Two Cultures: Economics as a Bridge

A cartoon showing the difference
between North and South campus students.
Courtesy of dailybruin.com

            While C.P. Snow proposed the concept of “two cultures” in academia conflicting against each other sixty years ago, his words remain relevant for many today. Here at UCLA, there is a clear divide: North and South campus. The general sentiment is that South campus is where the rigorous, employable majors reside (math and science) while North campus is where the artsy and unemployable majors reside (arts and humanities). This sentiment almost perfectly echoes Snow’s claims that the disparity between the focus on humanities rather than the sciences is a hindrance to solving the global problem of the wealth gap, albeit in a slightly different interpretation (Snow).

The complex derivation of the Black-Scholes option
pricing formula showing the overlap in Economics.
Courtesy of quant.stackexchange.com

            While I, in a sense, agree with the assertion that some majors are more employable and lucrative than others, I find myself unable to reconcile Snow’s main argument stating that the sciences must be championed to solve the world’s problems since I am majoring in economics, a major that resides in North campus. The crux of Snow’s argument is economical, a subject I view as quintessentially “third culture” exemplified by Professor Vesna’s article, which proposes this third culture as the use of mathematics to derive philosophical interpretations of events (Vesna). Economics, at its core, seeks to study human behavior, but does so by using mathematics at a fundamental level building advanced mathematic models and using statistics to back up claims (Gómez). In that sense, economics seems to be the intersection of humanities and math and is the primary vehicle that, in my opinion, would create solutions to Snow’s biggest global concern.

A little cartoon showing
that cooperation is ideal.
Courtesy of ttlearning.com

            I firmly believe the divide between academic disciplines is the true hindrance to progress and these preconceived notions that one subject is better than the other is not rooted in fact. An example of this is that even Darwin established his evolutionary theory based on qualitative, not quantitative, observations of natural history (Angier). In my experience, I have discovered that academia is not black and white in science versus humanities, rather, the subjects have many shades of grey where they overlap. In his article, “The Third Culture,” Kelly captures this overlap wonderfully, “The purpose of science is to pursue the truth of the universe. Likewise, the aim of the arts is to express the human condition. (Yes, there's plenty of overlap.)” (Kelly). If more people could make this connection and find the overlap between the two instead of belittling the other, it just might be possible to solve all the grievances Snow was so concerned about.


References:

1.     Angier, Natalie. “New Curriculum Designed to Unite Art and Science.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 May 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/science/27angi.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1300378075-UQFD0IHBmJr7JJloJeq1Qw&mtrref=undefined&gwh=1F7CBD36867DD309F42C95A456716D26&gwt=pay.

2.     Gómez, Paz. “5 Reasons Why Economics Deserves STEM Recognition.” American Institute for Economic Research, American Institute for Economic Research, 11 Apr. 2018, www.aier.org/article/5-reasons-why-economics-deserves-stem-recognition.

3.     Kelly, Kevin. “The Third Culture.” Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 13 Feb. 1998, science.sciencemag.org/content/279/5353/992.full.

4.     Snow, C.P. "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution." New York: Cambridge UP, 1959.

5. Vesna, Victoria. "Toward a Third Culture: Being In Between." Leonardo, vol. 34, no. 2, 2001, pp. 121-125.