1
The Two Cultures
Two cultures joke — MIT vs. Harvard
There is a joke about a harried checkout clerk in a supermarket in Central Square,
Cambridge, midway between MIT and Harvard. She is working at the counter marked
by a prominent red sign, "Express lane—twelve items only," she sees an unmistakable
student type approaching with a shopping cart heaped high with dozens of packages.
"Listen buster," she blurts out with patronizing exasperation, "I don't know whether
you go to MIT and don’t read, or to Harvard and can't count, but [with emphatic
derision] you are in the wrong line!"
INTRODUCTION
Ever since it was given currency by C.P. Snow almost forty years ago, the term
"two cultures" has been routinely invoked to refer to the sharp line separating two
modes of thought and practice, one exemplified by natural scientists, the other by
literary intellectuals. Snow launched a phrase, formulated a question, and started a
controversy.
Rereading C.P. Snow's 1959 Rede lecture today, it is easy to see why serious
scholars hesitate to take it seriously. For one thing, it begins with an ostentatiously
casual, anecdotal account of Snow's discovery of the "two cultures." It is made possible
by his having had two vocations, one as a physicist, the other as a novelist, and by his
achievement of a small measure of success and celebrity in each. Accordingly, he
explains, he divides his time between two very different groups. In fact, there are many
days, as he tells it, when he has spent his working hours with his fellow physicists and
then, at night, has "gone off" with his literary pals. It is this double life, shuttling back
and forth between his scientific and literary colleagues, that led him to recognize "the
2
gulf of incomprehension" that separates the two groups (But which he, himself,
bridged).
But in some ways, he concedes, his scientific and literary friends are very much
alike. If identified by social origin, race, general level of intelligence, or socio-economic
status, the members of the two groups are hard to tell apart. When it comes to their
characteristic cultural or psychological make-up, however, or their language, their
moral, intellectual, and aesthetic values, or, indeed, their overall views of the world—
they are remarkably different. Scientists and humanists, Snow announces, are barely
able to communicate with each other. In fact, he has come to realize that they inhabit
distinct mental worlds. On the basis of this brief autobiographical vignette, Snow
formulates his general thesis:
I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being
split into two polar groups. When I say the intellectual life, I mean to include
also a large part of our practical life, because I should be the last person to
suggest the two can at the deepest level be distinguished. . . . Two polar groups,
at one pole we have literary intellectuals, who incidentally while no one was
looking took to referring to themselves as 'intellectuals' as though there were no
others. . . . Literary intellectuals at one pole—at the other scientists, and as the
most representative, the physical scientists. Between the two a gulf of mutual
incomprehension—sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and
dislike, but most of all lack of understanding (11-12).
Stereotypes:
The Scientist — tends to oversimplify political and social trends and problems.
The Literary Intellectual — tends to avoid, even fear the technical.
3
The Scientist
Snow's typical Scientist is a plain-spoken, direct, earnest, practical, clear-headed, sturdy
fellow who, alas, has little time or inclination for imaginative literature or the arts, but
whose political and moral views are admirably independent, conscientious, and
sensible. His outlook is likely to be humanitarian, compassionate, unillusioned,
politically liberal-left tending or, in a word, "progressive." Scientists believe in progress.
They believe that the expansion of human knowledge of nature—and power over
nature is what drives history, and what makes it a record of steady improvement in the
conditions of human life. Scientists "naturally . . . [have] the future in their bones" (16).
From a moral standpoint, he contends, they are "the soundest group of intellectuals we
have," a fact he ascribes, without apology or elaboration, to "a moral component right in
the grain of science itself" (19). His perspective is probably based on his experiences in
World War II.
In the eyes of the literary intellectual the scientist is brash, boastful, and overly
optimistic. He comes from an egalitarian "culture" that cuts across incomes and family
backgrounds. He is intense, rigorous, a man of many ideas but few books. An
innovator, a doer, but may also be seen a just a handyman in the Industrial Revolution,
a graduate of a “red brick” technical school. Ideas are either good or bad, the scientist is
not so interested in their pedigree. He has probably not read much Shakespeare and
can be accused of being overly specialized, but not irrelevant.
The Literary Intellectual
By contrast the literary intellectuals (who represent both the humanities and the
arts) are self-centered, quirky, unpredictable, elitist, egotistical. They are masters of
indirection, figurative language, and irony, which amounts to saying one thing while
meaning another. As custodians of an ancient tradition, their outlook naturally is
toward the past, and as a result they understand few of the key ideas of modern science.
4
On several occasions, when Snow found himself in groups of these ostensibly welleducated people, he conducted little quizzes: what, he asked for example, is the Second
Law of Thermodynamics? No one in the company knew—a fact he takes as the
"scientific equivalent" of not having read a single work of Shakespeare. Such total
ignorance, according to Snow, lends "an unscientific flavor to the whole 'traditional'
culture, and that flavor is often . . . on the point of turning anti-scientific" (17). Besides,
many of these traditionalist literary types, who regard scientists as "shallowly
optimistic," are social and political reactionaries. He names a few famous modernists,
such as William Butler Yeats, Ezra Pound, and Wyndham Lewis, who had flirted with
politically wicked, fascistic ideas. They presumably represent the inherent political
inclinations of literary intellectuals. "Didn't the influence of all they represent," Snow
asks, "bring Auschwitz that much nearer?"
In the eyes of the Scientist the Literary Intellectual is overly pessimistic,
promoting philosophies of despair. He comes from an elite culture that is proud of its
social pedigree or intellectual degrees. He is a man of fashion and favor, often owning
many books (but mostly novels, histories, and plays). He may be seen to be overly
general, passive, and irrelevant to the pressing issues of the day. He may be a natural
"Luddite." He is quite vain and is self-impoverished by a pretense of "high culture." He
dismisses scientists as ignorant specialists, yet he himself misuses technical terms and
cannot explain the second law of thermodynamics.
