Not all that long ago, people believed in monsters. The 16th-century equivalents of Heat, Love it!, and their siblings in the magazine world, were pamphlets filled with drawings of sirens, lambs with two bodies and children with several heads that were viewed as portents of doom for the town where they were born, God’s warning and revenge.  Before mass travel made wonder less rare, in the midst of the age of discovery and scientific enlightenment, even the rationalizing tracts of Boyle and Bacon could not undo the popular fear of the monstrous.

On a more serious note, this meant that anyone born into society with less than perfect physical attributes risked being classed alongside the mythical creatures that were still thought to exist by many — and sidelined, mocked and feared, so-called abnormality inviting disgust. This was the precursor to the freak shows of the Victorian era.

Nowadays the repulsion of creatures with anomalies has gone but the conception of the monstrous has simply changed shape.  Today fear of the irrational and the horrid has become fixed on threats perceived as real to us in the same way monsters were real to those living centuries ago. Now that we have rationalized irregularity in nature and accept it, for the most part, now that we are no longer so easily impressed by technological progress and believe anything to be possible and now that we scoff at the thought of extra-terrestrials and ghosts (that’s not say fantastically profitable industries haven’t been expanded based on these two somewhat enjoyable scare stories), what are the real monsters of the modern age?

If global society had a collective vote, a grand survey, on what to put into the furnace of the earth, a room 101 for all our worst fears, what would come out on top?

If recent history is anything to go by, the United States is unfortunately up there with the best of cultural hate symbols.  A beautiful land with some beautiful ideas has become one of the big targets of our times. What started out as bewildered amazement of the power of the American Dream has sadly mutated, especially in the last 30 years, to a kind of savage hatred reserved for the powerful. The dichotomy in current American thought, the power of the message of good countered by actions viewed as unacceptable, has put America in the difficult position of being unable to please its critics or supporters. Like all Empires, it will attract the greatest attention due to its central position in the history of its age and thus the most scrutiny and attack.

Unfortunately disdain at some American policies is very often confused with hatred of Americans and no matter how often people deny it, this remains so. Global powers need to streamline their views of the United States in such a way that makes their support or criticism more than simply obsequious or motivated by jealousy at America’s propensity for optimism, or mere pettiness. America provides a useful “other” against which nations can rail: it needs to get sharper at ensuring it doesn’t give its critics more ammunition.

Talking of petty gripes, the next item to be thrown over the cliff would probably be cigarettes. About 50 percent of respondents would likely plunge after them to recover a cheap pack, but there is no doubt that cigarettes are modern beasts of doom. They are blamed for nearly everything from diseases, to bad eating habits, air pollution and starting fires: almost as bad as the emotionless, murderous Cyclops of Greek mythology, dodgy on every level. Yet are blanket bans any use? Are governments worldwide right to decree that these little rolls of tobacco are so much worse than any other poison out there and fail to even leave people the choice to smoke in designated rooms? I’m quite happy to enjoy smoke-free zones and purer air, as long as other things designated as “monstrous” don’t start getting banned soon, like proper chocolate or strawberry cheesecake. Joking aside, I don’t think it sets a good precedent, especially with the current backlash against those unfortunate enough not to be in great physical shape (also viewed as monstrous in our times, which is monstrous in itself).

Following on from this, we have seen the effects of dehumanization on some of the poorest and least favoured members of society.  The open season on so-called chavs — the white working class basically — has sometimes made me question the intelligence of the well-educated people who are often behind these comments. Arguably they are just joking and not really thinking about the potency of their arguments: dehumanizing other “classes” of humans is what gets us into indifference and softens us up for war, even if it only starts on a genial, local level.

That said, the current demonization of the bankers can be understood if not condoned.  They may not be mere scapegoats, but plenty of other entities have been involved in financial mismanagement and the solution lies in collective action and responsibility from the top down. And we know that not every banker in the world was messing up royally and that not every politician was inherently incompetent or corrupt. It might be convenient to blame modern “monsters” but it’s too easy…

Despite the apparent gravity of the world situation, it’s good to know that at local level, people are still concerned about smaller issues and the suffering of others, especially our four-legged friends. In a week where the anti-circus animal groups have been pushing for the end of elephants as Butlins-style entertainers in a wonky tent, it seems the propensity for the end of party trick Victoriana is reaching new heights. Amazingly it was not so far back that people believed that tritons existed and elephants didn’t. The fuss this week showed the weaker can still evoke sympathy, a great bonus even though the solution to ending their suffering is nebulous.

Maybe monsters are a good thing after all: we need them to keep us on our toes.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.