What Is The Theme Of Dualism In The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde

The spaces we live in inform and reflect our identity, and how we are perceived in society. In Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll transforms himself into Mr. Hyde, which is a representation of his deepest, immoral desire. After a series of murders with the main suspect being Mr. Hyde, Mr. Utterson the—lawyer of Dr. Jekyll—attempts to discover what the murderer's motives are. Innocence or innocent acts are defined by corruption; corruption is determined by the perspective of people in society. Stevenson uses architecture to enforce the duality of both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’s identity and innocence and corruption, which in turn signifies that the idea of reputation in 19th century London is based
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’s representation in society through architecture is representative of how the ideas of innocence and corruption would have affected English society at the time and how they would have informed English cultural anxieties. For instance, in “Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement of the Case”, he outlines how he wants to be viewed in society and how that affected his actions. He admitted, “with even a deeper trench than in the majority of men, served in those provinces of good and ill which divide and compound man’s dual nature” (76). Dr. Jekyll means that due to how he wanted people to view him, he divided himself into two people so that people could judge him on just his façade and not his actual desires. The imagery he uses is profound because his identity is tied to geography and the idea of a province is used as a metaphor to describe this relationship he has with good and evil. He references a trench, which visually also creates an image of the split he experiences. The good and evil which he describes ‘divide and compound man’s dual nature’ mean that while he split himself in two, the pieces both add to this one composite whole where Dr. Jekyll is a façade to control Mr. Hyde. Architecture aids him in this transition from innocent to corrupt. Additionally, Wedgewood states that “It is a psychological curiosity that the same man should have written both, and if they were bound up together, the volume would form the most striking illustration of a warning necessary for others besides the critic-- the warning to judge no man by any single utterance” (136). Her statement seems hypocritical because she is praising him and adding to his good reputation as a person and author. Due to the fact that Stevenson is male and of a higher class, her argument states that it is the desire of the readers to trust him. This aspect of society is exactly what Stevenson critiques. He claims that people judge the façades of people and buildings instead of what goes on