Why interdisciplinary can matter....

The post below about the decline of biological anthropology as a concentration at Harvard elicited many responses. To some extent the columnist was framing the argument in a Two Cultures fashion. This is an expansive and thoroughgoing argument. I am personally unaware of the direct benefits of studying mathematics and English Literature simultaneously, though I do know that my old secondary school experimented with mixing subjects such as physics and history after my graduation. But though I am unclear as to the direct benefits, I think that the indirect long term fruit can be substantial. Through a study of mathematics and its framework of proofs humanists can see that rigor is possible and that all is not interpretation. Conversely, those in mathematics would see the importance of context, perspective and subjectivity in some scholarly endeavors. On occasion I have been in discussions with humanists where they offer skepticism to any positive assertion that I may make from the sciences, and it is extremely difficult for me to make it clear that though no result is ontologically definitive, the provisional nature of some long held findings is so attenuated as to become background facts in further work. That is, much of science is necessarily contingent & provisional, but the facts, concepts and theories are judged to of very high likelihood. Admittedly, there are other theories which are less widely accepted within the scientific community and the provisional aspect is therefore emphasized to a greater extent. But within the sciences there is a inverse attitude which assumes that humanity is as naked and without guile as the dance of molecules or the paths of planets. The large subset of Creationists who come from engineering illustrate the naive application of scientific thinking, taking religious creeds as axioms and inferring models of the universe. But this brittleness of scientific thinking extends outside of religious fundamentalists, I have encountered many from the sciences who project their certitude across all their beliefs. For example, I know many scientists who have a set of political beliefs which they contend to be true and valid, and which they arrived at purely by reflection and empirical analysis (disregard that they aren't even political scientists!). The possibility that their political beliefs might derive from social context, and their locus within society, their own subjective calculus of preferences and truths, does not cross their minds until I bring the possibility up. Where some humanists become accustomed to a pose of hyper-skepticism, many scientists garb all their beliefs in the fabric of rationalism.

But up to this point I have spoken of differences, and the importance of understanding them. On a more fine-grained level similarities and conceptual bridges are also critical in interdisciplinary work. Within the biological sciences the division between proximate, molecular and mechanistic understandings of processes and the ultimate and evolutionary comprehension are complementary. A biochemist may look at a process and decompose the pathway into its functional elements, with biophysical colleagues who focus specifically on the structural nature of a particular enzyme, but an evolutionary biologist might analyze the contingent nature of the step wise development of the chemistry over deep time. While the biochemist is focused on mapping in detail the the nooks and crannies visible to the eye the evolutionary biologist may offer up necessary or likely future roads to travel because of the general nature of the evolutionary processes which lead to the proximate effects.

Of course some of you might contend that biologists are biologists, they are studying the same fundamental topic even if their scale and level of analysis varies. I think we can move it a step further, consider fields as disparate as psychology, cultural anthropology and history. Psychologists work within a laboratory and use experiments to elucidate and flesh out the general aspects of human cognition. Cultural anthropologists catalog and analyze the range of human behavioral variation in "the wild." Historians trace the development of cultures and societies across time, drawing upon texts and archaeological data. These are very different disciplines, but they are studying humanity, fundamentally the same subject. I would offer that too often psychologists become experts at the cognitive processes of middle to upper middle class university students in the West. Anthropologists become so fixated on the semantical nuances of the tribe which they study that they enter into a tendency to speciate groups so that they as fundamentally alien (begging the question of exactly how they can know what they know if cross-cultural comprehensibility is impossible). Historians obviously know that texts represent but a sliver of human activity, and a biased one at that, but their attempt to generate "social history" often relies on seat of the pants psychology and anthropology, not drawing from the deep well knowledge extant within these fields because of the disciplinary chasm & and their own human confidence in their ability to intuit psychology and sociology.

Let me offer up perhaps an illustration of the synergy that I believe is possible. In Fall of the Roman Empire, Peter Heather notes that when the Goths under Alaric sacked the city of Rome it was a mild affair, and being Christians the barbarians took special care to protect the sanctuaries. This was the ultimate trigger for St. Augustine's City of God, as the pagans of Rome asserted that abandonment of the traditional religion of the Empire for Christianity had only led to calamity. Today we might wonder why St. Augustine might be prompted to respond to what we perceive as a dying religion, but in Making of the Christian Aristocracy the social historian Michele Salzman makes a powerful argument drawing upon the extant documentation that the Roman aristocracy was predominantly pagan as late as the first decade of the 5th century. Now, we are confronted with a peculiarity: the barbarians were Christian, and civilized Romans were quite often pagan. This does not seem to jibe with our perception that Romanitas, civilization qua civilization in the Western world during late antiquity, was passed via the channel of Christianity, the Roman religion to the barbarians of northern Europe in centuries to come.

