HST 427/527, Science
Fictions (Topics in History of Science)
Portland State University, Spring 2010
Instructor: Richard H. Beyler
Tel.: 503.725.3996 • E-mail: r [dot] beyler [at] pdx [dot] edu • Web
homepage web.pdx.edu.~drrb
Drop-in office hours: Tu 14:00-15:15; otherwise by appointment • Cramer 441-O
Class meets M 17:30-21:00 in Shattuck 242 • Blackboard site via www.psuonline.pdx.edu
Synopsis. Our object of study is the portrayal
of science and scientists in literature and other cultural forms from
the 18th
to the 20th centuries. We
will be concerned with the ways in which these representations have
reflected
the changing social role of science and, in some cases, taken on the
status of
cultural myths.
By “cultural
myth” we mean a concept which comes to be a widely shared assumption in
a given
society. A cultural myth can be seen as
an expression of pervasive, often unspoken aspirations and anxieties. In our case, we are concerned with cultural
myths concerning humans’ knowledge of nature and control of nature. From time immemorial, many cultures have
possessed myths expressing a simultaneous fascination with and fear of
humans’
capacity for accumulating knowledge and manipulating the environment. In modern times, these fascinations and fears
have focused on science as a system of knowledge and a social
institution. The remarkable successes of
scientific theory
and its technological applications have led to growing confidence in
the power
of science, reliance on its benefits, and hopes for continued success
in the
future. These same successes have also
contributed to skepticism or anxiety–in some instances, envy or
hostility–towards science and its applications.
We will thus
use several classic representations of scientists in literature and
other
cultural domains as windows on the social, political, and economic
relations of
science in various historical contexts.
Specific questions we will ask include the following:
• What were
seen as the most significant scientific developments at the time? What new theories or technologies generated
the most public excitement, and why?
These may or may not be ones which we still remember today.
• What were
seen as the most significant social consequences of theoretical and
technological innovations?
• What
happens when putatively scientific concepts become implicated in moral
and
political controversies? What happens
when the scientific ethos is in apparent conflict with countervailing
social or
political needs? Does possessing
extra-ordinary expertise confer, or require, extra-ordinary moral
responsibility?
• Our primary
texts constitute a kind of “cross-cultural” communication across
professions
and disciplines. What happens when
knowledge crosses such cultural or sub-cultural boundaries? What leads to mutual understanding? What leads to misunderstanding?
• What, in
these literary portrayals, are the main personal characteristics and
social
connections ascribed to scientists? What
conceptions and preconceptions about science and its social status does
this
reveal?
Objectives. Through this course, students should
be (better) able to: identify some of
the major events in the history of science and technology which have
had an
influence on the history of literature; describe and analyze cultural
myths,
especially those relating to science and technology, in historical
context;
discuss and write on these topics in a historically informed way; and,
as
relevant, find and use appropriate historical sources.
Texts. We will read
the following primary texts:
Johann Wolfgang
v. Goethe, Faust, Part I, trans. David Luke (German orig. 1808).
Mary
Shelley, Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus (1818).
H. G. Wells.
The Island of Doctor Moreau. (1896).
Sinclair
Lewis, Arrowsmith (1925).
Aldous
Huxley, Brave New World (1932).
Friedrich Dürrenmatt, The
Physicists, trans. James Kirkup (German orig. 1962).
These are
all available for purchase at the PSU Bookstore, and on reserve in the
PSU
Library. The first three titles are also
available as e-books on the internet. It’s
OK to use an edition other than the one for sale, but please be aware
that
pagination may well be different or (in the case of the translations)
the
wording of the text itself. Therefore,
in any of your written work for the class (see below), please be sure
to
provide an exact bibliographic citation with publication information
(or, as
relevant, on-line access information) for the book you are using. For Goethe’s Faust, please note
that we are reading Part I (not part II and not
the so-called Urfaust; you will
sometimes find these various parts published together.)
For Shelley’s Frankenstein, please use
a version with the (reprinted) text of the first (1818) edition.
There is
also an electronic packet (EP) of
selected articles by historians, providing some context for and
commentary on
our readings, available through electronic subscriptions via the PSU
Millar
Library website or elsewhere on the internet.
