Reflection: “The Evolutionary Brotherhood: Manliness and Experimental Zoology in 19th-century America,” Jenna Tonn.

Reuploaded as I had unknowingly posted my original blog under the name "unknown."

This week, I enjoyed listening to Harvard alumnus and Boston College assistant professor Jenna Tonn's lecture regarding "evolutionary brotherhood" - what it meant to be a man of/in science in the 19th century. I was particularly interested in attending her lecture as I had written about sexism in science for my HS100 final paper and wanted to perceive that same topic through a seemingly juxtaposed perspective. Furthermore, as I often observed the term "brotherhood" used in the context of sports, I was curious to listen about how that would be used within science and whether or not the social aspects of brotherhoods in sports would also apply to those in science. By depicting "manliness" in science through multiple zoologists, Tonn provides a unique view into the social and working environment of the lab when completely dominated by men.

To explore the social aspect of the "brotherhood" in science, Professor Tonn focuses her lecture on the question of "what does it mean to be a man in a lab?" She discusses this in primarily two ways: (1) Mark's "X-men" and (2) the consequences of toxic masculinity. 

E.L. Mark was a 19th-century zoologist who formed a fraternity of zoologists to popularize their form of experimental zoology over the traditional form by Louis Agassiz. This fraternity was known as the "X-men" and they practically did everything together: work, drink, share personal experiences, etc. One benefit of this masculine dynamic was the sense of community that they shared, inevitably creating a supportive lab environment. Consequently, they were able to produce significant work and make great progress in achieving Mark's ambition. In this sense, the brotherhood formed in the labs and their dynamic are similar to those in sports. Nonetheless, the exclusion of women made the X-men too similar to each other in characteristics, leaving little room for diversity. Furthermore, other labs similar in the social structure of the X-men ascertained that women would be completely ostracized from that work environment, exacerbating the already disadvantaged circumstances that women in science faced.

While the social benefits of having this scientific fraternity seemed significant for those involved, the brotherhood was indeed a double-edged sword due to toxic masculinity. Professor Tonn explores the idea that the laboratory was often a place of suffering due to the long hours and labor that scientists put into their endeavors. Consequently, this "sacrifice" of the body for the sake of science fueled their romantic ideal of heroism, seemingly placing a heavy emphasis on the relationship between physical attributes and science. One example of this discussed was a story about Judd, who was a scientist part of the X-men. Due to him having lost his arm in an accident, Judd was deemed "not fit" for the lab and the integrity of his results were always questioned by this peers. In this sense, toxic masculinity also played a role in advancing any social Darwinist ideas that these lab fraternities "practiced."

Personally, I was intrigued about the extent to which toxic masculinity can affect brotherhood. In sports, men who may not have been genetically advantaged for their respective sports are glorified when they somehow have made their playstyle fit their physical attributes to the best of their abilities. Countless success stories like these have conveyed the idea that playing their role to the best of their ability may be in fact more important than just being able to play the sport well. This seemingly does not apply to the "X-men" as men who do not fit the ideal heroic scientist are excluded alongside women. Then, why even accept them to work in their lab in the first place? Is the brotherhood formed after or before the team is set up? Are there "sororities" in science?