Anthropology and psychology can help here. In the highlands of northern Thailand members of the Miao/Hmong ethnicity are converting to Christianity. This is strange insofar as the Thai culture is overwhelmingly, and fundamentally, Theravada Buddhist. In India tribal groups in northeast India are Christian, while the mainstream Indian culture is predominantly Hindu. Anthropologists have an explanation on hand: cultural minorities or marginal groups seem to have a tendency to ally with a distant "elite" culture (usually in the form of religion) to preserve their identity in the face of assimilationist dynamics within their local matrix. That is, in Thailand the tribals who convert to Buddhism from their animist religion inevitably become Thai over the generations. Similarly, in northeast India the Hinduization of tribal peoples eventually led to their cultural extinction in the face of demographic absorption. In contrast, when a minority group adheres to a sophisticated religious system which is alien but tied into a "world culture" ethnic minorities can preserve their identity without any perception that they are "less civilized." Rather, by co-opting the prestige of a distant civilization which is in no position to assimilate their ethno-linguistic identity they preserve a portion of their cultural heritage at the price of their religion. But do they truly overturn their religion? The Karens of Burma, many of whom are Christian, contend that their pre-Christian religion was in fact an unelaborated form of Christianity. Both anthropology and psychological studies of religion suggest that there are common elements to all religious belief, and the psychological discontinuity might be minimal. In fact, quite often the biggest shock is expulsion from one's family or cultural group. But the spread of Christianity in places like northern Thailand is one where whole tribes convert, so there is no loss of social ties, rather, the change in religion acts as a way to preserve those distinct connections in the face of assimilation. The fact that psychologically humans tend to conceptualize "gods" in the same manner, no matter the elite formulation, also would lead us to predict that the transition from one mode of worship to another shouldn't be that difficult so long as semantical shifts are minimized, ergo, the tendency to rework pre-Christian religious beliefs as a primitive or unelaborated primal monotheism which simply had to be "completed."

There is no need to go down this path of analysis any further, but, I think that drawing upon what we know scientifically about human psychology and social anthropological dynamics can offer insight into why and how the Goths became Christians, while a core of the Roman elite remained pagan. The Goths were made familiar with Christianity during the 350s, when the Arian heresy was ascendant in the Roman Empire (due to the favor shown it by Constantius II). This is a historically contingent fact which explains the prevalence of Arianism amongst the Goths (and also many other Germanic groups who seem to have picked up Christianity from semi-Romanized Goths). But the ostentatious representation of themselves as Christians is clearly explicable through the models of anthropology which show that tribal groups selectively absorb some aspect of an elite ideology to preserve their own cultural structures from full absorption. The psychology of religion suggests that transition from Germanic paganism to Arian Christianity amongst the masses of tribal members was more notional and nominal, a semantical shift of concept, representation and ritual, than a seismic life altering "conversion" and transference of identity. In contrast, the Roman senatorial elite held to their own traditions and perpetuated their non-Christian networks precisely because switching to the Christian order would have been a cutting off from the prestige of their ancestors, the cults and rites which they had maintained for generations. Unlike the Goths the Roman senatorial elite had a "high" religious sensibility, a multi-textured paganism which ranged from animism toward philosophical Neo-Platonism, a sensibility that in many ways resembled and was mimicked by Christianity in its aspects. Like the non-Christian cultures of Asia they could and would resist Christian monotheism because it offered less to them and their own religious traditions.

The above is only a sketch, and illustration of a few thoughts I've bounced around in my head. But it shows the power in interdisciplinary thinking. Just as nature is one, so is man. The men & women of the past were in many ways both different and the same. Anthropology can shed light on the nature and extent of differences, the dynamics in which those differences play out. Psychology points to the common modal nature of human cognition, the constraints which well up from the physical nature of our brain as neurological biochemical systems. Humans love the the One True Way, whether it is God, politics or even academics. And that is our universal folly!

Tags
Categories

More like this

In my post below, Pentecostals are stupid? Unitarians are smart?, I derived some conclusions from data which suggests that different religious groups in the United States have different IQs and/or academic aptitudes. The data are not particularly surprising, as some noted the class biases of…
In response to my post about Heather Mac Donald and her debate with others on the Right about the fundamental role of religion within "the movement" Steve Burton has offered his own thoughts. Roughly, I see Steve's points as being this: The misery of the historical record does not exhibit man's…
This whole conversion story in Afghanistan has been in the news recently. The Christian Science Monitor attempts to put the issue of conversion from Islam to another religion in an international perspective. I am cautious about making large generalizations without qualifications, but I will…
A few weeks ago, Andrew Brown (author of The Darwin Wars) stated: I'm not sure that Boyer, Atran and Wilson regard their explanations as complementary. I have talked to all three of them about it. My feeling is that while all three of them understand that the explanations might be complementary,…

A comment on interdisciplinary thinking.

