In an introductory
book chapter titled “Disciplines” Salter and Hearn attempt to clarify what is
meant by discipline and weigh in on the debate over whether conceptualizing
knowledge into disciplines is remains useful. They ultimately conclude that it
does, but also chip away at assumptions about the stability and intellectual
foundations of the notion of discipline.
In arguing that
the universe of disciplines may not be as stable as we think, they point to the
general lack of cohesion within and lack of clear boundaries surrounding
disciplines. Conflicts tend to fracture disciplinary scholars into subfields
and overlaps in methods, objects of analysis and other attributes between disciplines
blur boundaries demarcating where one discipline ends and the next begins.
It would seem that
there is a subconscious awareness within disciplinary fields of the inherent
instability of the universe of disciplines. In Salter and Hearn’s account,
members of a disciplinary field continually struggle over how tightly or
loosely they define the scope of their discipline. The scope of the discipline is rained in by
those who fear that if it reaches the point at which it would seem to include
just about anything the common bonds holding the discipline together will fall
apart.
They then go on to
question the idea that disciplines represent something essential about human
knowledge. They offer a more complex understanding of what a discipline
reflects, suggesting disciplines are defined not just in service of the
advancement of knowledge, but also as a means of reinforcing certain power and
institutional structures. They say when thinking of the notion of discipline in
terms of knowledge, it should not be understood as entirely separate from the
less noble definition of discipline as social control through coercion.
Universities, administrative structures, journals and funders, all have a stake
in the maintenance of particular disciplinary boundaries.
Even with all of
this in mind, Salter and Hearn maintain that an intellectual basis remains for
disciplines and that even if it didn’t, that there would be practical reasons
for keeping them. In making the point that an intellectual basis for
disciplines remains, they say that while any one set of methods, perspectives,
objects of study or other attributes might not be the exclusive province of any
one discipline, they are represented unequally among them. That each discipline
can at least claim a prevailing foci of attention that are useful in
orientating people towards constellations of knowledge.
While I think
Salter and Hearn make a generally sound case for the usefulness of disciplines,
their assertion that an intellectual basis for disciplines might not be a
necessary condition gave me pause. Their reasoning as to why disciplines would
remain useful even without an intellectual basis, was rather unsatisfying. They
say simply that it would be useful on a practical level because universities
use the term “discipline” to distinguish their faculties. They don’t say that
this would be the only practical reason, but the claim that using disciplines
would be justified solely for practical reasons arguably could be expected to
make many readers uncomfortable and begs for more evidentiary attention.
About the authors:
Liora Salter is herself a cross
disciplinarian, as a professor with cross-appointments in Environmental Studies
and Law at York University. She has degree in sociology and communication and
is also known for work in communication studies and interdisciplinary research.
Allison Hearn is an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario,
who studies media and culture with a focus on visual and tele-visual theory and
culture, media activism. She also studies the university as a cultural and
political site.
Questions:
If it were demonstrated that
delineation of knowledge into disciplines is completely arbitrary on an
intellectual basis, do you think that their use would still be justified for
practical reasons?
Throughout the chapter, Salter and
Hearn use disciplines like economics, law and sociology to illustrate their
points. Do you think that they would have had more difficultly illustrating
some of the points they make had they instead used disciplines in the hard
sciences as examples?
No comments:
Post a Comment