From Faust to Strangelove

TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 623 FromFaust to Strangelove: Representations ofthe Scientist in Western Litera­ ture. By Roslynn D. Haynes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Pp. ix+417; illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $55.00 (cloth); $19.95 (paper). This work presents the first book-length, historical treatment of the depiction ofscientists and science in Western literature. It covers the period from the Middle Ages to the late 20th century, draws on a wide range of traditional literary sources, and includes substantial references to science-fiction stories and popular films. The image of the scientist in Western culture owes more to books and movies than it does to the lives of actual scientists. With the exception of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie, the achievements and characteristics ofworking scientists are largely un­ known to the general public. When real scientists are depicted popu­ larly, their images are based on stereotypes drawn from their fic­ tional counterparts. Roslynn D. Haynes has identified six recurring stereotypes of sci­ entists that deserve special attention. The earliest image is that of the obsessed or maniacal alchemist, driven to explore arcane myster­ ies in his laboratory. This figure has returned in modern garb as the sinister biologist whose specialty is genetic engineering. After the alchemist, who first appeared in the late Middle Ages, came the stupid virtuoso of the 17th century. This scientist is so de­ voted to the minutiae of his research that he has lost the ability to participate in normal social relationships. The stupid virtuoso ofear­ lier times is recognized as the absent-minded scientist/professor of today. These scientists are more comic than dangerous, yet by ignor­ ing their social responsibilities they become moral failures by de­ fault. Writers ofthe early 19th century created one ofthe most enduring scientific characters—the unfeeling scientist, who has renounced human relationships and suppressed human feelings in order to concentrate on his work. Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein is the ar­ chetypical image of the inhuman scientist who brings disaster to himselfand those around him. Despite his emotional and moral fail­ ings, the unfeeling scientist has gained some sympathy in popular circles because it is assumed that his exclusive devotion to science is required of anyone who pursues a scientific career. Closely related to Dr. Frankenstein is the helpless scientist—one who, through no fault of his own, has lost control over his scientific discoveries. These discoveries quickly assume monstrous features and threaten social stability and the lives ofinnocent citizens. In this instance the dangers are generated by the nature of the scientific enterprise and not by the personal failings of the scientist. The final two images—the heroic adventurer and the scientist as idealist—are products of the 20th century and are more positive than the first four examples. The scientist as hero and adventurer 624 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE is a staple ofcomic books and science fiction produced for ajuvenile audience willing to accept cardboard characterizations of the scien­ tist as a heroic explorer. By contrast, the scientist as idealist appears in works destined for a more mature and socially aware audience. This scientist, motivated by idealistic or utopian visions, is a socially conscious individual, critical of his profession and willing to modify scientific research for the public good. He is usually encountered in the higher levels of literary production and not in popular books, movies, and television shows. Except for the last two depictions, the stereotypes outlined above disclose ambiguous individuals who, if not always sinister and dan­ gerous, are nevertheless engaged in activities ultimately harmful to society. Whatever their ultimate aims, all of the stereotypical scien­ tists are male. Apart from Marie Curie, it is difficult to recall another female scientist, real or fictional, familiar to a wide audience. Haynes has adopted a chronological approach in her analysis of the six stereotypes. This raises some problems in her discussion of the early period, when a small number of individuals pursued scien­ tific interests. Therefore, Haynes fills her early chapters with ex­ tended accounts of the history of science. Unfortunately, this is a canned history ofscience, and one marred by errors offact and inter­ pretation. If the historian of science

Alchemy · Art · Art history · Depiction · Index (typography) · Literature · Popular culture · Western culture · Classics · History · Science Education and Perceptions