-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolutionary Transdisciplinarity in a Wicked World
As a movement that fights to break down the barriers and hierarchies of the academic apparatus, transdisciplinarity is an inherently revolutionary project. That is to say - to the extent that it works to dissolve the boundaries between different scientific disciplines (e.g. physics and anthropology), academic disciplines (e.g. sciences and arts), and the gaping schism between academia and general society - transdisciplinarity “shakes the central axioms” not just of modern science but of modern society (Vilsmaier et al., 2023, p. 382). After all, it strives to overhaul the very systems we have to make sense of the world. It not only promises to encourage interaction between separate disciplines (as interdisciplinarity does). But instead, pushes further towards democratising the production of knowledge by allowing its revelation to be enacted by its subjects collectively, eschewing arbitrary limits and hierarchies. In other words, it fights to seize the means of epistemological production.
Some try to tame this spectre haunting the academy however. Arguing that transdisciplinarity is nothing more than a supplementary activity to the regularly scheduled disciplinary programming. Just an extra tool in the arsenal of an immutably rationalistic and technocratic ivory tower (Vilsmaier et al., 2023). Some even insist that “there is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity” (Lawrence, 2021, p. 47), echoing the infamous “there is no alternative” of my favourite politician Margaret Thatcher (may she forever look up at us). This appropriation of transdisciplinarity represents a clear erasure of the critical “cornerstone” it was based on (Vilsmaier et al., 2023, p. 384). Its goal is a gradual and “slowly unfolding “scientific revolution” of transdisciplinary research” which aims to strengthen existing institutions, instead of the actual societal and epistemological revolution proposed by its 1968-inspired counterpart which promises to replace them. It is an attempt to assimilate and neutralise the revolutionary potential of transdisciplinarity. But, as usually happens when a cornerstone is removed, without its critical foundation transdisciplinarity will collapse in on itself.
One reason for this (and trust me, in the coming weeks many other reasons will be explored), is that traditional science is incapable of dealing with uncertainty and complexity. Take for example the “wicked problem”. This concept is widely used to describe problems which are intractable (to rationalist/positivist methods at least) due to the fact that they cannot be captured by descriptive, temporal, spatial or causal categories (Lawrence, 2021, p. 45). They are hybrids moving through all categories and boundaries, escaping formalisation and treatment (Latour, 1993). The problem is, in my opinion, that EVERYTHING is like that. We live in a wicked world (and we always have) (Latour, 1993)! I cannot name a single issue that has an incontestable formulation (and if you can I will contest it out of spite), or whose resolution does not lead to or affect other problems. The strength of transdisciplinarity’s critical foundation is that it starts from this wickedness, this humorous/ironic contradiction, this relationality at the core of everything. And moreover, that it embraces this through praxis, by enacting theory in communion with the people (Freire, 1970; Sclavi, 2008).