The Gendered Atom: Reflections on the Sexual Psychology of Science

by Theodore Roszak

With daring originality, The Gendered Atom explores the uncharted depths of the scientific soul. There, beneath the scientist's rational, purportedly objective surface, Theodore Roszak finds a maelstrom of repressed sexual prejudices and gender stereotypes. Beyond analyzing where we have gone wrong, The Gendered Atom looks forward to a gender-free science that respects our community with nature and promises a healthier, more fulfilling form of knowledge.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Feminism, Sociology, History, Nonfiction, Gender

192 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Theodore Roszak was Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay. He is best known for his 1969 text, The Making of a Counter Culture.

Roszak first came to public prominence in 1969, with the publication of his The Making of a Counter Culture[5] which chronicled and gave explanation to the European and North American counterculture of the 1960s. He is generally credited with the first use of the term "counterculture".

Reviews

[Lachlan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This little book is a very readable historico-cultural study of how science is developing towards a more feminine view of its object of study. Roszak's presentation is strongly influenced by feminist philosophers and cultural analysts, but also by a lifelong involvement with teaching and researching Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Each chapter begins with a 'diary entry' from a visit made by Roszak and his wife to various Shelley landmarks in Switzerland but also to CERN, where the masculinist psychology reigns, as the scientists -- be they men or women -- smash particles in their quest to reduce nature to 'her' smallest parts. The book is well written, varied and interesting, but at times exaggerates and distorts: Richard Dawkins is no Social Darwinist, objective, evidence-based research is not in itself a 'rape' of (mother) nature, the misuse made of scientific results is distinct from the path taken to those results, etc.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting one. Roszak is examining the ways in which science has been influenced by the fact that, historically, so many scientists have been men--he takes some basic ideas about how traditional masculinity has affected science (e.g. science as "controlling" nature), and explores a bit more through analysis of metaphorical language and such just what has been influence. To oversimplify one example: Atomic theory held sway for longer than it perhaps should have because it appealed to the traditionally masculine concept of The Individual.

He often overreaches, and a few times gets the facts about the science wrong, but I still am really enjoying the book. He pointed out that the CERN headquarters has an ancient alchemist's symbol (snake eating its own tail) emblazoned on a marble floor--signifying to the physicists the universe understanding itself by creating creatures like us who can understand things), and that the valley that Mary Shelley overlooked while she wrote Frankenstein was actually the future home of CERN...and those tidbits make the book worth the read.

[Ren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because I am an engineer and was interested in hearing a feminist criticism of science. Coming out of the book, I am convinced that a lot of foundational scientists did use masculine metaphors in their work. However, I am not convinced that science in its present form has incorrect ideas because of that masculine basis.

Maybe it's my bias from being within the field of applied science, but I found the appeals to magic as an alternative to science a little silly. Yes, I think science ought to value empathy, subtlety, respect. But magic isn't an alternative to science, because magical thinking doesn't work. Surely any approach to the natural world seriously proposed as a feminine alternative to science in the modern age should be something that does work.

I wonder what this book would have been like if Roszak knew more science. Maybe he could have then given more concrete meaning to his valuation of magic, alchemy, and relational thinking. Without generalizable concrete meanings to these things, the book ended up feeling more like the beginning of a lot of ideas rather than a conclusion.

My other main gripe with the book is the binary gender model it follows. Some of the Freudian psychology describing the male ego as independent vs. the female mind as defined relationally felt constricting, and in general, it didn't acknowledge the bias its own gender model placed on its metaphors. What if complexity is lost in a cultural understanding of science vs. nature which fails to take into account the nonbinary perspective?

So all in all, I enjoyed the topics the book brought in, but it was best read as some interesting thoughts related to the cultural gendering of science rather than as a cohesive theory or persuasive argument.

[Renee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because I am an engineer and was interested in hearing a feminist criticism of science. Coming out of the book, I am convinced that a lot of foundational scientists did use masculine metaphors in their work. However, I am not convinced that science in its present form has incorrect ideas because of that masculine basis.

Maybe it's my bias from being within the field of applied science, but I found the appeals to magic as an alternative to science a little silly. Yes, I think science ought to value empathy, subtlety, respect. But magic isn't an alternative to science, because magical thinking doesn't work. Surely any approach to the natural world seriously proposed as a feminine alternative to science in the modern age should be something that does work.

I wonder what this book would have been like if Roszak knew more science. Maybe he could have then given more concrete meaning to his valuation of magic, alchemy, and relational thinking. Without generalizable concrete meanings to these things, the book ended up feeling more like the beginning of a lot of ideas rather than a conclusion.

My other main gripe with the book is the binary gender model it follows. Some of the Freudian psychology describing the male ego as independent vs. the female mind as defined relationally felt constricting, and in general, it didn't acknowledge the bias its own gender model placed on its metaphors. What if complexity is lost in a cultural understanding of science vs. nature which fails to take into account the nonbinary perspective?

So all in all, I enjoyed the topics the book brought in, but it was best read as some interesting thoughts related to the cultural gendering of science rather than as a cohesive theory or persuasive argument.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short and easy read, with some good points made. The central thesis that male domination has had cascading effects of scientific study, is one I agree with. I feel though that this book lingers on Mary shelly so much that it feels like an excuse to write about her more than the thesis itself. This book was too long for what it had to say and in places stretches it's arguements very thin.

[Amanda · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am one for a good, hard-thinking book...but this one was well above my head. There were moments where I felt like I was with it and totally saw the connections between Frankenstein and gendered biases in science...then, pages later, nope.