Across the great divide
Maxine Clarke
Friday, 01 May 2009 09:28 UTC
Its attack on poverty and arrogance is what makes C. P. Snow’s ‘two cultures’ lecture relevant 50 years on, according to a Nature Editorial published today, 6 May (Nature 459, 10; 2009). Three Essays in the same issue of the journal look back on the lecture and its effects. In Dissecting The Two Cultures (Nature 459, 32; 2009), Martin Kemp contends that the real enemy of understanding is not the ‘Two Cultures’ identified by Snow, but specialization in all disciplines. Georgina Ferry (Nature 459, 34; 2009) suggests that today’s division lies between optimists and pessimists rather than between scientific and literary intellectuals. And Books and Arts Editor Joanne Baker introduces an extensive extract from Snow’s book, Science in Government_, to show how perceptive he was in analysing how science plays into political decision making "(_Nature 459, 36; 2009)":http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/459036a.html.
The boundaries between the arts and the sciences — and between the sciences themselves — that Snow identified have long since been removed. But other challenges remain. Snow would not have approved of the narrow-mindedness of some researchers who consider the significant costs of their work to be no more than their due from society, nor of their blind resentment when its value is questioned. What Snow urged in particular was an awareness of the problems of poor countries — and of putting scientists at the disposal of solving those problems, for reasons both moral and strategic. The disparities between rich and poor countries may have shrunk since Snow’s time, but are still unacceptably large. Snow’s overriding message — whether about awareness of artistic and scientific experience, or about the applied sciences, or about ‘remediable suffering’ — was that the best and the brightest should not be blinkered. That message still has resonance.
All three C. P. Snow articles in this issue of Nature and linked here are free to access online until Thursday 14 May (the Editorial is permanently free access), so let us know here your views on the opinions expressed in them. As usual, contributions to this online forum will be considered for publication in Nature as Correspondence contributions.
Updated 07 May 2009 18:31 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Since C.P. Snow’s 1959 Rede lecture, debate over his ‘Two Cultures" has become something of a smokescreen that hides the real issues on Snow’s mind – the absolute necessity of science and technology being applied to improve the lives of less fortunate people. In this context, it is gratifying to see the balance redressed in today’s editorial.
In the essay “The two cultures: A second look” written in 1963, Snow writes of the Rede lecture “before I wrote the lecture I thought of calling it ‘The Rich and the Poor’, and I rather wish that I hadn’t changed my mind.” Snow found it unconscionable that, in a world where science and technology could address most people’s material needs, there was such a great divide between the rich and the poor. He attributed the failure to take action in part on the cultural divide between the scientific and literary elite prevalent in Britain at the time – but this was just one of many hooks he could have chosen to pursue his main point.
As is correctly pointed out in today’s editorial, cultures have shifted and merged over the past 50 years. But the fact remains that we live in a world of haves and have-nots. And Science and technology provide us with the tools to redress this balance, at least to the extent of ensuring material needs are met. The question now – as it was back in 1959 – is whether we have the understanding, humanity and political will to use science as an agent of change that raises people’s standards of living around the world, rather than creating new cultural chasms.
-
Some time in the future, “people” (i.e., map-makers) on all levels will perhaps notice that there are no “two cultures”, but only problems of maps, map-makings (including “methods”) and the problem of the stability (or flexibility) of these maps and mutual mappings (& map-makings).
That’s all – ranging from ubiquitous mutual mind-games and linguistic games (“communications”, “military intelligence”, “mutual mappings”, “linguistic translation and interpretation problems”, etc.) down to (not only physico-chemical) mapping problems during “battles” against hunger, lack of “education” (i.e., lack of “good” “fitting” maps), drug and swine flu topology (i.e., the “real wars” – just forget childish sand games carried out by childish soldiers in Afghanistan and elsewhere!). -
The two cultures theme was actively explored during WWI, in particular by E. Ray Lankester and William Bateson. In his 1917 piece on “The Place of Science in Education” the latter declared “those who govern the Empire” to be scientifically ignorant, but added: “We may be reluctant to confess the fact, but though most scientific men have some recreation, often even artistic in nature, we have with rare exceptions withdrawn from the world in which letters, history and the arts have immediate value, and simple allusions to these topics find us wanting. Of the two kinds of disability, which is the more grave?” More on this may be found by taking a free “look inside” our recent biography of Bateson at the Amazon.com website (see pp. 444-445 of Treasure Your Exceptions. The Science and Life of William Bateson)
-
Kemp’s article (Nature 459, 32; 2009) confirms that the Snow’s thesis is as actual as ever. Kemp asserts that “Snow’s way of setting up the debate about the two cultures was founded on a false comparison between knowledge of Shakespeare and thermodynamics”, and that “Snow’s poser about the second law of thermodynamics would be better matched against a narrower question in literary studies, such as asking what is meant by deconstruction as practised by the philosopher Jacques Derrida.”
