Chapter VIII: Present Day Interdisciplinarity in a Modern Global Context
It is astonishing to think how far we have come as a species, especially in the way we think and use knowledge in our society. We have developed an understanding of our earliest ancestors – insofar as an interdisciplinary way of thinking was the difference between life and death, early understanding on life, ideas from philosophers, and written work to understand our place in the world. Our meaning towards building a society and the expansion of interdisciplinary principles that help new societies grow were all imperative to the advancements we are privy to today. Hardships were present throughout human history there is no denying that, but it was interdisciplinarity and our ability to make knowledgeable connections as human beings that provided that progressive knowledge, hope, determination and fortitude to overcome hardships that the human experience throws at us. Social hardships lead to new concepts and ideas rooted in pragmatic and logical thinking, economic hardships lead to innovation and growth of a population to mobilize out of stagnant trends creating a new world for themselves. Societal challenges with learning lead to new doors being opened with science, technology, and bigger epistemological questions outside of the disciplinary realm guiding individuals towards a more enlightened way of life.
As we move forward into a modern and contemporary understanding of interdisciplinarity, we must always understand the impact our history has had on us. This lineage of interdisciplinarity in history is just as much a part of us as a beating heart or a breath of fresh air. Any content with discussing the present or the future cannot be understood without contextualizing the past, the advancements, and the hardships. This chapter will outline the role of interdisciplinarity in a modern global context and how it can be found. Furthermore, areas where it seems to not be used effectively and implications of reform where certain areas could benefit from.
Economics, Politics, and Public Policy
The contemporary understanding of economics is the neoliberal framework of free-markets, free-trade, and globalized output. Contrary to a host of current academic literature, there are many positives to expanding the economic output of countries into the global market. One of the challenges to a neoliberal framework is the perpetual inequality that persist with globalization between The Group of Eight Countries (G8) and the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). This challenge is valid considering a modern economic framework creates a dichotomy; when there is a United States and Germany, there is countries that end up on the other side of the spectrum, commonly African nations are more likely to end up on the HIPC list. However, this does not mean African Nations are not able to overcome economic challenges. Lets focus on the continent of Africa and discuss recent economic growth in those nations through interdisciplinary foundations.
First, we look at the nation of Nigeria who took a multi-variate, broad ranging approach to infrastructure through spending in the areas of transport, communication, education, and health proving a successful and significant economic growth; moving away from previous spending such as pre-industrial agriculture and poor return on natural resources1. Another example is the economic growth in the Sudan through energy conservation policies and trade openness by advancing their long run economic prospectus. This led to enhancements in GDP growth and output. In addition, long run economic models from Sudan have been followed up by other African nations such as Cameroon, Zimbabwe, and Ghana with this divergent approach2.
In this case we see the embracing of a more liberal and broad ranging public policy that is influencing the economic landscape, countries who have been indebted for many years found new hope in the growth of their national economies. Through embracing new forms of technology, countries have seen independent growth when moving outside of the agri-natural resources sector, and into the science, technology, research, and development sector. The multi-structured, interdisciplinary approach to economics and policy reflect an action that moves beyond traditional norms, at the same time maintaining national stability to achieve new learning. A liberal market with divergent policies allows nations to observe, test, and implement new ideas based on their notions for success. Furthermore, create strategies on how to engage and delegate trade within a free and globalized market.
Although economics have seen a shift, politics can be seen with more criticism. The most prescient example are the politics in the United States becoming more and more polarized in the last two decades. According to Pew Research, from 1994 to 2014 Republicans and Democrats have become more and more polarized creating a significant party divide in a two-party duopoly3. From observation, it seems like the United States political system is caught in this loop of bad politics through this narrow and binary approach with government overseers describing duopoly politics as ‘business as usual in Washington D.C.’. There have been moments when third party candidates have been successful in the two-party duopoly, such as the campaigns of George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992; but usually fall short to the two-party duopoly system, as strategic voting may re-organize the landscape, but does not produce victory4.
