Fifty years ago this week, a portly gentleman stood up in the Senate House of Cambridge University and launched a meme — an infectious idea — that has reverberated ever since.
The speaker was a successful novelist who had earlier in life been a promising scientist before his career was blighted by an unfortunate experimental mistake. (He and a colleague thought they had found a way to make vitamin A, but it turned out that they hadn’t.) During the war he had discovered a talent for scientific administration and in the postwar era had become a knight and a pillar of the establishment. His name was Charles Percy Snow.
Snow’s Big Idea was that there were “two cultures” in our society — that of the “literary intellectuals” (as he called them) and that of the natural scientists. His argument was that there existed a profound division — characterized by mutual incomprehension and distrust — between the two cultures, and that this division had disastrous consequences for society.
The defining characteristic of a successful Big Idea is that it should be big enough to suggest profundity, but not so big as to be difficult to comprehend. In that respect, the only serious competitor to the Two Cultures meme over the past half-century has been Thomas Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm shift.” Both ideas are endlessly parroted, frequently misinterpreted and relentlessly deployed to lend a touch of academic class to intellectual brawls that might otherwise look vulgar.
Over the years, Snow’s meme has been subjected to criticism and abuse, but the idea of mutually uncomprehending cultures still seems relevant to understanding why important segments of our society are struggling to come to terms with a networked world. In our case, the gap is not between the humanities and the sciences but those who are obsessed with lock-down and control on the one hand, and those who celebrate openness and unfettered creativity on the other. The odd thing is that one finds arts and scientific types on both sides of this divide.
The legal scholar James Boyle describes this as the division between those who are culturally agoraphobic and those who are not. In a couple of recent lectures he has suggested two intriguing thought experiments to illustrate the gap.
Imagine, he says, you’re back in the early 1990s. The potential of electronic networking is dawning on the world, and there are two possible paths of development.
The first is a version of the French Minitel system — government-provided terminals in every home on which appear information and services from a small number of approved providers (the BBC for news, the London Met Office for weather information, Reuters for stock market information and so on). Everything is controlled and reliable. The other option is a publishing system in which anybody can publish anything — including lies, propaganda and pornography — with no prior approval. Question: Which system would you have chosen?
In Boyle’s second experiment, the task is to design the world’s first global encyclopedia. One proposal is for a huge enterprise that starts by appointing an editorial board of the world’s foremost thinkers. It recruits a staff of experienced commissioning editors who solicit articles from respected authorities. The resulting submissions are rigorously checked for factual accuracy and impartiality before being published. The publication is updated once every five years. The alternative proposal is from a guy who says: “Well, I think we should put up a Web site and ask people to write stuff for it.” Which one would you have chosen?
Boyle’s point is that most of us would have chosen the Minitel and Britannica models and thus denied the world the Web and Wikipedia. The cultural agoraphobia from which most of us suffer leads us always to overemphasize the downsides of openness and lack of central control, and to overvalue the virtues of order and authority.
That is what is rendering us incapable of harnessing the benefits of networked technology. Industries and governments are wasting incalculable amounts of money and energy in Canute-like resistance to the oncoming wave when what they should be doing is figuring out ways to ride it.
Which brings us back to dear old Snow. In 1959 he argued that the gap between his “two cultures” was holding us back from applying technology to solve the problems of the world.
Fifty years on, we’re still in the same boat. The cultures have changed, but the problem remains.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS