The Two Cultures (Canto)

Rating:
Summary: Arguments about taking social responsibility
Review: In this book, Sir Charles P. Snow examines what he sees as a splitting of the intelligentsia into two subcultures, the literary and the scientific. He cites anecdotal evidence of how ignorant literary figures are concerning fundamental scientific principles and how few works of literature have been read by the typical scientist. Snow is certainly qualified to see both sides of this issue. During World War II, he was in charge of the British program of scientific recruitment and is a first-class novelist. He also notes conservative/liberal tendencies among various groups within the scientific community.
He is of course correct, but the splitting is an inevitable consequence of the advance of science. As the amount of knowledge about a field of science grows, it takes more time and effort to succeed in the field. With the increase in commitment, there is less time for the individual to pursue other interests. However, that is not a wholly satisfactory excuse. Scientists are also part of the human condition and are almost always members of the advantaged class. Snow argues that they should be cognizant of the plight of the poor around the world and understand their moral obligation to try to alleviate poverty.
Scientists are often and justifiably considered to possess an intellectually narrow focus. Snow is very articulate in pointing out that society is damaged when some of the best and brightest remove themselves from the search for solutions to the current problems. Even though great advances have taken place in science in the forty years since Snow put forward these observations, they are just as valid as they were then. There is a lot of common ground between the literary and scientific communities, and Snow explains why it is critical that both sides occupy as much of it as possible. All people who are concerned with the problems of modern society should read this book.


Rating:
Summary: No, it's WORSE.
Review: AGAIN, you really, really, do need to read more than the first few pages of this essay in order to evaluate it properly; its first few pages are there only to bait you.

Yes, it does seem that few of us understand how the machines to which we entrust ourselves daily work (or, very often, fail to work), and this is a matter of concern -- because to the extent we don't understand them, we don't control them, they control us. But THAT is NOT what this essay is about. This essay is about, this essay propagandizes on behalf of, the proliferation of industrialization.

Let's backtrack, however. It is NECESSARY to know how the machines work, but it not SUFFICIENT to know how they work. We must also consider their side effects and consequences, and here we come roundabout to the point: C. P. Snow attacks Thoreau and other classic writers for pondering the human consequences of rapid technological change, in other words, for doing precisely what it is their job -- and duty -- to do. On the other hand, Mr. Snow never ACKNOWLEDGES, even to scoff at, the physical and environmental consequences of industrial and military and technologies, and in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this is quite a remarkable omission.

Note: C. P. Snow is remembered approximately as well as a politician as he is remembered as a novelist. (Most of his novels, all but one part of his "Brothers and Strangers" series, are out of print.)

Note also: Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" is a fine book, but it has to do with superstition; it has nothing to do either with what this essay purports to be about or with what it really is about. On the other hand, various chapters of his "Pale Blue Dot" and his posthumous "Billions and Billions" do show how opposed Professor Sagan was to what Mr. Snow advocates here, and I recommend both.

Rating:
Summary: Always a Tradeoff - Integration Should Be The Goal
Review: C.P. Snow argues about two cultures he was personally part of: the literary intellectuals and the science intellectuals. And in these two cultures there is a serious lack of communication and inter subjective knowledge. While this may be true, I find it's a very limited argument and fails to take in the many different subcultures that may or may not be the strength of industrialization but nevertheless influences the social and cultural whole of the both the countries and world we know of. Also disregarded is Western civilization's pragmatism that has permeated since the enlightenment, the ideas of separation of religion and state are also applied to all teachings apart from the universals of liberty, individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. So the scientists will lack in the social and literary fields, while the literary and cultural intellectuals will lack in the technological fields. Specialization has most certainly increased from the medieval period to the Renaissance to the Industrial revolution and scientific achievements, to the current information age, although this book was written well before in 1959 and 1963.

Integration is necessary to reach planetary unity and peace, however degrees of compartmentalization are required to technologize the world. So there has to be some balance here. Snow does make a well-known point in the comparisons of industrialized nations verses the undeveloped and there is a clear different in the level of living conditions. Capital, manpower and educative resources are required in all countries for integration to occur.

I agree that man is much better off in the industrialized nations as opposed to those that are not, however, much of the agricultural societies that existed prior to the Renaissance and Enlightenment were from a self-employed collective society that lacked the existential despair and Anst from lack of security that we have so prevalent today. Thus they existed in far more psychological security and there's much to be said on that for the human psyche. To be a self-employed artisan over a low paid factory employee, this is the result and it was not always favorable. There is a trade-off and the demystification and desacredization are serious and profound negative consequences in our modern technological society. Feudal agricultural and superstition have left but the radical wonder and appreciative amazement of childlike marvel with fascination and curiosity have long gone as well.