I'd like to think that I've learned and been taught to think interdisciplinarily. I have many interests in many disciplines, such as molecular biology, primatology, neuroscience, etc.

Without a doubt, I feel my educational background, a Bachelor's in Anthropology, has fascilitated and expanded my curiosity into these displines. But what it hasn't done is make me an expert in any of these fields. And I see that happening to many people who get invovled in an interdisciplinary academic field before building a foundation in anything. In a nut shell, we/I, know a little about a lot of things but don't know a lot about one thing.

When studying human biology or human culture, I hold the opinion that is not advantageous to know a little about both. Having a strong foundation, in one or the other, better helps interdisciplinary academics. What I advocate is that people develop expertise first, then branch out to other fields. In this manner, people can still have synthesis of fields; collaborate as expertise in each field.

The context here is undergrad (and possibly graduate) studies, so we're talking people between 18-29, roughly. Even if, at the end of their career, you'd like for an anthropologist to know a lot about the biological and sociocultural domains, it makes more sense to start out focusing almost only on biological side and then learn more about the sociocultural side as you get older.

The reason is that 20-somethings aren't getting any younger: they had better make use of their fluid intelligence while it's at its peak [1], and that means learning all the math & science they think they'll need to at least get started. It's possible to master this side of anthro, and then pick up the sociocultural stuff -- over a period of years if you do it yourself, or a couple months if someone else explains it to you, or within a few minutes if you just need to check some fact or other.

Crystallized intelligence doesn't decline as you age, so your ability to acquire & store facts is not a limiting factor on your ability to contribute original insights (assuming we're talking about people with high IQ already).

It's not possible to master the sociocultural side, and then at age 40 or 50 learn intro calculus, genetics, and so on. It wouldn't take just a few months for someone else to teach you -- it'd take as long as it would for an undergrad, but now longer since your mind isn't as sharp as it was at 20-25. Obviously if you are pretty clueless about the basics, you will never offer an original thought that incorporates math or science.

So, given that fluid IQ (reasoning ability / problem-solving) declines pretty unforgivingly starting at ~30, while your crystallized IQ (vocab, store of facts, etc.) either remains the same or increases slightly with age, it makes most sense to learn the math & science parts while you're young and pick up the rest as you go along.

[1] Search Ian Deary's *Looking Down on Human Intelligence* at Amazon, with the search phrase "cognitive ageing" (yes, with an "e" in "ageing"). Then navigate to the following pages for some sobering graphs: 224, 225, 228, 231 (or read the whole chapter if you have library / university access).

"Like the non-Christian cultures of Asia they could and would resist Christian monotheism because it offered less to them and their own religious traditions."

The Chinese elite disliked Christian missionaries not only because they challenged their authority on moral and cultural matters (esp re Confucian ancestor worship) but because they took on many social functions (orphanages, schools, hospitals). Many converts were women. Little to lose, a lot to gain.

From the Sextants of Beijing:

"The opportunity to improve one's lot in this life, rather than one's chances in the next, was thus in many cases one of the most important factors in the decision to adopt Christianity."

Likewise the Confucian Elites disliked Christianity because it threatened their own status. Selfish calculation is one of the main factors in the decision to adopt a given religion, be it a member of the elite or a peasant.

The Chinese elite disliked Christian missionaries not only because they challenged their authority on moral and cultural matters (esp re Confucian ancestor worship) but because they took on many social functions (orphanages, schools, hospitals). Many converts were women. Little to lose, a lot to gain.

this is the same reason that the chinese gov. broke the buddhist monasteries in the 9th century.

Likewise the Confucian Elites disliked Christianity because it threatened their own status.

you need to be careful here. the deal breaker was the 'rites controversy.' a disproportionate number of early catholic converts were mandarins thanks to the cultivation of this class by the jesuits.

What I advocate is that people develop expertise first, then branch out to other fields.

There is a long liberal arts tradition that says you've got this exactly backwards. In your scenario, scholars would approach their own subject narrowly, with little understanding of the margins of their discipline. I'd suggest that one can't truly be a scholar if they don't understand where their discipline fits into the broader scope of knowledge.

The liberal arts model, which is the rationale behind undergraduate distribution requirements, allows the student to first situate his major field in a broader context before delving into it further. The problem Razib raised in the first paragraph, of the humanists who think everything is a matter of interpretation and the scientists who think nothing is, would only be exacerbated by a program that took undergrads and tightly focused their studies before exposing them to at least a bit of depth in a broad array of intellectual fields.

The time for specialization is grad school, where the firm understanding of one particular field that you advocate probably is the better choice. But before someone has decided they want to specialize, they need to be educated eough to make that decision with some clarity and context.

I agree that in addition to the hard sciences it is worthwhile to study psychology/anthropology, and being something of a history nerd I can't disrespect that field. But English and studies? I don't think they'd be a big loss if they faded away.