Dialoguing Between Disciplines

It was a sumptuous intellectual dinner on 19th June, evening in ICS (IISc), Bangalore. Anoop Dhar (CSCS) proposed some models by which different disciplines could engage in academics, the thrust being the integration of natural sciences with social science and humanities.
The idea was radically challenged by Rajan Gurukkal, the VC of Calicut University for want of an epistemological position and a definite stand point in the critical approach.
The pivotal points in question were
1. Why do you need an integrated approach
2. Is it possible to have such an approach
3. How can we do it
To my mind an integrated understanding of realities is a dream of everyone. How wonderful it will be to be a poet to look at the moon with its silver blanket on the sleeping beauty, while being a geography specialist to forecast the time of the tides and an astrophysicist to know the contours and compositions of the same moon.
But looking at the structure of higher education that I am familiar with, it is a process of specialisation. Specialisation is the process of knowing more and more about less and less things. So the way a biochemist looks at a beauty lotion, a beautician cannot. They have different understandings of the lotion. One knows only little, about the aroma and its physical effects while the other knows only a little of its chemical composition. But in the little that they know they are experts. This is what specialisation is about. Is anything wrong in this partial knowledge?
Well, the debate was all about falsifying the idea of specialisation although no one put in these unambiguous terms. But is it possible for the same person to be expert in the same way from all perspectives? The point I am making is, in academics we have a broad spectrum of subjects until the undergraduate level. At the level of post graduation and research you start specializing to go deeper into a subject matter. If eclectic approaches are continued in Masters Level you turn out to be jack of all trades and masters of none. Remember you wanted to do Masters and you turn out not as master but a novice in many things. What this master is then expected to contribute to the society or in the institution one is expected to work?
We need people who specialise and farther the limits of knowledge in the field that they are concentrating in. It is not necessary that everyone should be aware of everything in the world. That a natural scientist should know humanities is so childish an argument. That they be aware of other perspectives in the research is an additional achievement not a basic one.
Did I divert from Inter-disciplinarity debate? Oh I think so. So did I think of the debate in ICS (IISc). In the interdisciplinarity approach everyone in research is not engaged in approaching the subject matter from all perspectives. It is a collective approach in which different aspects are researched by people from humanities social sciences and natural sciences. But this essential debate of collective research was hijacked by the discussion on natural science and social science hierarchy and positioning in the priority list.
People who switch over from one discipline to another should not be proposed as paradigms for eclectic approaches to specialisation. My point is, does anyone still practice the old trade after he or she has switched over to the new terra of knowledge? I believe not. If s/he does not then it is not an eclectic approach but still a singular approach.
My argument comes from the practical point of view that we actually do not have people who practice natural sciences and social sciences with the same passion in spite of the rhetoric that it is possible. And making structures to enforce such medley approaches will dissipate the investigative rigour and incision.
My second argument comes from the futility of this extreme individualism. What prevents the one who is seeking an eclectic understanding of issues studying literature on the same topic from different disciplines? I find no problem in gathering information from different disciplines on the same topic. Why is then this insistence that even academic engagement on a topic should be eclectic? I fail to find the reason.
It is one thing to have researches done from different perspectives and discipline areas. They may contribute to the growth of these disciplines. Only a few can in fact deal with such trans-disciplinary mode of research. Let the specialisation go on, lest we wet-blanket further growth in the fields producing only sterile knowledge. Let those who are into trans-disciplinary researches do that. Why make norms of exceptions?

