Ambivalent Modernity: Scientists in Film and the Public Eye
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Open Access Dissertations 9-2010 Ambivalent Modernity: Scientists in Film and the Public Eye Stacy Evans University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Stacy, "Ambivalent Modernity: Scientists in Film and the Public Eye" (2010). Open Access Dissertations. 278. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/278 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMBIVALENT MODERNITY: SCIENTISTS IN FILM AND THE PUBLIC EYE A Dissertation Presented by Stacy Evans Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2010 Department of Sociology © by Stacy Evans 2010 All Rights Reserved AMBIVALENT MODERNITY: SCIENTISTS IN FILM AND THE PUBLIC EYE A Dissertation Presented by Stacy Evans Approved as to style and content by: _________________________________________________ N. J. Demerath III, Chair _________________________________________________ Paul Hollander, Member _________________________________________________ Randall Stokes, Member _________________________________________________ Donald deB. Beaver, Member ________________________________________________ Joya Misra, Acting Department Chair Sociology DEDICATION To two incredible women who, each in their own way, made this possible. Eleanor Estelle Fowler Evans and Roberta M. Eldridge Miller ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Jay Demerath, my chair, for his invaluable help and insightful commentary throughout this process. I would also like to thank Paul Hollander for encouraging the idea that started this project and for his thoughtful commentary over all of the work we did together. I would like to thank Randall Stokes and Donald Beaver for all of their comments, big and small, which helped improve this work. I could not have completed this work without the support of my parents, Marty and Jef Evans, who have always encouraged me, and the kindness and understanding of my siblings, Craig, Kirsten, and Eric. I am also permanently indebted to Amy Stephenson for her unfailing support and insightful comments on the process. I would like to thank my husband, Ruben Puentedura, who not only lived through this with me, but listened unendingly to ideas and concerns, made my technology transparent, and read countless versions. This work would not exist without his support, commentary, and wisdom. Finally, I would like to thank Claire Evans Puentedura, who arrived late in the process, for making me laugh when I most needed to and giving me an additional reason for finishing this project. v ABSTRACT AMBIVALENT MODERNITY: SCIENTISTS IN FILM AND THE PUBLIC EYE SEPTEMBER 2010 STACY EVANS, B.A., WELLESLEY COLLEGE M.P.P., KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor N. J. Demerath, III Scientists are widely regarded as high status individuals, who are smarter than the vast majority of the population. Science holds a very high status as a discipline, both within and outside of academe. This notwithstanding, popular stereotypes of scientists are often highly negative, with the image of the socially inept or even mad scientist being commonplace. This apparent contradiction is worth exploring. Additionally, we see the label scientific being used to justify pseudoscience and other results that are flatly contradicted by the bulk of scientific research (e.g., links between vaccines and autism). This is not due, as some argue, only or even primarily to a lack of understanding of science. Ultimately, there are two "sciences": science defined by the scientific methodology of the scientists, and the broader cultural use of science as a truth- teller without real use of scientific methodology. This dichotomy is wrapped up in both the nature of modernity and the idea of post-modernity. This research uses a content analysis of film to examine the nature of stereotypical portrayals of scientists, and a factor analysis of NSF survey data to investigate the complex attitudes towards science and scientists. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................v ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1. SCIENCE AS METHODOLOGY VS. SCIENCE AS RITUAL: COMPETING UNDERSTANDING.........................................................................................1 Literature.......................................................................................................5 The Research.................................................................................................14 2. IMAGES OF SCIENTISTS: EXAMINING FILMs ..........................................19 Methodology .................................................................................................26 Summary .......................................................................................................34 3. MAD SCIENTIST, INCOMPETENT SCIENTIST: IMAGES IN FILMS.........36 Scientist Identification and Type..................................................................36 Geeks and Nerds: Personal Characteristics of the Scientist ........................39 Scientists Messing Up: Problem Creation ....................................................42 Creating Monsters...................................................................................44 Scientific Arrogance ................................................................................45 Business Abuses Science .........................................................................46 The Environmental Exception ................................................................47 vii Ineffectual Scientists: Problem Solution ......................................................48 Giving Up Science: Recovery of Identity ......................................................52 Summary .......................................................................................................55 4. UNDISCRIMINATING SUPPORT: POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE .........................................................................................................56 Methodology .................................................................................................57 The Pro-Science Factor.................................................................................61 Describing the Pro-Science Factor ...............................................................63 Science in the Abstract............................................................................63 Science in Practice...................................................................................64 Science in Application.............................................................................65 Overall Science Receives Overwhelming Support........................................66 Influencing the Factor: Attitudes, Beliefs, and a Bit of Knowledge.............68 Lower Factor Scores: Distribution A ......................................................69 Higher Factor Scores: Distribution B .....................................................75 Summary ....................................................................................................79 5. THE THREAT OF SCIENCE: NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE..........................................................................................................82 Describing the Anti-Science Factor ..............................................................83 Religion vs. Science .................................................................................83 The Dangers of Science ...........................................................................86 Science Degrades Our Lifestyle...............................................................87 Pseudoscience..........................................................................................87 viii Scientists as Outcasts ..............................................................................89 Religion and Other Fears About Modernity Seen in the Factor ..................89 Influencing The Factor: Attitudes, Beliefs, and a Bit of Knowledge............95 Knowledge ...............................................................................................96 Attitudes ..................................................................................................98 Pseudoscience..........................................................................................99 Demographics..........................................................................................100 Summary ....................................................................................................100 6. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................102