Interdisciplinary

Callanan asserts her root argument as, “the ideological destruction of the political affected by liberal philosophy provided the necessary background for an ideology of professionalism which based legitimate social power on the foundations of private monopolies of expert knowledge”(7). Her argument goes hand in hand with my experience of taking Hinduism courses at the University of Toronto, this of course being my area of specialist. However, it was surprising to hear that, when a student raised her hand and related to her experience to validate her point, the professor interrupted and said this course has nothing to with how people practice at home but instead with historical evidence. Therefore, not only was the student’s experience pushed to the side, but also, her attitude affirms that there is no knowledge outside the expert. In other words, she proved that her ‘socail power was [based on a] monopoly of expert knowledge. In this regard, there was no room for any assertions that were based on experience if it was not conjured up by a specialist. Just like one who wants to know the reasoning and method behind a math formula will consult a specialist or mathematician rather than a scientist.

Thus, as mentioned there is an area of specialty that needs to addressed when consulting a person with questions that need validated answers. In this respect, there needs to be a specialist at all times. It is however, not impossible for a person to specialize in two fields, but this means extensive education and one rarely goes through this process. In this light, I agree with Callanan’s assertion that, “expertise without the elements of curiosity and relationship, is a trap” (9). In other words, there needs to be discourse from other disciplines in order for a broadening of information and knowledge on particular topics. In this regard “flexibility, creativity, and curiosity can be beneficial to a particular subject under discussion only is there are people who are from different bodies of expertise.

For example, study of a particular religious text would call upon different bodies of expertise to come to a consensus on the actual meanings of the text. Without one body of expertise the text lacks a full analysis as evident in my discussion of the Quran last week.

What is important to note in Callanan’s discussion of discourse though is how closely it relates to Said’s ‘clash of definitions’. According to Said, this means that cultures are always in the process of redefining their identities at a given time and place in history and in relation to others. This can be applied to this as disciplines are always in a process of redefining their ‘correctness’ at a given time and place in history and in relation to others. In this regard, disciplines when in the face of one another are in constant conversation about what is the right way of approaching a particular discipline at a particular time in history.

This approach however, in my training as a scholar is rarely used, because as a student, we rely on the expertise to exercise their knowledge, not questioning or bringing into dialogue our own curiosity and how it might relate. This method can have both a positive and negative take. On the first hand, it can encourage a greater understanding of a topic, leading to harmony and integration of disciplines, and therefore as Callanan puts it makes us “smart, responsible, ethical and complex citizens” (5). On the other hand, dialogue can create stronger boundaries that emphasize even more this relationship of us vs. them. More specifically, in trying to reach consensus boundaries might be resurrected to emphasize why the disciplines are separate in the first place. however, what remains important is the fact that greater knowledge that can relate to social contexts is best achieved through dialogue.