CRITICAL APPROACHES TO CULTURE, COMMUNICATIONS + HYPERMEDIA
"Disciplines in Crisis: Transdisciplinary Approaches in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences"
Ron Burnett
Ron Burnett
This is a weighty title, but it is meant to indicate the breadth of the transformation that we are presently undergoing within the worlds of academia and the arts. For better or for worse, the very nature of disciplines, their function and their role within and outside of institutions has changed. The context for this change is not just the individual nature or history of one or other discipline. Rather, the social and cultural conditions for the creation and communication of ideas, artifacts, knowledge and information have been completely altered. From my point of view, this transformation has been extremely positive. It has resulted in the formation of new disciplines and new approaches to comprehending the very complex nature of Western societies. We are still a long way from developing a holistic understanding of the implications of this transformation.
Often, the assumption that is made is that technology has been the main cause of the shift that we are presently experiencing. But, I believe that this change has been in the works since the advent of distribution and communications systems for mass culture and the linking of culture to education and learning. In addition, the motor for many of the changes has been scientific research in a variety of fields, but most especially in physics and biology. The integration of science and technology and the strengthening of the social sciences have combined to transform what we mean by subjectivity and human identity. This is in turn has led to a redefinition of our sense of time and of space. In particular, "time" in the early 21s century has less to do with measurement than with flow. The way to think about this is to examine the ways in which the workweek has evolved from the rather strict notion of 35-40 hours, to the more open-ended concept of "getting the job done." Another way to think of this is by speculating on the way national and even local events become markers of time passing, in a way that is quite different from the manner in which clocks measure time. Or, the quite extraordinary fact that for nearly 170 years (from the 1580’s to the 1750’s) the English and the French operated with different calendars and so went to war with each other at the same time but on different dates.
Few of use really understand how clocks measure time, yet we make use of the technology as a result of a shared understanding that we need certain cultural conventions in order for society to work. It is when the cultural conventions begin to fall apart or when their assumptions are questioned that we enter into a period of crisis.
The impact of this process of transformation first appeared in the early 20th century when the cinema became a mass medium and accelerated with the advent of radio and then television (although there are many parallels with what happened to literature and photography in the 19th century). Time does change when the metaphors that we have available for explaining temporal shifts are no longer rooted in conventional notions of seasonal shift and measurement of incremental change. Technology plays a role, but it is not the only player in what has been a dramatic move from an industrial/agrarian society to a mixed environment that is extremely dependent on cultural activity, networks and information. I will return to this argument in a moment. Suffice to say that the disjunctures at work in our society, the upheavals caused by profound cultural and social change have begun to affect the orientation, direction and substance of many different academic and art-related disciplines. Some of these disciplines have been around for a long time. Part of my argument will be that most disciplines have been under stress for the better part of the 20th century. We are very likely in the early stages of a long-term shift in direction and it may take some time yet before that shift is fully understood.
So, there are a number of factors at work here, a number of influences and directions that need to be analyzed and thought about historically. Different tools will be needed to explore where these displacements are taking our culture. Transdisciplinarity is one of the most significant initiatives in this area. Transdisciplinarity is not to be confused with interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity, both of which remain linked to "the framework of disciplinary research." Transdisciplinary research is best explained as research that has no immediate links to a particular set of subjects or disciplines. Rather, it draws upon what many disciplines do in order to find its content and methodology at the nexus of a variety of approaches. This is a complex middle ground among competing strategies to the study and understanding of human action and cultural phenomena, science and technology. For people involved in transdisciplinary research, nothing is sacred. There is a built-in contingency to every research direction and a felt sense of discomfort with programmatic assumptions. At the same time, the orientation is to look for connections among a variety of areas that may otherwise not recognize how they are pursuing similar research and practical agendas.
There are two additional features to the transdisciplinary project. The first is a recognition and celebration of unpredictability. The goal is to put certain kinds of research agendas together that may, by virtue of their differences and similarities, lead in an unknown direction. The challenge here is a fundamental one. It relates for example, to distinctions between empirical and non-empirical research and/or to their similarities. For example, a recent book on Darwin, mothers, infants and the processes of natural selection makes use of fiction, hard science, ethnography and a variety of strategies to the writing of history, to talk about both biological and social phenomena. The book, Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy is a profound mix of methods and subjects. Most importantly, Hrdy relies on 15 years of investigation, thought and application to make her points. Had she limited herself to a carefully framed biological argument, her book would not have gone as far as it has in exploring the intersections of biology and culture. The second important initiative within transdisciplinary work is the questions that are being asked about the role of the observer in research in the sciences or social sciences.
Edgar Morin, whose work as a social scientist has been very influential for over half a century, made the case brilliantly in a recent presentation.