If there is demand, we can also make up a “hard copy” packet;
however,
this will require payment of royalties and photocopying costs.
One assignment
involves watching a film outside of class.
Some (but not all) of the options for this assignment can be
checked out
from the PSU library.
The course
is listed on Blackboard, PSU’s
on-line course management site, www.psuonline.pdx.edu. I will not be using Blackboard extensively,
but will post there copies of handouts, assignments, occasional
outlines, and
the like. If you are registered for the
class, you should automatically have access to the course Blackboard
listing
with your PSU/Odin username and password.
For e-mail communication with me, please use my regular e-mail
address
given above, not the internal Blackboard mail feature.
Requirements. Some of the
requirements for the class are assignments that everyone must complete. You then choose one supplementary assignment,
from a list of several options, to complete the requirements for the
class. Graduate students (HST
527) have a modified set of requirements as explained in a separate
handout. All written work may be either
submitted in
class, or by e-mail as an attachment in MS Word (.doc) or PDF
format to
my address given above. Please no other
formats! Please provide an explanatory
subject line!
All students in the undergrad section (HST
427) must complete the following:
• A final exam, cumulative over the
term,
comprising (possibly) short answer/identification, quotation analysis,
and
essay questions. (30%)
• Five (out of six) short (10 minute)
quizzes
on the designated discussion days in the schedule.
The quizzes cover the respective assigned
texts and main points of the preceding lectures. Essentially,
the purpose of this is to check
that you have done the reading. They
also serve as a gauge on your preparation for the final exam. You may take a “pass” on one of the quizzes. Dates are given on the schedule.
(5 @ 2% = 10%)
• Three (out of six) response
papers, 3-4 pp. essays relating to the
assigned texts and associated lectures and discussions.
If you do more than three response papers,
then these can count toward one of the supplementary options (see
below). Due dates are given on the
schedule. Late papers cannot be accepted. (3 @ 10% = 30%)
• A film analysis.
This paper is similar to the book response
essays; however, it relates to a film that you watch outside of
class–namely,
one of the following:
The Golem:
How He Came into the World (Der Golem: Wie er in die Welt kam), dir. Paul Wegener, 1920.
(Available at PSU library.)
The Cabinet
of Dr. Caligari (Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari), dir. Robert Wiene, 1920.
(Available at PSU library.)
Metropolis, dir. Fritz Lang, 1927.
If possible, try to see the Authorized Restored
Edition released in 2002. (The version
at the PSU library is not this edition.)
Dr.
Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1964.
Blade Runner, dir. Ridley Scott, 1982; Director’s Cut,
1992; Final
Cut, 2007. If possible, try to view one of
the latter two versions.
Gattaca, dir. Andrew Niccol, 1997.
Guiding questions will be provided. The paper is due at the time of final exam,
June 7th. There is also a
supplementary assignment option that involves watching additional
films. (10%)
For the remaining 20%, choose one of the
following
options:
• Two additional assigned text response
essays. As with the main assignment
above, late papers cannot be accepted.
(2 @ 10% = 20%)
• A comparative film study. This is in addition to the film
analysis
described above. It is a comparative
analysis (6-8 pp.) of at least two additional movies (beyond the one
you choose
for the core assignment) in the context of the themes of our course and
(as
appropriate) with reference to our readings.
At least one of the films must come from the list above. You may include a film from outside the list
above if it includes some culturally significant image of science or
scientists;
obviously, various movies offer better or worse opportunities for
useful
comparisons. You must submit a
prospectus (about one page in length) which describes your chosen
movies and
briefly describes the rationale for the comparison; this must be approved
by
me in writing before you proceed with the assignment.
The prospectus is due as soon as possible,
but no later than Week VI. The paper is
due no later than Tuesday, June 1st.
(Since we don’t have class on May 31st, turn in the
paper to
my History Dept. mailbox by the next day.)
