THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY
By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
College of Mount St. Joseph
The College of Mount St. Joseph has committed itself to making interdisciplinarity IDS courses the foundation of our liberal arts and science core curriculum. But what does this designation really mean? In what sense are interdisciplinary courses different from disciplinary courses and non-disciplinary courses and are our IDS really interdisciplinary? What constitutes an interdisciplinary researcher and/or teacher? If we can’t clearly articulate the answers to these questions we run the risk of diluting our liberal arts core with meaninglessness and academic dishonesty. For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on how we might begin to anchor our interdisciplinarity aspirations.
HUMAN INQUIRY
As we explore the concept of “interdisciplinarity,” and what it might mean for teaching the liberal arts and sciences in our core curriculum I would suggest that we, first, clarify our concept of “disciplinarity.” I suggest that we integrate that concept into the larger context of “human inquiry.” Hence, I would argue that disciplines are of communities of inquirers that ask questions and propose answers. In our respective academic disciplines we call the answers to our questions “theories.” The purpose of the process of inquiry is to dispel doubt and settle opinion within those communities. Although, human inquiry has always gravitated toward theories that facilitate explanation, prediction, and control of the natural world, the material substance of inquiry changes over time, and the borders of the inquiring communities change over time. So human inquiry in general and the disciplines that comprise it always have an intellectual dimension(theories) that changes over time and a social dimension(communities) that changes over time. And of course, both the intellectual content and the social structure of knowledge are intimately related and philosophically inseparable.
Every discipline has at least a few longstanding intellectual questions that get passed on from one generation to another and each generation produces its own answers to those questions. But each generation also asks its own new questions. Sometimes there is continuity between old questions and answers of the past and the present. Sometimes the questions and answers of the past and present are incommensurable. So the intellectual borderlines that demarcate a discipline change over time. The intellectual and social borders between disciplines have always been pretty fuzzy. Sometimes the questions and answers of different disciplines are commensurable, and sometimes not. Many of the early philosophers, most notably Aristotle, also appear as major figures in the history of science, and many of the early Roman Catholic theologians, especially St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, are also revered as first class philosophers. When we explore inquiry between one generation to another or between one discipline and another, we must guard against manufacturing historical and disciplinary commensurability.
Questions and answers that hold up under inquiry conducted by a community become set boundaries and become orthodoxy, which in turn sets the boundaries of the inquiring community. So, academic communities set the borders of both orthodoxy and the conditions of communal association. Professional organizations, scholarly journals, and publishing companies play an important role in maintaining disciplinary and social boundaries. In part, that’s why those of us that teach at colleges and universities today tend to occupy different geographical locations on campus, belong to different professional organizations, and publish our questions and answers in different scholarly journals. This separation tends to enforce orthodoxy, but enforcement is imperfect as alternative theories constantly conspire to upend orthodoxy and the ruling regimes. The borders of disciplines and communities change. Sometimes alternative theories come from within disciplinary communities, and sometimes those theories come from outside those borders from another discipline.
In sum, academic disciplines have always been the products of interacting intellectual and social processes. Consequently, there has always been a lot of intellectual and social variation within disciplines. And in a vibrant intellectual environment, orthodoxy is always being challenged by alternative theories and alternative schools of thought. In short, orthodoxy in any academic discipline is not always easy to discern. Of course, some questioning disciplines are inherently more open to input from other disciplines and some disciplines are rapidly becoming more open. And finally, new disciplines and are constantly being created that challenge the borders of orthodox disciplines and communities. Historically, new disciplines are often forged out of two or more existing disciplines. Although we like to think of biology today as a discrete discipline with identifiable borders, historically, it was forged out of interdisciplinary research in the sense that Darwincombined the intellectual content of classical economic theory with Malthusian population theory. In short, new disciplines are often created out of combinations of old disciplines. Some of the more recent forms of interdisciplinary inquiry have their own core theories such as “Gestalt theory,” “complex systems theory,” or “semiotic theory.” Other interdisciplinary lines of inquiry, such as cognitive psychology, women’s studies, environmental studies, leadership studies, and communication studies borrow theories from other disciplines. Every year new interdisciplinary disciplines and their constitutive communities, journals, and books are being forged. Some of these disciplines survive only a few years (Bionomics) before suffering extinction and some last a long time (Biology).
So if disciplinary inquiry has both intellectual and social dimensions then what can we conclude about interdisciplinarity? I would argue that interdisciplinary inquiry is disciplinary, which is to say that interdisciplinary disciplinesdevelop their own professional organizations, journals, and often their own theories. My argument here is that if we want the interdisciplinary component of our curriculum to be scholarly, rather than idiosyncratic,it must ultimately relate to scholarly activity outside of the College of Mount St. Joseph. Over the long run, interdisciplinarity involves much more than simply incorporating the content of two or more disciplines.
DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE INQUIRY
In my professional career, I have argued that the whole of human inquiry can be conveniently reduced to just two fundamental lines of questioning: descriptive inquiry, which questions (and answers) the way things are; and prescriptive inquiry, which questions (and answers) the way things ought to be. Descriptive inquiry centers on the verb “is” and the distinction between truth and falsity. In the United States, Western Europe, and even in some of the Eastern countries, Science has become the dominant tradition within descriptive inquiry. That’s why we so often defer our opinions to the authority of science and scientists on matters of truth and falsity. Prescriptiveinquiry focuses on “ought” and the difference between “good” and “bad,” and involves the discernment of values. In human affairs prescriptive inquiry is sometimes called “normative inquiry,” which involves questioning and answering in respect to matters of legality or morality. Like science, the study of value has been subject to organized inquiry. Although, religion, especially the Judeo-Christian tradition has been the dominant force in fixating Western values, or our Western comprehensive doctrine, its prescriptive authority has always been challenged by scientists and philosophers.
As far as I can tell, many if not most philosophers still adhere to a theory born during the 18th century that says that Truth and Goodness occupy relatively distinct lines of inquiry and that there are communities of inquirers that are communities of “experts” that specialize in descriptive inquiry and communities of experts that specialize in prescriptive inquiry. Descriptive inquirers seek the “Truth.” Prescriptive inquirers invariably seek the “Good” or “Value.” The sum total of a society’s descriptive beliefs are called its’ worldview. In the history of prescriptive philosophical inquiry, logic distinguishes between good and bad arguments; politics, good and bad government; aesthetics good and bad art;and ethics or morality differentiates between good and bad human behavior.
Throughout most of human history, questions of morality have been settled by religious inquiry and religious experts, and to a lesser extent philosophical inquiry and its traditional experts. However, in recent years, Western societies have begun to look to science for not only Truth, but also Value. Of course, border raids by scientists into prescriptive inquiry have always elicited a defensive response from theologians and philosophers; and, border raids by theologians and philosophers into descriptive inquiry have been met with resistance from scientists.
The constitutive disciplines that comprise the whole of descriptive philosophy or our Western Worldview have changed dramatically over the centuries, and the constitutive specialties of the whole of prescriptive philosophy or our comprehensive has also changed, or evolved. So our Western Worldview is currently dominated by Science, and our Comprehensive Doctrine is dominated by the Judeo-Christian Tradition and/or the Western Liberal Tradition. But even these “traditions” are wrought with variation. Given the variable nature of human inquiry, when we say that the College of Mount St. Joseph is committed to Judeo-Christian Values, Western Liberal Values, or even Roman Catholic Values we are not really saying very much.
Now when we speak of specific sub-communities of inquirers, such as scientists, philosophers, and theologians, it is important to remember that the individuals that comprise these communities do not always agree with one another on specific matters of Truth or Value. There is a lot of variation of belief, not only between non-scientific and scientific communities of inquirers, but also variation within the individual communities themselves. Just because two individuals happen to be members of the same community of inquirers (say, the community of biologists) does not necessarily mean that their beliefs, theories, and worldviews are identical. Although there is usually a great deal of consensus among biologists in regard to higher-level theories, such as Darwinian evolution, there is always a lot of heated debate at lower levels. Despite this variation of belief within specific communities of inquirers, we nevertheless, tend to identify these groups of inquirers and give them “names” such as: biologists, theologians, and philosophers. When we do this we often mistakenly confuse communal membership with absolute conformity of belief: as if the lines of demarcation between and within communities of inquirers were crystal clear, absolute, and inviolable.
Within human inquiry, some of the most puzzling border disputes involve descriptive and prescriptive inquirers. Although these boundary disputes are sometimes deliberate, more often than not they are inadvertent. That’s because inquirers are not always clear as to whether they are actually engaged in descriptive and/or prescriptive modes of inquiry. Even when inquirers acknowledge that there might be a definable distinction between an “is” and an “ought,” they tend to disagree as to the nature of that border. And on those rare occasions when the individual community members actually agree upon the truth of specific descriptive “theories,” they often disagree over the prescriptive values that might be associated with those theories. That’s why some of the most perplexing interdisciplinary questions arise out of the analysis of the borders between descriptive and prescriptive theories. Hence, this nexus between descriptive inquiry and prescriptive inquiry provides a robust area for interdisciplinary research. There are many scholarly associations that systematically explore this amorphous border between descriptive and prescriptive inquiry, such as the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, and the Society for Business Ethics. Again, my thesis is that interdisciplinary research is disciplinary.
IMPLICATIONS
So what are the implications of adopting this framework; that is the notion that interdisciplinarity is disciplinary? Well, for starters, it allows us to escape from the implications of institutionalizing a nebulous distinction between disciplinary and interdisciplinary inquiry. Although far from perfect, it at least constrains us from employing open-ended definitions, which justify any course as being “interdisciplinary” and any professor as an interdisciplinary inquirer.
