For a brief account of the controversy, see the somewhat lengthy Wikipedia entry about Larry Summers.
Now, the single-minded pursuit of
science has been memorably portrayed by Mary Shelley in the characters Robert
Walton and Victor Frankenstein in her novel Frankenstein,
or, The Modern Prometheus (1818; revised 1831). Still a teenager when her
novel was first published, she appears to have discerned certain features of
what Ong styles male agonism, which Mary Shelley has portrayed most notably in
the Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the creature produced by Victor in
his laboratory. The story unfolds within the frame of letters written by Robert
to his sister, Mrs. Saville in
However, in her perceptive 1981 introduction
to the Bantam Classic edition, Diane Johnson urges us to consider
"transpos[ing] the sexes of all the characters, for the sex of the literary characters,
like the sex or even the species of characters in dreams is a matter of
indifference or even of deliberate disguise" (xix-xx). When we transpose the
gender of Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the creature, we end up with
three female characters instead of three male characters. Thus, instead of
being an elaborate tale about the promethean spirit of male agonism in modern
science, the story appears to become an elaborate tale of the promethean spirit
of female agonism in modern science. However, Johnson does not happen to advert
to the implication of transposing the genders for the portrayal of male agonism
in the non-transposed characters. But if the story when transposed in this way
is not to be understood as being by implication about female agonism, then why
does the story center so strongly on male agonism? Are we to disregard the attention
to male agonism just because we undertake to transpose the gender of the three
characters? Or should we use the transposed genders of the three characters as
a way to discuss female agonism, a topic that has not been discussed very much,
as far as I know? (Even when
Once when I was teaching the novel at the University of Minnesota Duluth (where I taught from 1987 to 2009), I asked the students to consider if Robert Walton could be changed into Roberta and if Victor Frankenstein, into Victoria. Without exception, the students insisted that these changes could not be made, at least not at the time when the novel was written. When I reminded the students that Mary Shelley was a bright and well-read young woman, they still insisted that at the time when this novel was written no female characters could be like Robert and Victor in their quest for scientific discovery. However, Johnson details ways in which Victor may have been based on Mary Shelley. Even so, Johnson does not go so far as to comment on Victor's drive for scientific discovery in connection with Mary Shelley's life.
Next, I asked the students if there could be female characters today like Robert and Victor with a strong drive to make scientific discoveries. Without exception, the students insisted that this simply could not happen. One student, herself an athlete in a varsity sport, insisted that the kind of scientific pursuit that animates Robert and Victor is "a guy thing," as she put it. In effect, the students in my class were reading the story as a cautionary tale about the spirit of male agonism. For some reason, it seemed inconceivable to the students that Mary Shelley might have written a cautionary tale about female agonism, including her own female agonism. Such a possibility may have seemed inconceivable to the students because the world has not seen very many examples of female agonism carried to the lengths of Victor's and Robert's pursuit of scientific discovery.
But what if we take a hint from Johnson's suggestion about transposing the genders of the characters and consider transposing the evident pursuit of scientific discovery into something else? We might then consider the story to be a cautionary tale about the overly ambitious pursuit of anything, not just scientific discovery. When we make this transposition, the story is no longer about "a guy thing" but about something that might involve either male or female characters.
Frankly, of these two transpositions, I much prefer to dwell on the two male characters being transposed into female characters, Roberta and Victoria. I prefer to consider this transposition because it strikes me as expressing something that was probably a very deep dream for Mary Shelley: a vision of talented women, such as the author herself, engaged in promethean scientific quests. Such a vision would have been impossible for her to express explicitly by using female characters named Roberta and Victoria for the understandable reason that up to her time there had been very few examples of women engaged in promethean scientific quests. But if a man's reach should exceed his grasp, as Robert Browning has suggested, shouldn't a woman's reach also exceed her grasp? However, when we consider the respective quests of Robert and Victor, we note that neither turned out well. But if a man's reach should exceed his grasp, then Robert and Victor each deserves a place in Browning's heaven. By Browning's reasoning, promethean scientific quests by a Roberta and a Victoria and other women in science should also deserve a place in Browning's heaven.
This brings me to the strong feminist reaction to Summers' remarks. No doubt the reaction was heightened by the fact that at the time he was president of Harvard. Moreover, the reaction was not tempered by the fact that the conference organizers had invited Summers to make deliberately provocative remarks, presumably to provoke further discussion at the conference. However, his remarks provoked more heat than light, as the saying has it. Because such angry heat comes from the part of the psyche known as thumos, we need to note that thumos can power us at various times to excessive anger, not just to the excessive pursuit of science or something else. In my estimate, much of the anger directed toward Summers was excessive. When anger becomes excessive, it typically generates more heat than light in verbal exchanges, and it at times can lead to physical violence, including homicide. In any event, the questions raised by Summers are likely to lead to further debate. Ong's studies of male agonism, especially his book-length study Fighting for Life, would lead us to expect that for both biological and cultural reasons men typically tend to be more strongly oriented toward contesting and competitive behavior than women typically are. As indicated above, Ong sees the male hormone testosterone as the key biological factor influencing male agonism. I cannot imagine that women are going to rush out and get testosterone injections so that they can be more competitive in science. But it would be interesting to see women give credit where credit is due and recognize that male agonism may be something worthwhile at times, even though it can also go awry at times. It is hard to see how female agonism can develop strongly enough to produce a Roberta Walton and a Victoria Frankenstein in science unless and until girls and women give credit where credit is due to male agonism and stop seeing it as "a guy thing."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