Using the United States as an example, what would interdisciplinarity look like inside their political framework? Would it even be accepted in the American political system, given their traditions on government are so venerated? We can use a classic American document to find the answer:
“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.”5
This was an excerpt from James Madison in 1788 outlining the three branches of government used to this day inside of the United States. It is in this document where we could find an interdisciplinary suggestion of change within the political system. Expanding outside of the disciplinary realms to introduce connected but divergent levels of government; the adjustments in the name of the Federalist would be to engage with communication but for the preservation of liberty. One might suggest keeping the Federalist understanding of three separate silos of government, but silos of glass instead of steel for open transparency especially for the most important agent in American democracy: the people.
We are seeing transparency used as a rhetorical device to obtain votes, but hardly as a pragmatic action of governance. This is not just in the United States, Canada and their prime ministers have been caught in ethics violations regarding money and political influence, not to be outdone by the United Kingdom with a host of scandals dating back to the nineteenth century. What can be said about transparency being needed within politics? Researchers have different views pertaining to the matter, Michael Schudson in his book The Rise of the Right to Know: Politics and the Culture of Transparency, 1945-1975, uses this moment in history to reflect on the change in transparency in a modern age:
“Democracies today are not ‘post-representative’ – they are more representative than ever. They are not even post legislative; they still depend on legislatures, but the legislators are cinched into a system where they operate with respect to competing and constraining representative forms. Extralegislative forms of representation have arisen – through political parties, through journalism, and, by the middle of the twentieth century, through public opinion polling.”6
Schudson argues that the public does have a voice in the political process, this is through using their interdisciplinary thinking to embrace extra-legislative forms such as the media and polling to obtain information about representatives, which have been rightfully scrutinized in recent elections. This comes with a caveat however, considering researchers Andrea Mattozi and Antonio Merlo quantitatively discuss the question of political transparency and the quality of the politician:
“Our results suggest that enhancing the transparency of politics may not be a desirable thing to do. In particular, our analysis has pointed out a particular mechanism that may generate a perverse relationship between the transparency of politics and the quality of politicians.”7
The question becomes how do we use transparency within government for better governance? Using interdisciplinarity might consider understanding secrecy for the safety and security of the people and the republic, but more transparency for more connected issues pertaining to the public. This pushes the role of the elected representative beyond their stature in Washington D.C. and more involved with the public through a more transparent governance. Of course, top secret information can remain top secret especially if the information getting out can be detrimental to the people, such as plans for national security. However, politicians can provide economic transparency on taxation and funding programs, this is to see not only where money is going in the government, but if it is in the interest of the American people. Furthermore, this could only enhance the trust between citizen and elected official when a top-secret action needs to be taken under the role of national security. We have seen this level of trust in countries before, notably Sweden, because they have transparency in their government and people respond positively to this window into government.
Moving forward, transparency will be a key factor not only in the way we handle politics, but economic and social structures will benefit from more transparency. This may bridge the divide between nations who are industrialized and who are growing to ensure an ethical and prosperous future through trade and foreign policy. I would suggest we have to do globalization smarter, and not necessarily more, rather highlighting potential challenges and creating outcomes that answer tough multi-variate questions relating to a modern globalized world. This is not to say that politics within the United States is completely flawed with its framework, and this is not a call for a revolution either. Simply put, the United States can look at the rest of the world as a lever and accept at least a discussion about progressive political initiatives.
Art and Literature
The role of art and literature throughout history is important to understanding the interdisciplinary nature of humans. We have seen this throughout history going all the way back to the cave paintings where humans would make understanding of the world to tell stories about the past. Art and literature in a modern world have grown and amended due to technological advances, but also social advances in thinking. Interdisciplinary literature is becoming more widespread and intellectuals have arisen to expand beyond their disciplinary domain engaging with interdisciplinary thought.