Such statements only reveal the depth of scientific ignorance in the humanities camp. The second law of thermodynamics is fundamental statement with broadest application across all disciplines. It is by no means specialized or narrow question. Snow’s comparison with Shakespeare is very appropriate. Consider the following question – If humanities scholars need to know some science, what would be the contents of a one-day (!) science course for humanities scholars? While they may be some debate over some topics, the second law would not be the matter of such debate. It would be in the morning session, right after the first law.
What should the humanities scholars know of science if not the second law? How about the first law (of thermodynamics)? Newton’s laws? Anything?
In this debate, there is no need to prevaricate and mistify the subject of humanities. The simple fact is that, few exceptions notwithstanding, scientific education of humanities scholars is abysmal. Most scientist, on the other hand, have insight into humanities sufficient for at least an intelligent conversation, if not a debate. Pretending that humanities scholars somehow better understand “human condition”, and pretending that scientists are technocrats, is simply an excuse to avoid admitting ignorance. Kemp’s and Leavis’s contributions to the question of communication between two cultures only obscure the issue.
-
I think it would help to contextualise C.P. Snow’s lectures within the period. His approach to the two cultures in the 1959 lectures is anticipated by several other works like Jakob Bronowski’s Science and Human Values (1956). There is also the (US) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science which was combined 1955. Both Bronowski’s books and the Encyclopedia were written in reaction to the irrationalism of Nazism and Stalinism – they sought to make science clearer, more accountable, and of course more accessible. They also looked forward in the UK to a period of when the science community would have a greater constituency – drawn from the postworld generation of students – many coming from poorer backgrounds thanks to the education reforms after the Butler Education Act of 1944. His attack on the “intelligentsia” was rhetorical, a means of persuading this potential new vangard of scientists that science was no longer a distal subject to be avoided, but one that was just as important to the cultural and social well being of the nation, one that had made contributions which benefitted those
who would sneer at it.With regard to over specialisation today. Yes. Perhaps this diverges from Snow’s “plain” science approach. It also creates bottlenecks in research when one from a related field has no idea what the other party is going on about – take for example the two papers on the new hominid. There we have wonderful evidence from a study of the foot, supported by an incredible number of terms and numbers – ranged against the paper on dwarfism and biogeography with its own supporting evidence. Of course we can understand what is going on, but there are huge gulfs that are not to do with technology, but with the desire to have one’s terminology. As an armchair anthropologist – I’d wager that the bones belong to a chimpoid. Whatever happened to all those chimp like animals that diverged 7 million years ago, and those hybrids of 5 million years ago? But for now I’d go for the hominid foot theory – it is elegant.
-
C.P. Snow’s call to overcome the ‘two cultures’ is mirrored in the recent founding and funding of multiple social science and humanities programmes, accompanying large natural science initiatives: e.g. the Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) programme funded alongside the Human Genome Project (HGP). A recent editorial (Nature 459, 10; 2009) argues that “the boundaries between the arts and the sciences – and between the sciences themselves – are more porous than ever. Apparently paradoxical is the continued articulation of the need to overcome ever increasing specialisation. Even more strikingly is that the ‘sense of urgency’ that accompanied Snow’s call is still recognisable in the ELSI programme.
Inquiry into the world fuelled by curiosity about the universe, as well as inquiry into the world meant to solve pressing global societal problems, requires both a deeper and a broader understanding. Contemporary science is characterised by both increasing collaboration and by increased specialisation. These are not opposite trends cancelling one another out. Solving problems requires fragmenting problems (specialisation). Solutions to fragmented problems subsequently require integration (collaboration). While specialised expertise is indeed greatly valued in “well-led collaborations” (Nature 459, 10; 2009), usually the integration of the solutions to the fragments of the problem, do not add up to the solution to the problem itself.
For instance, the ELSI programme and the HGP programme (if you will: each representatives of one of the ‘two cultures’) both managed to produce respectful amounts of knowledge about the human genome. They cooperated intensively, yet have not managed to integrate the solutions each of them carefully crafted to fit fragments of the problem of understanding the human genome and the human condition.
-
The act of bridging the ‘two cultures’ is currently also identified by the term convergence work. Recently a special section in EMBO Reports has been set up, devoted to convergence work in Genomics and Society. Each new issue of EMBO Reports features two articles from the series, which started in volume 10, issue 2 and is still running, with a number of articles yet to appear.
The collection has been set up by Peter Stegmaier, a sociologist with a keen interest in the interaction between social scientists and natural scientists. He brought together a number of people who, like CP Snow, have hybrid biographies (including yours truly), thus being able to claim (at the very least: some) expertise on both sides of a cultural divide.
The articles on ‘convergence work/research’ can be found here:
- The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. By P Stegmaier @ EMBO Rep 10(2) 114–119 (2009).
- Genomics in school. By R Verhoeff, DJ Boerwinkel & AJ Waarlo @ EMBO Rep 10(2) 120–124 (2009).
