Cultures of Incomprehension?: The Legacy of the Two Cultures Debate at the End of the Twentieth Century

This paper considers the impact of Snow's Two Culture's thesis on debates about the place of science and scientists in society in the latter part of the twentieth century. Debates concerned with the public understanding of science and the ‘science wars’, both of which relied to some extent on the dividing of society into ‘two cultures’, are contextualised within longer efforts by scientists to popularise definitions of science and society and their relationship with other epistemic communities. This paper argues that we should think about all these episodes as part of ongoing rhetorical boundary work, reflective of strains and stressors on science as an institution. The two cultures debate has provided one powerful rhetorical device, amongst many, for ongoing boundary work to establish or question science as the dominant form of knowledge in society and delineate who is allowed to speak for it, and wield its power.     

Anthropologist and “Native” in Early Twentieth Century New Guinea: Malinowski and Thurnwald

Malinowski, an anglicized Pole and Thurnwald, a German, were in their different ways pioneers of anthropological fieldwork. Both men kept diaries in which they candidly recorded their experiences, Thurnwald’s remaining unpublished. These diaries, unlike retrospective and sanitized accounts, reveal their attitudes and behaviours towards two main categories of “natives”: the “boys” they employed, and the “savages” who were the object of their research. Comparison of the diary contents show some striking contrasts, attributable to differences in their field situations and also their personality characteristics. In particular, Thurnwald maintained a far greater social distance than Malinowski. Yet both men displayed the then taken‐for‐granted sense of unquestioned European superiority, and retained elements of that stance to the end of their careers.     

A Secular Australia? Ideas,Politics and the Search for Moral Order in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Australia

This article argues that the relationship between the religious and the secular in Australia is complex and that there has been no simple transition from a religious society to a secular one. It argues that the emergence of apparently secular moral orders in the second half of the nineteenth century involved what Steven D. Smith has termed the “smuggling in” of ideas and beliefs which are religious in nature. This can be seen clearly in the economic debates of the second half of the nineteenth century in Australia in which a Free Trade based on an optimistic natural theology battled with a faith in Protection which had powerful roots in a secular form of Calvinism espoused by David Syme. The article concludes with an analysis of twentieth‐century historian W. K. Hancock's comparison of the medieval commonwealth and Machiavelli, concluding that Hancock found both the Free Trade and the Protectionist visions of moral order to be inadequate.