Our Frankenstein discussion this afternoon reminded me of this oldie but goodie from Cowbirds in Love. Are we sure about this "mad scientist" business?
I wonder: Is this comic just nitpicking, or does the typical "mad scientist" in literature actually represent a misunderstanding? Do some representations lump together everything that mainstream culture considers to be bad about science and technology? (Or, to get REALLY broad, why are so many sci fi explorations of future technology either utopias or dystopias? Is there really no middle ground? Must science either save us all or kill us all?)
As long as we're talking about morality and technology, have some more questions: Does Victor Frankenstein even do anything wrong in CREATING the monster? Granted, he sees it, decides that it's ugly, and runs away, abandoning it. And that is not so cool. But is the initial creation of the monster itself a problem? Traditional readings say, "Yes. It's an affront to the laws of nature. He's trying to play with life and death, to play God." Okay. I can see how that's not good if you're killing. But what does he really hurt in creating life? Genuine question.
For those of you joining us at home, a quick recap of our Frankenstein/mad scientist discussion in class today:
-We talked about the mad scientist seeking control over nature.
-We quickly dismissed the idea that controlling nature is, in and of itself, an immoral pursuit. We might find some areas on the fringes where we disagree about this, but at the very least, we all liked having medicine and shelter and tools available.
-N brought up that story about the frogs who were released into the environment of...did we say where?...to eat the pests that were harming the sugarcane. Spoilers: they didn't eat the pests, and just multiplied to a terrifying and squishy extent. Maybe the problem isn't trying to control nature. Maybe the problem comes when our reach--our ability to control the world around us--exceeds the limits of our understanding--our ability to predict all possible outcomes. This doesn't have to mean that all science is mad science, period (of course not!), but since we're not very good at seeing the limits of our understanding, we're probably right to be wary, especially for large-scale, dangerous projects. (Who voted for weighing the risks of a scientific project against its possible benefits? Aa, that was you?)
-As long as the risks aren't large, I, for one, am in favor of the "let's do it and see what happens" approach to science. You never know when some discovery might be useful. We find things out accidentally all the time. It sounded like several of you were with me in the "why the heck not" camp. Anybody want to argue against this position?
-We talked about the real ethical concerns that mad scientists represent, although some of these concerns are different almost 200 years after Frankentein: Stem cell study? Atomic weapons? Growing organs? Eugenics? Biological warfare? Large scale computer worms? Which of these concern you, and which do not? How do you make your decisions about these issues?
-But we ALSO talked about how pejorative the concept of the mad scientist can potentially be. Who actually mentioned the movie Mad Science? (L?) How many genius tinkerers in sci fi movies make a robot girlfriend? (This is a time honored tradition going back at least as far as Pygmalion and Galatea in ancient Greece, by the way.) Why do they need to build a fake girlfriend? Because being a genius isn't enough, and in some cases actually makes them antisocial losers, right? They can't get a girl any other way--so the story goes, at least. The image of the nerd is changing, but in some ways, the mad scientist still reinforces the old idea of the bitter, antisocial little man building a;way in his basement.
Additional thoughts on the pejorative representation: Are there any female mad scientists? In our super thorough in-class survey, we couldn't think of any, except maybe the woman from Divergent, who seems to be in more of a management position. (More on depictions of female bosses as evil later, if you like.) If this is a gendered representation, it's possibly relevant to the huge gender war that's rearing its ugly head in the Hugos and in gamergate right now. Women don't find you attractive? Have trouble talking to them? That's okay: build your own perfect woman! (Or ogle Laura Croft and talk smack with your buddies online.) The fake girlfriend (or the nerd who finally gets the hot girl through trickery) are both really problematic tropes that assume a woman is nothing more than a body to be obtained. Nowhere in this depiction do we see the concept that it's good to talk to women because they have their own ideas and might actually be interesting in conversation. On the other hand, the unhinged, loser nerd stereotype does make life miserable for a lot of kids who go through school more interested in Science Olympiad than in baseball. When we perpetuate this image, we get communities of people--thinkers, inventors, sci fi fans--who feel ostracized themselves. I wonder if both groups--the women and the male sci-fi old guard--don't feel threatened.
Next time in class: Why you don't create life and then abandon when it doesn't live up to your beauty pageant expectations.
What are your thoughts about any of this?