However Snow makes a good argument on the stupidity of any groups that have power and influence over society. Such groups should not lack in either literary and technological knowledge - as the majority of the leaders of our government do today, and the public for that matter, thus endorsing many (not all) inadequate governmental decisions based on surface and shallow reasonings. And thus we have overpopulation, destruction of the environment, nuclear weapons, and religious absolutism, the loss of pragmatism, cultural warfare and so forth.

Also, I didn't particularly care for the writing style of this book and had trouble digesting it. If it was written less arbitrarily, with fewer words I think it would be even much smaller than it already is, but more tolerable as well.

Rating:
Summary: No, it's WORSE.
Review: C.P. Snow was primarily known as a novelist, but his training was in science. In his now-famous (in the intellectual community, at least) Rede Lecture, Snow examined first the seeming unbridgable gap between the literary intellectuals and the scientific intellectuals. The literary intellectuals, Snow says, do not understand even the basics of science, which is particularly dangerous in a postindustrial society; and conversely, that the scientific community does not appreciate the insights of literature, philosophy, and the like. This was written in 1959, yet it is more or less still true today. Snow addresses a very real concern about the future of a society where 99% of the people are dependent on technologies that only a bare fraction of the people - four or five percent at best - understand even the basic mechanisms behind. This is the same problem Sagan addressed nearly 40 years later in _The Demon-Haunted World_. Sagan, however, did a much better job of arguing this, providing evidence and statistics where Snow provides merely rhetoric. Read this book, and then read Sagan's, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Rating:
Summary: Far better than I thought
Review: Every representation I've seen of this work was wrong, or so incomplete as to be gravely misleading. As usual, the glib sound-biters omit not only the interesting parts of the points they quote, they omit the real point of the essay.

If anyone reads the second half of this essay, they see that it writes about the widening gap between rich countries and poor - the technologically trained and untrained. Yes, Snow writes about the schism and even mutual suspicion between the communities of liberal arts and hard sciences. That's just a fact, at least as true now as it was 45 years ago. That is not what's interesting.

The consequence is what matters. Overpopulation, mass starvation, and destruction by war or disease are political problems. The solutions must involve tools provided by technology. The tragedy of "the two cultures" is the breakdown between the politicians who must wield the tools and the technologists who must create them. This is not about technology controlling the world, it is about creating a generation of thinkers who can reason about both social and technical problems. It is about education that allows people to examine the physical facts of the physical world that underly so many curable causes of human misery. It is about understanding the technology of possible solutions well enough to weigh the costs and rewards in a rational way.

As I write this, the 2000-era Bush administration is busy firing science advisors who don't give the "right" answer, is cancelling the space research programs that have given the largest volume of new knowledge, and creating new scorched-earth policies for environmental management. It's a problem not just in the US, but worldwide. This is exactly the failure that Snow hoped so fervently that educated men and women would have the wisdom to prevent.

Rating:
Summary: A College Outlook on Snow's Lecture
Review: I am a college student and was forced to read this book by my literature professor, who for some reason adores writers who seem to use big words and horribly complicated sentences to explain the simplest ideas.
The Two Cultures is hard to focus on, but the idea is simple. We in fact are, at the very simplest degree, divided into 2 cultures. One made up of the traditional or humanistic culture, which includes politics, arts, etc. , and also into the scientific culture. Snow basically states throughout his lecture that these 2 cultures do not communicate with one another well if much at all, and that this poses a serious problem to society.
Snow's opinion in his lecture is that instead of educating as England does, with a small elitist system being educated highly in one broad area of study, that all should be educated in both the arts and sciences in order for our society to be able to function to its fullest.
Another of Snow's beliefs is that technology is a must for all people, and perhaps the countries who have not been able to become as advanced as America and England for example, should be given aid by other countries to come into the modern age. Not necessarily should we give them weapons and things such as this, but the ability to communicate, grow better crops through our knowledge of farming methods, and teaching them perhaps how to become a democracy.
In Snow's response to criticisms of his lecture, he further explains his opinions and what he wanted people to get from his lecture, and responds to critics and their opinions of his lecture.
This book/lecture, is not really a thrill to read, but it does make sense and is slightly interesting if you like that sort of thing. Good luck.

Rating:
Summary: historic document, with intro essay
Review: The Two Cultures is probably more famous as an idea which ignited discussion than as the lecture it is. This edition of C.P. Snow's classic includes a brilliant introduction by Stefan Collini. I'm surprised that none of the other reviewers mention this portion of the edition, a substantial 64 pages, because for me it was the most interesting read. That is, only after having read The Two Cultures and a follow-up essay by Snow and pondered what may still apply today in his argument I went back and read the Collini. His introduction put Snow's work in its proper historical contexts (those of post-war Britain as well as Snow's own life) and updates us with some of the major points of the historical discourse that followed. I recommend that Collini's essay is read after Snow's, and together they make a very fine read.