Jumpsuits & Teleporters

Reflective Summary: “The Two Cultures” *

In his 1959 Rede lecture, “The Two Cultures”, C.P. Snow laments the intellectual divide between the natural sciences and the humanities—specifically literary arts. His tone throughout is one of frustration and persuasion for a growing problem of a cultural divide between two intellectually elite disciplines. Snow writes, “I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups.” Moreover, he is mainly concerned with the gap between education and economic status.

This difference can be attributed to the basis that, according to Snow, many scientists come from humble, low-income backgrounds while literary academics are born from well-to-do upbringings. Snow believes that scientists “have the future in their bones” and that the other group is focused on the past, preoccupied with traditional culture. These differences in intellectual interests are what keep the two disciplines from mingling. It is the elitist attitudes of each field that perpetuate the gap.

Snow has no tolerance for the lack of communication between science and the humanities. Furthermore, his disdain for social structure is critical in determining the underlying issue. He warns that if the gap is not bridged, science’s role in society will be one of misunderstanding and alienation. In the long run, this could potentially stifle our future progress. This is precisely why education plays a significant role in science’s cultural link to society. It is crucial to communicate with a wider audience. Though Snow points out that neither discipline wishes to be dumbed down in order to communicate with the masses. He states:

Most of my scientific acquaintances think that there is something in it, and so do most of the practicing artists I know. But I have been argued with by non-scientists of strong down-to-earth interests. Their view is that it is an over-simplification, and that if one is going to talk in these terms there ought to be at least three cultures. They argue that, though they are not scientists themselves, they would share a good deal of the scientific feeling. They would have as little use—perhaps, since they knew more about it, even less use—for the recent literary culture as the scientists themselves.

Lastly, Snow argues that, in order to preserve science’s cultural role, there must be less specialization in education. Commonality is vital, and differentiating the message for userability is key. In order to maintain society’s progress of innovation and creativity, it is important to find a way to speak to the general public about the practicality of the sciences. Science has the potential to uncover a deeper meaning of the nature of our existence. Thus, educating the public can lead first to understanding, then to acceptance, and ultimately support. Avoiding scientific illiteracy is paramount.

In conclusion, this argument at its essence is precisely what influences my research into the intersection of art and science. Considering that the museum offers an educational overview, it is this interest that leads me to an interdisciplinary partnership of the two fields. It is my goal to utilize the museum setting as a foundation for communication. Art for the sake of science is perhaps my biggest motivator. But, furthering this notion, it is my professional goal to popularize science and inspire the next generation of a combined science and art careers.

* This summary only reflects section I of Snow’s The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.