• A review essay (6-8 pp.) on a work
of fiction
which presents a culturally significant image of science or scientists
and
which we have not read in class. Non-negotiable
proviso: deceased authors only. Your essay should briefly summarize
its contents, but concentrate on describing the scientific and social
issues
which form the context of the book and analyzing the images of science
and
technology that it presents. As
appropriate, include comparison to our assigned texts.
You must submit a prospectus (about one page
in length) which describes your chosen book and briefly describes your
thematic
approach; this must be approved by me in writing before you
proceed with
the assignment. The prospectus is due as
soon as possible, but no later than Week VI.
The paper is due no later than Tuesday, June 1st. (Since we don’t have class on May 31st,
turn in the paper to my History Dept. mailbox by the next day.)
Regular attendance and thoughtful
participation in
discussions and other class activities is expected.
There is not a formal attendance component to
the grade, since experience shows that this is generally redundant. Particularly with a weekly meeting schedule,
and particularly without an overview or survey text, missing class
sessions
could significantly undermine your ability to follow the narrative and
themes
of the class. If you must miss a section
or two, it is your responsibility to cover the
missing material. If you find
yourself missing multiple sessions, I would recommend withdrawing from
the
class.
APPROXIMATE SCHEDULE
Reading
should be completed by the given week.
I.
29 Mar.
Introductions. Orientation
to the class and to the history
of science as a discipline. Pre-modern
cultural myths of knowledge and power. The
Romantic reaction to the Scientific
Revolution and Enlightenment. Idealism
and natural philosophy.
II.
5 Apr.
Goethe as natural historian. His
cultural influence in Germany. The
re-organization of knowledge in early
19th-century Germany. Science and the
Industrial Revolution. EP: Gen. 1:1-3:24, 11:1-9; Matt. 4:1-11; John
1:1-3; Hesiod, Theogony, lines
507-616; Hesiod, Works and Days,
lines 42-105; Rueger. Begin
Goethe.
III.
12 Apr.
Discussion of Goethe, Faust. Currents, affinities, embryos: early 19th-century
physics, chemistry, and physiology. Family
history: the Godwin / Wollstonecraft /
Shelley nexus. Romanticism and radicalism
in the British context. EP: Koerner;
James & Field. Finish Goethe. Begin Shelley.
IV
19 Apr.
Discussion of Shelley, Frankenstein.
Darwinian evolutionary theory and its scientific and cultural impact. Anthropology and medicine in the wake of
Darwin. EP:
Hale, King-Hele. Finish
Shelley. Begin Wells. Due:
Goethe response paper.
V.
26 Apr.
Discussion of Wells, The Island of
Doctor Moreau. Microbiology
and public health ca.
1900. Eugenics as a social movement. EP: Barnett.
Finish Wells. Begin
Lewis. Due:
Shelley response paper.
VI.
3 May.
Aspects of the professionalization of
the sciences. Lewis in the context of
early 20th-c. American cultural history. EP: Hollinger; Löwy. Continue
Lewis. Due:
Wells response paper;
prospectus for supplementary assignment options.
VII.
10 May.
Discussion of Lewis, Arrowsmith. Genetics
and psychology after 1900. Totalitarianism
and the political crises of
the inter-war period. Some more family
history: the Huxleys as statesmen of
British science. EP: Porter. Finish
Lewis. Begin Huxley.
VIII.
17 May.
Discussion of Huxley, Brave New World. Physicists
and the development of nuclear
weapons. The Cold War and its effects on
science policy. EP: Eghighian et al. Finish
Huxley. Begin
Dürrenmatt. Due: Lewis response paper.
IX.
24 May.
Discussion of The Physicists. Dilemmas
of science in the national-security
state. The hydrogen bomb decision. The Oppenheimer affair. German
ramifications: the “Göttingen 18”
affair and post-war
assessments of pre-1945 German science. EP:
Beyler; Hecht. Finish
Dürrenmatt. Due: Huxley response paper.
X. 31 May. HOLIDAY.
Tue.
1 June. Due in my
History Dept. mailbox, Cramer 441:
Dürrenmatt response paper; supplementary comparative film
analysis;
supplementary book review.
Exam
Week. 7 Jun. Final exam.
Due: film analysis (core
assignment).