by Jeroen Bouterse
It is a commonplace to say that a divide has occurred in modern academia between the sciences and the humanities. In the anglophone world, this diagnosis is often traced back to a lecture by the British scientist-novelist Charles Snow, who pointed out in 1959 what he saw as a lamentable gap between ‘two cultures’: the literary and the scientific culture. Snow’s Rede lecture has become the main point of reference for later commentators, who often sigh in frustration that in spite of Snow’s warnings, the divide has deepened or widened.
That we have grown so used to the ‘Two Cultures’ framework is unfortunate, however, for multiple reasons. For one, Snow’s lecture wasn’t about the sciences and the humanities. (He never even uses the term ‘humanities’ in the Rede lecture.) His worries were about literature, about certain writers who got their views on ethics and literature all wrong; not so much about liberal arts or humanistic scholarship. That’s not to say that literature and the humanities are unrelated, of course; but they are not always the same thing either, which is why Snow has little to offer us by way of explanation of the sciences-humanities divide. That, in fact, is a second reason why Snow is a less-than-ideal key witness: there is a lot of lamentation and exhortation in his lecture, and very little definition and analysis.
A third reason, and I would say the most important one, is that whatever the virtues and shortcomings of Snow’s model, the omnipresence of the ‘two cultures’ framework comes at the cost of a richer historical perspective. (That is a typical humanistic concern, of course.) People did think seriously about the relationship between the sciences and the humanities before and after Snow, and collapsing all the results of that thinking into the category of the ‘two cultures’ means giving yourself over to an unselfconscious cliché about the modern intellectual landscape. Read more »