FEAR AND LOATHING IN ACADEMIA: CHALLENGING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE HUMANITIES IN THE MODERN UNIVERSITY by Lauren Jeanne DeGraffenreid A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana April 2010 © COPYRIGHT by Lauren Jeanne DeGraffenreid 2010 All Rights Reserved iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Lauren Jeanne DeGraffenreid April 2010 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TWO: “BACK OFF MAN, I’M A SCIENTIST!” WHY I CHOSE TO TOUCH THIS SUBJECT WITH CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN A TEN FOOT POLE........................1 2. WHAT WE HAVE HERE...IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE”: A BRIEF HISTORY OF AN INTERNECINE CONFLICT.............................................................29 3. QUE SAIS JE? STEPHEN JAY GOULD AND THE HUMANISTIC FIELD TRIP FOR SCIENCE.........................................................................................................................55 4. STOP COCKBLOCKING ME: GOULD, WILSON, AND THE FOXY REDHEAD AT THE END OF THE BAR.................................................................................................72 5. THE FORMLESS, MUTE, INFANT, AND TERRIFYING FORM OF MONSTROSITY: THE BIRTH OF PHILOSOPHY, SOCIOLOGY, AND THE RHETORIC OF SCIENCE.......................................................................................................................100 6. SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL: THE SPECTER OF RELIGION IN THE POPULAR SCIENCE NARRATIVE................................................................................................123 7. “IT’S JUST A JUMP TO THE LEFT” : ON THE BENEFITS OF BEING AN ACADEMIC TRANSVESTITE.....................................................................................154 v. ABSTRACT This paper examines the status of the conflict between science and the humanities in the context of modern university studies, and, through an examination of historical and disciplinary voices, suggests that such conflicts are not only needless, but unfounded as well. I propose a radical reorientation of the disciplines under the singular aegis of human cognition, and postulate that radical interdisciplinarity would lead not a dissolution of speciality, but rather to marked improvement in human epistemology. 1 CHAPTER 1 TWO: “BACK OFF MAN, I’M A SCIENTIST!”: WHY I CHOSE TO TOUCH THIS SUBJECT WITH CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN A TEN-FOOT POLE “We were somewhere around [a masters degree] when the drugs began to take hold...” -Hunter S. Thompson (well, sort of), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas “Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable; you are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman.” -Dean Yaeger, Ghostbusters “Maybe I shouldn’t be singing this song; ranting and raving and carry ing on. Maybe they’re right when they tell me I’m wrong....NAH!” -Dr. Denis Leary, “The Asshole Song,” No Cure For Cancer “Our present business is with inward preparation, especially the prepara tion of those who have ceased to be content with the old, and find no satisfaction in half measures. I have wished, and I still wish, to disturb no man’s peace of mind, no man’s beliefs; but only to point out to those in whom they are already shattered, the direction in which, in my conviction, firmer ground lies.” -D.F. Strauss, qtd by T.H. Huxley As a child, I once made a game of ramming a stick into a hornet’s nest and then running like hell. Needless to say, this was a bad idea (although it should be distinctly noted that I can run like the wind, and was only stung once, on the back of my left knee). As an undergraduate at Tulane, I frequently made a game of suggesting, in my own plac- idly infuriating way, that good expository writing in the field of comparative literature was not structurally different from the various forms of composition evinced by the hard sciences. After all, I would suggest time and again, both involve the presentation of hard 2 evidence in support of a theory. I meant only to provide evidence to this effect when I stated that I have unabashedly approached my scientific and humanistic journal articles heretofore with the exact same philosophical and rhetorical stance: I always 1) formulate a hypothesis 2) collect data 3) locate related scholarship and 4) explain why it matters (admittedly, this last one’s always been more of a challenge). Why were they getting up- set when they were told that what they held in their hands was actually a scientific paper, complete with abstract, and containing quotations and direct text instead of raw data? But as primal, incandescent rage filled venerable humanist eyes and untold scores of creaky formalists raised rusty scimitars, I would realize the amusing truth: I’m a slow learner. But as I attempted to parry the overweening thrusts of this new-age Army of Darkness and (only somewhat successfully, I confess) dodged the potent barbs of their domineering necromancer overlord, I wondered: why all the fuss over such a seemingly innocuous comparison? After all, students frequently charged Hamlet with being gay in my Shakespeare courses, and the professors never once projectile-vomited, nor (to my continued disappointment) did they commence violating themselves with Folger editions. Surely my claim wasn’t that outrageous. And besides, weren’t modern universities al- ways advertising the close working relationships between their various colleges and sub- sequent enrichment of their students? Was this all (gasp) mere lip service in reverence of the academic synergy gods? Did humanities and science faculty nod to one another as 3 they passed on the quad, only to hiss and make obscene gestures behind one another’s backs? Were silent alarms tripped when they tried to enter each other’s buildings? Did they put anti-humanist bear-traps by the coke machines and set anti-scientist claymores on the couches of the second-floor lounges? So, in the interest of full disclosure, I decided to ask. Ask my evolutionary biol- ogy professors, that is. Right smack in the middle of one of my evolutionary biology classes. In the presence of other evolutionary biology students. Because though I am pas- sionate about literature, I am, quite literally, a child of science. Geology and engineering have taken me around the world: I grew up in Malaysia and Venezuela. I’m a tomboy. I’m a geek. I like bugs, for heaven’s sake. I tend to collate data and look for trends and patterns and cause and effect (and once--swear to god--I had to reassure a cubicle-mate that I was not a robot, directly after an English professor told me my thought patterns re- sembled a computer algorithm). And, ironically, it is that quality that has made me an academically successful, professionally published scholar (my first humanistic paper was accepted for publication a semester before earning my masters degree): I am as compre- hensively thorough in my research as possible, and even my humanistic journal papers tend to read like validated hypotheses. But, as I said before, I am also a student of sci- ence. Since this doubtless will leave you quivering with antici....pation in regards to my personal viewpoints, I guess I might as well go for broke: I am a constructive empiricist: observation, evidence, and replicability are crucial for accurate interpretation of natural phenomena; of course, not all phenomena can be directly observed (as with atomic the 4 ory), but hypotheses can be validated if we can accurately and reliably predict the out- comes a theory explains (which is why metaphysics, religious ontology, and extreme postmodernism are all bunk). This is different from hard-line positivism, which teaches that only data we can perceive with our senses is reliable, that our theories must hold true for all times and places (obviously there are two grades of physics, so no) and that no human values can ever influence ‘true’ science. Nor am I a reductionist: like most mod- ern scientists, I do not believe that all human studies can be reduced to factors in a single, unilateral, big TOE (theory-of-everything). On the other hand, I do not believe that all disciplines inherently deal in separate, non-overlapping objectives and methods (Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA). To believe this is to hint at extreme postmodernism, particularly the belief that, in academia, there is never any common ground; that no human can ever understand or relate to the condition of any but his disci- plinary fellows. On the other hand, knowledge is socially constructed. And so, caveat emptor: if you are irrationally opposed to any of these concepts, you as may well set this book down now, and save yourself some time and petty cash. And now, back to our story. I came ready for a fight. Finally, the appropriate moment came. My lips parted. The question was posed. Silence for several milliseconds...my breath caught in my throat. My heart pounded. I listened for the soft squish of dozens of sphincters violently clamping shut...but it never came. And then--a miracle. The professor shrugged. “Yeah, I guess that makes sense.” My eyes opened wide. My palms sweated, ready for a sneak 5 attack. I hung on his next words, hearing them in epic slow-mo: “Okay, that wraps it up for today. See you next time.” Students (normal, flesh-clad ones) were rising to leave, packing up notebooks and chattering about the midterm. No one seemed to care.