The Two Cultures(C.P.Snow) | Sep 12 2007

• THE TWO CULTURES
  
  It is about three years since I made a sketch in
  print of a problem which had been on my mind
  for some time.1 It was a problem I could not avoid
  just because of the circumstances of my life. The
  only credentials I had to ruminate on the subject
  at all came through those circumstances, through
  nothing more than a set of chances. Anyone with
  similar experience would have seen much the
  same things and I think made very much the same
  comments about them. It just happened to be an
  unusual experience. By training I was a scientist:
  by vocation I was a writer. That was all. It was a
  piece of luck, if you like, that arose through com­
  ing from a poor home.
  
  But my personal history isn't the point now. All
  that I need say is that I came to Cambridge and
  did a bit of research here at a time of major scien­tific
  activity. I was privileged to have a ringside
  view of one of the most wonderful creative periods
  in all physics. And it happened through the flukes
  of war -- including meeting W. L. Bragg in the buf­
  fet on Kettering station on a very cold morning in
  1939, which had a determining influence on my
  practical life -- that I was able, and indeed morally
  forced, to keep that ringside view ever since. So
  for thirty years I have had to be in touch with sci­
  entists not only out of curiosity, but as part of a
  working existence. During the same thirty years I
  was trying to shape the books I wanted to write,
  which in due course took me among writers.
  
  There have been plenty of days when I have
  spent the working hours with scientists and then
  gone off at night with some literary colleagues. I
  mean that literally. I have had, of course, intimate
  friends among both scientists and writers. It was
  through living among these groups and much
  more, I think, through moving regularly from one
  to the other and back again that I got occupied
  with the problem of what, long before I put it on
  paper, I christened to myself as the 'two cultures'.
  For constantly I felt I was moving among two
  groups-comparable in intelligence, identical in
  race, not grossly different in social origin, earning
  about the same incomes, who had almost ceased to
  communicate at all, who in intellectual, moral and
  psychological climate had so little in common that
  instead of going from Burlington House or South
  Kensington to Chelsea, one might have crossed an
  ocean.
  
  In fact, one had travelled much further than
  across an ocean -- because after a few thousand At­
  lantic miles, one found Greenwich Village talking
  precisely the same language as Chelsea, and both
  having about as much communication with M.I.T.
  as though the scientists spoke nothing but Ti­
  betan. For this is not just our problem; owing to
  some of our educational and social idiosyncrasies,
  it is slightly exaggerated here, owing to another
  English social peculiarity it is slightly minimised;
  by and large this is a problem of the entire West.
  
  By this I intend something serious. I am not
  thinking of the pleasant story of how one of the
  more convivial Oxford greats dons -- I have heard
  the story attributed to A. L. Smith -- came over to
  Cambridge to dine. The date is perhaps the 1890's.
  I think it must have been at St John's, or possibly
  Trinity. Anyway, Smith was sitting at the right
  hand of the President -- or Vice-Master -- and he was
  a man who liked to include all round him in the
  conversation, although he was not immediately en­
  couraged by the expressions of his neighbours. He
  addressed some cheerful Oxonian chit-chat at the
  one opposite to him, and got a grunt. He then
  tried the man on his own right hand and got an­
  other grunt. Then, rather to his surprise, one
  looked at the other and said, 'Do you know what
  he's talking about?''I haven't the least idea.' At
  this, even Smith was getting out of his depth. But
  the President, acting as a social emollient, put him
  at his ease, by saying, 'Oh, those are mathemati­
  cians! We never talk to them'.
  
  No, I intend something serious. I believe the in­
  tellectual life of the whole of western society is
  increasingly being split into two polar groups.
  When I say the intellectual life, I mean to include
  also a large part of our practical life, because I
  should be the last person to suggest the two can at
  the deepest level be distinguished. I shall come
  back to the practical life a little later. Two polar
  groups: at one pole we have the literary intellec­
  tuals, who incidentally while no one was looking
  took to referring to themselves as 'intellectuals'' as
  though there were no others. I remember G. H.
  Hardy once remarking to me in mild puzzlement,
  some time in the 1930's: 'Have you noticed how
  the word "intellectual" is used nowadays? There seems
  to be a new definition which certainly
  doesn't include Rutherford or Eddington or Dirac
  or Adrian or me. It does seem rather odd, don't y'
  know.'2
  
  Literary intellectuals at one pole -- at the other
  scientists, and as the most representative, the phys­
  ical scientists. Between the two a gulf of mutual
  incomprehension -- sometimes (particularly among
  the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all
  lack of understanding. They have a curious dis­
  torted image of each other. Their attitudes are so
  different that, even on the level of emotion, they
  can't find much common ground. Non-scientists
  tend to think of scientists as brash and boastful.
  They hear Mr T. S. Eliot, who just for these illus­
  trations we can take as an archetypal figure, saying
  about his attempts to revive verse-drama, that we
  can hope for very little, but that he would feel
  content if he and his co-workers could prepare the
  ground for a new Kyd or a new Greene. That is
  the tone, restricted and constrained, with which
  literary intellectuals are at home: it is the subdued
  voice of their culture. Then they hear a much
  louder voice, that of another archetypal figure,
  Rutherford, trumpeting: 'This is the heroic age of
  science! This is the Elizabethan age!' Many of us
  heard that, and a good many other statements be­
  side which that was mild; and we weren't left in
  any doubt whom Rutherford was casting for the
  role of Shakespeare. What is hard for the literary
  intellectuals to understand, imaginatively or intel­
  lectually, is that he was absolutely right.
  
