Fairucnoworg Your Occasional Reminder That The University Is

Fairucnoworgyour Occasional Reminder That The University Is A Corpora

Your occasional reminder that the university is a corporation. Your occasional reminder that the university is a corporation. myths are reinterptreted in retellings patterns are re-patterned Frankenstein should be less a myth of horror or hubris and more a myth of collective responsibility towards/with power/knowledge Reading Frankenstein Otherwise Science is always patterned with power (democratic would be nice) Reading Frankenstein Otherwise Science is always patterned with power (democratic would be nice) This is another part of the CRISPR power/knowledge pattern in a democracy myths of science compound with myths of modernity compound with national myths (American) sci-tech can be controlled to precisely distinguish between good and bad, and eliminate the bad Reading Frankenstein Otherwise: Mary Shelley had the foresight to create a myth of modernity as “risk society†Reading Frankenstein Otherwise New nature is potently ambiguous New myths ain’t gonna just write themselves...

Beyond Frankenstein -- Even Read Otherwise -- What Myths Might Be in Play? Myth of Choice, Myth of Control, Myth of Progress, Myth of Democracy, Myth of the Noble Nobelist… “We’re about to fry the planet, but sure, we can get it together and be democratically responsible for making the right choices to progress the Future of the Human Race…†Reflexive modernization is an ever-complexifying linkage between science, risk, foresight (Prometheus), hindsight (Epimetheus), and democratic processes, trying to refigure progress The First Rule of Science Myth Club: The forces of capitalism are never part of the myth. Nature (UK) Science (USA) Nature cannot be patented. New nature can be patented. The Second Rule of Science Myth Club: It’s always more complicated than you think The First Rule of Science Myth Club: The forces of capitalism are never part of the myth.

Paper For Above instruction

The repeated assertions underscore a critical awareness of the institutional and mythic frameworks shaping modern universities and scientific discourse. Recognizing that universities function as corporations exposes the underlying economic and power structures influencing higher education. This framing challenges the myth of academic neutrality, highlighting how financial interests, market forces, and corporate models infiltrate higher education institutions, transforming them into profit-driven entities. Such a perspective invites scholars to critically analyze the dominant narratives surrounding education, especially the myth that universities serve solely independent, altruistic purposes. Instead, they often operate within a nexus of political and economic power, reinforcing societal inequalities and reinforcing corporate interests.

Exploring the mythic dimension of science through the lens of literary and cultural analysis, particularly via Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," reveals how science is intertwined with power and societal responsibility. Shelley’s narrative foreshadows contemporary debates around biotechnology, genetic manipulation, and scientific risk. The Frankenstein myth functions less as a tale of hubris or horror and more as a cautionary allegory about collective responsibility in wielding knowledge and technological power. Shelley’s prescience underscores how scientific endeavors are embedded within societal and ethical frameworks—an early warning about risks that accompany progress. This reframing emphasizes understanding science not as an isolated pursuit but as a social activity intertwined with moral and political considerations.

The concept of the "risk society," as theorized by Ulrich Beck, aligns with the Frankensteinian narrative, illustrating how modernity is characterized by systemic risks associated with technological advancement. These risks are often obscured by myths of control and progress, fostering a false sense of security that technological solutions can eliminate danger. Beck’s notion that contemporary society is preoccupied with managing risks circles back to Frankenstein’s caution about unintended consequences—highlighting the need for collective responsibility rather than uncritical trust in scientific progress.

Contemporary biotechnology exemplifies these mythic patterns, particularly through CRISPR gene-editing technology. The power to script genomes offers immense promise but also raises ethical dilemmas akin to Frankenstein’s monster—potent tools for good or destruction depending on societal governance and moral oversight. The myth that science can be neatly controlled or altruistically directed persists, despite evidence that technological control is inherently complex and often ambiguous. This myth of control, deeply embedded in national and scientific narratives, obscures the underlying capitalism and vested interests that often dominate technological development.

The myths surrounding science extend beyond control to include notions of choice and progress. The myth of choice promotes the idea that consumers and societies can freely select technological paths, masking the socio-political determinants that shape scientific agendas. Similarly, the myth of progress perpetuates the belief that scientific advancement inherently leads to societal betterment, often ignoring the uneven distribution of benefits and risks. These myths bolster optimism that technological innovation will solve global problems—from climate change to health crises—yet historically, such faith has often been misplaced, as progress frequently exacerbates inequalities and environmental degradation.

The myth of democracy also features prominently in debates over scientific responsibility. There exists a pervasive belief that democratic processes will naturally regulate scientific development and ensure societal interests are prioritized. However, the reality often involves complex power dynamics, lobbying, and unequal representation, which undermine democratic accountability. The ideal of a "noble nobelist" perpetuates the myth that scientific excellence alone ensures societal benefit, overlooking the influence of economic interests and political agendas that frequently skew research priorities.

Reflexive modernization theorizes that societies actively reconfigure their approaches to science and risk, attempting to integrate technological innovation with democratic oversight. This dynamic process involves a continuous cycle of foresight and hindsight—embodying Prometheus’s daring to bring fire and Epimetheus’s cautionary forgetting. Yet, despite these efforts, myths of control and progress persist, often masking the underlying power structures—capitalism, political influence, and institutional interests—that shape scientific outcomes.

Finally, the "myth club" perspective critically examines the unwritten rules governing scientific and capitalist narratives. The first rule suggests that capitalism’s influence is often invisible within scientific discourse, even as it profoundly shapes research priorities, patent laws, and commercialization strategies. Nature, as a symbol of the pure or uncontaminated, cannot be patented; however, "new nature"—artificially created or genetically modified—can be commodified and controlled. The second rule emphasizes that the true complexity of scientific and societal issues is frequently understated. Recognizing these myths encourages a more nuanced understanding of scientific development within societal and economic contexts, advocating for transparency, collective responsibility, and ethical foresight in the face of technological advancement.

References

• Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications.
• Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
• Latour, B. (2004). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press.
• Kleinman, D. L. (2010). Science, democracy, and the myth of purity: scientific objectivity and public trust. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 648–663.
• Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
• Jasanoff, S. (2005). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 43(3), 241–259.
• Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in civil society. University of Chicago Press.
• Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
• Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Picturing and modeling in the sciences. Stanford University Press.