"Nous savons que le mode de pensé ou de connaissance parcellaire, compartimenté, monodisciplinaire, quantificateur nous conduit à une intelligence aveugle, dans la mesure même ou l’aptitude humaine normale à relier les connaissances s’y trouve sacrifiée au profit de l’aptitude non moins normale à séparer. Car connaître, c’est, dans un boucle ininterrompue, séparer pour analyser, et relier pour synthétiser ou complexifier. La prévalence disciplinaire, séparatrice, nous fait perdre l’aptitude à relier, l’aptitude à contextualiser, c’est-à-dire à situer une information ou un savoir dans son contexte naturel"
Morin goes on to say that it is not enough to value the links between experiences, disciplines, creativity and ideas. One has to develop methods, strategies and practices that will transform those links into real connections. We have to recognize interdependence in order to actualize it and we have to know how to act once we have developed that recognition. The theme of interdependence is linked to contingency and it is here that the relationship to art and artistic practice is such a close one. It goes without saying that most art is produced through a process that is both intuitive and research oriented and that combines a holistic view with a profound understanding of the intersections of theory and practice. Ironically, both our funding agencies and cultural policy experts do not recognize the importance of these connections.
At the end of February 2000 a group of scientists, social scientists, artists, academics and humanists are meeting in Zurich to discuss these issues. The conference is entitled, Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among Science, Technology and Society. The fundamental challenge of the conference is to cross boundaries and promote learning among a variety of disciplines that do not normally speak to each other. Another goal is to discuss the institutional structures that will be needed to achieve the goal of transdisciplinary communication and interaction among researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields.
It is important to recognize that this example is one of many and that there is a profound urgency to the discussion. Various disciplines from psychology to sociology have, over the course of the 20th century become increasingly sub-divided and unfortunately these sub-divisions do not encourage cross-fertilization. Quite the opposite, they have become increasingly specialized. The evidence for this can be found in conferences and publications increasingly devoted to the particular research interests of a small minority of scholars.
It is an irony that one of the most important of the physical sciences relating to the brain, neuroscience, has become a combination of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biology, pharmacology and genetics with a profound concern for culture, ethics and social context. Genetics itself makes use of many different disciplines to achieve its aims. To survive in the 21st century the neurosciences will have to link all of their parts even further and bring genetics, the environment, and the socio-cultural context together in order to develop more complex models of mind. It may well be the case that no amount of research will produce a grand theory. But, as the great neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran has suggested, the most puzzling aspect of our existence is that we can ask questions about the physical and psychological nature of the brain and the mind. And we do this as if we can somehow step outside of the parameters of our own physiology and see into consciousness. Whatever the merits of this type of research, it cannot avoid the necessity of integration.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many of the disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Although there has been an explosion of research and writing in the conjoining areas of Cultural Studies, Communications and Information Technologies, the various specializations that underlie these areas remain limited in their approach to the challenges of transdisciplinarity. The reasons for this are complex. Among the most important, is the orientation that some of these disciplines follow and that is to develop their own language and culture of research and practical applications. The difficulty is that, as they grow more specialized, they cease to see or even envisage the potential connections that they have to other disciplines.
Often, the assumption that is made is that technology has been the main cause of the shift that we are presently experiencing. But, I believe that this change has been in the works since the advent of distribution and communications systems for mass culture and the linking of culture to education and learning. In addition, the motor for many of the changes has been scientific research in a variety of fields, but most especially in physics and biology. The integration of science and technology and the strengthening of the social sciences have combined to transform what we mean by subjectivity and human identity. This is in turn has led to a redefinition of our sense of time and of space. In particular, "time" in the early 21s century has less to do with measurement than with flow. The way to think about this is to examine the ways in which the workweek has evolved from the rather strict notion of 35-40 hours, to the more open-ended concept of "getting the job done." Another way to think of this is by speculating on the way national and even local events become markers of time passing, in a way that is quite different from the manner in which clocks measure time. Or, the quite extraordinary fact that for nearly 170 years (from the 1580’s to the 1750’s) the English and the French operated with different calendars and so went to war with each other at the same time but on different dates.
Few of use really understand how clocks measure time, yet we make use of the technology as a result of a shared understanding that we need certain cultural conventions in order for society to work. It is when the cultural conventions begin to fall apart or when their assumptions are questioned that we enter into a period of crisis.
The impact of this process of transformation first appeared in the early 20th century when the cinema became a mass medium and accelerated with the advent of radio and then television (although there are many parallels with what happened to literature and photography in the 19th century). Time does change when the metaphors that we have available for explaining temporal shifts are no longer rooted in conventional notions of seasonal shift and measurement of incremental change. Technology plays a role, but it is not the only player in what has been a dramatic move from an industrial/agrarian society to a mixed environment that is extremely dependent on cultural activity, networks and information. I will return to this argument in a moment. Suffice to say that the disjunctures at work in our society, the upheavals caused by profound cultural and social change have begun to affect the orientation, direction and substance of many different academic and art-related disciplines. Some of these disciplines have been around for a long time. Part of my argument will be that most disciplines have been under stress for the better part of the 20th century. We are very likely in the early stages of a long-term shift in direction and it may take some time yet before that shift is fully understood.