- The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. By J Calvert & P Martin @ EMBO Rep 10(3) 201–204 (2009).
- Sensitization: reciprocity and reflection in scientific practice. By B Penders, R Vos & K Horstman @ EMBO Rep 10(3) 205–208 (2009).
- Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. By M Radstake, E vd Heuvel-Vromans, N Jeucken, K Dortmans & AP Nelis @ EMBO Rep 10(4) 313–317 (2009).
- A forum for ‘doing society and genomics’. By EK Frow @ EMBO Rep 10(4) 318–321 (2009).
- Two-way communication between genomics and society. By J Ouborg @ EMBO Rep 10(5) 420–423 (2009).
- Lab-scale intervention. By D Schuurbiers & E Fisher @ EMBO Rep 10(5) 424–427 (2009).
They discuss themes such a the education of socially responsible scientsists, the fruits of continued dialogue between professionals (whether social scientists, ethicists or life scientists) and the public, between laboratory and society and various ways to promote reflection amongst professionals and publics.
-
I am astonished that virtually all the commentaries on C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures writings have ignored Snow’s observation that it is the British education system, in contradistinction to European (including Russian/Soviet) and American systems, that produces a narrow-minded Two-Cultures-divided citizenry and government. The British education system insists on specialisation at a much earlier age (typically mid-teens) than other systems. Schoolchildren are generally forced to abandon either the humanities or sciences absurdly early, well before the age of eighteen. British undergraduate degrees then rarely straddle the humanities-sciences divide, or allow students to make their own bridges with major-minor subject combinations. Snow points out (and it is still largely true) that in other countries there is a positive insistence on students having at least some exposure to both types of knowledge. Snow’s point was not that there are two types of knowledge or scholarship (there are, and attempts to find connections are mostly superficial and fatuous, in my view) but that in the UK in particular, individuals belong to separate “cultures”, that is communities with distinct values and conversation, where appreciation of the other is lacking and that this lack of appreciation is socially acceptable or even celebrated.
Snow was arguing for an achievable educational reform. We’re not there yet.(Incidentally, speaking as a biologist, I would say that most biologists would be pretty hazy on the specifics of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I can guarantee that they would (a) be aware of its existence, (b) feel a twinge of guilt about not knowing it confidently and (c ) consider it extremely important and significant. I wonder whether humanities graduates would feel the same. F.R. Leavis and apparently Martin Kemp would seem not to.)
-
The readership of Nature, and membership in this blog, are heavily skewed in their perspective on this issue. Of course the dichotomy of two cultures continues, unchanged or exacerbated, and reflects at its base two approaches to processing data and analyzing the world around us, linear logic versus integrative/creative logic. While an individual may have a natural or learned early propensity for one or the other, and all to some extent must use both in daily life, both can be trained. Visual artists and poets are trained, just as are scientists. Unfortunately, in the States as well as in Britain, students at an early age veer into more and more specialized education in only one of these two spheres. Especially in science and medicine, for the purpose of this discussion, one ends with a product that is excellent in linear logic, but with a withered ability for integrative logic. In medicine this is sometimes given the condescending name “evidence-based” medicine, as if others do not use evidence in the practice of medicine. However, the great scientist or physician must incorporate not just linear logic but a healthy sense of intuition (creative logic) to guide his progress. Linear medicine in isolation results unfortunately in doctors who tend to care for organs instead of patients. Likewise, the truly great scientific leaps, whether of Newton or Einstein or Watson-Crick, include the ability and imagination to integrate a variety of information and speculation to develop new models with which to interpret the world. Both spheres of learning exclude the other to their detriment.
-
@ Jeremy: While Snow may have directed his critique towards the British system education system, in practice his argument is not restricted to it. Consider e.g. the following observation from Jacques Dubochet about a group of biology studentets, interacting with a group of gender studies students of similar age, dealing with the theme sex:
[…] On occasion, one group had the task of understanding the views of social science students undertaking gender studies. To this end, they held intensive discussions with their peers, attended courses relating to gender studies and finally reported to the rest of the class with two conclusions. The first was that the discussions had been extremely difficult and any exchange of views was virtually impossible—the students in gender studies held vastly different opinions and theories about sex than did the biologists. The second was that only two years before, the biology students had no problem discussing and exchanging their points of view with these former high-school friends. Two years at the university had succeeded in putting them—perhaps forever—in separate and impregnable compartments. What a strange university. This anecdote is worrying, but hardly surprising. […]
Quote drawn from Dubochet, Jacques (2008). Citizen biologists. The Lausanne experience. EMBO reports 9(1):5–9.
To some standards this an example of the Two Cultures in-the-making in a Swiss University.
Dubochte goes on to argue, like many bafore and afterwards, that what is needed to bridge these “separate and impregnable compartments” is a move towards hybrid biograhies, to teach society to biologists and biology to social scientists. This would then avoid (@David) one sphere excluding the other to its detriment.
Results
-
