Main questions from our discussion:
- Who is the author and how do their biases shape the content they create/how they view and report on the world?
- What are the intentions/motivations of showcasing bias and what are the actual results?
- How can we think about gender and science?
- What does it mean to become a scientist?
Our class was very aware that a piece of writing cannot be completely understood without knowing who wrote it and why he or she wrote it in the way he or she did. Starting with Sharon Traweek, we analyzed her feminist tone and her focus on the masculine construction of physicists. Traweek is an Associate Professor at UCLA in history and has previously taught anthropology (Rice) and a program of science, technology and society (MIT). She has her PhD in History of Consciousness from UC Santa Cruz. Though not explicit, her writing on the world of high energy physicists is tinged with her own biases and agenda. Our class honed in on her feminist angle and questioned whether this was a fair representation of the high energy physics community, ultimately determining that her account derives from individual circumstances in that field of work and has made a conscious decision to focus on a specific subject with the intent to very explicitly divulge the hypermasculinities fostered in the physics world. We focused on her descriptions of "hero worship", individualism and "son of a bitch" qualities that are required for success as a high energy physicist. Undergraduates are molded and shaped, transformed and inculcated with certain values that are perpetuated by textbooks, the legends of hero scientists and by "mentors" themselves. These values are indicators of "good" scientists and happen to reflect a "masculine" character (a son of a bitch). Where did this discussion of masculinity come from and is it changing today? In textbooks there are the stories of pioneers, following a trope of conquest and discovery and phallic imagery which often times results in the erasure of people through the perpetuation of gender norms. Traweek argues that "physics is a story of men" woven into the fabric of the community and reproduced in the rearing of new physicists; however, is her approach helpful? In simply describing the problems, is this changing the system? She says that women and minorities should not enter this world because they should not/would not be subordinated; but, in self-exclusion is the reinforcement of male-traits in the physics community being challenged?
Our discussion of H. Gusterson, who has a background in anthropology, international affairs and national security, also began by examining the way that the had chosen to present his biases in his writing. Our class characterized his voice as "honest", "candid" and "humble", genuine in his transparent trajectory. He discusses his own transformation in tandem with his analysis of the moral mentality of nuclear weapons scientists. His work was especially difficult due to the fact that his subjects were doing restricted work and instead sought other avenues to conduct his research: reading their publications, eating in their cafeteria, going on public visits, living with them and conducting formal interviews. He focused on the socialization in the lab and how culture is reproduced by institutions. Gusterson was specifically focused on the moral economy of these scientists and nuclear ethics and, as a class, we determined that they are consequentialists, focused on the ultimate result of their actions (deterrence) and not the actual act itself (making a bomb). Their focus is on the stability and predictability of the weapon (its overall safety). The use of euphemisms divorce the actors from the nature of their acts; language is used to normalize their controversial work. These scientists are also inculcated with values specific to this community - namely confidentiality and an individual negotiation of morality. There is a demonstrated solidarity to science and a generalized distrust of outsiders.
Last we discussed B. Good's study of the socialization of medical students. He is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard University with a focus on mental health and was commissioned to do this study to determine the success of Harvard's pathways program. Medical students are taught to see the world differently via symbolic construction ultimately learning to see, write and speak differently. Each of these behaviors is a learned performance, based in the biomedical understanding of medicine and the human body. Our class discussed the way that cases and bodies are presented to other physicians in comparison to the way they talk to patients and the changing value placed on "standardized patients." Doctors are encouraged to humanize patients by talking to them; however, there may be other forces (health care reform, insurance, etc.) that work to reinforce the "standardized patient". These formative processes result in a symbolic reality, a social construction of a new reality and understanding of the human body, which reflects the morals and expectations of our society. This soteriological vision illustrates a western view of suffering, which can be transcended/redeemed with good health, thereby reducing human suffering. Lastly, we discussed the debatable gender parity in the field of medicine compared to physicists.
In conclusion we acknowledged that authors form their arguments by using the tools and evidence that they have on hand. Gender in science is not balanced or equal, as gendered norms are built into the expectations and values of that scientific community. Science can reflect our society's greater values and incorporate a specific view of the world. Becoming a scientist is a learned process through which individuals are inculcated with specific frameworks of thought and enter exclusive communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment