Intertext

Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 9

2017

The Scientist: Hero or Villain?

Charlotte Oestrich Syracuse University

Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext

Part of the Nonfiction Commons

Recommended Citation Oestrich, Charlotte (2017) "The Scientist: Hero or Villain?," Intertext: Vol. 25 : Iss. 1 , Article 9. Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol25/iss1/9

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Intertext by an authorized editor of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Oestrich: The Scientist: Hero or Villain?

Charlotte Oestrich

s prevalent as the scientist is in modern cinema and culture, depictions of the character A have not changed much since its earliest introduction. Sometimes good, but usually por- trayed as “mad,” scientists work to uncover the unknown and are not afraid to accept the con- sequences of their theories. As Christopher Frayling writes, the scientist is usually depicted as a “very intelligent [person]–a genius or almost a genius… [They know their] subject… [They are] prepared to work for years without getting results and face the possibility of failure with- INTERTEXT 2017 | 17 Published by SURFACE, 2017 1 Intertext, Vol. 25 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 9

out discouragement; [They] will try again” ies of knowledge and styles of knowl- (12). When we are asked to describe a sci- edge. The gap has usually been filled by entist, our minds often move to stereotypical stereotypical representations of one depictions gathered from films; rarely do we kind or another. (11) consider how the nature of scientists’ experi- This gap between different types of knowl- ments and knowledge shapes their core iden- edge results in problematic representations tity. Many times, the public cannot explain of the scientist as the public attempts to the discoveries of scientists, but it appreciates make sense of what it does not understand. the work nonetheless. Our understanding of Put another way, the public makes up for scientists is socially constructed, often de- the knowledge it lacks with varying depic- pending on the knowledge they advance and tions—often stereotypes—of scientists that the value or threat we see in it. While the characterize their intentions in various ways. gap in knowledge between the public and Whether a contemplative natural philoso- the scientific community can create anxiet- pher, a potential hero, or a villain with an ies regarding the impact of technology, it can “obsessive desire to tamper with things that also lead scientists to be viewed as potential are best left alone,” a scientist, or at least our heroes or villains depending on the nature of notion of one, can be explained by under- their knowledge. standing different conceptions of knowl- As the character of the scientist remains edge: explanatory and exploratory (Frayling constant across time, anxieties about their 36). The anxieties associated with exploring seemingly God-like understanding of the scientific discoveries rather than explaining universe raise questions of whether they scientific knowledge have become prominent will use this knowledge for good or evil, and through the portrayal of the scientist in me- what will happen if their findings fall into dia. The characterization of the scientist as a the wrong hands. In Mad, Bad, and Dangerous? trustworthy hero or a threatening villain can The Scientist and the Cinema, Christopher be attributed to the public misconception Frayling explores the presence of the scien- of science and the subsequent marking of tist as the “unworldly saint” or “dotty sinner,” explanatory knowledge. While explanatory attributing this divergence to a gap in knowl- knowledge is perceived as positive because edge between the public and the scientific it cannot be read as potentially harmful, ex- community: ploratory knowledge is vilified because it can The gap between specialized knowl- lead to unknown consequences. edge and public understanding lies at Scientists are held on a high moral ground the root of most fictional cinematic rep- because of their above-average intelligence. resentations of the scientist—special- They possess the ability to understand con- ized knowledge in the restricted sense cepts beyond the capacities of the average of technical data, and in the broader individual, and they are therefore assumed sense of specialized ways of thinking to hold an ethical responsibility to ensure and specialized scientific communities that knowledge is not used for acts of evil. that legitimate the thinking as well: bod- In Screams of Reason, David Skal explains the 18 https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol25/iss1/9 2 Oestrich: The Scientist: Hero or Villain?

infamous stereotypical characteristics of in daily life. It is difficult for many people to the scientist as a means of commenting on understand how these theories work, but that universal “themes and social issues,” which is part of the reason why the public viewed speak to the social and cultural concerns of the knowledge Einstein discovered positively. intelligence (3). He contends that the scien- When explanatory knowledge is released to tist has “served as a lightning rod for other- the public, the public uses what it doesn’t wise unbearable anxieties about the meaning understand to form a positive attitude to- of scientific thinking and the uses and conse- ward the scientist, assuming the work must quences of modern technology” (18). be good if so few can understand it and even Most anxieties regarding scientific think- fewer can make use of it. ing derive from a form of discovery knowl- However, questions regarding how the edge—knowledge that arises out of sheer scientific community expands its knowl- human curiosity, usually revolving around edge have raised concerns in regard to themes of changing humanity, breaking who should have access to that specialized the boundaries of the human body, going knowledge and for what reasons it can be against the laws of nature, and even poten- utilized. During the Cold War era, an un- tially destroying mankind. The difference told number of people feared the atom between a scientist’s explaining the laws of bomb and the risk of nuclear war. During the universe and exploring the capabilities of this time, many fictional portrayals of the the universe tends to lead the public to view scientist played up the fear of nuclear war. that scientist in a positive or negative light, For example, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. No differing between potential hero or potential represented scientists as villains who had villain. Public acceptance of and perspec- lost touch with humanity. More important, tive on scientists depend greatly on under- such anxieties are reflected in discussions of standing what they are trying to accomplish J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Man- with their experiments, which is a difficult hattan Project. Oppenheimer, credited with notion to grasp considering the gap between creating the atomic bomb, will forever hold public knowledge and that of the scientific a moral and technological burden due to community. his achieving scientific fame by “selling his The differences between explanatory and soul to the devil” in return for the ability to exploratory knowledge are most prevalent play God and use the power of the stars to when we examine the differing attitudes produce nuclear fission (Knust 129). - Dur toward the work of Albert Einstein and J. ing the early part of the twentieth century, Robert Oppenheimer on atoms. The public nuclear energy was a field not many scien- has accepted Einstein’s intelligence largely tists were comfortable exploring because because of the complicated and seemingly of the unprecedented harm that could be harmless nature of his work. The equation done if something went wrong. It was also E=mc² became a trademark of Einstein’s misunderstood by the public because of its work with atoms, though not many can ex- complicated and secret nature, and little was

Layout by Kathryn Kawasoe. Opening spread: “Einstein” by Flickr user KylaBorg, CC by 2.0: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylaborg/14052700066. 2.0: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylaborg/14052700066. CC by Flickr “Einstein” by user KylaBorg, Opening spread: Kathryn Kawasoe. by Layout plain what it means or how it can be utilized done to bridge the gap between the scientific INTERTEXT 2017 | 19 Published by SURFACE, 2017 3 Intertext, Vol. 25 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 9

community and the public. have had devious intentions related to the Since nuclear knowledge has often been pursuit of scientific discovery. Such anxiet- villainized since its creation, Oppenheimer’s ies have been reflected and amplified across “character” is that of a villain, primarily be- media because scientists are often portrayed cause he fulfills the role of the helpless sci- as having a nefarious curiosity and a taste entist who has “lost control either over [a] for disaster (Frayling 12). The quintessen- discovery…or, as frequently happens in war tial mad scientist, Victor Frankenstein, has times, over the direction of its implementa- been misunderstood and vilified because of tion” (Holderman 219). Rather than explor- his exploration into breaking the barriers ing the relations between atoms as Einstein of the human body and blurring the lines did, Oppenheimer explored the tangible ap- between life and death, both topics that fos- plication of this knowledge and, as a result, ter unease. cost over two hundred thousand people their In her 1818 novel, Mary Shelley introduc- lives and lost the public’s confidence (Frayling es Dr. Victor Frankenstein as a prominent 13). Although Oppenheimer would not have and respectable young scientist who develops used his discoveries to attack others, as the an obsession with finding the knowledge to fictional Dr. Strangelove or Dr. No would, animate matter. Dr. Frankenstein embodies he is nonetheless a villain due to his desire the scientist as an idealist “engaged in con- to toy with dangerous knowledge and his flict with a technology-based system that lack of help during its devastating utiliza- fails to provide for individual human values” tion. Even though his work stemmed from (Haynes 219). In Gothic versus Romantic: A Re- Einstein’s, the innate differences in the tangi- valuation of the Gothic Novel, Robert Hume re- ble application of the knowledge fed into the examines the classic novel and ponders the cultural and societal fear of intellectual dis- relationship between knowledge, discovery, coveries being used for purposes other than and the effect of such actions: for the undeniable good of society. Despite As the novel advances[,] we recognize the fact that the public could not understand that [Frankenstein] has a half-mad un- the knowledge of Oppenheimer or Einstein, derstanding that the monster is enact- they could visually see the physical effects ing in objective form the implications of using Oppenheimer’s knowledge and of his own inhumanity…. Senseless punished his personal character. Einstein, butchery by an inhumane monster in contrast, remained sheltered by his hero would be frightening, but no more; status, and little attention was drawn to the here it is not senseless, but all too rea- similarities of the two. sonable. (286) The possibility of everlasting fame is In saying this, Hume relates the havoc enough to lead many scientists to seek a caused by Frankenstein’s monster, objectify- God-like status, so they continue to pursue ing his own inadequacies along with the un- complicated, questionable work that is not derlying fears and anxieties of society. The always welcomed. Often, the public falls vic- society in the novel condemns Dr. Franken- tim to the impression that the scientist must stein because it does not understand how, 20 https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol25/iss1/9 4 Oestrich: The Scientist: Hero or Villain?