Both are stereotypes — and stereotypes, according to Snow, have led to a
mutual gulf of incomprehension, to hostility, to dislike, to a lack of understanding.
Deeper Roots of the Divide
5
Lets go to the origins of Western education and focus on a striking medieval example
invoked by the distinguished historian of technology, the late Lynn White, Jr. It
concerns a significant change in the concept of learning that occurred in twelfth-century
Europe. By the beginning of the century, White notes, a deep conviction of the
separateness of two kinds of knowledge already was embodied in the traditional
division of the seven liberal arts into the quadrivium and the trivium.
The Quadrivium
The Trivium
Arithmetic
Grammar
Astronomy
Logic
Geometry
Rhetoric
Music
In twelfth-century Europe, scholars made notable advances in mathematical
sophistication. In 1100, for example, they had access to only a few scraps of Euclid's
Elements, but by 1200 they could choose among six complete versions. As "confidence in
the validity of . . . [the] results achieved quadrivially increased," White observes,
"conviction of the cogency of trivial arguments declined." He notes that a competitive
relationship already existed between the two kinds of subjects. Natural philosophers
and other practitioners of the quadrivium already were narrowing the scope of their
work, limiting their subject matter to the tangible and the physical, and their method to
the mathematical. At the same time, the non-scientific, language-oriented subjects of
the trivium took on the connotation of second-order, "soft" knowledge or, in a word,
triviality. The history of the word "trivial," as recorded in the Oxford English
Dictionary, follows a revealing trajectory, running through at least six major changes,
from its initial medieval meaning: "Belonging to the trivium of medieval studies"; to
today's meaning: "Of small account, little esteemed, paltry, poor, trifling,
inconsiderable, unimportant, slight."
6
No wonder Snow's lecture caused such a stir! If we accept White's account, then
of course Snow's suspicion was correct: his lecture had indeed touched a nerve. It was a
nerve made sensitive by a deep, centuries-old cultural wound, one that threatened to
bifurcate the prevailing concept of knowledge.
The Historical Context of Snow's "Two Cultures"
1. The lecture was an expression of profound concern dealing with British
decline and the emergence of a race between the superpowers, US and USSR. Britain
was devastated by WW II. The Empire was gone and there were severe recriminations.
Perhaps our ancestors should have invested in industrial infrastructure more than in
the Indian empire. Great Britain was a net importer of food and was deficient in natural
resources. Although she had survived the Nazis, the flow of history was against Britain
and the nation was facing steep declines in lifestyles in Snow's generation. What the
British had was native cunning, invention, and creativity. These had to be stimulated in
the proper way through proper technical education or the nation might perish. Britain
had broken with old patterns (e.g. Churchill's leadership was more significant than that
of the royal family) and had to continue to do so. They had become the weakest of the
great powers.
2. Cast in the guise of educational reform in science in the wake of an atomic
arms buildup, a missile race, and the launch of the Russian Sputnik. Need for Britain to
produce an elite in science, research, design, and development. This elite supported by
a base of vast numbers of technically proficient workers for the new industrial
infrastructure. This in turn supported by a lower level education for politicians,
administrators, and the entire community to be educated somewhat in science and
technology.
7
3. Compared to the US and USSR, Britain was small indeed. She produced a
small number of rigorously trained scientists. The American undergraduates were not
rigorously trained, but their Ph.D. production was large and rigorous, perhaps twice
that of Britain. The Soviets were going all out in technical education, including
specialization (like ball-bearing engineering). They were arduous and the state was
throwing vast resources into scientific and technical education in order to prevail in the
growing ideological struggle with the west. Would Communism or Democracy come
out on top in the Scientific Revolutions of the 20th century?
4. An ideological war was being fought for the "hearts and minds of the third
world (such as India, Africa). Would a scientific revolution be possible throughout the
world? Would the underdeveloped nations accept foreign aid and education from the
Free world or the Soviet bloc? In addition to the threat of nuclear war, Snow raised the
issues of over-population and the growing divide between the rich and the poor. In fact
he wanted originally to title his essay "the rich and the poor."
Thus, the two cultures gap must be bridged
(a) for the sake of intellectual life
(b) for the sake of England
(c) for western society
(d) for the sake of the poor
(e) for the sake of the world
(f) since there is little time left
8
Might there be three (or more) cultures?
THE EMPIRICAL The Science of how nature is, natural law, natural sciences)
THE HUMANISTIC (The study of peak human experiences in history, rhetoric, art,
literature, etc.).
THE SOCIAL (The political and economic sciences of how people ought to behave,
legislated law, power and interest relations, the social sciences)
In "a second look" Snow speaks of the emergence of a third culture, composed of
the disciples of social history, sociology, government, psychology, economics, political
science, demography, medicine, architecture — concerned with the human effects of the
scientific revolution and on speaking terms with the scientific one. Is it this third
culture that can bridge the gap? Where does STS fit?
9
ST112
C.P. Snow
Questions for study and discussion
• What did Snow mean by "cultures"?
• What was the historical setting and what social tensions motivated Snow's lecture?
• Does scientific knowledge have special status? Is it apart from culture? Or, is science
merely one set of cultural activities among many others? Is it part of culture?
• Is high literary culture of any relevance to the pressing needs of the twenty-first century?
Or is it a dinosaur, a relic of the frivolous pleasures of a now defunct social class?
• What are the bridges between the two cultures? Or are there three cultures? or more?
Or perhaps many more?
• What culture or cultures are you part of? Consider sub-cultures as well.
• If you had to give an important lecture on learning, education, and world problems today, how
would you approach it? Prepare an outline of your remarks.