Connecting humanists, naturalists in science

Connecting humanists, naturalists in science

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): When Lord Snow's (C.P. Snow, 1905 -- 80) famous
paper The Two Cultures was published in 1959, the situation among
academics must have been very, very bad.

Lord Snow described how the humanists (the literary
intellectuals) and the naturalists (the scientists) were engulfed
in "mutual incomprehension", a situation made worse sometimes by
dislike and hostility, and most important of all by lack of
mutual understanding. They lived in two different worlds that
were so much apart from one another that they even seemed to
speak two different languages.

How is the situation today?

I think it has become much better. Although deep-rooted
divisive issues still exist, the gap between the two has become
much narrower. Successive generations of humanists and
naturalists succeeded in building bridges that connect the two
academic communities.

There are now a number of problems that attract the attention
and concern of both the humanists and the naturalists. Problems
related to issues of environment, refugees, hunger, drug
trafficking, and cloning, to mention but a few, are now jointly
addressed by scholars from all kinds of academic disciplines.

Still there are differences that cannot be bridged yet. Some
differences are so deep that no matter how hard academics try to
solve them, misunderstandings still exist.

Some scholars consider such problems as a challenge, while
others consider them as evidence of the finality of their
qualitative divide.

Does it make any difference to the public whether academic
communities exist as exclusive entities and dislike each other or
whether they appreciate one another and collaborate to solve
problems faced by mankind?

I think it does make a great difference. We have only to take
into cognizance a few big changes to recognize this fact.

The green revolution for instance was initially hailed as the
ultimate answer to the problem of chronic shortages of grain. It
was greeted with jubilance by the entire world. Later, however,
research done by environmentalists revealed some negative
effects, unintended of course, that came with the green
revolution.

And we became more careful since that.

Another example is globalization. Initially it was greeted
with enthusiasm by nearly everybody, including economists,
political scientist, legal experts, and heads of governments.

It was initially thought that globalization will bring benefit
to the rich and the poor alike. But later, after scholars
concerned with the problem of eradicating poverty made closer
observations in a number of countries affected by practices of
globalization, it was found that globalization benefits primarily
the rich industrial countries, while the gap between rich and
poor countries does not become narrower.

We became more careful in understanding what globalization
really means, and what prerequisites must be met before jumping
into it. We became skeptical in a healthy way.

A great number of other illustrations can be easily provided
to show that mutual appreciation and collaboration among
academics will enhance the benefits of their work for mankind.

The important point in this regard is in my view that
exclusive existence of any academic discipline becomes
increasingly impossible and increasingly unwelcome.

Another question that merits our attention is "What made this
rapprochement between humanists and naturalists possible?"

I think it has been the continuous efforts by scholars to
refine and expand their knowledge, and continuous publication of
their research findings that have been instrumental in narrowing
the gap between the two sides.

Research findings that are couched in a language that can be
comprehended by nonspecialists and educated laymen alike will
make it possible for nonspecialists to understand and appreciate
the substance of the report. This in turn will make them
motivated to move into domains outside their own, and this will
in the end increase their appreciation toward works done by
scholars outside their respective fields.

To mention a personal example, if I may, reading an article
about the biological bases of gender or sexuality completely
changed my feelings and attitude towards gays and lesbians.
Whereas formerly I had a very strong prejudice against them,
after reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's article in the July/August
2000 edition of The Sciences, my prejudices vanished.

Under the title The Five Sexes, Revisited, Professor Anne
Fausto-Sterling wrote that the male -- female dichotomy is a
product of theorizing carried out at the idealized level.

This theorizing overlooks many obvious caveats, like the fact
that some women have facial hair, and some men have none; that
some women speak with a deep voice, while some men practically
"squeak". The result of this theorizing is the division of human
beings into two kinds of perfectly dimorphic species, men and
women, male and female.

According to the author, absolute dimorphism disintegrates
even at the basic biological level. Evidence gathered so far show
that seventeen out of every 1,000 children born (1.7 percent) are
outside the ideal dimorphic mold. They are neither perfect male
nor perfect female. They are called "intersexuals."

Three other types can be distinguished: namely hermaphrodites
(people born with both a testis and an ovary); male pseudo-
hermaphrodites (born with testes and some aspects of female
genitalia; and female pseudohermaphrodites (people who have
ovaries combined with some aspects of male genitalia).

I was further aghast by the author's report that among
intersexuals there are people whose emotional gender is at odds
with their physical sex. These people feel themselves trapped in
the body of the opposite sex, viz. as males trapped in female
bodies or vice versa.

After reading this article I could not help asking myself, "Is
it fair to judge these people with standards of morality that are
drawn from the lives of perfect males and perfect females?"

If it is not fair to do so, what should the yardstick be to
measure the morality of their sexual conduct? I don't know, and
my conclusion after pondering about this question is that we
should never rush into judging someone about whom we have no
adequate knowledge. Let us be humble toward people who differ
from us.

The writer is a social and educational observer based in
Jakarta.