瑪麗·雪萊的《科學怪人》(Frankenstein)和法蘭克·赫伯特的《沙丘》(Dune)揭示角色如何在自身的感知世界內突破界限，塑造其他生物及環境，以追求無止境的欲望。透過應用雅各布·馮·厄克斯庫爾(Jakob von Uexküll)的環境界（Umwelt）概念、斯蒂芬·格林布拉特(Stephen Greenblatt)的自我形塑（self-fashioning）概念，以及皮耶·費利克斯·伽塔利(Pierre-Félix Guattari)的生態哲學（ecosophy）概念，本研究探討在這兩部科幻小說中，人類如何過度使用科技以應對自身有限的環境界，從而侵犯其他物種的獨特環境世界，並耗盡自然資源。
  本文共分四章。緒論探討背景文獻，介紹科幻小說的歷史發展，同時也解釋如何運用史蒂芬·格林布拉特的新歷史主義(new historicism)和費利克斯·瓜塔里的生態哲學來理解人類的環境界。第一章闡述新歷史主義和生態哲學如何與雅各布·馮·尤克斯庫爾的環境界概念相連，並探討個體、有機體與環境之間的關係。第二章討論《科學怪人》中主角如何製造有毒廢料來傷害人類並污染環境。第三章說明在資本主義影響下，角色如何相互塑造，以滿足各自欲望，在《沙丘》中尤為明顯。第四章比較《科學怪人》和《沙丘》，揭示主要角色過度使用先進的科技導致環境破壞和人類身體變化的情況。總括，本論文主張科幻小說《科學怪人》和《沙丘》描繪了人類如何以極端的方式感知和與環境互動，因為每個人都有自己封閉的環境界。然而，人類的能力過於有限，無法改變他們遇到的所有狀況；因此，人類應該尊重其他生命的多樣性和自主性，而不是將自己的意志強加於他人。

     Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Frank Herbert’s Dune reveal how characters within their own perceptual worlds transcend their limits to fashion other beings and the environment in pursuit of insatiable desires. By applying Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of Umwelt, Stephen Greenblatt’s concept of self-fashioning, and Pierre-Félix Guattari’s concept of ecosophy, this study examines how in these works of science fiction humans overuse technological advancements to cope with their limited Umwelt, thereby infringing upon the unique existences of other species and depleting natural resources. 
     The dissertation is divided into four chapters. Introduction discusses background literature, introduces science fiction historical development, and explains how Stephen Greenblatt’s new historicism and Pierre-Félix Guattari’s concept of ecosophy are employed to understand the human Umwelt. Chapter One expounds on how new historicism and ecosophy link to Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt and then addresses connections between individuals, organisms, and environments. Chapter Two discusses how the protagonist creates toxic waste to harm human beings and pollute the environment in Frankenstein. Chapter Three demonstrates how characters under the influence of capitalism frame each other to satisfy their desires in Dune. Chapter Four compares Frankenstein and Dune to unveil how the main characters’ overuse of technological advancements leads to environmental destruction and human physical changes. Overall, the dissertation concludes that the science fiction novels Frankenstein and Dune depict how humans who are born with their own enclosed Umwelt perceive and interact with the environment in their extreme ways. However, their abilities are revealed as too limited to alter all the conditions they encounter; therefore, humans should have respected the diversity and autonomy of other beings rather than imposing their will upon them.

