Post-disciplinary Manifesto
Pretext
Science has been on a continuous development that just as almost all other developments dramatically accelerated over the last few centuries, decades and years. What this implies is that we look at an exponentially growing pace as well as complexity of knowledge production. More and more knowledge is created that is indeed connected, interchanging, and non-linear in how it involves and creates an impact. Importantly, it is also clear by now that science as such is neither independent of society but instead very much a part of it, and that because of the nature of science and its current problems future developments are hard to anticipate or even predict. While science thus had many positive influences towards our joined development, it is also the source of injustices, environmental destruction and post-colonial economic structures.
Declaring as a response a post-discplinary agenda is a radical but necessary step. Since scientific development and innovation is as already stated non-linear, it is vital to make a cut and declare the so far mostly disciplinary development of science to be ending. Of course there are already many suggestions towards phenomena such as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity. While these are in itself often wonderful they are certainly not radical, but incremental, albeit operate on a different pace.
The word post-disciplinary may create fear in the identity and sense of beloning - which is relevant to this day in many scientists. This fear is only insofar relevant as the power structure and abusive structures of scientific disciplines fighting each other for priority, domain of knowledge and resources are unnecessary and only harmful. Instead, knowledge production should be radically integrated and the educational system is thus in dire need to be restructured. Yet there is no doubt that for the foreseeable future the vast majority of scientists will focus deeply on small parts of the knowledge network that we created over the last millennia.
Here, I propose a simple set of guidelines that should be discussed when establishing a post-disciplinary agenda.
The Guidelines
1) The urge to establish a post-disciplinary system originates in the deep recognition that the current scientific knowledge system cannot solve the problems that humankind, as well as the whole planet faces.
2) The disciplinary system of sciences is built on a fundamental lack of trust of any given discipline towards all other disciplines, and this lack of trust creates tensions, conflicts, incoherent language and deep rifts between knowledge domains.
3) Within the paradigm of a post-disciplinary agenda the majority of existing knowledge will be still focused and deep, yet the choice how to teach and open up the world of science to students rests with teachers, who have a high responsibility about the conduct and humbleness of future scientists. To this end, a post-disciplinary system is neither anarchistic nor hierachical, but builds on experience of the teachers and the innovation of the students.
4) Therefore, education needs to start from the very beginning with the empowerment of students to work towards their own learning, focus and aim, and therefore should focus to enable students to become critical thinkers that have a competent and continuous interest in their own learning and career choices.
5) Science as a whole needs to educate and act always under the fundamental assumption that all scientists shoulder a responsibility towards society, and owe their existence to our societies. Therefore, contributing to society of the key responsibility of any scientist.
6) Science needs to constantly critique itself, and thus create a permanent tension between robust knowledge and radical innovation. Normal science -in the sense of Kuhn- can serve as a starting point , yet demands continuous critique and innovation, making scientific traditions a first point of attack for any radical scientist.
7) A key goal of any scientist is the creation of connections towards other scientists, since no knowledge system is an island. Linguistic barriers, normative walls and arrogant superiority need to become a part of the history of science to be investigated, but should vanish everywhere else.
8) Power structures need to be transparent and reliable. While the disciplinary system is still widely social-darwinistic and thus often deeply conservative, science needs to establish institutional systems that allow for the long term career planning of all scientists, independent of whether they want to work later in science or outside of it.
9) Disciplines are a socially constructed story that keep the vast majority of academics restricted to micro-knowledge domains. This creates abusive knowledge structures that prevent people from being conscious, reflexive participants of modern democracies. Educating people only within small domains of knowledge prevents the majority of academics to become active and critical citizens that can take their own decisions.
The author of this entry is Henrik von Wehrden.