  And compare 'this is the way the world ends, not
  with a bang but a whimper' -- incidentally, one of
  the least likely scientific prophecies ever made --
  compare that with Rutherford's famous repartee,
  'Lucky fellow, Rutherford, always on the crest of
  the wave.''Well, I made the wave, didn't I?'
  
  The non-scientists have a rooted impression that
  the scientists are shallowly optimistic, unaware of
  man's condition. On the other hand, the scientists
  believe that the literary intellectuals are totally
  lacking in foresight, peculiarly unconcerned with
  their brother men, in a deep sense anti-intellec­
  tual, anxious to restrict both art and thought to
  the existential moment. And so on. Anyone with
  a mild talent for invective could produce plenty
  of this kind of subterranean back-chat. On each
  side there is some of it which is not entirely base­
  less. It is all destructive. Much of it rests on misin­
  terpretations which are dangerous. I should like to
  deal with two of the most profound of these now,
  one on each side.
  
  First, about the scientists' optimism. This is an
  accusation which has been made so often that it
  has become a platitude. It has been made by some
  of the acutest non-scientific minds of the day. But
  it depends upon a confusion between the individ­
  ual experience and the social experience, between
  the individual condition of man and his social con­
  dition. Most of the scientists I have known well
  have felt -- just as deeply as the non-scientists I have
  known well -- that the individual condition of each
  of us is tragic. Each of us is alone: sometimes we
  escape from solitariness, through love or affection
  or perhaps creative moments, but those triumphs
  of life are pools of light we make for ourselves
  while the edge of the road is black: each of us dies
  alone. Some scientists I have known have had faith
  in revealed religion. Perhaps with them the sense
  of the tragic condition is not so strong. I don't
  know. With most people of deep feeling, however
  high-spirited and happy they are, sometimes most
  with those who are happiest and most high-spir­
  ited, it seems to be right in the fibres, part of the
  weight of life. That is as true of the scientists I
  have known best as of anyone at all.
  
  But nearly all of them -- and this is where the col­
  our of hope genuinely comes in -- would see no
  reason why, just because the individual condition
  is tragic, so must the social condition be. Each of
  us is solitary: each of us dies alone: all right, that's
  a fate against which we can't struggle -- but there is
  plenty in our condition which is not fate, and
  against which we are less than human unless we
  do struggle.
  
  Most of our fellow human beings, for instance,
  are underfed and die before their time. In the
  crudest terms, that is the social condition. There is
  a moral trap which comes through the insight into
  man's loneliness: it tempts one to sit back, com­
  placent in one's unique tragedy, and let the others
  go without a meal.
  
  As a group, the scientists fall into that trap less
  than others. They are inclined to be impatient to
  see if something can be done: and inclined to
  think that it can be done, until it's proved other­
  wise. That is their real optimism, and it's an opti­
  mism that the rest of us badly need.
  
  In reverse, the same spirit, tough and good and
  determined to fight it out at the side of their
  know. With most people of deep feeling, however
  high-spirited and happy they are, sometimes most
  with those who are happiest and most high-spir­
  ited, it seems to be right in the fibres, part of the
  weight of life. That is as true of the scientists I
  have known best as of anyone at all.
  
  But nearly all of them -- and this is where the col­
  our of hope genuinely comes in -- would see no
  reason why, just because the individual condition
  is tragic, so must the social condition be. Each of
  us is solitary: each of us dies alone: all right, that's
  a fate against which we can't struggle -- but there is
  plenty in our condition which is not fate, and
  against which we are less than human unless we
  do struggle.
  
  Most of our fellow human beings, for instance,
  are underfed and die before their time. In the
  crudest terms, that is the social condition. There is
  a moral trap which comes through the insight into
  man's loneliness: it tempts one to sit back, com­
  placent in one's unique tragedy, and let the others
  go without a meal.
  
  As a group, the scientists fall into that trap less
  than others. They are inclined to be impatient to
  see if something can be done: and inclined to
  think that it can be done, until it's proved other­
  wise. That is their real optimism, and it's an opti­
  mism that the rest of us badly need.
  
  In reverse, the same spirit, tough and good and
  determined to fight it out at the side of their
  know. With most people of deep feeling, however
  high-spirited and happy they are, sometimes most
  with those who are happiest and most high-spir­
  ited, it seems to be right in the fibres, part of the
  weight of life. That is as true of the scientists I
  have known best as of anyone at all.
  
  But nearly all of them -- and this is where the col­
  our of hope genuinely comes in -- would see no
  reason why, just because the individual condition
  is tragic, so must the social condition be. Each of
  us is solitary: each of us dies alone: all right, that's
  a fate against which we can't struggle -- but there is
  plenty in our condition which is not fate, and
  against which we are less than human unless we
  do struggle.
  
  Most of our fellow human beings, for instance,
  are underfed and die before their time. In the
  crudest terms, that is the social condition. There is
  a moral trap which comes through the insight into
  man's loneliness: it tempts one to sit back, com­
  placent in one's unique tragedy, and let the others
  go without a meal.
  
  As a group, the scientists fall into that trap less
  than others. They are inclined to be impatient to
  see if something can be done: and inclined to
  think that it can be done, until it's proved other­
  wise. That is their real optimism, and it's an opti­
  mism that the rest of us badly need.
  
  In reverse, the same spirit, tough and good and
  determined to fight it out at the side of their
  brother men, has made scientists regard the other
  culture's social attitudes as contemptible. That is
  too facile: some of them are, but they are a tempo­
  rary phase and not to be taken as representative.
  
  I remember being cross-examined by a scientist
  of distinction. 'Why do most writers take on social
  opinions which would have been thought distinctly
  uncivilised and démodé at the time of the Planta­
  genets? Wasn't that true of most of the famous
  twentieth-century writers? Yeats, Pound, Wynd­
  ham Lewis, nine out of ten of those who have
  dominated literary sensibility in our time -- weren't
  they not only politically silly, but politically
  wicked? Didn't the influence of all they represent
  bring Auschwitz that much nearer?'
  
  I thought at the time, and I still think, that the
  correct answer was not to defend the indefensible.
  It was no use saying that Yeats, according to friends
  whose judgment I trust, was a man of singular
  magnanimity of character, as well as a great poet.
  It was no use denying the facts, which are broadly
  true. The honest answer was that there is, in fact,
  a connection, which literary persons were culpably
  slow to see, between some kinds of early twentieth-
  century art and the most imbecile expressions of
  anti-social feeling.3 That was one reason, among
  many, why some of us turned our backs on the art
  and tried to hack out a new or different way for
  ourselves.4
  
  But though many of those writers dominated
  literary sensibility for a generation, that is no
  longer so, or at least to nothing like the same ex­
  tent. Literature changes more slowly than science.
  It hasn't the same automatic corrective, and so its
  misguided periods are longer. But it is ill-consid­
  ered of scientists to judge writers on the evidence
  of the period 1914-50.
  
  Those are two of the misunderstandings be­
  tween the two cultures. I should say, since I began
  to talk about them -- the two cultures, that is -- I
  have had some criticism. Most of my scientific ac­
  quaintances think that there is something in it,
  and so do most of the practising artists I know.
  But I have been argued with by non-scientists of
  strong down-to-earth interests. Their view is that
  it is an over-simplification, and that if one is going
  to talk in these terms there ought to be at least
  three cultures. They argue that, though they are
  not scientists themselves, they would share a good
  deal of the scientific feeling. They would have as
  little use -- perhaps, since they knew more about it,
  even less use -- for the recent literary culture as the
  scientists themselves. J. H. Plumb, Alan Bullock
  and some of my American sociological friends have
  said that they vigorously refuse to be corralled in a
  cultural box with people they wouldn't be seen
  dead with, or to be regarded as helping to produce
  a climate which would not permit of social hope.
  
  I respect those arguments. The number 2 is a
  very dangerous number: that is why the dialectic
  
  is a dangerous process. Attempts to divide any­
  thing into two ought to be regarded with much
  suspicion. I have thought a long time about going
  in for further refinements: but in the end I have
  decided against. I was searching for something a
  little more than a dashing metaphor, a good deal
  less than a cultural map: and for those purposes
  the two cultures is about right, and subtilising any
  more would bring more disadvantages than it's
  worth.
  
  At one pole, the scientific culture really is a cul­
  ture, not only in an intellectual but also in an an­
  thropological sense. That is, its members need not,
  and of course often do not, always completely un­
  derstand each other; biologists more often than
  not will have a pretty hazy idea of contemporary
  physics; but there are common attitudes, common
  standards and patterns of behaviour, common ap­
  proaches and assumptions. This goes surprisingly
  wide and deep. It cuts across other mental pat­
  terns, such as those of religion or politics or class.
  
  Statistically, I suppose slightly more scientists
  are in religious terms unbelievers, compared with
  the rest of the intellectual world -- though there are
  plenty who are religious, and that seems to be in­
  creasingly so among the young. Statistically also,
  slightly more scientists are on the Left in open
  politics -- though again, plenty always have called
  themselves conservatives, and that also seems to be
  more common among the young. Compared with
  the rest of the intellectual world, considerably
  more scientists in this country and probably in the
  U.S. come from poor families.5 Yet, over a whole
  range of thought and behaviour, none of that mat­
  ters very much. In their working, and in much of
  their emotional life, their attitudes are closer to
  other scientists than to non-scientists who in reli­
  gion or politics or class have the same labels as
  themselves. If I were to risk a piece of shorthand,
  I should say that naturally they had the future in
  their bones.
  
  They may or may not like it, but they have it.
  That was as true of the conservatives J. J. Thom­
  son and Lindemann as of the radicals Einstein or
  Blackett: as true of the Christian A. H. Compton
  as of the materialist Bernal: of the aristocrats
  Broglie or Russell as of the proletarian Faraday:
  of those born rich, like Thomas Merton or Victor
  Rothschild, as of Rutherford, who was the son of
  an odd-job handyman. Without thinking about it,
  they respond alike. That is what a culture means.
  
  At the other pole, the spread of attitudes is
  wider. It is obvious that between the two, as one
  moves through intellectual society from the physi­
  cists to the literary intellectuals, there are all kinds
  of tones of feeling on the way. But I believe the
  pole of total incomprehension of science radiates
  its influence on all the rest. That total incompre­
  hension gives, much more pervasively than we real­
  ise, living in it, an unscientific flavour to the whole
  'traditional' culture, and that unscientific flavour
  is often, much more than we admit, on the point of
  turning anti-scientific. The feelings of one pole
  become the anti-feelings of the other. If the scien­
  tists have the future in their bones, then the tra­
  ditional culture responds by wishing the future did
  not exist.6 It is the traditional culture, to an extent
  remarkably little diminished by the emergence of
  the scientific one, which manages the western
  world.
  
