Searching for SETI: The Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos John Marvin Bozeman Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Science and Technology Studies Janet A. Abbate, Co-Chair Shannon A. Brown, Co-Chair Lee L. Zwanziger Paul D. Renard March 24, 2015 Falls Church, Virginia Keywords: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, SETI, Actor Network Theory, Social Construction of Technology, Rational Choice Theory of Religion, Transhumanism, Xenosalvation Copyright John M. Bozeman Searching for SETI: The Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos John M. Bozeman ABSTRACT This dissertation uses Actor Network Theory (ANT) and Stark and Bainbridge’s rational choice theory of religion to analyze an established but controversial branch of science and technology, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Of particular interest are the cultural, and sometimes religious, assumptions that its creators have built into it. The purpose of this analysis is not to discredit SETI, but instead to show how SETI, along with other avant-garde scientific projects, is founded, motivated, and propelled by many of the same types of values and visions for the future that motivate the founders of religious groups. I further argue that the utopian zeal found in SETI and similar movements is not aberrant, but instead common, and perhaps necessary, in many early- stage projects, whether technical or spiritual, which lack a clear near-term commercial or social benefit. DEDICATION In memory of my parents, James E. and Ann Bozeman, who taught me to appreciate that which may not be quickly understood. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In addition to the members of my committee, I would like to thank Charles and Laura Twardy, Chris and Alexis Long, Sondra Eklund, Carlo Lancellotti, Barbara Papendorp, and David Erekson for their reading, comments, and discussion of drafts of some or all of this work. I would also like to express my appreciation to Ellen Bouton, Archivist of the National Radio Astronomy in Charlottesville for her assistance with my research there, and also to Dr. Ken Kellermann for taking the time to discuss radio astronomy and SETI history. Thanks also go to Marc Letourneau of the Raelian religion for answering questions about the fine points of the faith. I also wish to thank Debbie Cash, head of the Northern Virginia Center Resource Center, Lavona Suppes, Cynthia Worthen, Lan Nguyen, Tod Levitt, Barbara Reeves, of Virginia Tech, fellow Virginia Tech graduate students Merc Fox and Stephanie Mawler, Art Fricke, Elisa Everts, and Mark Dreisonstok for their encouragement at various points along the way. I would like to express my gratitude to Susan J. Palmer of Dawson College, Brian Pfaffenberger, W. Bernard Carlson, and the late Jeffrey K. Hadden of the University of Virginia, David Bromley of Virginia Commonwealth University, Leo Sandon of Florida State University, and Dennis E. Owen of the University of Florida, for sparking and encouraging my interest in religious movements and their place and function within society, and Gabriel Bitton, Ben Koopman, Robert Schmidt, and Waltraud Dunn of the University of Florida for their role in my graduate scientific education in environmental science and microbiology. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 1 References…………………………………………………………...……………...29 The Social Construction of Aliens and Their Technologies: An Actor Network Theory Analysis in Two Movements………………………………………………………. 34 Transhumanism and Xenosalvation: Two Varieties of the Technological Millenarian Experience…………………………………………………………………………..86 References………………………………………………………………………….115 To Infinity and Beyond! What SETI and Other Speculative Technologies Teach Us…………………………………………………………….121 References………………………………………………………………………….147 Appendix of Sources……………………………………………………………….151 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Percival Lowell, circa 1907-1909……………………………………74 Figure 2 - An illustration of imagined monumental Martian technology……….75 Figure 3 - Nieman and Nieman’s plan for pictographic encoding…………..….76 Figure 4 - Illustration of how a schematic image of a man could be produced by expanding to a 100x100 matrix……………………………………………….…76 Figure 5 - The Arecibo transmission of 1974.…………………………….…….77 vi “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” – Proverbs. 29:18a KJV INTRODUCTION Some two decades ago I attended a scholarly conference on the sociology of religion where I had the privilege of seeing a paper delivered by Susan J. Palmer, a scholar of new religious movements. In her analysis of a new age group called the Institute for Applied Metaphysics, she noted that the leader of the group, an older woman, had a partner some two decades younger. Over time a trend developed within the community in which such pairings were seen as being a sign of spiritual advancement within the group, even though this practice was not initially directly related to the core beliefs of the group. Palmer observed that founders of new religious movements not only imprinted upon the group, but could also use their movements as avenues through which to explore both personal concerns and also to experiment with possible solutions to social concerns shared with the broader society (Palmer 1994:105-32 and 209-64). Later, when I moved into the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) I was struck how parallels exist between persons founding new religious groups and persons starting new scientific and technological enterprises. In each case a founder or group of founders see a need that is not being met by society; strategies and techniques are then formulated to garner the resources required to address this perceived need. My intention in this project has thus been to choose an established but still controversial branch of science and technology—the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)-- and examine the reasons that SETI was seen as a worthy and important venture by its organizers and participants for a period lasting more than a century. In particular I wish to 1 examine the underlying cultural, and sometimes religious, assumptions that its creators have built into it. My purpose in doing this is not to discredit SETI or any of the other avant-garde technologies discussed in this dissertation. Generally speaking, the researchers and technologists discussed in this dissertation took pains to ensure that their work did, and does not, violate generally accepted scientific or technological principles of their respective eras, claims which I for the most part accept.1 Rather, I am concerned more 1 I do not mean to say that I necessarily agree with the aims and goals of their research; I am asserting that researchers and technologists conformed to the dictates of scientific and technological material rationality of their time periods and should thus be deemed “scientific.” In contrast, many of the more spiritually- oriented groups mentioned later in this dissertation (Swedenborgians, Raelians, UFO-centric religions, etc.) generally hold that such constraints and limitations are overly limiting, and are thus willing to operate outside of such boundaries. While some scientists and philosophers of science would call the latter group “pseudoscience,” I am reluctant to do so because the term is invariably used in a hostile and disparaging manner (Gordin 2012:206-12); rather, I feel that that term “extrascientific” (“beyond the bounds of accepted science”) more useful. Another concern with the scientific and technological groups with I discuss here is not that they are not “real” scientists, but rather that they are involved in “pathological science” (science undertaken by a scientist of pure intent, but betrayed by self-delusion) or “junk science” (science undertaken by a scientist of pure intent, and which does not contradict accepted science, but which is under-supported by hard data, or which is simply unimportant and thus a waste of money) (Park 2000:9, 69). Individual self-delusion is readily recognized as being a threat in all ventures, both scientific or not; however, collective broad-scale self-delusion, I would argue, is more complex, and appears to be much more readily detectible after the fact, than at the time. The breadth of the applicability of the term “junk science,” on the other hand, suggests that is in effect a subjective and invariably negative evaluation that states more about the emotional state of the speaker than about the thing described, as it does not seem to be possible to define junk science through a list of key core characteristics. Park, for example, holds that ESP research is junk science because it attempts to extract a tiny, and perhaps non-existent, signal out of background noise, often with contradictory results between research groups; however, he views research on global climate change, which similarly seeks to extract a tiny, and perhaps non-existent signal out of background noise, often with contradictory results between research groups, with forbearance. In a different realm, physicist C. Everitt (1992) writes with obvious satisfaction about his work on Gravity Probe B, a satellite designed to test certain aspects of theory of general relativity using gyroscopes. Everitt wrote with obvious pleasure about the “elegance” of the solutions to a variety of technological challenges; eventually the probe was launched