Modern literature and interdisciplinarity is found through a clear and thematic understanding connected to the world. Metapatterns by Tyler Volk outline the patterns outside of our internal thoughts that make a framework of our cognizance. From the circle representing the life structure of a human cell, to the Euclidean orbit of planets in the solar system, he concludes on the holistic understanding of cycles of motion between life and the universe8. This introduces a change in thinking on the topic of interdisciplinarity. Through this, interdisciplinary notion of circles and cycles represents that lineage is not a straight line rather a cycle of interdisciplinarity through time. Its conceptual yet scientific in its approach – and for a foundationalist ideal – why wouldn’t a cycle compared to a straight line make more sense if it is a governing force of our universe? The evidentiary process of understanding could be impossible to achieve in a lifetime, but progress towards a level of understanding through analytical and holistic concepts of life and the universe could be beneficial to embrace. Another example comes from the dark tale of truth mixed with perceived ‘fiction’ in Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties by Tom O’Neill. This book chronicles CIA top-secret programs of LSD and mind control and connected it to the hippie generation of Haight-Ashbury in the 1960’s9. The connection of government, society, culture, truth, and science are all on display in this book and provide an interesting account into the people involved. In addition, creates a precedent of the societal implications of the time questioning our role in society and the leaders that run it.
Non-fiction literature predominantly dominates the realm of interdisciplinarity. However, most pieces of fiction literature have some underpinning of interdisciplinarity through their themes. From themes of psychology, emotion, religion and betrayal relating the motions of Dublin with the protagonist Leopold Bloom in Ulysses by James Joyce; to themes of karma, stoicism in the face of hardship, and existentialism in the great American novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. It is the themes in fiction that paint a picture of our reality, engaging in questions that can be simple or complex relating to the topic. One might be able to look at a fairy tale and connect it to the real-world through a pragmatic analysis. After all, any work of fiction came from the mind of a real individual.
Literature has an important role in understanding the interdisciplinarity of our lives because it is both continuously re-affirming and challenging our truth and ethos on how we see the world. Anti-foundationalist through literary theory would describe literature either non-fiction or fiction, as a form through divergent understanding of the world through thematic analysis relating to other works or filtered through a societal lens. Foundationalists would see beyond the literature to make understanding towards a larger truth and continue to find that truth through greater understanding of the themes presented. In addition, systematically relate the literature to the empirical and pragmatic truths of the world. The connection with literature to the world can be best described as a catalyst for understanding; connections can be formed, literature can affirm or challenge connections, and further affirmation or reformation can be achieved. This presents an interdisciplinary notion in change or growth in thinking and truth.
Intellectuals in the field today have also begun tackling this concept of thinking and truth. From intellectuals such as Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, Ayann Hirsi Ali, and Douglas Murray; these commonly refer to members of what is called the intellectual dark web10 who commonly critique leftist politics and Marxist doctrines. On the other hand there have been some interesting thinkers coming out of the more progressive left side including David Harvey who focuses more on Marxism as strictly a theory of conceptualization (i.e. critical utopianism), and Slavoj Zizek who uses Hegalian, Lacanian, and Marxist theory relating it to psychoanalysis and cultural phenomenon.
The concept of epistemology and truth have expanded even more than before, and these intellectuals are continuing the tradition of interdisciplinarity. Most of these thinkers regardless of their conservative or liberal political leanings offer up new thinking and new ideas in the realm of politics, economics, science, and society which is much needed in a modern discourse. Most of the intellectuals listed are able to provide logic and reason to a host of challenging questions to find effective answers that benefit members of society.
One of the most intriguing debates happened between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on the nature of truth, which was a sparring match that was one of the most contentious, yet interesting podcasts to date11. It sparked a new understanding about knowledge and truth that pushed the boundaries further than ever before. Most of these individuals engage in podcast form, including David Harvey on Russell Brand’s podcast discussing utopianism as a theory and the overflow of capitalist consumption12, to the amazing dialogue between brothers Bret and Eric Weinstein discussing the failures of the new un-intellectual left; Eric’s conceptualization of the academy with malicious actors behind the scenes; and Bret’s amazing work on the extended telomeres of lab mice used for medical study being subdued within common scientific narratives13. There is contention with these individuals, especially David Harvey who claims Russia was worse off after communism with life because of lower life expectancy, not taking into account lower life expectancy more than likely came from 70 years of communist rule. Regardless, these thinkers are expanding the realm of epistemology and having a discussion which is much needed in a current society.
