Transparency Item: The Perspectives section of the Graphic is comprised of articles based on opinion. This is the opinion and perspective of the writer.
The 1989 film “Dead Poets Society” features a memorable line from John Keating, played by Robin Williams, directed at his English students: “Medicine, law, business, engineering, these are all noble pursuits, and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.”
This statement, which I do agree with, reflects a larger sentiment regarding academic subjects and the purpose of humanity.
Science and the arts are frequently portrayed as opposing forces, whether in academic settings or as individual skill sets, and people tend to divide themselves in ways that describe their place in a world that needs both.
I frequently observe other students compare majors, whether to be self-deprecating or to emphasize their academic success. In high school, I was once asked if I was “right-brained” or “left-brained,” which relates to the idea that higher activity on one side of the brain indicates particular skills.
A physics major may argue that they have more right to complain about schoolwork than their friend in the philosophy major, while the philosophy major argues that their field is more interesting or fun to discuss than physics. I am not in either of these majors, but I find physics challenging and philosophy fascinating, so I can sympathize with both positions.
Fields such as science and mathematics are, in popular imagination, regarded as strictly rational, necessary and difficult to pursue. These fields gain more respect for their intellectual rigor than most humanities subjects, but the world also seems to view professionals in these fields as coldly practical or impersonal.
For example, the stereotype of a “science geek” may seem like a person who is highly intelligent and dedicated, but who struggles to connect with other people on an emotional level. People may respect this individual for their analytical ability, but they are ultimately alienated from their peers.
I think these stereotypes stem, in part, from the idea that emotion is not only separate from logic but is a direct hindrance to logic. Widely used personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs assessment reinforce the notion that most people are either logical or emotional and that high levels of one are correlated with low levels of the other.
On the other hand, one may dismiss subjects such as philosophy, literature or history as useless or unchallenging. However, I notice that some tend to revere successful writers and philosophers as more imaginative, spontaneous or creative than people in STEM fields.
A stereotypical artist might be very personally engaging or charismatic, and capable of drawing people in with their unique worldviews and creative talent. However, the stereotype holds that this person is prone to unhealthy patterns of behavior, such as addiction or insomnia as well as volatile relationships.
Ernest Hemingway, Franz Kafka and Sylvia Plath are oft-cited as representatives of “the tortured artist.” Creative genius, in popular culture, may come at the cost of personal well-being, and it is unfortunately very easy to find real-life examples to support that idea.
However, I think some of the discourse around science and art relies on misguided generalizations about the human brain. Research suggests that decision-making and personality rely on a complex interaction between logic and emotion, and to neglect either one could have a negative impact.
Additionally, STEM and humanities subjects are not strictly divided categories that could exist independently. Technical writing and scientific journalism are fairly explicit examples of the collaboration between science and art.
Modern filmmaking requires a heavy use of both technological and creative processes, though I think most view it as a mainly artistic field. The distribution and presentation of both scientific and artistic media require many different skills from different people.
I think more productive discourse would center the ways that different fields can be effectively merged, rather than why or how fields are different. This applies to individuals as well, since everybody could benefit from growing in one area or another.
Dividing personality into constrictive binaries may be conducive to a strong sense of self, but it can also limit open-mindedness toward other possibilities and even other people. As the world becomes more complicated with emerging technology and new artistic periods, it is important to remember the ways people can rely on each other to defy expectations.
___________________
Follow the Graphic on X: @PeppGraphic
Contact Alyssa Johnson via email: alyssa.johnson@pepperdine.edu
