Cloisters, Cannibals, Consilience

Academia has a problem. As the last institution defending humanity from a rising anti-intellectualism, the University is a potential safe haven for those with new ideas or individuals seeking to understand. Nevermind that the whims of corporate America, the pratfalls of a consumer culture, the sweeping increases in enrollment, and the troubling and reinvented penchant our generation seems to have with obtaining "things" have all diluted the academic enterprise. What is more interesting to me is the carry-over of a certain arrogance from daily life to the pursuit of truth.

We all think our fields of study are important. That is why we have selected them or, conversely, these fields must be important because we've selected them. This field, no doubt, is critical to our perspective and is duly important to the community at large. I fear, however, that we become convinced that our department (English, Engineering, Biology, Psychology) is the most important. Taking precedence and preference over all others. This tendency (and straddling both an Engineering degree and the bulk of a Humanities degree, this has become obvious) engenders a certain rivalry and rancor between the disciplines.

How, exactly, does this play out? While at University for an engineering degree (at an, at best, mediocre institution) professors, colleagues and even administration at the level of Dean would openly dismiss Lib'rul Arts as useless, easy and (this just students) for women. My current university and department, a respectable and burgeoning English community, suffers the same problem, but in reverse. Engineering is reviled because our modern iteration of capitalism favors it. Calls to enhance math and science education are met with cold responses. Under everyone's breath is the notion that math and science aren't as important.


Why does this attitude exist? There are likely many reasons but I believe there are three that sort of round out the phenomenon. First, each represents to the other a fundamentally flawed prioritization of understanding (truth be told, they are both flawed because they've elected to become so narrow). The scientist or engineer sees studying literature as being inapplicable to life in the world because it is not seen as being supportable, tested, or rigorous. The liberal arts student sees science and engineering as a willful break from the beauty of life and the meaning of existence.

Additionally, each end of the spectrum is intimidated by the other. The English student bemoans mathematics because it is difficult (both in general, and for one inclined to study English) and thus uses there position as a liberal arts student to virtually condemn the study of mathematics and all of its affiliates. The Engineering student may be confused by the lack of factoids and heavily outlined principles in literary studies. I know for a fact that many of my colleagues in Engineering would not fair well in literary classes. Likewise, many of my current colleagues would miserably fail in an engineering course of equivalent 'difficulty'.

Finally, our current democratic capitalism has carved out a niche for each that is disrespected by the other. The liberal arts student is jealous of the 'easy' money made by the engineering student. The engineering student is livid that the liberal arts student doesn't appear to contribute anything. Neither truly understands the conditions of the other.

Where do the soft sciences play into all of this? Exactly where they seem to, somewhere in the middle. Never quite appreciated by the bookworms, never quite accepted by the pocket-protectors.


So, what is the problem with this? Isn't each of these fields for people inclined to them? Why should the liberal arts student appreciate software design? Why should the engineer give a whit about postmodernism? The short answer, of course, is that you are a human being. All of these things are a component of the human condition and life in 2007. This isn't a requirement that you master every possible subject, running from one to the next the moment some understanding has been reached and yet never applying anything. Rather, we must appreciate each as its own aspect of understanding the universe, truth, and ourselves. Not only that, but these disciplines (and I mean ALL disciplines here) are not capsules. They all have some insight to provide further understanding in progress in every other one.

So, I just said that. Where's my evidence?


What are some serious improvements in science/engineering?

The theories of gravity, relativity, and the discovery of the structure of DNA. All of these incidents required creative leaps in logic. None ever left the realm of rationality, and yet all required some bit of innovation and imagination that had been lacking up until then.

Some of our greatest achievements in large engineering projects have been ones of functional aesthetics. Beautiful bridges or cathedrals or skyscrapers carefully designed by both the artist and the engineer and capable of changing what it means to be a modern human.

Additionally, advances in technology (think peer-to-peer software and the iPod) have occurred strictly in the interest of elevating our access to art.

And art?
Art itself has been continuously advanced by technology. The paintbrush, the printing press, the camera, the digital camera, electronic devices that generate, store, and play music, software. Denying the importance of math and science in one's understanding downplays the significant impact that these things have on our ability to use, create and experience art.

The social sciences, too, are not exempt from this equation. Psychological advances have had significant impact on art and have also used art as a tool to enhance understanding (Freud's the Oedipal complex, likewise the influence of Lacan on our understanding of postmodernism). Anthropology frequently relies on the product of anonymous artists and artisans from the past, and art can gain insight to the human condition by understanding the vast expanse of its history.

My point is, please stop separating yourself from the world by claiming to be "an engineer" or "an artist" or "an anthropologist" and realize that you are in fact a human being. Our cultural evolution requires that we at some point all understand the unity of knowledge, and appreciate the fact that every discipline is merely the study of some other facet to this vast, intimidating thing we call the universe. No pursuit of knowledge is devoid of value. And no pursuit of knowledge is worth a damn if it stands alone.