Today Teacher Liu Bing’s topic was “STS and Science Communication in Drama and Fiction.” He first introduced some background on what Snow called the “two cultures,” and then discussed three dramatic works: *Life of Galileo*, *The Physicists*, and *Copenhagen*. There wasn’t time to talk about the fiction section, and the presentation was mainly a display of examples rather than a line of argument, so I’ll write my reflections on one issue from the background material.
When Snow spoke of the “two cultures,” he meant scientific culture and literary culture. Teacher Liu mentioned that nowadays we more often speak of “science and the humanities.” “Humanities” is much broader in meaning than “literature,” but that does not mean the newer formulation is an upgraded version of Snow’s problem. In fact, these are probably two different issues.
The phrase “science and the humanities” sets science in opposition to the humanities. Yet the concept of the humanities is actually very broad, including literature, art, religion, rituals, customs, institutions, and also fields such as history. So why is science excluded from the humanities? We would not speak of “literature and the humanities” or “music and the humanities,” and yet science alone is singled out and opposed to the humanities—why is that? Because science studies objects that are not human? But doesn’t religion also face a transcendent world? Is music really studying human nature? Isn’t science also a creative human activity? Why, then, single science out and isolate it? Of course, contemporary science has become increasingly arrogant, setting itself against other humanistic traditions and ways of life, and so “science and the humanities” has become an issue. But this issue is more like the issue of Taiwan and China, rather than Japan and China, or Taiwan and Fujian. If we think they are the same issue, or merely the same relation in an upgraded form, then we are already presupposing a rupture between the two.
Science and literature, however, really can be parallel concepts. If we approach the problem of the “two cultures” from the angle of science and literature, we find that the split and opposition between literature and science is not itself the problem; the two were different from the start. The problem lies in the arrogance and prejudice of the two cultures themselves, in the mutual exclusion and contempt among different cultures.
What is the way out of the “two cultures”? Should they be merged into one culture, or should we establish a “third culture”? Must there be only one standard by which someone counts as “cultured”? I do not think so. Culture should by its nature be pluralistic and rich. There is Eastern culture and Western culture; within Eastern culture there are Chinese culture and Indian culture; within Chinese culture there is also Confucian culture and Buddhist culture; within Buddhist culture there are Mahayana and Theravada… Looking along other dimensions, we have the clash between urban culture and rural culture, the differences between men and women, and even subcultural groups such as the elderly and the young. At various levels, there are many, many cultural forms marked by opposition and difference; different cultures have different, even conflicting, understandings of ways of life and attitudes toward the world. Must we smooth out these conflicts? Or should we say that the very existence of diversity is not a good thing? Isn’t the flourishing of the humanities precisely rooted in cultural richness? We need neither use one culture to overpower all others, nor have different cultures merge into a single whole. What we truly need to do is communicate with one another while respecting difference, preserving what is common while seeking out what is distinct.
October 29, 2010
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply