Most of the posts I post here are about actual science. Today, I thought I’d take a little bit of a turn and talk about how we communicate science. After all, you are the people who I want to encourage to explore the world of science, so it’s you I would like the opinion of.
There’s been a growing movement in the science communication circuit to promote ‘Geek Pride’. For the uninitiated, geek pride is sort of like gay pride, but being proud of being a geek. Apparently, to be a scientist is to be a geek so instead of fighting the negative stereotypes, we should all apparently accept it.
Geek is a stereotype
There’s nothing inherently geeky about being a scientist. To me, geeks are typified by their poor dress sense, social awkwardness and intense devotion to a subject. The imagery associated with geeks is especially powerful, with the fashion industry populating geek chic only a few years back.
Yiran, geek on TV show Beauty and the Geek. Okay, this is funny, but do we want this as the representation of ALL science?
So with all this imagery and broad classification, why would I support Geek Pride when I don’t identify as a geek (in fact, people tell me I’m a hipster). Why should people interested in science, technology and the world around them, be branded as a geek? If that’s the criteria then will.i.am, perhaps one of the biggest promoters of science outside the science world is a huge, fat, mega geek!
Every profession has a stereotype. Stereotypes are never a good thing. Geek is the penultimate stereotype for scientists.
Brand science
We are in a time when we really need to think about how we promote science. There is a need to show a positive message of what science is, and to encourage more people to become engaged.
Science itself has an issue with branding. All sorts of scientists, whether they’re a biologist, physicist , chemist or other, get lumped into this one generic category. It’s like branding ‘Art’ as a single form, when really it’s a multidisciplinary area with photography, paintings, sculpture and theatrics.
Of course, nerds and geeks exist in science, just as they do in any occupation. They can own that if they wish and they can be proud for sure. But just because some scientists identify as geeks, doesn’t mean we all do, and we don’t all need to wave the geek flag for the sake of it.
Scientists are people too
When it comes to encouraging the next generation of scientists, or even to encourage the public to get involved with science, image is everything. For the young ones, they need to be able to imagine what they would look like if they were to become a scientist when they grow up. It’s no use having this stock standard stereotypically geeky, lab coat wearing, buck toothed yokel to look up to.
This guy recently became an internet sensation. He is a NASA scientist, he is not a geek
And for the public, it’s hard to relate to the socially inept, coldness of a geek scientist. Geek Pride does nothing to show off the creativeness needed to make major scientific breakthroughs, it does nothing to show off the enthusiasm and passion for the hunt and does nothing to propel science into the main stream spotlight.
Real scientists can’t be branded into a singularity and real scientists show the breadth of human personality that exists. Let’s celebrate the diversity that’s out there, call out for the individuals to shine through and break through those frustrating lab coat moulds.
Please, let me know what you think in the comments below, our facebook page or twitter profile. You’re the ones we’re trying to reach after all.
Now I’m confused. I’ve understood that the terms nerd and geek have diverged in the past 20 years. ‘Nerd’ fits your definition of geek, a socially awkward person with pimples from a diet of potato chips and Pepsi and serious body odor, who obsesses over video games and has never dated.
Geek has shifted to mean something like guru, a domain expert who can be approached for an answer on any topic in his/er domain.
Geek pride, if it’s a formal movement, should be directed at the rising anti-intellectual forces taking over our society. Nerd pride…well, there is no nerd pride.
Dangerous Bill (chemical sensor geek)
I really like this article Noby, nice work. I don’t really like the idea of promoting geek pride because I feel it alienates the rest of society from science. I think we should be doing everything to encourage everyone in society to think critically while being exposed to the wonders of the world. The geek idea seems to segregate society and leave all that kind of stuff to a minority.
Plus, by promoting something can you really actually make it cool?
While I agree with your premise that the social stigma surrounding science and scientists as being ‘geeky’ in a awkward sense is not accurate and there is a desire for trying to change it, I also agree with Ian in that your own re-labelling of geeks in an effort to distance yourself from the word (buck toothed yokel) was a bit ridiculous and not really helpful to your cause.
Perhaps instead of resisting a movement that has the possibility of bringing your message along with it, ride the wave with your own version of the message.
I dont think I re-labelled geeks. The definitions I used exist in many facets of society. They’re not positive descriptions but they exist no less
As I mentioned, I’d rather explore the diversity of personalities and talents that exist in scientists, rather than trying to fit square pegs in round holes.
Going back to how we communicate science, I think one of the best things we can do in teaching and communicating science is to show it is not for the Geek Elite alone, rational thinking and the wonders of the natural world are for everyone. Sheldon is not necessarily the scicomm role model. Although that is the stereotype I think we are talking about, and we all know scientists a bit like that, many are very charismatic. Maybe because my area involves fieldwork and working with plants and animals we get different people involved to other more lab based streams. Appealing to as many as possible is the ideal for scicomm success, but accepting the ‘geek’ as well..
I’m not focused enough to be a real geek by these definitions, hence the unfinished thesis, but neither am I a hipster, because I am: a) too old, b) probably not cool enough, and c) have gears on my bike.
Good work Noby, keep it going.
Great point you raised about science being ‘elite’. I just recently got back from a conference talking about this exact issue and the possibility of involving the general public in science research. It’s often called Citizen Science, where interested members of the public can get involved with real research and produce real outcomes. Many fantastic examples around the world, and I’m sure you might have heard of some in your research area.
But I think that sort of bidirectional dialogue with the community will not only challenge stereotypes but create a whole new understanding of who scientists are and what they do on a daily basis.
I see your point Ian and thanks for the comments.
Perhaps I’m still using the geek definition that I see rampant in society and not the one that many people are trying to change.
For me, being called a geek still has those negative connotations with it. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but a reality in some circles, especially beyond the realms of science.
I see your need to reclaim the word geek but I don’t think scientists should be labelled geeks simply because they like science. I have heard advocates of geek pride purport this. That to like science is to be a geek, which I find ridiculous.
My thoughts are not to nullify Geek Pride, just not to use it as a cornerstone of science communication. I think it’s important that the diversity in personalities and talent shines through, rather than pouring efforts into the one Geek Pride box.
“I don’t identify as a geek (in fact, people tell me I’m a hipster)”
I sort of think you’re missing the point here. Hipsters have already reclaimed geek; “geek chic” is already a part of (one type of) hipster look. And Morrissey, and various punks etc, were doing it way before hipsters.
“To me, geeks are typified by their poor dress sense, social awkwardness and intense devotion to a subject”
Perhaps that is how it looks to you, and I’d agree with the intense devotion part. However, the dress sense I regard as more of an alternative/nonconformist thing (see e.g. above notes on Morrissey, punks and hipsters).
As for the social awkwardness, perhaps this is what you really don’t like. I think many geeks (but by NO means all) are introverts, and many more of them are impatient with meaningless social conventions. But there are plenty of extroverted geeks (go look round Silicon Valley).
Surely the whole point of reclaiming the word “geek” is to decouple the stigma (social awkwardness, labeling the dress sense as “poor”) from the perfectly-acceptable (but often-ridiculed) behavior and personality patterns that are common to many scientists. No-one is saying that all scientists have to be like that. But there is definitely a need to reclaim the word – clearly you were never bullied for this sort of thing in school, or you would know this. I don’t personally find that your attempts to nullify “Geek Pride”, insisting that the word “geek” retain its traditional negative associations and adding a few new ones (“buck-toothed yokel”, really?), is an awful lot of help in this regard.
To be clear, when I said “no-one is saying that all scientists have to be like that”, what I meant was that no-one who advocating Geek Pride is saying that.
It may well be true that media and Hollywood stereotypes favor a certain geek image, and this is limiting some from entering science, but I don’t think that running down Geek Pride is the way to deal with that.