So, there are a number of factors at work here, a number of influences and directions that need to be analyzed and thought about historically. Different tools will be needed to explore where these displacements are taking our culture. Transdisciplinarity is one of the most significant initiatives in this area. Transdisciplinarity is not to be confused with interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity, both of which remain linked to "the framework of disciplinary research." Transdisciplinary research is best explained as research that has no immediate links to a particular set of subjects or disciplines. Rather, it draws upon what many disciplines do in order to find its content and methodology at the nexus of a variety of approaches. This is a complex middle ground among competing strategies to the study and understanding of human action and cultural phenomena, science and technology. For people involved in transdisciplinary research, nothing is sacred. There is a built-in contingency to every research direction and a felt sense of discomfort with programmatic assumptions. At the same time, the orientation is to look for connections among a variety of areas that may otherwise not recognize how they are pursuing similar research and practical agendas.
There are two additional features to the transdisciplinary project. The first is a recognition and celebration of unpredictability. The goal is to put certain kinds of research agendas together that may, by virtue of their differences and similarities, lead in an unknown direction. The challenge here is a fundamental one. It relates for example, to distinctions between empirical and non-empirical research and/or to their similarities. For example, a recent book on Darwin, mothers, infants and the processes of natural selection makes use of fiction, hard science, ethnography and a variety of strategies to the writing of history, to talk about both biological and social phenomena. The book, Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy is a profound mix of methods and subjects. Most importantly, Hrdy relies on 15 years of investigation, thought and application to make her points. Had she limited herself to a carefully framed biological argument, her book would not have gone as far as it has in exploring the intersections of biology and culture. The second important initiative within transdisciplinary work is the questions that are being asked about the role of the observer in research in the sciences or social sciences.
Edgar Morin, whose work as a social scientist has been very influential for over half a century, made the case brilliantly in a recent presentation.
"Nous savons que le mode de pensé ou de connaissance parcellaire, compartimenté, monodisciplinaire, quantificateur nous conduit à une intelligence aveugle, dans la mesure même ou l’aptitude humaine normale à relier les connaissances s’y trouve sacrifiée au profit de l’aptitude non moins normale à séparer. Car connaître, c’est, dans un boucle ininterrompue, séparer pour analyser, et relier pour synthétiser ou complexifier. La prévalence disciplinaire, séparatrice, nous fait perdre l’aptitude à relier, l’aptitude à contextualiser, c’est-à-dire à situer une information ou un savoir dans son contexte naturel"
Morin goes on to say that it is not enough to value the links between experiences, disciplines, creativity and ideas. One has to develop methods, strategies and practices that will transform those links into real connections. We have to recognize interdependence in order to actualize it and we have to know how to act once we have developed that recognition. The theme of interdependence is linked to contingency and it is here that the relationship to art and artistic practice is such a close one. It goes without saying that most art is produced through a process that is both intuitive and research oriented and that combines a holistic view with a profound understanding of the intersections of theory and practice. Ironically, both our funding agencies and cultural policy experts do not recognize the importance of these connections.
At the end of February 2000 a group of scientists, social scientists, artists, academics and humanists are meeting in Zurich to discuss these issues. The conference is entitled, Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among Science, Technology and Society. The fundamental challenge of the conference is to cross boundaries and promote learning among a variety of disciplines that do not normally speak to each other. Another goal is to discuss the institutional structures that will be needed to achieve the goal of transdisciplinary communication and interaction among researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields.
It is important to recognize that this example is one of many and that there is a profound urgency to the discussion. Various disciplines from psychology to sociology have, over the course of the 20th century become increasingly sub-divided and unfortunately these sub-divisions do not encourage cross-fertilization. Quite the opposite, they have become increasingly specialized. The evidence for this can be found in conferences and publications increasingly devoted to the particular research interests of a small minority of scholars.
It is an irony that one of the most important of the physical sciences relating to the brain, neuroscience, has become a combination of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biology, pharmacology and genetics with a profound concern for culture, ethics and social context. Genetics itself makes use of many different disciplines to achieve its aims. To survive in the 21st century the neurosciences will have to link all of their parts even further and bring genetics, the environment, and the socio-cultural context together in order to develop more complex models of mind. It may well be the case that no amount of research will produce a grand theory. But, as the great neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran has suggested, the most puzzling aspect of our existence is that we can ask questions about the physical and psychological nature of the brain and the mind. And we do this as if we can somehow step outside of the parameters of our own physiology and see into consciousness. Whatever the merits of this type of research, it cannot avoid the necessity of integration.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many of the disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Although there has been an explosion of research and writing in the conjoining areas of Cultural Studies, Communications and Information Technologies, the various specializations that underlie these areas remain limited in their approach to the challenges of transdisciplinarity. The reasons for this are complex. Among the most important, is the orientation that some of these disciplines follow and that is to develop their own language and culture of research and practical applications. The difficulty is that, as they grow more specialized, they cease to see or even envisage the potential connections that they have to other disciplines.
1 2 
HOME TO Critical Approaches
Critical Approaches to Culture, Communications + Hypermedia is a set of resources on the World Wide Web developed by Ron Burnett in Vancouver, Canada. All rights reserved. ©Ron Burnett 2009