Some of the essential differences
between the two cultures become evident when we compare the humanistic and
scientific approaches to human activity. The effect of a scientific ordering is
to produce detachment from the individual experiences which are being dealt
with; the effect of a humanistic ordering is to encourage involvement.
A simple illustration may help to
give concreteness to this distinction.
In March 1951, the National Safety Council of America predicted that the
one millionth traffic fatality since the first recorded automobile death in
1899 would occur on December 22, 1951. And it did. The preliminary publicity was
aimed at leading up to a solemn response to an awesome national tragedy. The
public response was not as to a tragedy; it was the kind proper to a scientific
generalization. The lifeless bodies on the highway was a mere number
representing the operation of inexorable impersonal laws and paying tribute to
our genius for accurate measurement. One could not expect the response to have
been otherwise. The closer an intellectual synthesis approaches the scientific
ideal, the more completely will the human act lose its individual significance,
and the more fully will we remain detached from its human meaning. Where
numerical formulations are involved, this effect becomes especially noticeable.
The contrast to this may be seen
in literature, for the power of literature lies in its capacity to involve us
in its data in a predetermined way, as well as in its capacity never to lose
sight of the uniqueness of individual experience. There is a respect in which
literature shares with science the capacity to formulate concepts which give us
a new outlook and provide a new measure of control over our observations. The
world takes on a different aspect after mass and gravity and evolution have
been conceptualized, and in a similar fashion we apprehend experience
differently once Hamlet or War and Peace has been conceptualized.
Unlike the creations of science,
which are of necessity neutral with respect to their human meaning or use,
works of literature of necessity involve us in such response as pity, fear, sorrow,
pleasant and bitter choice. We can remain neither detached from nor indifferent
to their human meaning. In successful works of literature, our involvement is
so complete that they attach our sympathy even where they do not compel our
intellectual conviction or belief. Antigone’s compulsion to bury her brother,
if only with a handful of earth, has its origin in a world of taboos alien to our
own, yet her tragedy moves us, at this remove from classical Athens. Because they
can do this, works of literature have the capacity to extend the range of our
sympathies; they impress upon us the diversity of human experience and direct
attention to the values which determine to the values which determine individual
choice and through which human actions acquire their meaning.
It does not- to state the obvious-
follow that a man of letters or a student of literature and the arts and
humanistic learning is of necessity more human and wise and perceptive than one
who is not humanist, any more then it follows that a scientist, by virtue of
his practice of science, always thinks more logically, clearly, and impartially
than the non-scientist. It is reasonable to suppose that continuous involvement
in the discipline of science will leave its impress on the ways a man thinks,
and that he demands which the practice of science makes upon him will shape his
character. By the same token, it is equally reasonable to suppose that the arts
and humanistic learning will contribute their share to shaping the attitudes
of those who take a serious interest in them. And both, imperceptibly, leave
their marks on the age in which they flourish and on the society which gives
them support and scope for their activities.
There are important functions
which the humanities cannot perform, and there are important functions which
science cannot perform, if for no other reasons than that they do not ask the
same kind of questions. The humanities cannot take over all the methodological
procedures of the sciences nor duplicate the comprehensive inclusiveness of scientific generalizations.
And we cannot, therefore, expect that the humanities will provide exact and
fully operational solutions to the problems that vex our human conditions.
Science lacks the capacity of the arts, especially, literature, and of
humanistic learning to become preoccupied with proper human goals and proper
meaning. And we cannot, therefore, expect its distinctive contribution to lie
in the direction of keeping alive and encouraging a sense of our common
humanity.
Summary
The humanistic and scientific approaches
differ from each other. The effect of the scientific ordering to a human
activity is to produce detachment from the individual experience, the effect of
the humanistic ordering, on the other hand, is to encourage involvement. The
incident of March 1951 illustrates it. The prediction of the National Safety
Council of America that the one millionth traffic fatality since the first
recorded automobile death in 1899 would occur on December 22, 1951. The public
response to this tragedy was lost where people were busy in counting the dead
bodies on the highway and paying tribute to human genius for accurate
measurement. Literature, on the contrary, is always concerned with the
uniqueness of human experience. Though like science it has the capacity to
formulate new concepts which give us a new outlook. The creation of science are
always neutral or indifferent to their human meaning whereas good works of
literature involve us and rouse the feeling such as pity, fear, sorrow,
pleasure and so on. They extend our sympathies. The tragedy of Antigone which occurred
in classical Athens still touches us.
It is true that arts and science
contribute in shaping the attitudes of those who remain in touch with them for
a long period of tie. The humanities and science do well in their respective
field. Science only can adopt the methodological product to reach to some
scientific generalization. Likewise only humanities can provide us human means
of attaining human goals.
Important Questions
1. What was the prediction of the
National Safety Council of America in March 1951?
2. What was the public reaction
to this prediction? Why was ‘it’ so?
3. Even though science and
literature are concerned with very different areas of human life, they have
something in common. Where does the similarity lie?
4. How do works of literature
extend the range of human emotions?
5. Write a short paragraph bringing
out the difference between the aims of science and those of the humanities.
6. What are the different
approaches to human activity as laid down by Moody E. Prior in his essay?
Illustrate.
7. How does literature share with
science the capacity to formulate concepts as propounded by M.E. Prior in his
essay? Elucidate.
8. Compare and contrast the
humanistic and scientific approaches to human activity propounded by M. E.
Priop in his essay. Elucidate.
Source: Professional Communication by Malti Agarwal