                                Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................1
Chapter One
The Human Umwelt and the Limits of Self-Fashioning...............................23
The Concept of Umwelt............................................................24
The Functional Cycle of Living Beings............................................26
Human Umwelt Differences: Still a Bubble.........................................28
New Historicism-Michel Foucault, Louise Montrose, and the Concept 
of Self-Fashioning...............................................................31
Ecosophy.........................................................................35
Umwelt and New Historicism.......................................................39
Umwelt and Ecosophy..............................................................40
New Historicism and Ecosophy.....................................................41
Chapter Two
Toxic Gothic: The Cultural Monster in Nature in Frankenstein.....................45
The Scientist and the Creature’s Different Perception in Germany.................47
The Scientist and the Creature’s Different Perception in the Arctic..............57
Monstrosity in Characters........................................................61
Ecology Discourse in Frankenstein................................................70
Chapter Three
Umwelt, Historicity, and Capitalism in Dune......................................77
The Same Species but Different Perceptions on Planet Caladan.....................79
The Same Species but Different Perceptions on Planet Arrakis.....................85
Different Ethnicities with the Same Perceptions on Planet Arrakis................96
Different Plans for Existence on Planet Arrakis.................................102
Monstrosity in Characters.......................................................105
Ecology Discourse in Dune.......................................................119
Chapter Four
Environment and Physical Change.................................................137
Power Desires Causing Environment and Physical Change...........................140
The Influence of Physical Changes on the Creature and the Fremen................147
Man-Made Tools Impinging on Species’ Umwelten and Environment...................157
Family and Survival of the Human Species........................................170
The Function of the Outside Narrators...........................................179
Conclusion......................................................................193
Works Cited.....................................................................199

                                     Works Cited

Araújo, Arthur. “Structure, Sign and Uexküll’s Theory of Meaning: A Philosophical 
     Approximation.” Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016, pp. 13-38.
Bains, Paul. “Umwelten.” Semiotica, vol. 134, no. 1–4, 2001, pp. 137–167. Walter de 
     Gruyter, doi:10.1515/semi.2001.066. Accessed 12 Aug. 2023.
Barbier, Marcello. “Biosemiotics: A New Understanding of Life.” Naturwissenschaften, 
     vol. 95, no. 7, 2008, pp. 577-99.
Bate, Jonathan. “Frankenstein and the State of Nature.” Frankenstein: A Norton 
     Critical Edition, edited by J. Paul Hunter, W. W. Norton, 2012, pp. 476-80.
Brannigan, John. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. Bloomsbury, 2016.
Brentari, Carlo. Jakob von Uexküll: The Discovery of the Umwelt between Biosemiotics 
     and Theoretical Biology. Biosemiotics Vol. 9. Springer, 2015. 
Chien, Jui-Pi. “Of Animals and Men: A Study of Umwelt in Uexküll, Cassirer, and 
     Heidegger.” Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 2006, pp. 
     57-79.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. U of Minnesota P, 1996.
Cottom, Daniel. “Frankenstein and the Monster of Representation.” SubStance, vol. 9, 
      no. 3, 1980, pp. 60-71.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. Translated by Brian 
     Massumi, vol. 2 of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, University of Minnesota P, 
     1987. Les Éditions de minuit, 1980.
Devlin, Hannah. “Synthetic Human Embryos Created in Groundbreaking Advance.” The 
     Guardian, 14 Apr 2023, https://reurl.cc/36oee8. Accessed 17 Sep. 2024.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “History and Historical Effect in Frank Herbert’s Dune.” Science 
     Fiction Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 1992, pp. 311-25.
Dolan, Timothy. “Science Fiction as Moral Allegory.” Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 
     24, no. 3, 2020, pp. 105-112. Tamkang UP, doi:10.29773/BTPL. Accessed 10 Sep. 
     2024.
Dougherty, Carol. Prometheus. Routledge, 2006.
Evans, Carrie Lynn. Women of the Future: Gender, Technology, and Cyborgs in Frank 
     Herbert’s Dune. Master’s thesis, Université Laval, 2016.
Foucault, Michel. “The History of Sexuality.” Social Theory Re-Wired, edited by 
     Wesley Longhofer and Daniel Winchester, Routledge, 2016, pp. 494-500.
---. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan, 
     Pantheon Books, 1997.
Freedman, Carl. “Critical Theory and Science Fiction.” Wesleyan UP, 2000.
Freeman, Barbara. “Frankenstein with Kant: A Theory of Monstrosity, or the 
     Monstrosity of Theory.” SubStance, vol. 16, no. 1, 1987, pp. 21-31.
Ginn, Franklin. “Jakob von Uexküll beyond Bubbles: On Umwelt and Biophilosophy.” 
     Science as Culture, vol. 23, no 1, 2014, pp. 129-134. Taylor & Francis.
Goffman, Erving. “Selections from Stigma.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by 
     Lennard J. Davis, vol. 203, Routledge,1997, pp. 215-230.