Present Day in the Global Context: The Knowledge Vacuum
Many questions arise discussing how we see our world today with regard to learning; what does thinking mean today? What does knowledge mean today? What does epistemology mean today? Although we have expanded our capacity for knowledge throughout history due to advancements in learning, we still find negative implications impacting our knowledge. This may come less as a natural regression, more of a vice that is beneficial but also detrimental. One example of this is the advancement of computerized technology, this has given humans the capacity to be more expressive than ever before and connect in revolutionary ways. The irony, it is done through the process of ‘one person, one device’ and with our access to world more expanse, it is relegated to individualized cell phones within individualized hovels. We have also benefited from free speech with technology, which is one of the utmost important factors someone should have regarding human autonomy. With that, you will experience all the free speech, even the speech that is so appalling and abhorrent which cause anger and the inclination for other individuals to lash out.
One of the implications of technology advancement is the idea of knowledge and how knowledge is crafted. On one side you have a revolution of knowledge where individuals can access university lectures online, free of charge, and from a video streaming platform. This gives individuals access to new ways of thinking, changing knowledge, and crafting their epistemology towards a truth. On the other hand, this opens the door for skewing of truth, a mixture of realism hidden behind fear and lack of nuance discussion. The analogy for this is that everyone has the chance to sail now, but navigating the waters of knowledge can be harder than perceived. One of the observations of a modern knowledge stream seems to show that we live in a knowledge vacuum without nuance or conversation, especially within politics. This happens with a gross misrepresentation, and empty deductive reasoning that exacerbates this concept. An example could mean that an individual who wants strong border protection and a good economy triangulates to some form of racism, or that access to healthcare and a basic income for individuals triangulates some form of communist-totalitarian rule. These are knowledge vacuums that provide no dialogue, no context, and eventually, no solution to any problem.
So, what does interdisciplinarity have to do with this? Well one example of the knowledge vacuum focuses on how the word interdisciplinarity is perceived, and this comes from its academic etymology. Both Klein and Lattuca describe the history of interdisciplinarity within institutions from the Marxist-feminist tradition closely related to intersectionality14 15. In a way, intersectionality as in the intersections of social life relates to interdisciplinarity as the intersections of knowledge in a simplistic term. However, the comparison falls short when you dive deeper on the term of intersectionality. Developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, intersectionality started with the concept of oppression with women of color – today it represents that marginalization an individual goes through is seeing inherent oppression at the intersection of a race, sexuality, gender, or disability16. Although some would compare this to interdisciplinarity on the surface, the comparison is broader than this. To use a building metaphor, intersectionality is the ever-expansive first floor section of books, along with writings from different authors and poets; interdisciplinarity is the library that this first floor section is housed in. Intersectional-feminist theorist use intersectionality as the way to understand society, which is narrow, considering society is more than the intersection of race, sexuality, gender, or disability. As theorist would suggest seeing society through one or multiple lenses of intersectionality, the reality is, these lenses only allow you to see this one section of the library, narrowing in and only obtaining the knowledge fit for these lenses, much like a vacuum.
Therein lies the problem with modern discourse on knowledge, which will be discussed more when we talk about institutions like colleges and universities. When perceived knowledge is narrowed too much, with a deductive focus, it is exactly that – narrow, restrictive, and disciplinary. Rather than a form of induction akin to enlightenment principles, such as starting at a host of problems and building towards a rational and actionable answer; most scholars have viewed interdisciplinarity in the realm of theory and use-in-research. When expanding the concept outside of the institution as a structure of a natural form of society, it changes its conception and opens a new form of knowledge enhancement.
One might ask is this knowledge vacuum a theme in the world? When expanding across institutions such as government, corporate, and personal entities, one might see knowledge vacuums persist in all three. A pervasive theme emerges within a modern context is a lack of expansion in a world where growth in knowledge is readily available. Government has become less representative over time as most attribute it to greed and influence especially in federal political systems. These do persist; however, I would suggest this is far from the problem. Going deeper, we have to ask what attributes to this greed and influence? One political theory would suggest that there has been a general movement away from populist ideology towards an elitist ideology on government. Elite not necessarily referring to monetary elite, rather government elite and their lack of embracing new ideas and trusting their concepts as an end-all-be-all. It represents an idea from government officials as ‘the people don’t know what’s best for them, rather I know what’s best for the people’. It is a narrow and narcissistic view of governance from the controllers who think – through their conceptualization of public systems – cannot be developed through a broader, more outwardly expanded idea towards governance.
