, M. K., & Dutta, S. (2021). Increased human-
animal interface & emerging zoonotic diseases: An enigma requiring multi-sectoral
efforts to address. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 153(5-6), 577-584.
Edwards, M. (2022). Sartre's Existential Psychoanalysis.
Freccero, C. (2021). Human, Animal, and Metamorphic Becomings. The Palgrave Handbook of
Animals and Literature, 155-166.
Giaccherini, E. (2020). Metamorphosis, Science Fiction and the Dissolution of the Self.
In Proteus (pp. 62-70). Routledge.
Guschke, B. L., Christensen, J. F., & Burø, T. (2022). Sara ahmed: A return to emotions.
In Affect in organization and management (pp. 12-28). Routledge.
Halford, S. (2018). Gender, power and organisations: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Heffernan, T. (2022). Rethinking “Queer Kin Groups”: Cyborgs, Animals, and
Machines. Symbiotic Posthumanist Ecologies in Western Literature, Philosophy and Art,
59.
Helberg, N. (2020). Insubordinate Plasticity: Judith Butler and Catherine
Malabou. Hypatia, 35(4), 587-606.
Holmes, T. (2021). Science, sensitivity and the sociozoological scale: Constituting and
complicating the human-animal boundary at the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection
and beyond. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 90, 194-207.
Johnson, M. (2020). Beauty and power: Transgendering and cultural transformation in the
southern Philippines. Routledge.
Kaminski, P. (2022). Transforming Humans and Animals in Literature and Society (1890-
1920s): Hybridism, posthumanism, and intersectionality (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Canterbury).
Küpers, W. (2020). Queer (ing) moves: Beyond anthropocene, toward convivial, sustainable
futures. World Futures, 76(5-7), 287-313.
Lind, A. C. (2018). Power, gender, and development: Popular women’s organizations and the
politics of needs in Ecuador. In The making of social movements in Latin America (pp.
134-149). Routledge.
Lloyd, G. (2018). Maleness, metaphor, and the" crisis" of reason. In A mind of one's own (pp. 73-
89). Routledge.
Odorcak, J. (2019). Exorganic posthumanism and brain-computer interface
technologies. Postmodern openings, 10(4), 193-208.
Palmer, H. (2022). " Think different" to prevent extinction. Connecting Gregory Bateson’s
Cybernetic Epistemology with Posthumanism. Murmurations: Journal of Transformative
Systemic Practice, 5(2), 14-27.
Phipps, C. B. (2018). Metamorphosis: An autoethnographic journey through loss, grief, and
perceived identity changes. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 23(6), 458-467.
Plain, G. (2019). Women's fiction of the Second World War: gender, power and resistance.
Edinburgh University Press.
Quesenberry, K. (2015). Willful subjects, by Sara Ahmed.
Rajad, R., & Dasyhosh, A. (2022). Kafka’s Metamorphosis: An Analysis on Social Structure,
Disability, and Alienation. International Journal of English and Studies, 4(1), 88-92.
Shingne, M. C., & Reese, L. A. (2022). Animals in the city: Wither the human-animal
divide. Journal of Urban Affairs, 44(2), 114-136.
Stonecipher, R. (2020). Sara Ahmed’s Critical Phenomenology of Communication. In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
Ten Brink, H., de Roos, A. M., & Dieckmann, U. (2019). The evolutionary ecology of
metamorphosis. The American Naturalist, 193(5), E116-E131.
Troughton, I. A. (2020). Recognizing the Anthropocene: Queer Disidentification as a Narrative
Towards Non-Human Agents. Junctions: Graduate Journal of the Humanities, 5(1).
Wakefield, S., Chandler, D., & Grove, K. (2022). The asymmetrical anthropocene: Resilience
and the limits of posthumanism. cultural geographies, 29(3), 389-404.
Waters, S., Bell, S., & Setchell, J. M. (2018). Understanding human-animal relations in the
context of primate conservation: A multispecies ethnographic approach in North
Morocco. Folia Primatologica, 89(1), 13-29.
Weston, K. (2018). Gender in real time: Power and transience in a visual age. Routledge.
Yovel, Y. (2018). The other within: the Marranos: split identity and emerging modernity.