  This polarisation is sheer loss to us all. To us as
  people, and to our society. It is at the same time
  practical and intellectual and creative loss, and I
  repeat that it is false to imagine that those three
  considerations are clearly separable. But for a mo­
  ment I want to concentrate on the intellectual loss.
  
  The degree of incomprehension on both sides is
  the kind of joke which has gone sour. There are
  about fifty thousand working scientists in the coun­
  try and about eighty thousand professional engi­
  neers or applied scientists. During the war and in
  the years since, my colleagues and I have had to
  interview somewhere between thirty to forty thou­
  sand of these -- that is, about 25 per cent. The num­
  ber is large enough to give us a fair sample, though
  of the men we talked to most would still be under
  forty. We were able to find out a certain amount
  of what they read and thought about. I confess that
  even I, who am fond of them and respect them,
  was a bit shaken. We hadn't quite expected that
  
  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58108775
  Thanks for rzp, this is what I can freely got.
  I only read the chinese version. Here are some chinese comments:
  
  两种文化--查尔斯·斯诺(C.P.Snow,1905-1980)
  
  1959年，英国人查尔斯·斯诺(C.P.Snow,1905-1980)在剑桥大学作了一个《两种文化与科学革命》的著名演讲：由于教育背景、知识背景、历史传统、哲学倾向和工作方式的诸多不同，两个文化群体即科学家群体和人文学者群体之间相互不理解、不交往。久而久之，或者大家老死不相往来，相安无事，或者相互瞧不起、相互攻击，导致“人文学者对科学的傲慢、科学家对人文的无知”的文化危机。
  
  1956年，英国人查尔斯·斯诺（C. P. Snow, 1905-1980）在《新政治家》杂志上发表了一篇名为《两种文化》的文章。三年后，他将文中的思想加以扩充，在剑桥大学作了一个著名演讲，讲题是《两种文化与科学革命》。按照剑桥大学知识史教授斯蒂芬·科里尼（S. Collini）的说法，斯诺在一个多小时的演讲中至少做成了三件事：发明了一个词汇或概念，阐述了一个问题，引发了一场争论。词汇是“两种文化”；问题是存在于人文学者和科学家之间的文化割裂，即所谓“斯诺命题”；争论就是围绕着“斯诺命题”展开的一场旷日持久的思想论战——令人感到意外和兴奋的是，这场争论的意义远远超出了文化自身，它的政治、经济乃至生态学内蕴在今日全球政治经济格局中得以重新彰显。
  
  其实由不同文化立场引起的思想论战，在斯诺之前就屡有出现。英国近代史上最有名的一场辩论发生在因捍卫进化论而名声大噪的赫胥黎（T. H. Huxley, 1825-1895）与被称为“维多利亚时代文化使徒”的马修·阿诺德 (M. Arnold, 1822-1888) 之间。1880年，赫胥黎在英格兰的工业中心伯明翰发表了一篇名为“科学与文化”的演说，提出要为那些希望从事工业和商业的人们提供系统的科学教育，批评传统的古典教育对科学课程的抵制，宣称“文学将不可避免地被科学所取代”。阿诺德则于1882年在剑桥作了名为“文学与科学”的演讲，以回击赫胥黎对人文教育的指责，他认为“只要人类的天性不变，文化就将继续为他们的道德理解提供支点。”有趣的是，相隔77年，阿诺德与斯诺却是在同一个报告厅发表同一个以里德（Rede）冠名的演讲，这或许是剑桥大学方面的有意安排吧。
  
  如果说阿诺德对赫胥黎仅仅是文化耆儒与科学斗士之间的个人交锋，1923年在中国发生的“科玄之战”则是两大阵营的集体对垒，它们都在斯诺提出那个著名的论题之前。
  
  问题是，为什么这一概念所涵盖的内容和引出的争论在斯诺演讲之后才被学人广泛关注呢？这就不能不讲一下斯诺其人和他发表演讲的时代。
  
  很难为斯诺界定一个社会身份：剑桥大学基督学院博士和评议员，卡文迪什实验室从事红外光谱分析的研究员，大学行政管理者，小说家和剧作家，企业顾问，社会活动家，工党政府的技术部副部长，科学精英治国论的鼓吹者，出身低微而被王室册封的骑士和男爵。由这样一位人物，将近代文明诞生以来日益尖锐的文化冲突用简单素朴的方式表达出来是颇具象征意义的。
  
  对斯诺演讲的动力学分析需要从阶级关系和国际政治两方面入手。实际上，斯诺的演讲由“两种文化”、“作为天生卢德派的知识分子”、“科学革命”和“富国与穷国”这四部分组成；相对于后一半的两部分，前两部分一直是学界讨论和批评的焦点，特别是斯诺将人文知识分子比喻成企图以捣毁机器来对抗现代文明的卢德派（Luddites）的做法，使他遭到了以文学批评家利维斯（F. R. Leavis, 1895-1978）为代表的激烈抨击，他也被视为一个思想肤浅的欺世盗名之徒。
  
