英语论文网

hing that cannot be redefined is eliminated as folk-psychology or as mythology. Thirdly, most cultural commentators are unwitting Marxists because they tacitly adopt Marx's theory of technology leading social change. Karl Marx proposed the theory that when the means of production and the mode of production conflict, the mode of production is redesigned to fit the means of production. Today every major management theorist and economist, including neo-classical economists, have noted that the means of production is Knowledge, which they define in information-processing terms, and the mode of production is industrial. So, even the mode of production-bureaucratic, hierarchical social organizations-is changing to match the means of production-information processing technology or Knowledge. This form of social organization involves the creation of a temporary work force who sell their service to consortiums, and who change jobs and careers according to the dictates of the market. Corporations are flat, as opposed to horizontal, and floating teams are formed across divisions on the basis of temporary projects. Furthermore, corporations are learning systems-they create Knowledge and this Knowledge as opposed to the hard consumer products which are based on this Knowledge is what they really produce and market.

C. P. Snow's two cultures problem is now more severe than when he discovered it: humanists are not only unable to communicate with scientists, but are marginalized by contemporary technoscience. Let me give a concrete example of this marginalization of humanists in current corporations. Middle managers are being removed from corporations and replaced by information-processing functions. Middle management functions as humanists within corporations: they prepare reports for upper management; and interpret the policies and regulations developed by upper management to lower management. Front-line staff generally do their own report preparation by using canned electronic forms, spreadsheets, and report generating software. Upper management leave more discretion to front-line staff for interpreting policy and even provide opportunities for front-line staff to contribute their own views about the corporate 'mission' and 'vision'. However, the bottom line is that front-line staff are expected to understand and use computer technology. But what front-line staff often complain about to technology support staff is that the software is cumbersome, doesn't do the job of the older manual (or even mainframe) systems, and is unreliable. Technology support staff usually complain that the 'end-user' misuses the computer systems, misunderstand the functions of the systems, and expect it to perform tasks that were not built into the system. Here I think is where we have a concrete example of the classic two cultures problem: front-line staff are tacit humanists, they expect technology to serve them; and technology support staff are tacit scientists, they expect humanists to follow the impersonal laws of physical systems which are algorithmic and universal. That is, computer systems are designed to function according to fixed and finite procedures without deviation; but, human systems are designed to be open and infinite. So, the two systems clash.

III. How do scientific and artistic creation allow for breaking the two cultures barrier?

My proposal is that an integrated Popperian