The same persists in corporations. Most corporations follow an elitist concept within their business without a populist concept. The elitist in this case being the executive branch of a company, naturally; and the populist members are the individuals in the company who are outside of the executive circle. It reflects a return to a bureaucratic methodology of management which is a mechanistic delegation of tasks and duties creating a synthetic-hierarchy for management in all organizations. However, the gap between the executive class and the populist individuals who work in the organization could be closer together. This follows the Behavioral Management Theory developed by Chester Barnhard to enhance the interest of the elite and populist members within organizations and understand individuals through humanistic tendencies17. Social relationships also fall victim to this knowledge vacuum through the embrace of different ideologies, but the lack of nuance between individuals due to the personal divide between people through things like technology and media. Everyone who follows a personal methodology, creates a personal elitism that avoids nuance conversation with the population to expand on ideas. This proliferates from personal relationships stifling newer ideas within companies and so on. Corporate leaders are less inclined to provide ownership from populist individuals, to accommodate this, the trade of ideas can be implemented and acted upon by the leaders in organizations towards a populist framework.
It is my estimation the elitist concepts that individuals have embraced are widespread throughout society, and it is pervasive throughout institutions that are meant to be populist. In the United States for example, both Republicans and Democrats are the elite, however, one might argue that the Republicans are making a shift towards Republican populism, considering the voting base is in-flux again with liberal elites turning to the Democratic party’s pro-Wall Street, pro-interventionalist platform more and more. What this reflects is a change in society through the competing ideologies that are happening with individuals. One example are the neo-Marxist individuals that subscribe to collectivism, however, reflect a personal elitism towards a false benevolence. On the other side a personal elitism from a nationalistic framework bases society being fraught with unrest and leeching from marginalized groups is also a false sense of understanding civilization and society. The course forward in learning, life, and society reflects a notion of embracing ideologies under the umbrella of interdisciplinarity and creating actionable and knowledgeable solutions to political, economic, and societal problems. This starts with key dialogue understanding the challenges and creating goals towards a centered and streamlined approach.
Re-emergence of this ideal comes from a foundation – a foundation where more than just the individual embraces the concept of interdisciplinarity that is fostered and harnessed into society. Institutions play a huge role in this including schools, government, family, and society to help shape the interdisciplinarity.
The Role of Institutions
The institutions that are in our lives have a job to do, they have the job of shaping our learning throughout life. The theory from Jean Piaget is that assimilation and inherent cognitive ability when we are young shape our conceptualization of learning18. We use our innate interdisciplinarity to shape the world that is around us from birth, therefore we are introduced by our first institution: family. Family remains an important aspect to how learning, life, and society are thriving based on the family structures of individuals. Research shows that individuals who have a solid family structure, with competent parents, no underlying conditions such as alcohol and substance abuse, and the building of confident family ties relate to the success of individuals in that family19 20 21. This of course leads to a capitalization of success in learning, life, and society through the concept of obtaining social capital.
What is made then trickles into society, schools, and governmental policy to adjust to the interdisciplinarity that is founded from the onset of family. Although policy can be adjusted, for the most part, policy is for the populist regarding rights and freedoms in a liberal democracy. However, structures could be addressed more, as reforms may need to happen as we move into a more modernized world. Society is perhaps in the best spot considering this is the best time to be alive when we take into account previous generations of human existence – notably, not too many animal predators we have to worry about. However, more could be done, by we, as individuals to avoid traps in a failure of communication.
In summation, most of the institutions are embracing an interdisciplinary framework and are for the most part succeeding. Yet there are challenges regarding learning, life, and society given recent transgressions behind the walls of schooling especially colleges and universities. As we move further, it is important to understand the role of institutions in a modern landscape in order to enhance interdisciplinarity into the future.