So whenever we describe any particular discipline or “line of inquiry” we must identify the kinds of questions that it asks and answers that it generates. So what kinds of questions do most interdisciplinary disciplines ask? When we refer to the “liberal arts and sciences” we imply that there are at least two different lines of questioning: the “liberal arts” the “sciences.” We usually identify “non-scientific inquiry” or “interpretative inquiry” with the humanities and religious studies. However, even those lines of inquiry have been profoundly influenced by science, especially social science. And, most scientists also acknowledge that much of what they do is interpretive. Nevertheless, this nexus between “scientific” and “non-scientific” inquiry is widely acknowledged as fertile ground for interdisciplinary inquiry. There are many other well established nexuses that provide interdisciplinary opportunity that already have inspired the creation of international scholarly communities. In addition to the scientific/non-scientific and the descriptive/prescriptive nexuses, there are other well cultivated nexuses, which include: physics/religion; history/science, and philosophy/science. Today many of the most popular interdisciplinary nexuses are coupled with biology: psychology/biology; social science/biology, esthetics/biology, and economics/biology. Other popular nexuses are coupled with ethics: business ethics, medical ethics, media ethics, professional ethics etc.
In sum, as we begin to conceptualize what we mean by interdisciplinarity we must acknowledge that most of our academic disciplines are already, in a sense, interdisciplinary so when we try to forge our institutional identity around interdisciplinarity we may not be saying much. Indeed, upon close scrutiny we may discover that the courses we designate as IDS courses are really not any more interdisciplinary than other our courses in religious studies, gerontological studies, or philosophy.
CULTIVATING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FACULTY
If interdisciplinarity is going to be the central feature of our liberal arts core curriculum we will need to decide exactly what this means and then begin the process of evolving a segment of our faculty that can fulfill that objective. Let’s admit from the outset that, obviously, we need both disciplinary and interdisciplinary faculty. I don’t want to sound cynical, but what we’re doing right now with interdisciplinarity is primarily “smoke and mirrors.” It’s either disguised disciplinarity (courses that are really mainstream psychology, sociology, or linguistics) or non-disciplinary. Admittedly, our “smoke and mirrors strategy” has been fueled in part by economic necessity. We really do not yet have a sufficient number of bona fide interdisciplinary scholars on campus to cover all of the IDS courses. Let’s just admit that. But over the long run, hopefully, we’ll convert a few more of our present faculty to disciplined interdisciplinary inquiry and over the long run, we’ll be able to attract new interdisciplinary faculty. These long-term goals cannot be accomplished by simply bringing a so-called “expert” to campus to give workshops on interdisciplinary inquiry. It cannot be accomplished by staging faculty “rap sessions” to discuss interdisciplinarity. It cannot be accomplished by simply team teaching IDS courses. Fortunately, if we really want to begin to develop a culture of interdisciplinarity at the Mount, we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Let me suggest five long-term strategies:
First, we can encourage our interdisciplinary faculty to associate themselves with interdisciplinary organizations. There are many scholarly associations (communities of inquirers) that bring together scholars from different disciplines to participate in interdisciplinary inquiry, and there are many professional journals devoted to publishing interdisciplinary research. So if we have present faculty members that want to profess expertise in interdisciplinarity, they should affiliate themselves with these already existing interdisciplinary institutions. Remember, interdisciplinary inquiry is disciplinary.
Second, we can begin to hire new faculty that already profess expertise in interdisciplinarity. A good way to attract interdisciplinary scholars is to expand the number of interdisciplinary programs that we offer here at the Mount. I would say that our Gerontological Studies Program and our Masters of Leadership Programs are a good start. We might consider developing other inherently interdisciplinary programs such as: Environmental Studies, International Studies, Latin American Studies, or Applied Ethics to attract a coterie of new interdisciplinary scholars.
Third, whatever we do we’ll have to make faculty development resources readily available so they can attend interdisciplinary scholarly conferences. If interdisciplinarity is the centerpiece of our core curriculum, then we might have to provide institutional incentives. (Provide enough travel funds to attend both disciplinary and interdisciplinary conferences. It would also help if we could get a reduction in our work schedule (teaching and/or college service) so we have time to attend these conferences and conduct interdisciplinary research.
Fourth, it wouldn’t hurt to purchase a few more interdisciplinary journals for the library.
Fifth, here at the Mount our faculty offices are organized around disciplines, which are scattered throughout campus: different floors, different buildings etc. I often go several weeks without even seeing my colleagues in science, business, and physical therapy. If we really hope to become a college that encourages in interdisciplinarity, we might consider rethinking our institutional geography to encourage more spatial interaction between the different programs.