First, an explanation of the origin of the term "future starving linguist." I would like to be a linguist, ideally. At the very least, to study linguistics even if I do not end up being a linguist specifically. Linguistics is not on the level of say, mechanical engineering or computer science or something like that in terms of demand in the job market. So, theoretically, if I am to become a linguist, I won't be able to get a good job and I'll be a starving linguist. Kind of like the concept of a starving artist, but instead with linguistics in place of art.
Anyways, on to the main topic of this post. As the reader may be aware, last weekend there was a march for science in DC, the ideals/goals of which were to promote the idea that science/facts backed by science is important. Which is fine and good, mostly. I agree that facts are important and that our current president is fact-challenged. And sure, science is important and has done lots of good things to improve society, like making innovations in medicine to treat diseases. However, it's also worth thinking about the not so beneficial things that science has given us. (I use science broadly to include innovation and technology and all that as well) Science has developed ever more powerful weapons which allow us to kill people with more efficiency and effectiveness. Machine guns, nuclear weapons, drones, all that.
On to another point. My impression of science as a field in general/the march is that it is heavily focused on the so-called "hard sciences" (is that because they're difficult and tedious to understand/learn about??), meaning chemistry, biology, physics, etc. In other words, areas that I have no interest in and don't care to study. For people who do have an interest in and a passion for these things, more power to them, but it's just not for me. I think that the "soft sciences" are not taken as seriously - psychology, sociology, linguistics (three areas which do interest me). In addition, as far as I'm aware people in professions relating to hard sciences get paid more. I do understand that there are reasons behind this, economical stuff, which I'm not super knowledgeable about and that it may not necessarily be plausible for linguists to paid as much as chemists.
I look at the march with... I don't want to say disdain, but perhaps bitterness is a better word. It disappoints me that certain types of science are not as respected/valued as others. In addition, "science is already seen by society as something that's more valuable than the arts," - A Very Fantastic Artist which is a whole nother can of fish. If I were a biologist I wouldn't be worrying about being a starving biologist, probably. Science is already valued in society even if the particular president doesn't have a very good grip on reality. If it were up to me, I would organize a march/protest to promote valuation of the arts and linguistics/other soft sciences.
And to the next thing. Science/similar fields are heavily dominated by men, which is a documented issue/fact. It's been recognized that (isn't this an interesting sentence structure right there?? Sort of??) there should be more women in those fields, which is something that I agree with - it would be good for that to happen. However, I also personally have minimal interest in being in such a field, so I will not be contributing to having more female scientists. Which I sort of feel slightly bad about, since I do think it's important, but I also don't have an interest in those subjects. Alas.
The thing I wanted to add here: it's possible that my lack of interest in science is because of how I was socialized (this is the sociology class talking). It's not possible to know if/how things would be different (meaning would I be interested in and enjoy science) had I been socialized differently since I can't go back and time and live an alternate universe where somehow I am socialized differently and come to like science. I am trying to figure out how I came to have the interests that I do have, however. I don't really know what could have been done differently, say, 10 years ago in my life or whatever that would have made me like science. I remember in elementary school we grew plants in science class, which was nice. I like plants. (fun fact: the German word for weed (not the marijuana kind, by the way) is "Unkraut") But that's quite different that studying science at a college level. Maybe I should do a sociological study of what causes people to like science... huh. Could be interesting. It might end up being an informal study and draw more upon the area of journalism than scientific research though. That's a possibility. Hmm. Now I just have to find some scientists to study. Studying the scientists - scienception.
An ending thought... My only chance for success as a linguist would be if aliens come to earth. Then maybe I could make it big as a linguist. If only.
Edit: The previously mentioned Very Fantastic Artist complained that I hadn't properly attributed the quote. So I have fixed that. I hope that's enough to prevent any lawsuits.
No comments:
Post a Comment