  就等级制度及其对社会生活的影响而言，没有其他任何一个西方国家比英国更趋于保守，而系统的古典人文教育一向是英国贵族显示其高贵出身和教养的标志，长期以来也成了那些想跻身上流社会的知识分子甚至下层人士的不二法门。另一方面，近代科学与工业革命促进了平民社会的出现，从而使以人文学术为核心的培养绅士的传统遭到严峻挑战，许多出身寒微的人士以其科学上的成就和技术发明成为社会精英。斯诺在演讲中一再称颂的卢瑟福（E. Rutherford, 1871-1937）就来自新西兰乡村，他最推崇的英国作家威尔斯（H. G. Wells, 1866-1946）则出身于肯德郡一个世袭园丁的家庭——威尔斯是精英治国论的鼓吹者和有名的科幻小说作家。斯诺本人的祖父是一名电机技工，父亲是一家制鞋厂的文书。有人认为，他通过小说、戏剧和这篇里德演讲，对英国的贵族文化表达了“阶级的憎恨”。而在另一方面，从阿诺德到利维斯，都显示了一种代表传统人文特权的贵族立场，对那些企图绕过古典教育而使公众直接享受文化的人显示了全方位的蔑视。
  
  现在来看斯诺演讲的另一个背景，这也是就文化论文化的学者们较少考虑的。当时国际上最引人注目的事实是什么呢？尽管斯诺在演讲中只有一处暗示并且刻意表现出漫不经心，我们还是可以读出一种危机意识，那就是1957年苏联成功发射第一颗人造地球卫星给西方带来的震撼。它不仅开启了空间时代的大幕，也标志着大国在政治、军事和经济方面的全面角逐进入一个白热化时代。对在空间竞赛中处于被动地位的批评和检讨波及美、英等西方大国，其中一个最重要的结论就是必须对传统的教育制度进行改革。斯诺在演讲中，明确指出了热核战争、人口膨胀和贫富差距将是全人类面临的最严重挑战，而唯有借助科学和教育才能解决这些问题。同冷战时代的大多数西方政论不同，在他的演讲中几乎找不到将苏联视为宿敌的言辞，相反却有多处赞赏苏联以及中国在推进工业化和改革教育方面的成就。斯诺强烈地呼吁，大国应该将用于争霸世界的金钱和人力用在促进世界范围的科学革命和消除贫富差距上来；他还强调，就这一认识而言，无知是最严重的罪行。
  
  如果认同这样的背景分析，我们对“两种文化”热的再度泛起就会有一种新鲜的认识。
  
  在斯诺和他以前的西方世界，科学、民主与现代性被认为是伴随着工业文明而来的共生物，科学家对自己从事的事业必然导致社会进步抱着坚定不疑的信念；另一方面，被称为“波希米亚人”（Bohemians）的人文知识分子从一开始就对资本主义文明抱着抵制和批判的态度，这种文化上的尖锐冲突在英国历史上浪漫主义和功利主义的争论中得到充分的展现。两次世界大战对人类造成的浩劫，促使西方人文知识分子对“科学进步论”这一主题进行深刻的反省，并将这种思考与工业社会对人的异化结合起来；另一方面，现代工业社会的出现和科学技术的迅猛发展又使得科学家更多地依赖权力和金钱，也有了更多地介入国家决策的机会。
  
  在西方政治生活中，人们倾向于接受一种简单的二元划分，也就是以对统治集团的态度和对社会变革的热情来区分左、右翼；尽管大家知道，如同斯诺对文化的二元划分一样，它是相当含糊的或者说不科学的，但有时人们却乐于藉此明快地判断大模样的棋局。透过这种高度简约化的政治窥镜，在我们眼前呈现的是一幅有点怪异的图画——就整体而言，人文学者和科学家的基本政治立场在斯诺时代的前后互为镜象。说白了，一向与推动社会变革的政治力量结盟的科学家越来越成为权力与资本的附庸，而混杂了贵族血脉与自由市民精神的人文知识分子则开始扮演社会批判的主角。
  
  20世纪末，先是在美国、随后蔓延至西欧，西方爆发了一场名为“科学战争”的思想大辩论，其导火索是两位美国科学家在1994年发表的一本书，书名是《高级迷信：学院左派及其对科学的指责》，批评的对象包括被称为“学院左派”的形形色色当代西方人文知识分子，从福柯（M. Foucault, 1926-1984）、费耶阿本德（P. K. Feyerabend, 1924-1994）、德里达（J. Derrida）到李欧塔（J. F. Lyotard），批判的锋芒特别指向同60年代反战运动和学生造反有关的一些思想和实践者，如激进环保主义、女权主义、非洲中心论、后现代文化批评理论，以及社会建构论等。这些力量或多或少具有如下一个特征，就是将对资本主义的批判同对现代性的抵制结合起来，将工业社会对人的异化及其对生态环境造成的危害归咎于科学技术。他们遭到科学家的反感和鄙视也就不足为奇了。
  
  在这场以“科学”冠名的“战争”中，斯诺再度被人提起。参与论战的科学家在赞赏斯诺对人文学者的批评之时，却很少想到他的另一种忧虑，那就是在《再看两种文化》中所表达出来的：“存在两种不能交流或不交流的文化是件危险的事情。在这样一个科学能决定我们生死命运的时代，从最实际的角度来看也是危险的。科学家能出坏主意，决策者却不能分辩好坏。另一方面，处于一个分裂的文化中的科学家所提供的知识可能只属于他们自己。所有这些都使政治程序更复杂，并且在某些方面更危险；这是较之于我们应该有所准备的宽容和耐心来说的，宽容和耐心是为了避免灾难，或者为了实现一种足以回应那些向我们的良知和善挑战的可确定的社会希望。”
  
