To dissect or to drive forward

This can be applied to everything. To all disciplines, to life as a whole. There are people who dissect and describe. And there are people who propound and drive forward. They are all necessary. We cannot be successful without an in-depth knowledge of our reality.

But we need to find the right balance between the two. If there are too many dissectors, analysts and describers, and too few devoted to working on reality, there will be no progress, irrespective of how well this reality has been described.

Continuing with the medical example, if there are many anatomists and too few surgeons or internists, the country’s health will not improve. If there are many surgeons that are ignorant of human anatomy, there will be misfortunes, since anatomists and dissectors are necessary. Without these two disciplines the country as a whole would be in a poor state of health.

Why do we refer to anatomists and internists? What are we implying? We are implying that the balance between analysts and drivers is in danger in many areas.

Several weeks ago we mentioned that in Catalonia (and to a degree in some European countries) there is a crisis in techno-scientific vocations among the young (see editorial of September 5). We said there is a marked imbalance between the number of students of engineering, physics, chemistry, telecommunications, mathematics, etc. – which is decreasing - and the number of students of sociology, psychology, journalism, and social sciences and environmental sciences in general. The latter have increased significantly in number. There is a far greater tendency to dissect and analyse than to create and drive forward. This is not a good sign. More often than not when young men and women are asked why they do not choose techno-scientific studies, they reply, or you can see they think, that these disciplines are too challenging. However it is also true that social studies enjoy greater prestige and are more highly regarded than those in the productive area, at least among the mass media and the general public. They are even considered to be morally superior.

Perhaps they do not say so or they are unaware of it, but they may believe that professions in the techno-scientific fields demand greater responsibility and entail greater risk (even when this might contradict the imaginary idea of moral superiority we mentioned before).

Our society has to dwell on and have clear ideas about this. And take initiatives accordingly. At any rate it seems clear that if the current trend persists our economy will be affected adversely.

One difference between the attitude of the social academic, or the professor of philosophy, and the technician – or the politician or the unionist  - is that the latter do not restrict themselves to describing a situation but have to make decisions. Sometimes these decisions are dubious, unclear and often hasty. If the anatomist cannot see something clearly, he can say “I’ll take another look tomorrow”. The paediatrician rarely has such a margin. The sociologist may say “I won’t study this anymore”, whereas the chemist – and the politician  -  must often make immediate decisions.

There is yet another difference. Analysts need not necessarily make proposals. Their work may finish with the description. They must describe reality, and describe it accurately. A good description of reality, of the state of things, is fundamental for a subsequent correct action. But they are not compelled to make decisions. Conversely, doctors, technicians and politicians are.

                                          ----------------------------

I understand that these remarks may give rise to disapproval. In fact, I would rejoice if they do. There is a certain deliberate provocation in them. I hope they will be useful in rousing a dynamic debate on a pressing issue for our society.