On Academic Dissent: Which Way to the Debate?

Abstract

On Academic Dissent: Which Way to Debate?Revisiting liberal humanism in context of corporatism as a capitalist phenomenon, and individualism in an (albeit failed) social democratic one, in The Unconscious Civilization John Ralston Saul argues that there is no need for universities to turn out 21 - year - old specialists equipped with no memory of their civilization's experience, no ethical context, no sense of larger shape of their society.(f.1) last issue of this journal Ian Angus, revisiting debate between left nationalists and advocates of post - modern theory, concluded that must craft a space for continuing debate that unites us as much by our disagreements as by our disunity.(f.2) Canada as in United States, commentators on perceived dangers of an illiberal education are legion. Often their legitimate objections to formation of narrow specialists are miscast as either a condemnation (on right) of an supposedly exclusive and coercive preoccupation with political correctness - class, race and gender - or (on left) a condemnation of post - structuralist theory for undermining coherence and engagement. If universities are to avoid producing a talented and committed generation faced with limited options of careers as technocrats or hot air balloonists, we might do well to revisit an ongoing debate about relationship of disciplinary to interdisciplinary knowledge and teaching, foregrounded in but not restricted to Canadian Studies programs and publications.Jill Vickers is one of a few Canadian scholars in social sciences actively engaged in debate. her 1992 working paper Where is Discipline in Interdisciplinarity? she argued that the rise of contemporary disciplines is inextricably linked with growth of bureaucracy both inside and outside university; as such, traditional disciplines in humanities and social sciences, despite their ongoing usefulness, can display characteristics of self - maintenance, inertia and a rule - orientation rather than a goal - orientation.(f.3) Revisiting these issues in a second working paper entitled In an Open Field, Un/Framed: Teaching and Practice of Vickers addresses recent multiplication of transdisciplinary paradigms and canons (foundational ideas) and challenges these represent. She concludes with need to develop strong logical, historical, comparative, epistemological and cross - cultural skills for mediating different kinds of evidentiary protocols given anti - discipline approach of many influenced by new knowledge areas of women's studies and Native studies, for example.(f.4)Given that this journal publishes both traditional scholarship and what Vickers and others refer to as the new knowledge, I would like, at risk of oversimplification, to comment briefly on definitions in Vickers's initial working paper. A discipline, we are told, emphasizes a particular content and method in sense of both rigour and territoriality, reliability and a limited number of questions that can usefully be asked. Multidisciplinarity, in sense of team research, is simply an aggregate of discrete disciplinary perspectives that complement each but remain distinct in their acknowledged authority. Interdisciplinarity, according to Vickers, offers two subtly different models of cross - fertilization. The strict or limited version of interdisciplinarity (functional bilingualism is her analogy) masters and wields but does not weld together two disciplines that can better address a particular problem together rather than alone. The so - called general or loose approach to interdisciplinarity (passive bilingualism), for its part, addresses a given theme or problem by welding as well as wielding two disciplines; ideally, its incursions, borrowings and integration are respectable and respectful, passing test of publishability in journal of other discipline. …