or why, such a being would be created. Dr. the mechanisms of the universe—explana- Frankenstein has no reason to explore such tions without negative implications for man- knowledge other than to break through the kind, often too specialized for the public to ideal bonds and “pour a torrent of light into understand—are viewed as heroes because our dark world,” seeking fame and recogni- of the potential good offered by their dis- tion in place of humility and purpose (286). coveries. On the contrary, those who pursue The greatest anxieties of his society arose knowledge without an explicit good purpose from Dr. Frankenstein’s obsessively trying are viewed as villains. While Einstein was to discover reanimation, toying with knowl- awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics for his edge “not properly belonging to man” for contribution to the understanding of energy, the sake of a scientific breakthrough (286). Oppenheimer has been criticized because of As with Oppenheimer’s work, the effects of his utilization and application of energy-re- Frankenstein’s were visible and explored the lated knowledge. Scientists may always carry limitations of humankind rather than ex- the stigma of being detached from society plaining human functionality. and hell-bent on finding solutions regardless At first, Dr. Frankenstein can be seen as a of ethics, but they shape their own character potential hero—he is warm, dedicated, and based on whether they choose to explain or working for reasons other than glory—but explore and the value the public places on he soon becomes a “brain,” spending most what they do. of his time alone in his laboratory seeking knowledge not understood or accepted by Works Cited many others. He begins to seek knowledge Frayling, Christopher. Mad, Bad and not for “theory and understanding” but for Dangerous? The Scientist and the Cinema. “heightened sensory experience,” exploring London: Reaktion, 2005. life and death rather than working to explain Holderman, Lisa. Common Sense: it (Frayling 37). Although knowledge explain- Intelligence as Presented on Popular Television. ing the human body is encouraged and pri- Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008. marily viewed in a positive light, its limita- Hume, Robert D. “Gothic Versus tions and boundaries are rarely questioned. Romantic: A Revaluation of the Gothic Because of all the faults in his experiment, Novel.” PMLA 84.2 (1969): 282–90. the knowledge that allowed Dr. Frankenstein Knust, Herbert. “From Faust to to create artificial life does not have an ex- Oppenheimer: The Scientist’s Pact with plicitly positive impact on public knowledge, the Devil.” Journal of European Studies, nor does it bridge the gap between the public 13.1 (1983): 122-41. and the scientific community, unlike the work Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein or, of Einstein. The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text. Knowledge is extremely subjective; the Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. way in which scientists advance knowledge is Skal, David J. Screams of Reason: Mad Science the basis for how they will be viewed by the and Modern Culture. New York: public. Those who use knowledge to explain Norton, 1998. INTERTEXT 2017 | 21 Published by SURFACE, 2017 5