Taking the Pants off Physics

Before I forget I would like to channel Sandra M. Faber for the salon on Wednesday.

The discussion of earlier physicists using physics as evidence for the divine reminded me of theories of intelligent design that exist in biology.  Intelligent design is an alternative theory to evolution that explains since all the pieces of life fit together in a way that there must be a designer as opposed to a series of random natural events.  It is not considered scientific and is not respected in the biological community.  This and other theories I have learned had lead to me to believe science and religion are at odds with each other.  However, the discussion of physics in the Wertheim article distinguished for me religion based on science from a science based on religion. 

I would like to channel Jocelyn Brunell
Odile

I would like to channel Jocelyn Burnell

When reading Traweek and Wertheim's articles, I found that they echoed a lot of the same ideas. I felt that an overarching theme in both of their works was this idea of physics as this untouchable field, this sect or "club" that requires a sort of proverbial "password" in order to gain entry. Wertheim, with regard to women's access to this field, describes physics as the "Catholic Church" of science. Just as Catholicism has not conceded to the allowance of women as priests, physics is the last of the sciences to see the increased success of women (pp. 7). Likewise, Traweek describes the career trajectory of getting involved in high-energy physics as an induction process (pp. 88 among others). This club, which consists of many senior physicists, has certain standards attached to it. You have to exhibit the kind of character or intelligence that the network - the "club" - sees fit. Traweek describes the "induction" process of a young physicist (post-docs primarily) to the "club" as a series of intentional obstacles (set up by advisors, superior ranked physicists) that must be overcome in order to acheive a repuatation. In order to successfully get through this obstacle course, one must have character or charm - one must exhibit a competitive nature backed by confident individualism (according to Traweek), which is funny since physics claims to be so objective.

Though this idea is not mirrored exactly in Wertheim's peice, she touches on the same underlying principle. In order to make it into the physics "club" that Traweek describes, one has to be very public and vocal about their accomplishments. This touches on the "public-private, male-female dualism" brought up by Wertheim. She talks about this idea of "natural social order" (promoted by social Newtonians and embraced by the Enlightenment) and how this idea that women "belong" in the private sector and men in the public sectors. Though this idea has clearly been overcome in many fields, it has arguably tainted the evolution of physics and thusly the entry of women into the field. This idea was brought up in our previous readings. Women in the realm of physics have complained about its competitive nature. Believing that they are viewed incompetent until they prove their worth (a generalization), they take extra time to go over their results, and find little support from their colleagues. This is unlike the Japanese institutional system (which sounded more ideal to me), where cooperation is encouraged.

This has become a long entry, which was not my intention. I think that both authors touch on some very important points. Physics, more so than the other sciences, attempts to describe universal "truths" (much like religion), and perhaps for this reason, it has become one of the more exclusionary fields. I believe that the structure behind the practice of physics, its exclusionary nature, is part of the reaon why women have found it so difficult to gain access to this part of the scientific world.

Also, I'd like to 'channel' Rosalyn Sussman Yalow.

Here are some of the items that were interesting overlaps between the two readings:

Denying that physics is separate from culture.

Both of these readings bring up the point that physicists believe they are operating in a world that is a neigh Utopia, held apart from the rest of humanity as it pursues Truth. Both of these readings also argue that this is entirely false. Whether it be from the culture meaning a national culture (for example, Japanese culture as opposed to American culture), religion, or Western gender roles, science is not in its own little world. It might be true if Science were the only sphere in which the scientists operated in, but it isn't. Science can no more escape outside influences, be it history or modern culture, than any other discipline.

It is also interesting that as Traweek points out in her section about undergraduate students, this high standard that Science is held up to is not solely on the part of the scientists themselves. In fact, it is much outsiders creating this stereotype as it is insiders. Picturing Culture/Humanity as a large circle, and science as an inner circle in a venndiagram of sorts, isn't it odd that the larger circle denies its own interactions with the inner circle? I wonder if that's like trying to hold your liver outside of you and claim it's important but not influenced by what you drink.

Science reflects the division of women in the private life, and men in the public sphere.

On page 149, Werthiem points out the division of women into the private sphere and men into the public sphere. Reading this, it reminded me of the discussion Traweek has about how the wives of physicists did not tend to have careers of "equal" important to their husbands. Furthermore, the fact that in both the Japanese and American model that physicists needed to have wives. The role of the koshi in the Japanese model was even to find a suitable woman for their students.

Women thus serve as an important part of the scientist's identity, a way of validating that he's of sound emotional and mental state, but are not supposed to directly contribute to the improvement of science. Beyond waxing on about how sexist that is, it's also interesting to note that we automatically assume it is "wrong", it is "weaker" for women to take care of the household while the men are making scientific discoveries. I guess what I'm trying to do is bring up the idea of the third wave feminists. Thus we should not only consider the impact of a lack of women scientists, but also the impact of the women who provided emotional support for scientists. One could even think cynically that, without these wives on their arms, many of the physicists might not have gone as far as they did. After all, having a wife seemed to be a very valuable commodity on their resume.

But do indirect contributions make up for the fact that women are virtually omitted from the history of science and math? That they are represented as icons in textbooks that science acts upon, or that sciences are dominated by phallic vocabulary? What does Science have against women?

Japanese vs USA cultural models.

Just briefly, I wanted to mention that I found the leadership models of the American and Japanese physicists to be extremely interesting. Because this has been a rather lengthy response though, I'll liimit it to this point: what does the fact that the Japanese model is a traditional Japanese family, the ie, and the American model is a sports team have to impact women? 

I have chosen Vera Cooper Rubin.