Omar Azam
Two Cultures Seminar
1993
Snow: 2 Cultures Problem
In C.P. Snow's analysis of the modern world, as presented in The Two Cultures and a Second Look, the world of the scientists seems to be the culture that has the upper hand, due mostly to the fact that the scientific revolution is the guiding force of the world. According to Snow, since the scientific revolution is unmatched by any such revolution in the non-scientific world, and since it has the potential of bringing at least basic "comfort" to the four corners of the earth, it, along with its innovators, the scientists, must be recognized much more fully by non-scientists. Snow does not give many ideas of how scientists can be incorporated into the world of affairs and politics, or to what extent (scientists ruling the world vs. scientists advising the world, etc.), and for this reason his argument is too broad and idealistic. Furthermore, other arguments, by men such as Trilling, point out that the inherent "two cultures" premise is flawed due to labels applied to both scientists and non-scientists by Snow. Snow also assumes that science and the scientific revolution are inherently moral and cannot be twisted to the ends of political bosses and regimes. As it turns out, Snow's assumptions on morality are too narrow, and his plans for the future too empty of moral education and too full of academic education. Morality is the characteristic that is found in both "cultures," and ideas scientific and non-scientific should be judged by their morality, and not by the near-blind faith in the scientific revolution.
My views are probably tainted by the fact that I am writing thirty years after Snow did, and we are living in the future about which Snow could only conjecture. In Snow's time, there were bombs and military intelligence as there are nowadays, but the communication/information revolution had not yet bloomed. With the advent of computers, satellites, and all the other very scientific equipment being used for the benefit of non-science, we have seen the incorporation of science into literature, the humanities, art, all the disciplines that Snow in his time saw as very traditional and sometimes outdated. Because of this intermingling of the two cultures, I feel that their bounds have become more and more transparent.
But then to begin with, I thought that their bounds were translucent. Snow does make sense in classifying certain types of scientists and literary types; there is, in general, a picture that comes to mind when I think of a laboratory scientist or a starving painter. But these stereotypes change with time. In Snow's time, it was the scientists who were left-wing and the top writers that were anything but liberal. Now, since scientific research takes much more time, money, and equipment, scientists have come to rely on large grants from big businessmen and the government, both of which are conservative by definition. Literary types and artists still use pen and paper, which is practically free (except at Norris). Writers are thought of as the liberals by today's standard.
Although I can relate to Snow's generalizations, I cannot agree that everyone can be put either into one "culture" or the other. As Trilling asks in his essay, "The actions of parliaments...in directing the massive affairs of state,...the movement of armies and fleets,...scientific projects for the contrivance of armaments and of factories for the production of them, the promises made to citizens, and the choices made by the voters at the polls--these...are in charge of the culture of literature. What can this mean?" (467) Trilling is referring to Snow's interchangeable usage of "traditional" and "literary" and "non-scientific" in his essay. I agree, and I think that Snow, perhaps out of convenience of his "two culture" thesis, associated every non-scientific activity as being literary. Snow once referred to a third culture of sociologists and social historians, and I think he was beginning to see the start of a trend that has reached a high point today: the nullification of cultural stereotypes due to cross-breeding caused by the communications revolution. For example, the introduction of computers into art has caused the stereotype of a computer-ignorant artist to disappear.
Even though Snow may have conjectured the intermingling of all the cultures and sub-cultures, one thing we mustn't forget is that he grouped all non-science together, which is absurd. His two cultures should have been called "The Literary and The Scientific," two groups that are composed of the two types of people that Snow had in mind when he wrote his essay. But even so, this labeling would be insufficient. One of Snow's major assumptions was that literary types are almost untouched by the world of politics, and likewise that writers play little part in changing the status quo. Trilling points out that literature and social change are very closely related; it was the "muckrakers" of English literature that brought about social change during the late Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, Snow believes that literature, in its own world, does little to inspire change: "Persons ignorant of the nature of change [writers?], antagonistic to the scientific revolution which will impose social changes such as none of us can foresee, often think and talk and hope as though all literary judgments for ever will be made from the same viewpoint..." (92) Trilling balances Snow's statement by retorting that ever since the French Revolution, literature has been moving people to act. (Matthew Arnold's original idea)
Finally, Snow's major flaw comes from his major assumption: that since the scientific revolution is strong, that it is unstoppable; since scientists can have an unfair advantage, that we should give it to them. On the other hand, Trilling and Leavis (moreso) try to defend literature and its morality. Whereas Snow suggests a new school curriculum, Leavis defends the present one to a point of rashness. It is a never-ending, infinitely-sided problem between literature and science: Which is moral? I think that Trilling, Snow, and Leavis all miss the point: Morality is not inherently part of either of these cultures. It is a separate entity, and it must be taught because it is what owns literature and science. Russia may be educating broadly, and England narrowly, but this is only important when material issues come to mind. Russia could probably win wars because of its highly academic educational system. But could it teach its children to think morally enough to uphold communism? That is another question.
Copyright 2003 Omar Azam