The Laboratory of Science
In general, after reading the variety of texts we have encountered thus far, I have become somewhat overwhelmed with trying , in addition to comprehending the texts, to distinguish the readings and their main themes from each other. Therefore, clearly there are some overlying themes that connect these texts beyond just the content regarding the idea of the experiment.
One major connection that I was able to draw is in many of our readings there is a defined place to study science. In Hawthorne's The Birthmark, Aylmer and Aminadab had an isolated "laboratory" full of magical elixirs and poisons. When Georgiana was taken out there, the scientific arena seemed so foreign to her, establishing a clear division between the study of science and everything else, which also includes the practice of these experiments as well. In Bacon's The New Atlantis, we find a similar place in Salomon's House, which has "three of these..." and "two of those" to enhance their study of science. Generalizing this common theme, we could even include the Royal Society in these places where science is studied. While some of these are institutions and others are actual houses/rooms, these texts clearly represent the use of a "laboratory" of science.
Going along with this laboratory to study science, we can see through these same examples that in many cases the laboratory is entirely exclusive and/or foreign. In The Birthmark, Georgiana was so out of place in Aylmer's study rooms, glaring at the potions on the wall as if she were deciphering a foreign language. Similarly, in Bacon's writing, the reader enters the situation from the beginning as an outsider on this Utopian world. Finally, in class we discussed the exclusivity of the Royal Society, comparing the social status of the writers discussing the contemporary issues. The question that comes to mind is why is science discussed as only something for the elite, be it elite of mind or elite of status?
What distinguishes those who can study science from those who cannot? While this question doesn't have a clear answer in our texts, Parrish's writing seems to possess underlying analogies comparing the exploitation of slaves and women to the exploitation of nature for our benefit. Parrish writes, "[t]hey had seen the persistent allegorization of 'Nature' as a naked female body laid open to male investigation" (17). From this statement we can derive both that women probably were amongst this group generally excluded from the "laboratory" of science (with the exception of Cavendish and a few others), and we can also note the theory behind science, to understand nature in order to manipulate it further. The dilemma we thus arrive at is: where do we draw the line between science and technology? And therefore, maybe science isn't a harmful investigation, technology may just be an immoral manipulation.
One major connection that I was able to draw is in many of our readings there is a defined place to study science. In Hawthorne's The Birthmark, Aylmer and Aminadab had an isolated "laboratory" full of magical elixirs and poisons. When Georgiana was taken out there, the scientific arena seemed so foreign to her, establishing a clear division between the study of science and everything else, which also includes the practice of these experiments as well. In Bacon's The New Atlantis, we find a similar place in Salomon's House, which has "three of these..." and "two of those" to enhance their study of science. Generalizing this common theme, we could even include the Royal Society in these places where science is studied. While some of these are institutions and others are actual houses/rooms, these texts clearly represent the use of a "laboratory" of science.
Going along with this laboratory to study science, we can see through these same examples that in many cases the laboratory is entirely exclusive and/or foreign. In The Birthmark, Georgiana was so out of place in Aylmer's study rooms, glaring at the potions on the wall as if she were deciphering a foreign language. Similarly, in Bacon's writing, the reader enters the situation from the beginning as an outsider on this Utopian world. Finally, in class we discussed the exclusivity of the Royal Society, comparing the social status of the writers discussing the contemporary issues. The question that comes to mind is why is science discussed as only something for the elite, be it elite of mind or elite of status?
What distinguishes those who can study science from those who cannot? While this question doesn't have a clear answer in our texts, Parrish's writing seems to possess underlying analogies comparing the exploitation of slaves and women to the exploitation of nature for our benefit. Parrish writes, "[t]hey had seen the persistent allegorization of 'Nature' as a naked female body laid open to male investigation" (17). From this statement we can derive both that women probably were amongst this group generally excluded from the "laboratory" of science (with the exception of Cavendish and a few others), and we can also note the theory behind science, to understand nature in order to manipulate it further. The dilemma we thus arrive at is: where do we draw the line between science and technology? And therefore, maybe science isn't a harmful investigation, technology may just be an immoral manipulation.
posted by Anonymous at 4:39 AM
2 Comments:
don't get overwhelmed! you've touched on many great points here and I'm so glad you've brought up this issue about the laboratory (something I hoped to address in class this past week).
I have been thinking about this weird liminal (in-between) space in Aylmer's lab, those rooms where Georgiana is brought into before she is ushered into the dark, dirty, furnace-lit space of the lab, proper. Do you remember those rooms? Aylmer has made sure they are sweet-smelling and filled with lots of nice, "feminine" things to make Georgiana comfortable. This might be a good place to go to think further about the issues of gender that you bring up in relation to the lab.
And your questions about who does and who does not get to be in the laboratory will continue to be relevant in our future readings, especially once we get to the nineteenth century texts.
I do not agree with the view that science and technology are "immoral manipulations." I'm sure that there have been instances where scientists may have done some immoral deeds; however, a majority of science and technology is dedicated to improving humanity. Scientists conduct research through experiments and come up with theories to explain the properties of nature they are seeing. They seek to understand how nature works, so they can manipulate it to benefit humanity. For example, scientific research has led to better medicines and other life saving treatments that result in prolonged life expectancy.
I think "immoral manipulation" is the antonym of the role science serves in our society. Yes, it is a manipulation, but a manipulation that serves to help people, which I would consider to be a very moral reason.
Post a Comment
<< Home