Thursday, 28 September 2017

Short Notes And Analysis Of The Two Culture  By C.P. Snow

The Two Cultures is the title of the first part of an influential Conference Conference of 1959 by British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow. His thesis was that "the intellectual life of the whole of Western society" was divided into two titular cultures - namely the sciences and the humanities - and that it was a major obstacle to solving the problems of the world.

C .P. Snow says he had been thinking about a problem for the past three years and anyone who had experiences like him would think the same way. The snow speaks of the conflict between science and literature. C. P. Snow was a physicist known for his literary contributions.

The snow was a scientist at a time of major scientific activity. He was also a writer who had many friends who belonged to the literary circle. The close association with scientists and literary figures enabled him to see that both had their own culture. But C. P. Snow is of the opinion that scientists and humanists have comparable intelligence, identical in race, similar social origins, earns comparable wages but hates each other. This conflict between science and the human sciences is not the problem of England alone but of the West. To show the hostility between science and the humanities Snow, quotes a story of AL Smith (a literary figure) when he came to Cambridge for dinner, could not understand what his fellows are talking about and the Deputy Master explained That they were mathematicians whom the humanists did not make friends.

Analysis Of The Two Culture  By C.P. Snow

The snow observes that the intellectual life of Western society is divided into two polar groups: literary intellectuals and other scientific groups. Snow remembers what once G.H. Hardy noticed that the word intellectual is used to refer only to literary intellectuals and does not include scientists. The hostility between the two groups has increased and the young people fail to communicate and the two have distorted the image of the other.

Non-scientists believe that scientists are less optimistic, ignoring the state of man. They think scientists are ruthless. Literary intellectuals follow what T.S. Eliot, a typical figure of English literature, says about the relaunch of the drama-verse that has little hope. Eliot will content himself if his disciples could prepare the ground for a new Kyd or Greene. Scientists believe that literary intellectuals speak in a restricted and constrained way. On the other hand, scientists believe that literary intellectuals have no foresight, they do not care about their anti-intellectual beings, and they restrict literature to existentialism (a condition or a school of literature Who believes that life has no meaning). Snow is of the opinion that it is difficult for literary intellectuals to understand intellectually and gives an example:
"It's the way the world ends, not with an explosion but a moan" (The Hollow Man-T.S. Eliot)

Scientists believe that literature can be done by anyone with little power to discuss. Snow recognizes that scientists are optimistic. Scientists work in groups and the energy of the group is transmitted to all. They are aware of poverty and other human miseries and are determined to work for it. But literary intellectuals do not work for human beings and are hated by scientists.

Non-scientists believe that scientists are not optimistic and their optimism is based on a lack of understanding of the real state of man. This can be easily refuted. Scientists are aware of the tragic state of the individual. Each of us lives alone and dies alone. There is no way out of this lonely human life. But the scientist sees no reason for the social condition of a man to be equally tragic. Most of our other human beings, for example, are undernourished and therefore experience premature death. Scientists believe that something can be done about this and that is his optimism. But this very optimism of the scientist has led him to look at the attitude of another culture. He believes that literary intellectuals are inclined to sit down and let things go as they are.

Some scientists have criticized the social and political attitudes of literary characters. An eminent scientist once asked Snow why most writers take social opinions that would have been considered uncivilized even at the time of Plantagenets. In his opinion, Yeats, Pound, Wyndham Lewis and nine out of ten of those who ruled the literary world were not only politically idiotic but also politically wicked. The influences of these men were responsible for the Second World War. Snow was aware that Yeats was a magnanimous character in addition to being a great poet. But he could not deny the fact that there was a connection that writers could not see between early twentieth century art and expressions and antisocial sentiment. This has led some writers to turn their backs on art and have tried to cut out a new or different fashion for them. Snow says this is partially true, which has led people to lose confidence in the literature. Some sociologists say that they should not be grouped with humanists, because some disciplines of the human sciences have a scientific approach.

Snow says that number 2 is a dangerous number. Any attempt to divide everything into two always leads to suspicions. The author stresses that the scientist does not need to understand completely, but there are common attitudes, common norms and behaviors, approaches and common assumptions that go deeply and profoundly through mental Religion, politics or class. The division of knowledge into science and the humanities is flawed. Snow says that a botanist with little knowledge of physics is qualified as a scientist, but a humanist does not belong to the group. Although scientists and humanists consider them as different groups, there are so many common features for them. But the distinctions between science and the human sciences have become so great that scientists have no taste for literature and literary characters do not even learn basic science. This polarization created intolerance between the two.

This polarization is a practical, intellectual and creative loss for society. During the war C.P. Snow had the opportunity to interview about 25% of scientists in Britain. The extent of their reading shocked him. Some, they seem to consider Dickens as an incomprehensible writer like R.M. Rilke. One of them preferred to use his books as tools! They have nothing to do with books. They have their own rigorous and admirable culture.

As for literary intellectuals, they are also impoverished. They view traditional culture as the whole of "culture" and are content with their ignorance of the wonders of science. They despise scientists who have never seen the beauty of English literature. It does not happen to them that their own ignorance is even more surprising. Not more than one in ten can understand what is meant by mass or acceleration or can describe the thermodynamics of the second law.

The gap between two cultures can not be filled. The shock point of two crops often provides fertile soil for creative production and such chances are lost because of this polarization. Twentieth-century science can find no place in the art of the twentieth century. Poets vainly attempt to use scientific expression and thus find the "polarized light" used for a remarkable light. Unless science becomes an integral part of our mental experience, we can not say that it is good to art.

In England, this cultural division is mainly due to their specialization in education. But despite this division Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister had his own laboratory. Arthur Balfour and John Anderson are other professional non-scientists who are very interested in science. Snow points out that in England school education is too specialized. This will increase the conflict between science and the humanities. U.S.S. has detected problems in specialized school education and has changed its educational system. Snow wants a change in the system of schooling in England, which is a specialized education that distinguishes science from the humanities and places them in opposite poles.


Post a Comment

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

Recent Posts