kitajima vs. scientist stereotypes
Our perception of the scientist and the reality of life as a scientific researcher are very different things indeed. Over the past several hundred years our collective social narrative has come to shape the perception of those on the cutting edge of science. In conjunction with their portrayal in the general consciousness and our own innate understandings, we find ourselves both in awe of the scientist and fearful of their power (particularly in relation to our own ignorance and misgivings about change). So we shape the scientist as part human, part monster — a man consumed by hubris and obsession to be righted by his own lack of foresight and "acceptable" personality traits.
The mad scientist. An archetype that brings forth instability in narrative proceedings (whether intentionally or unintentionally) by revealing and reveling in elements of the unknown. Even when played for laughs, this archetype is right on the borderline between good and evil: uncontrollable and alarming.
In her article From Alchemy to Artificial Intelligence: Stereotypes of the Scientist in Western Literature, Roslynn Haynes estimates that within the boundaries of the scientist archetype there are seven primary stereotypes: the "evil alchemist", the “noble scientist", the "foolish scientist", the "inhuman researcher", the "scientist as adventurer", the "mad, bad, dangerous scientist" and the "helpless scientist". These archetypes are a means for us (as both consumers and creators) to simplify and categorise the scientist in an acceptable manner. At times, Haynes views this as a particularly abominable and lazy practice. However, it is appreciated that scientists are not the only group to be categorized by archetypes in broad, oversimplified ways.
Archetypes (in this context) are models found throughout literature. So while scientist archetypes are terribly generic, these identifiable labels do not take into account distinct personalities and non-generic context. For example, an "evil alchemist" may represent archaic notions about science and its practitioners, but does the application of this label remove the literary value of an "evil alchemist" such as Doctor Faustus? Haynes eventually concludes her article by stating: "Like all myths, they (archetypes) appear simple but in fact represent complex ideas and suppressed fears that transcend time, place, and race. Resent them as we may, we cannot root out these images without acknowledging their degree of veracity and heeding their message."
kitajima and haynes stereotypes
So where does Kitajima fit in with the recurring stereotypes suggested by Haynes? Most scientists in literature tend to slot into one specific category, with few examples of compound personas. In relation to Haynes' labels, Kitajima is arguably a character built on compounds of these basic stereotypes. Based on my own analysis of Kitajima, the following labels are those which can be best linked to her character.
Foolish scientist: Haynes suggests that these characters are obsessed with trivial facts while remaining ignorant of humankind. They possess a distorted outlook because they are interested in "discovery" over "truth". Due to their obsessive nature, these characters are often seen as absent-minded — forgetting to cut their hair, declining to wear matching socks, and defined by bizarre eccentricities. Kitajima is not played for laughs like a lot of absent-minded professors, however, she is shown to be someone whose desire for recognition has caused her to forget basic elements of humanity. While not shown to be laugh-out-loud funny, Kitajima's befuddlement at simple human practices such as the wearing of perfume, fuels the "foolish" side to her characterisation. She only grows beyond this clueless state when she broadens her understanding of both humans and dragons.
Inhuman researcher: Haynes defines this archetypical character as being someone "...who has sacrificed his or her emotions and human relationships in an obsessive pursuit of scientific materialism." Which links directly to Kitajima's "foolishness" above. Although not as un-relatable as Victor Frankenstein (one of the more infamous inhuman researchers), Kitajima's personality is similarly single-minded and driven by selfish desires. Like other scientists in this category, Kitajima suppresses her human affections, longs to be the first to discover something, and has a fanatical need to complete her research regardless of the cost. Reckless with both herself and others, it is only when Kitajima loses everything that she begins to find more altruistic motivations for her research.
The conclusion one can reach from this is that Kitajima is an archetypical scientist in her inability to comprehend the bigger picture for anything other than herself. She longs for the material gains of research but fails to appreciate the human aspects that need recognition. This can be seen as a particularly anti-rationalist view of the scientist — Kitajima knows a lot about everything except the one thing she needs to appreciate. When her Resonance with Nozaki causes her to re-evaluate her position, instead of abandoning her previous path she simply changes her methods and drops the selfish motivations behind her actions. She continues to be a scientist (and thus does not lose her analytical self) but chooses to compliment her persona with a warmer, human element — thus striking a balance that tends to elude most fictional scientists. The "scientist" and the "human" need not be mutually exclusive and this we see in Kitajima's transformation over the course of dragonaut.
kitajima and flicker stereotypes
In her article, Between brains and breasts—women scientists in fiction film: on the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence, Eva Flicker suggests that female scientists are depicted as sexualized husks in comparison to their male counterparts. Over the past hundred years, archetypical female scientists have failed to strike a balance between their sexuality and their relevance as researchers. Beauty and brains are often portrayed as mutually exclusive so, as Flicker notes, "Women scientists are rare and when they do appear, their roles differ greatly from those of their male colleagues."
