by C.P. Snow explains in his novel, The Two Cultures, that there exists a dichotomy in studies between the humanities and the sciences. A separation that had existed long before Snow’s interest in the subject in the 20th century, and yet Snow’s work clearly explains how and why the two subjects could and should intertwine and form bridges between them. The two cultures would appear to be very distinct in their differences, a sharp contrast between, say, literary arts and the laws of thermodynamics. You can even see it in today’s time, with the way that certain colleges emphasize their academic values. Take for example, Colby itself, a liberal arts school. What makes a school liberal arts? Usually, it implies a smaller, undergraduate education focused school. But most people assume it places focus on the humanities and arts over hard science, perhaps due to the more unusual and “creative” type courses that liberal arts schools tend to offer over other standard universities. Heavy emphasis is placed on STEM fields in other larger schools such as Umass, with many of my friends choosing to go there for their well-known CS programs or such. Even today, there is a subtle divide in the two cultures just by looking at the types of higher education available. But what if the divide itself should not be more connected as Snow says, but doesn’t exist at all except in our minds?
Obviously there is a clear divide in the conceptual background of the two cultures, one can’t just apply a degree in English to astrophysics. Snow laments that people create a schism between the arts by saying, for example, his colleagues not being embarrassed for not knowing a thermodynamics law while in Snow’s eyes that is as bad as never having read a work by Shakespeare. At its base, Snow is correct in my opinion. People shouldn’t focus their scope of knowledge on one category while ignoring the other. But just because one does not know an imperative law or work in one field does not mean they are uneducated or willfully ignorant. When someone focuses on certain aspects of a study, they shouldn’t think they are ignoring the others because they do not comprehensively study them as well. The divide or gap only exists when you start thinking it has to be bridged. The two cultures are not distinctly separate but two sides to the same coin, the general scientific theory is there in both subjects. Science itself started with natural philosophers who were just trying to understand the book of nature. So, if science is simply a way of trying to analyze and understand new information, I would think that the humanities shouldn’t be seen as totally separate since the quest for knowledge is the same. In other words, focusing on the differences would obviously lead one to conclude there are two cultures, but just because those differences exist does not mean these cultures are inherently divided.
One last thought I would give is to the necessary coexistence of the two I have come to learn in this class, particularly after the Frankenstein unit. If one did take Snow’s words to heart and saw a divide between the humanities and sciences that should be bridged, what better way to utilize that is there than with morality? Philosophy on morality and justification are certainly more a forte of the humanities than science. And yet what does science constantly lead to when progress is the only motive with little regard to the consequences? In a fictional novel, it leads to a monstrous murdering disaster of a life form and a failed creator. In real life, it might lead to unethical experiments, nukes, etc. f the two cultures remain separated, they should at the least be seen as aids to each other’s arguments and goals rather than two separate entities that must be bridged to fulfill some sort of academic standard.