C.P. Snow's essay “Two Cultures” talks about the growing gulf between the scientific community and that of the humanities, or more specifically, the literary community. Being a scientist himself, who later turned writer, he had access to both “cultures” and was able to observe them. He postulates the existence of two “cultures” - based not just on the fields of practice the two, but observed differences in both behaviour and beliefs. He attributes it to “mutual incomprehension- sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding” and to the super specialization within disciplines because of the education system to the point that the two have nothing in common any more. Does this so-called divide exist at all? We may examine history and notice that they go hand in hand, one can not exist without the other. The sciences are after all disciplines devoted to the pursuit of answers to philosophical questions, though these roots are often forgotten. By common misconception there is the clear dividing line between the two, and a definite hierarchy. Literature, and by extension, social science, is said to be inferior, subjective, faulty and devoid of fact, but many fail to think of the converse in relation with natural science. He describes this growing divide, the split onto “two cultures”. Scientists, he says, are a community, even in the anthropological sense – they have a set of beliefs, whether political, theological, economical and behave in a certain, ascribing relevance and importance to things which others wouldn't have, and of course have “rituals” of their own. The literary community, on the other hand are more varied, but they too have marked traits. His arguments are primarily England centric, however hold true to some extent across the globe. With the development of both these cultures, he points out that with time these social constructs only crystallise further. There is an increasing feeling of superiority amongst both as each is unable to understand and comprehend the place that the other comes from. He ascribes to the scientific community a moral superiority and a certain objectivity, with which I disagree. Morality in itself is subjective. Also, doesn't the question of morals play a huge part in scientific practice today? Everything from animal testing to building dams is morally and ethically questionable. He uses “literary intellectuals” interchangeably with “traditional culture”. He implies that while science looks to the future, literature looks to the past. Why should these literary intellectuals be designated as being the “traditional culture”? Simply because they are “unscientific”? Why doesn't he refer to the scientific culture as traditional, simply because they too have existed across history, and follow a set of practices, and produce knowledge in their own way? Whether or not the literary community must be aware of the second law of thermodynamics, and whether Dickens is any kind of literary milestone for the natural scientists is questionable – they are not equivalent in any way. Because of the technical nature of contemporary scientific discourse, and the increasing and complex body of work in the social sciences, the k gulf will only widen as knowledge progresses. However, the point he is trying to establish is that there must be some common ground between the two, a basic and rudimentary knowledge of each other's disciplines. But is this bridging necessary? Clearly this system that has crystallised has produced results. The two exist parallel to each other, and both produce knowledge of their own. This is how it has always been. However, there is always potential for more, in this case, within the bridge that he hopes will be built between the two cultures. One may be content living in their own bubble with like minded people, but the idea of interchangeable knowledge and sharing, not only to grow as a society, can only be beneficial. In today's world, there is a marked bifurcation of fields, even within the natural sciences and the social sciences. There are also super-specialized fields that have evolved, as our knowledge has developed with time, and our curiosity has not died. Both the natural and the social sciences, in a sense, have a common goal – to try and make some sense of the world around us, and within. It is because of this that barriers are slowly breaking as people realize the immense potential that exists, and as a result, new inter-disciplinary fields of study are emerging. No discipline can exist in isolation anymore. His ultimate pitch and solution is for reform in the education system, which he blames for this growing gulf. The system of super-specialization is the problem. Commonality is after all vital, and understanding the importance of userability is key. By giving at least basic multidisciplinary knowledge to all, we are establishing acommon ground among them, and bringing about new kind of culture itself, not just a bridge between two. It is through a reform in the system that barriers can be broken, people's interests can be encouraged, and mindsets can be changed. The “two cultures”, thus, do exist, but I believe that bridges are being built. The humanities after all, are also self-correcting disciplines, but do no change quickly or drastically like the sciences. They changes are slower and more subtle. Snow may have been completely relevant in the 50's, when he wrote it. It has been more than fifty years since he wrote it, bridges have been built and some amount of progress has been made.