Skip to main content
Culture, history and society

Culture, history and society

Anosognosia

11 Sep 2005 Robert P Crease

Much contemporary history, fiction and philosophy ignores the impact of science on human life and history. Robert P Crease cites some of his favourite examples, and asks for yours

Writer's block

Since it was first published in 1980, A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn has sold over a million copies and become one of the most influential works of history in the US. A popular textbook in schools and colleges, it claims to focus on "hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win".

However, Zinn’s book makes no mention of people resisting, joining together and winning when it comes to science. It says nothing, for instance, of the struggles to reduce childhood mortality, increase life expectancy, or develop systems of mass transportation. There is no mention of Norman Borlaug, who won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for leading the “green revolution”, and who helped end hunger for millions of people. Also absent is the microbiologist Maurice Hilleman, whose vaccines saved more lives than were lost in all the wars to which Zinn devotes chapters.

Mass electrification fails to feature in Zinn’s book, although the unit costs of electricity are discussed in the context of a programme to give "enough help to the lower classes" to prevent them rebelling. Steam power is not covered, nor is the internal-combustion engine, although railroads are discussed in relation to racial segregation, unions, strikes and methods of exploiting American Indians.

Misunderstanding the people

Zinn, in short, considers scientific changes inconsequential to "the people".

Such omissions do not necessarily make the book defective as history. As Zinn notes, historians cannot avoid selecting and emphasizing some facts rather than others, although they have a duty to avoid promoting ideological interests, knowingly or not.

But Zinn’s omissions do make the book defective as an account of "the people". The conquest of dreaded and once-common epidemic diseases, such as polio and encephalitis, have fundamentally affected how all of us view life and death. Developments in astronomy and the discovery of evolution have affected our sense of time and space, and our place in nature.

These events all took place within the timeframe of Zinn’s book. Although some, of course, were pioneered by non-Americans, these events profoundly altered how human beings seek answers to the questions of what we know, should do, and can hope for.

Lacking awareness

Zinn is not the only person to ignore the impact of science. Many authors of contemporary fiction fill their books with characters who are nothing more than superannuated children, seemingly unaffected by technological training and devices. Some writers – like Jonathan Franzen, Ian McEwan, Neal Stephenson and David Foster Wallace – do present protagonists who are interested in and influenced by their technological surroundings. But these writers can be severely criticized by reviewers for their efforts.

Commenting on McEwan’s Saturday, one reviewer criticizes the author for being "wearingly insistent on displaying his technical knowledge" and complains of "big words in this book". The book indeed has some big words. However, the training that turns people into technically literate professionals not only accustoms them to using big words, but also affects how they speak and act. Technically competent people often delight in their technical competence, and wield this competence when interacting with the world. This is precisely what McEwan so ably captures.

Dismissing the effect of science on modern life has nothing to do with the "two cultures". Rather, it shows a blind spot in the work of writers and scholars whose duty it is to become aware of the world around them. It is more serious than amnesia. We can name the condition with one of the "big words" that McEwan’s protagonist uses in Saturday. It is "anosognosia" – a medical term (derived from the Greek for "without knowledge") that means a lack of awareness of one’s own condition.

The critical point

After lecturing on Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism in his Caltech lectures on physics, Richard Feynman once remarked that "[f]rom a long view of the history of mankind…there’s little doubt in my mind that the most significant event of the 19th century was Maxwell’s discovery of these laws of electrodynamics in the 1860s. The American Civil War, for instance, will pale into provincial insignificance compared with this important event of that decade".

Is Feynman’s claim overstated? Did Maxwell’s laws merely add information to our world? Clearly not. Their discovery transformed human life in fundamental ways that have profound implications for "the people".

Overcoming anosognosia will require scholars in the humanities to engage with science and technology much more than they currently do. One obstacle, however, is their fear that such engagement will undermine the humanities. Far safer for its practitioners to circle the wagons, dwelling on what is distinctive about the humanities rather than what is possible. This is what makes so many humanities programmes both defendable and lifeless. Moreover, such wagon-circling is self-interest in disguise; thus, an ideology itself.

I have cited a few cases of anosognosia, and would like your favourite examples of others, as well as your thoughts on the cause of this disease. I am not talking about bloopers, that is to say mistakes or an ignorance in the use of scientific details. Rather, I mean cases of wilful naïvety in assessing the impact of science and technology on the modern world. I shall discuss your suggestions in a future column.

• Do you have your own examples of "anosognosia"? Send your comments to Robert P Crease at rcrease@notes.cc.sunysb.edu

Copyright © 2024 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors