Abstract
AbstractWhen studying science contexts, scholars typically position charismatic authority as an adjunct or something that provides a meaning-laden boost to rational authority. In this paper, we re-theorize these relationships. We re-center charismatic authority as an interpretive resource that allows scientists and onlookers to recast a professional conflict in terms of a public drama. In this mode, both professionals and lay enthusiasts portray involvement in the scientific process as a story of suppression and persecution, in which only a few remarkable figures can withstand scrutiny and take on challengers with dignity. Description and elaboration of these figures and the folklore surrounding them sets in motion the interpretive processes by which some actors become charismatic leaders and others charismatic followers within science, ultimately providing alternative symbolic resources for an embattled research agenda to accrue legitimacy. To illustrate, we use the case of Arthur Jensen – a deceased intelligence researcher and the intellectual father to contemporary texts like The Bell Curve – and the circles of hero worship that admirers inside and outside academia have created to praise him. Using this perspective to study Jensen and his admirers demonstrates how the perennial race and intelligence debates gain a kind of symbolic power, unrelated to their scientific merit or racist appeal, which enables such debates to thrive and persist in the public sphere. More generally, our approach identifies contemporary processes by which scientific ideas can gain public authority even when their intellectual merit has been deemed dubious.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,History
Reference87 articles.
1. Alsop, Joseph. 1969a. “Blacks, Whites and IQ Levels.” Los Angeles Times, April 13, D6.
2. Alsop, Joseph. 1969b. “Study Linking Intelligence With Heredity Is Assessed.” The Washington Post, March 14, A25.
3. Alsop, Joseph. 1969c. “Where Hereditary Theory Fails.” Boston Globe, March 17, 17.
4. Arden, Rosalind. 2003. “An Arthurian Romance.” Pp. 533–53 in The Scientific Study of General Intelligence, edited by H. Nyborg. Boston, MA: Pergamon.
5. Aupers, Stef, and Lars de Wildt. 2021. “Down the Rabbit Hole: Heterodox Science on the Internet.” Pp. 65–87 in Science under Siege, edited by D. Houtman, S. Aupers, and R. Laermans. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献