  与50年代苏联人造卫星上天相比，“九一一”事件对西方的影响更为深远。在美国，从普通民众的心理转变到国家领导的意识形态主导决策，使这个世界上唯一的超级大国更容易倾向单边主义。在这样的国际大棋局中，回顾斯诺当年提出的人类面临的三大挑战是颇有意义的。同时我们也有理由进一步思考：伴随着经济全球化而来的（至少在富裕国家中）社会与阶级结构的变化，对科学威权的监督，对技术奴役性的批判，以及对可能出现的非理智决策的制衡，在民主制度中将如何实现？怎样解决全球化掩盖下的社会不公及其对贫困国家和弱势群体的伤害？如何把握与全球化同步前进、同尊重人类文化多样性之间的关系？怎样避免民族的、宗教的或地域的冲突，恶化成一场殃及整个人类的世界大战？在国际政治经济秩序重新组合与社会阶级关系发生转变的形势下，诞生于二战之后的西方文化左派，是否还能找到生存的空间和理由？或者说，他们是否可以调整自己的策略以继续扮演钳制世界范围的资本贪婪和霸权主义的角色？
  
  《两种文化》有多种英文版本。剑桥大学出版社于1998年和2000年两次重印了1993年的Canto版，为我们在新时代解读“斯诺命题”提供了方便。相比于一些流行的旧版，这一版本保留了里德演讲和《再看两种文化》这两篇核心作品，前面增加了一篇由科里尼撰写的长篇导言，但是去掉了斯诺同利维斯论战的文章和另外三篇短小的政论。这一安排无疑使“斯诺命题”更为突出。上海科学技术出版社于2003年推出了这一版的中文译本，应该说是适逢其时。在巴格达上空硝烟未尽的时候重读这本小书，我们可以进一步品味“斯诺命题”的隽永魅力。
  
  http://janetyajanetya.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2C59898C9CC42528!463.entry
  &&&
  
  科学文化：超越斯诺与回归斯诺
  ——有感于《两种文化》新译本之出版
  
  
  田松
  
  
  近年来，“科学文化”成了一个很热的词语，频见报端。关于什么是科学文化，各家有各家的说法，还没有形成一个公认的界定明晰的定义。但是，追溯科学文化一词的由来，总会说起C.P.斯诺。正是这位先生，在1959年的一次演讲中明确地使用了科学文化一词（9）。斯诺认为，存在两种文化，一种是人文学者（斯诺称文学知识分子）的文化，一种是科技专家的文化。斯诺发现，“他们的才智相近、种族相同、社会出身差别不大、收入相差不多，但却几乎没有什么沟通。”甚至“他们在学术、道德和心理状态等方面的共同点”也非常之少。（2）简而言之，这两个群体的文化理念和价值观念产生了严重的差异，彼此不能认同。斯诺说了一个大致如是的例子。作为一名人文学者，如果不知道莎士比亚是应该感到惭愧的，哪怕他本人的研究方向与莎士比亚毫无关系，因为莎士比亚已经成了基本的文化素养，但是他不会为自己不知道热力学第二定律而感到惭愧；相反，作为科学工作者，如果不知道热力学第二定律，那是不及格的，而对于莎士比亚，他们已经不认为有知道的必要。（13）
  
  斯诺大概是第一个把莎士比亚和热力学第二定律相提并论的人，那时热力学第二定律，也就是熵增加原理，还不像今天这么重要。但是今天，这个定律已经成为可持续发展的一个重要的立论基础。
  
  斯诺这个演讲引起了轩然大波，按照斯蒂芬·科里尼的说法，斯诺在一个小时的演讲之后，至少做成了三件事：
  
  
  
  第一，他像发射导弹一样发射出一个词，不，应该说是一个“概念”，从此不可阻挡地在国际间传播开来；第二，他阐述了一个问题（后来化成若干问题），现代社会里任何有头脑的观察家都不能回避；第三，他引发了一场争论，其范围之广、持续时间之长、程度之激烈，可以说都异乎寻常。（《两种文化·导言》，pp1－2）
  
  
  
  《两种文化》的第一个中译本在1987年就已出版，名为《对科学的傲慢与偏见》，为四川人民出版社著名的走向未来丛书之一，一次印数竟达到10万之巨，单是其8500册的零头，就足以让今天的学术出版羡慕一下了。译者一为陈恒六，一为目前在科学文化领域极为活跃的刘兵教授。1994年，三联书店又出版了《两种文化》的第二个中译本，不到一年就开机重印，印数上升到15100册，译者是科学哲学界的著名学者纪树立先生。但是，随着中国加入国际版权公约，这部堪称经典的著作就只能到图书馆里去找了。近几年来，关于科学文化的讨论重新展开。我曾耳闻有好几位中国学者如刘钝先生等正策划购买版权，重新翻译，却忽然发现上海科技出版社捷足先登，已经将陈克艰、秦小虎重译的新版推出上市了。正可谓雪中送炭，恰逢其时。
  