With this in mind, she has created six stereotype subcategories specifically for fictional female scientists: the "old maid", the "male woman", the "naive expert", the "evil plotter", the "daughter or assistant" and the "lonely heroine". Kitajima doesn't fit neatly into these categories and, as above, can be seen as a compound of these archetypical elements.
Old maid: Flicker describes this archetypical character as follows: "There is no doubt about her professional competence, but as a woman she is lacking something... she is depicted as a typical bespectacled “four-eyes".... In keeping with a successful character development, over the course of the film her deficit will be balanced out. Her femininity will be (re)instated. A man will appear who sets her off in a spin and shows her the ways of love despite her routine rationality. This female character pays the following price: during her transformation into the perfect, attractive, and desirable woman, she loses her professional competence and slips up, making mistakes. According to this model, femininity and intelligence are mutually exclusive characteristics in a woman’s film role."
In some ways this archetype can be seen as defining Kitajima — indeed, she is a professionally competent "four-eyes" whose life is changed by a male character. However, Kitajima never loses her competence or changes physically — she is consistently represented as a beautiful woman with great scientific ability. The change we see in Kitajima is a balancing of motivations, a greater understanding of both humanity and dragons with a desire to bring the species together in mutual acceptance. The catalyst for this change is the revelation of Kitajima's Resonance with Nozaki, something that forces her to re-evaluate her understanding of the Resonance process. As Nozaki in his current form is a creation of Kitajima's psyche, how relevant his masculinity is to this change can be seen as debatable.
Naive expert: According to Flicker, "This woman scientist has a brilliant career, but her naiveté and feminine emotions get her into some difficulty in the films’ story line. Only a man’s help can get her out of these difficulties. She embodies the morally impeccable woman who believes in goodness and is accordingly naive in her actions."
The only area in which Kitajima seems to represent the naive expert is in her need to be rescued at several points in the series. Not a damsel in distress by any stretch of the imagination (unlike the archetypical naive expert), she only requires assistance after her obsession causes her to ignore personal risks. Far from being overtly emotional, Kitajima is coolly rational at all times — even after being assaulted and left for dead in a submarine, logic dictates her next move. This can be seen as contrasting quite openly with Nozaki's characterisation, which is governed almost entirely by the emotions gifted to him by his master. Kitajima is naive in the sense that she is ignorant of what her work implies beyond short-term acclaim. Far from being morally clean, she is ruthless, obsessive, and selfish — character traits quite unbefitting of a true naive expert (who is representative of all that is good, innocent, and human).
Lonely heroine: An archetype that only truly came into being during the late twentieth century. Flicker states that the lonely heroine "... has outstanding qualifications and her competence outclasses the men. She is possibly the most competent scientist in her special area. She is a modern, emancipated woman. She finds it natural to move within a male environment, and accordingly she also has appropriated some male traits. Her greatest (or only) interest is in her scientific research.... This woman is not an old maid and also not a male woman; she is young, attractive, emancipated, and a highly competent professional, who even has experience with one-night stands."
Given the time of dragonaut's release (2007), it does seem appropriate that the modern archetype of the lonely heroine is the one that fits Kitajima's character the best. She is an upward focused woman with both scientific and sexual power. Far from mousy, she speaks her mind (frequently) and follows through on the promises she makes to herself and others. Kitajima doesn't begin the series with a strong moral element to her persona but, as the story progresses, she overcomes her personal shortcomings to find a cause in inter-species harmony. Unlike her counterparts in this archetype, Kitajima can never really be considered "lonely". She does not pine for human relationships that are unavailable to her — quite the opposite, really. Kitajima is consistently supported by Nozaki and Yonamine, two male characters whose affection she commands with both strength and intelligence. Even when these characters are removed from her world (as seen in the manga adaptation, where neither exist), Kitajima remains as capable and qualified as ever.
conclusion
Kitajima can easily be placed within the boundaries of various academic archetypes focused specifically on scientist characters. Her archetypical obsession, questionable morality, and inhuman arrogance suggest that she is yet another female anti-rationalist persona. By successfully combining the rationalist (scientist) and anti-rationalist (human) elements of her characterisation however, Kitajima is able to become a somewhat less generic female scientist. Instead of being forced to sacrifice either her rationality or her femininity by the close of the series, she is able to reconcile the two. This isn't to say she is the "ultimate" in female scientist characters (there's still a long way to go before realistic portrayals of women in scientific occupations are the norm), but Kitajima is certainly a scientific female personality of note.