Goodall, Jane. “Electrical Romanticism.” Frankenstein’s Science, edited by Andrew 
     Smith, Routledge, 2016, pp. 117-132. Accessed 5 Nov. 2023.
Gordon, Gregory S. “Transnational Governmentality Networking: A Neo-Foucauldian 
     Account of International Criminal Law.” Philosophical Foundations of 
     International Criminal Law: Correlating Thinkers, vol. 4, Oxford UP, 2018, pp. 
     675-755.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. U of 
     Chicago P, 2012.
Guattari, Félix. The Three Ecologies. Translated by Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton,
     Bloomsbury, 2005. Éditions Galilée, 1989.
Herbert, Frank. Dune. New York, Ace Books, Berkley, 1999. Chilton Books, 1965.
James, Edward, and Farah Mendlesohn. The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. 
      Cambridge UP, 2003.
Lengyel, Alfonz. “Futurism by Caroline Tisdall and Angelo Bozzola.” Leonardo, vol. 
      12, no. 2, 1979, pp. 166-67.
Link, Bruce G., and Jo C Phelan. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of 
      Sociology, vol. 27, no. 1, 2001, pp. 363-85.
Marcus, Solomon. “On the Logical and Semiotic Status of Jakob Von Uexküll’s Concept 
      of Umwelt.” Semiotica, vol. 134, no. 1-4, 2001, pp.1-14. Walter de Gruyter, 
      doi: 10.1515/semi.2001.024. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024. 
Mellor, Anne K. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Romanticism and 
      Feminism, Indiana UP, 1988, pp. 220-32. 
Misha, Kiti. “The Human Non-Human Boundary in Dune.” Dissertation, Malmö University, 
       2020. 
Montrose, Louis A. “Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.” 
      The New Historicism, Routledge, 2013, pp. 15-36.
Pirtle, Zachary. “Humans, Machines, and an Ethics for Technology in Dune.” Dune and 
      Philosophy: Minds, Monads, and Muad'Dib. Wiley, 2022, pp. 76-86.  
Pollmann, Inga. “Invisible Worlds, Visible: Uexküll's Umwelt, Film, and Film Theory.” 
      Critical Inquiry, vol. 39, no. 4, 2013, pp. 777-816.
Radhi, Ghassan Fadhil. “Language as a Means of Emancipation in Shelley’s 
      Frankenstein.” American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 
      vol. 4, no. 9, 2020, pp. 43-48. e-ISSN:2378-703X. Accessed 15 June. 2023. 
Roberts, Adam. Science Fiction. Routledge, 2002.
Ruttkay, Veronika. “Anatomy of Tragedy: The Skeptical Gothic in Mary Shelley’s 
      Frankenstein.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-10.
Sagan, Dorion. “Introduction: Umwelt after Uexküll.” A Foray into the Worlds of 
      Animals and Humans with a Theory of Meaning, 2010, pp. 1-34.
Sarti, Alessandro. “Heterogenesis.” Glossary of Morphology, edited by Federico 
      Vercellone and Salvatore Tedesco. Springer, 2020, pp. 239-41. 
Schroer, Sara Asu. “Jakob Von Uexküll: The Concept of Umwelt and Its Potentials for 
      an Anthropology Beyond the Human.” Ethnos, vol. 86, no. 1, 2021, pp. 132-52.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Edited by J. Paul Hunter, W.W. Norton, 2012. 
Szollosy, Michael. “Freud, Frankenstein and Our Fear of Robots: Projection in Our 
      Cultural Perception of Technology.” Ai & Society, vol. 32, 2017, pp. 433-39.
Uexküll, Jakob von. “An Introduction to Umwelt.” Semiotica, vol. 134, no. 1-4, 2001, 
      pp.17-28. Walter de Gruyter, doi: 10.1515/semi.2001.017. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024. 
---. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans with a Theory of Meaning. 
      Translated by Joseph D. O’Neil. U of Minnesota P, 2013. Springer, 1934.
Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. The Monster Theory Reader. U of Minnesota P, 2020.
Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. “Afterword: Bubbles and Webs: A Backdoor Stroll through the 
      Readings of Uexküll.” Uexküll, 2013, pp. 209-43.