  三种版本的《两种文化》在内容上各有多寡。各版共有的核心文章是斯诺的两个演讲，即《两种文化》与《再看两种文化》。沪版所据母本为剑桥出版社1998年最新版本，增加了斯蒂芬·科里尼的长篇导言，导言的长度几乎与正文相当，对于《两种文化》在西方世界引起的诸多事件和斯诺本人的生平作了详细介绍，可以使读者对此事的前因后果有更加深入明确的认识，此为沪版所独有。因核心文章篇幅嫌短，四川版集成了斯诺的另一篇演讲《科学与政府》。而三联版不仅收入了《科学与政府》，还收入了《科学在道德上的非中立性》等另外三篇演讲。因三联版没有任何中译说明，版权页上亦无英文原名，所以无法知道纪先生所居母本为何，鉴于三联版有斯诺本人的前言后记，故所收文章当为母本所有，不是出自中译者的编辑。因而三种版本之差异当承自其各自的母本。上海科技既令有思齐之心，只能徒呼奈何了。当然，沪版还拥有一项其它版本没有的，即该书的中文简体字版权。
  
  
  
  斯诺年轻时曾是一位物理学家，在著名的卢瑟福领导的著名的卡文迪许实验室工作。后来因为一场意外事件改行写小说，并逐渐获得在公众之中的名声。“在很长一段日子里，我是白天和科学家在一起工作，晚上则与一些文学同事在一起。”（2）由于斯诺这个特殊的经历，使得他能够注意到他所谓的两种文化。
  
  正所谓一石激起千层浪，斯诺的演讲引来一片喝彩和批评。在当时批评得最为激烈的学者叫利维斯，对此，科里尼在导言中作了比较充分的介绍。对于斯诺的两种身份，也有人提出质疑。有科学家指出，斯诺在科学方面的只是打打补丁，谈不上什么成就；利维斯则认为，斯诺的小说还不入门。因而斯诺既不是一位科学权威，也不是一位文学权威，没有资格论述他所论述的问题。
  
  但是毫无疑问，不论他本人的观点是否深刻，斯诺指出了一个普遍存在但是又被普遍忽视的现象，并使这个现象凸显出来。
  
  
  
  由于两种文化的分裂，人文学者和科技专家都认为对方没有文化；又由于科学和技术在当今社会所占的地位越来越重，就使得人文文化越来越处于弱势地位，受到忽视。当这种忽视成为一种社会风气，隐患就会逐渐表现出来。不久前读韩建民先生文章《萨顿新人文主义思想主脉》（科学时报，2003-3-21，B2版），其中说萨顿认为有两类人是令人不愉快的，“一是古典学者和文人墨客，他们总认为自己是古代和近代文化的保卫者，他们看不到科学正在他们面前展示出整个完美的世界。二是一部分科学家和发明家更让人不快，他们似乎对人类在五六千年中积累起来的全部美和知识财富一无所知，他们不能领略和欣赏过去的魅力和高尚，并且认为艺术家和历史学家等都是一些毫无用场的梦想家。”这两类人正是斯诺所说的文化分裂的两极，一方对热力学第二定律一无所知，一方对莎士比亚不屑一顾。第一类可能是保守的，可能会拖慢所谓科学进步的步伐，但是第二类人则可能对人类文明有严重的破坏性。
  
  在两种文化的分裂中，斯诺的立场更倾向于他所说科学文化。而很多中国学者今天所强调的科学文化，在某种程度上有弥合两种文化的用意，或者用萨顿对科学史的说法，就是建立起科学与人文之间的桥梁。所以今天科学文化一词，已经与斯诺本人的用法有了很大的差异。
  
  事实上，斯诺本人在第一次演讲的时候，对于文化这个词并没有很好的界定，直到几年后的第二次演讲中，他才讨论了文化这个词的用法。（52）但是语焉不详，他甚至说：“对我自己来说，我相信文化一词仍然是合适的，有头脑的人都会领会它的正确含义。（53）因而直到1971年，斯诺依然没有对两种文化的概念给出满意的学术表述。（导言，63）可想而知，这是斯诺遭到严厉批评的原因之一。同样，今天使用科学文化一词的中国学者，对于科学文化的概念仍在讨论之中，恐怕没有几位敢于宣称找到了很好的学术表述。近年来，中科院自然科学史研究所明确地把科学文化研究作为三大研究方向之一（另外两者为科学史和科技战略），使得科学文化研究被纳入到专业化的学术轨道，因而科学史所对科学文化的界定自然为学界所关注。
  
  不久前，自然科学史所刘钝所长在接受采访时回答了这个问题，他说：“文化研究是一个没有确定边界条件的学问，这也适于所谓的科学文化研究。最好的做法是不给‘科学文化’下定义。如果硬要说它是什么，我倒是倾向于斯诺那个遭到很多批评的二分法，这样可以简化问题和凸现矛盾，也可以为我们留下宽一点的活动空间。”（科学时报，2003-3-14）
  
  一个精确定义的概念如悬崖一般，界限分明而少有生机，使不同理解的学者难以沟通，难以对话。而缓坡，则有了更多的缓冲，也有了更丰富的可能性。
  
  科学已不是那个科学，世界也不是那个世界，现在的科学文化研究早已超越了斯诺本人，但是，在问题复杂的情况下，回到最初，总是一个不差的策略。重出斯诺，其现实意义自在其中。
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  两种文化，C.P.斯诺著，陈克艰，秦小虎译，上海科学技术出版社，2003年1月第一版。文中括号内数字为此书页码。
  
  两种文化，C.P.斯诺著，纪树立译，三联书店，1994年3月第一版。
  
  对科学的傲慢与偏见，查·帕·斯诺著，陈恒六、刘兵译，四川人民出版社，1987年6月，印数1－108500，
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2003年3月22日
  
  北京 稻香园
  
  
  
