Triangulating the Two Cultures Entanglement: The Sciences and the Humanities in the Public Sphere

A. Kirchhofer, A. Auguscik
{"title":"Triangulating the Two Cultures Entanglement: The Sciences and the Humanities in the Public Sphere","authors":"A. Kirchhofer, A. Auguscik","doi":"10.12929/JLS.10.2.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Sciences, the Humanities, and the “gulf of mutual incomprehension” For quite a long time now, we have lived with the two cultures divide. A “gulf of mutual incomprehension”, wrote C.P. Snow, is dividing “literary intellectuals” from scientists, and creating an inability to communicate, a mutual inability to understand and appreciate each other (3-4). Scholars are not quite in agreement about how long this has been going on but there is widespread consensus on the disadvantages of the situation, coupled with suggestions for how to overcome it or a resigned acceptance of its unwelcome persistence (Gould, Cordle, Waugh). In exploring the range of perspectives open to the ScienceHumanities, it is worth considering to what extent this focus on the mutual perceptions and reinterpretations of the humanities and the sciences, and the disciplinary anxieties which may inform them, has itself a limiting effect on our analysis. If, half a century after Snow, the two cultures debate is still “an obligatory but uninspiring inclusion” (Sleigh 3) in scholarship on literature and science, it may be because this concentration on a two-way relationship fosters the tendency of the debate to lock itself into familiar channels. Our purpose here is to guide the discussion about the relationship between the sciences and the humanities away from the question of their mutual perception in order to see how that relationship may look different once we shift the focus towards how the sciences and humanities are perceived from additional angles of observation. We aim for a reorientation that proceeds from a discussion of the attitudes of the public sphere to both the sciences and the humanities. We illustrate this by analysing novelistic representations of scientific concepts and practices, as well as the varied and sometimes controversial responses of general, literary and scientific readers to these. Our goal is not to undertake a redescription of the other discipline in terms of our own, but to make visible – and thereby available for public understanding and public discussion – the underlying structures of mediated communication about science.","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of literature and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12929/JLS.10.2.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Sciences, the Humanities, and the “gulf of mutual incomprehension” For quite a long time now, we have lived with the two cultures divide. A “gulf of mutual incomprehension”, wrote C.P. Snow, is dividing “literary intellectuals” from scientists, and creating an inability to communicate, a mutual inability to understand and appreciate each other (3-4). Scholars are not quite in agreement about how long this has been going on but there is widespread consensus on the disadvantages of the situation, coupled with suggestions for how to overcome it or a resigned acceptance of its unwelcome persistence (Gould, Cordle, Waugh). In exploring the range of perspectives open to the ScienceHumanities, it is worth considering to what extent this focus on the mutual perceptions and reinterpretations of the humanities and the sciences, and the disciplinary anxieties which may inform them, has itself a limiting effect on our analysis. If, half a century after Snow, the two cultures debate is still “an obligatory but uninspiring inclusion” (Sleigh 3) in scholarship on literature and science, it may be because this concentration on a two-way relationship fosters the tendency of the debate to lock itself into familiar channels. Our purpose here is to guide the discussion about the relationship between the sciences and the humanities away from the question of their mutual perception in order to see how that relationship may look different once we shift the focus towards how the sciences and humanities are perceived from additional angles of observation. We aim for a reorientation that proceeds from a discussion of the attitudes of the public sphere to both the sciences and the humanities. We illustrate this by analysing novelistic representations of scientific concepts and practices, as well as the varied and sometimes controversial responses of general, literary and scientific readers to these. Our goal is not to undertake a redescription of the other discipline in terms of our own, but to make visible – and thereby available for public understanding and public discussion – the underlying structures of mediated communication about science.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种文化纠缠的三角化:公共领域的科学与人文
科学、人文和“相互不理解的鸿沟”很长一段时间以来,我们一直生活在两种文化的鸿沟中。C.P.斯诺写道,“相互不理解的鸿沟”正在将“文学知识分子”与科学家区分开来,并造成无法沟通,无法相互理解和欣赏(3-4)。学者们对这种情况持续了多久并不完全一致,但人们对这种情况的不利之处达成了广泛共识,并提出了如何克服这种情况的建议,或者接受这种不受欢迎的持续性(Gould,Cordle,Waugh)。在探索科学人文学科的视角范围时,值得考虑的是,这种对人文学科和科学的相互认知和重新解释的关注,以及可能告知它们的学科焦虑,在多大程度上对我们的分析产生了限制性影响。如果在斯诺之后的半个世纪里,这两种文化的辩论仍然是文学和科学学术中“一种强制性但缺乏灵感的包容”(Sleigh 3),那可能是因为这种对双向关系的关注助长了辩论锁定在熟悉渠道中的倾向。我们在这里的目的是引导关于科学和人文学科之间关系的讨论远离它们的相互感知问题,以便看到一旦我们将重点转移到如何从其他观察角度看待科学和人文科学,这种关系可能会有什么不同。我们的目标是从对公共领域对科学和人文学科的态度的讨论中重新定位。我们通过分析科学概念和实践的小说表现,以及普通读者、文学读者和科学读者对这些概念和实践做出的各种有时有争议的反应来说明这一点。我们的目标不是用我们自己的方式重新描述另一门学科,而是让公众了解和讨论科学中介传播的基本结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
II III XVIII XIV XV
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1