A China Connection

Somewhere around the South China Sea, a typhoon was in formation and the city of Zhuhai was in the grip of an untimely downpour on 23 May, when I (Fr. Jijo, cmf) first set foot on mainland China. I mumbled a little prayer for the land for which the Barbastro Martyrs offered their lives, nearly a century ago. Fr. Rossa woke me up from my ruminations with his typical hilarious voice, ‘Welcome to China.’ A five-minute drive from the border took us to our house by the sea side. It was high tide, so was my soul. Until then I had only a glimpse of our house from the Macau waterfront, almost every day that I stayed there. Going around the city gave me the feeling of a very eco-friendly development model with parks and gardens all along the roads. It was surprising to note that the taxi-driver who dropped us to our house from the border refused to take a little tip, which Fr. Rossa offered.I came to Macau for my internship as part of my master’s studies in English. Teaching at Yuet Wah College was quite an experience. The internet-activated smart classrooms were new to me. But I got adjusted to them readily. While teaching, a certain reference to Punjab came about. One of the students was curious about what Punjab was like and its people. We had the ready reference on internet on Manmohan Singh the New Prime Minister of India which changed their idea of Punjab as a land of exotic curiosities. Students everywhere behave the same way. If they like your class you get their attention. Ill-prepared teachers beware, expect villainy according to their age.Macau, home to the largest casino in the world, is a haven for gamblers. With a total land area of 28 sq. kms., it has 26 casinos, and the number is expected to increase by the end of this year. I went to some big casinos and felt dazed by the obscene use of wealth. I mused on my vow of poverty as I looked around those mansions of vice and greed. It is good to be poor, I realize, lest I build my own Babels of defiance.

Response to Nizzar's Paper, Life after Secularism

Last week I attended a paper presentation By Nizzar in Casa Andree on “Life after Secularism.” There were serious and not so serious discussions on the topic in and outside the University among friends. Some tried to swap the words to form ‘secularism after life’. This put a startling question in my mind, whether in the life after death one will be secular or religious. But, keep that question as it is. Let me go to the content of the paper. The paper seemed to complexify ordinary notions just by changing them into unfamiliar terminology, like ‘life forms’ for religions and mind regimes for ethics. I did not find any purpose achieved by these new significations nor proposing anything worthwhile. But the discussion that ensued animated by Sunder Sarukhai and Arindham brought the issues at stake clearly. What follows is my response to the paper.
Ever since the Nation of Islam was discussed in the class sometime last year, the concept of Secularism was being churned in my mind. Religion played a major role in the formation of most countries in the world. In fact, I know very few countries that are not formed on the basis of religion. Think of its vestiges still haunting/following America, UK, India, Pakistan and not to speak of the Middle East.
The concept of secularism evolved in countries where only one religion was in practice, viz. Christianity. They conceived the idea that in the economic dealings religion should not be considered a barrier. (Judeo-Christian religion had placed strong censures on certain types of economic transactions.) The idea was transplanted to India where many religions existed side by side. It came to be that the meaning of secularism changed into ‘refraining from discrimination based on religion’. Now the two concepts have totally different connotations. The idea of secularism is discussed anew in west when it is threatened by the influx of Hindus, and Muslims. They are awakened to a new sense of identity and apparently slipping into religious fundamentalism. The west is finding it difficult to practice the secularism they once preached.
The speeches of Obama like a religious preacher symbolize that resurgent religiosity. The political parties that have created vote banks on religion in India speaks volumes on how fundamentalism has returned in a modified form to India. In the wake of such resurgent religiosity my question is how dare Nizzar think of ‘Life after Secularism’ when secularism itself has not come. I do not believe in secularism as a final goal to be achieved either. I believe that religious radicalism is the key to better understanding among people. What shape that religion takes at different periods will be decided by the pace of the psychological evolution human kind will achieve in each era.
Following secularism amounts to speaking against one’s own deepest self to some extent, said Arndham. How many people in our country can make a decision in life without having recourse to spiritual counsel? So to live secularism as a way of life is not a natural behaviour. You will come at odds with yourself when it comes to actually implementing it.
What then is the option? Religious radicalism is the option. All religions at their base, root (radix) believe in universal brotherhood and love. Aggression on another’s conscience on whatever ground one tries to justify, does not fall in line with any religious teaching. If any fundamentalism has arisen in any religion it comes out of a narrow interpretation of the rules and not a defect in the religious code itself. So keeping religions and their teaching will make people feel comfortable within themselves and with others. This is what I mean radicalism in religion.