  （发表于《中华读书报·科技书屋》2003年4月9日，21版。原题《攀援在文化的缓坡》）
  
  http://www.ihns.ac.cn/readers/2004/tian4.htm
  

• touche已经在顶上了，也不妨再顶顶。 文明的科技含量在不断上升，这是不争的事实。
• 鍏�鍗佷竴瀛�做学问，文理总还是要分家的，但应该在中学把科学常识和方法论讲透了，使普通人，包括文学艺术家们，能够欣赏科学。
• touche我觉得科学教的更主要的不是知识方法而是态度：不要信口开河闭嘴是神。;)
• xiaoman这本书在我书柜里放了十几年，还没看呢，几次拿起来翻了两页又放回去，得找个时间读一读了。
• rzp英文： The TWO CULTURES and THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58108775 The Two Cultures is part one of this lecture series: I THE TWO CULTURES II INTELLECTUALS AS NATURAL LUDDITES III THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION IV THE RICH AND THE POOR NOTES
• 椹�鎱у厓并且科技在改变文明的视角(有增有减).
• xwthanks rzp! I concatenated all the free part and applied.
• rzphttp://www.du8.com/book/BookManage/bookdetail/58/58fh.html 《英语名人演讲》 作者:何高大 出版社:华中理工大学出版社 出版时间：1999-01-01 里面收有这篇《两种文化》，用户充值后可以在网上看。只是我不知道如何给这个网站充值：http://user.du8.com
• xw 显微镜？望远镜？ 哪“听”角呢？里尔克把听觉当作通灵，并写了两组俄耳蒲斯十四行 诗。 上回与马慧远讨论中国传统文化的精细与否，我先提到交流。 我以为，汉语的语音功能不强，阻碍了语言交流更深层的开拓。当然 ，汉语的结构性也不强，这个与语音是否有干系？ “视”与“听”，“交流”。 好在西方语言已经抽象出希腊、罗马字母和十位数字的演算体系，可 以直接援用于逻辑结构。然而，触及灵魂的声音呢。
• 琛屼汉 科学砸了哲学家的饭碗。哲学的领地被削了又削，现在哲学家只能寄托在科学的屋檐下做做科学的方法论，或者算语言学下边一个分支，到语言学系找饭。再过些年，估计哲学这门学科就没了，能跟科学方法相提并论大概只剩数学了。
• touche这倒未必。只是严肃的哲学家现在十分小心。他们关心的问题并不是大部分科学家关心的东西，所以他们饭还是有得吃的。大部分微粒子物理学家接受哥本哈根学派的解释，只是把它当作工作架设而已。他们对世界根本上是否是决定论的这种形而上学关注不感兴趣，whatever works, fine. 我读斯诺的The Two Cultures时，《走向未来丛书》还未出中文。如果我的记忆还行的话，他的主要矛头是针对对科学懵里懵懂的人文知识分子的。
• xw 我说Touche是咖啡里的老前辈嘛。 很不好意思，我读斯诺这篇还是上回去伦敦旅行，随便在书架上找书 ，果然有一本小小的《英国散文选》，这个正合口味。 昨天再读了一遍，虽然表面上是针对老套文人的，骨子里还是对过分 分裂性的教育持批评。记得这末后有一句，还怪究了剑桥牛津的奖学 金制度。 虽然文中说理看不起文（作者似对现代文艺也不满），但实际社会更 多是文看不起理。。。 我以为互相不了解是真，互
• 浠よ儭鍐� 我还没戒网，touche算什么老前辈。读闲书多不一定是好事，更不见得能因此而成老前辈。:) 前两天我听魔女说你因为挨骂而戒网了，我听了吓一跳。没注意到有人来骂人砸坛啊？所以这个网管不能当。我要是整天扫地，那上网也不会有好心情？ 究竟咋回事？你我和自立才是这里老前辈。touche你哄他捧他没用的 -- 也好，这种人砸起来也不用心疼。
• rzp看来得有势力均等的文科和理科出身的人和网管，一个坛子才能有两种文化的互相认识和融合，或者一种求同存异的平衡。
• xw 现在确实是理重了些的，弄得我这三两醋都要投奔自由了的。 咖啡里学文的真不多，我只知道玛雅，以前Adagio，Gadfly社会学不 知是科班还是中途杀出的？ Zili是文的。小曼和青冈也是。别的学文的请通知一声。
• xw 读书还是能称得上我们的老前辈嘛。不见他走向未来丛书前就读了两 种文化，是英文版的吧？ 那时我英文还没考四级呢。当然，这咖啡里的朱小棣，鲁汉，自立等 当时恐怕都能读的。令胡你跟我一样，小字辈。 戒网的不会，戒咖啡倒是。 Touche最近也能挤出些鳄鱼眼泪的。
• VCPP这篇文章“夹”在一本英语散文集里，跟了我多年，一直没有发现。直到在王小波的一篇文字里看见提到“两种文化”，才偶然翻到(惊讶)。 我最喜欢的是这句： Compared with the rest of the intellectual world, considerably more scientists in this country and probably in the U.S. come from poor families.
• touche我想我是属于第三种文化吧。一直在老两种文化之间爬来爬去，connecting the dots, making sense of the world, giving each it's due, giving myself the credit. ;)
• xw我把这篇“两种文化”后面的敲出来，好在只六七页： The degree of incomprehension on both sides is the kind of joke which has gone sour. There are about fifty thousand working scientists in the coun­ try and about eighty thousand professional engi­ neers or applied scientists. During the war and in the years since, my colleagues and I have had to interview somewhere between thirty to

(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation