Interdisciplinary Epistemology
Interdisciplinary epistemology is
not a new academic endeavor. Biochemistry has been an academic discipline for
decades. Biology and chemistry are fundamental academic disciplines necessary
for understanding the physiological functions of organisms and especially, the
human body. Psychology and the functioning of the human body are the bases for
most of the psychosomatic illnesses that we have tons of knowledge and
information with respect to our daily existence. Astronomy and physics have
been combined for the study of the physics of the universe. These
interdisciplinary studies are quite natural in their pursuits for knowledge.
As our existence becomes more
complex, there are problems that we encounter that cannot be resolved with knowledge
from one academic discipline; therefore, there is a recent effort on the part
of interdisciplinary epistemologists to bring together different disciplines
that may prove useful in solving problems that are more complex. Interdisciplinary
epistemology is more of a process than an end. It attempts to address or solve
a complex problem that is too broad to answer by one discipline. A
comprehensive perspective is desired and often a social science is one of these
disciplines that is included in the project. In some of these epistemological
endeavors, it is either social interdisciplinary. It is also about process. The
process becomes extremely important because of the uniqueness of each
discipline. One pitfall is the potential for some scientists, prematurely, to
decide the hierarchy discipline in the deliberations. The process begins by
determining that it is a complex problem, establishing the scope of the problem,
choosing its focus and ethical appropriateness. Discipline is an umbrella term
that includes disciplines, sub-disciplines, specialties and interdisciplines.
Each of
the previous has its own special
meaning, e.g., biochemistry would be an interdiscipline because it has its own
journals, professional associations, etc.
It is not just the choosing and
placing of a discipline within the context of the problem, but one must
understand the perspective of that discipline; and if it has the direction that
is needed for solving the complex problem. It is also necessary to understand
the behavior of the discipline in a complex system. Complex systems theory,
informing the interdisciplinary studies, needs to find linear relationships
among the variables from each of the ideologies that are linked intrinsically.
Certainly, critical thinking is required when considering interdisciplines as
legitimate areas of study and inquiry; thus making synthesis and integration an
easier task.
An African-American epistemology is
interdisciplinary because it includes disciplines that have already given clues
that when brought together in a complex system will provide advancement in
knowledge for our continual success and survival. It is a revisiting of the
configuration, conceptualization and organization of old studies. It is also
the reconfiguration, reconceptualization and reorganization of these same
studies to affirm knowledge that may already be possessed by African-Americans
and not noted by traditional analyses of knowledge. In fact, the paradigm may
even change in how such an epistemology would want to just beliefs and what we
believe is true. One of the conventional failures of interdisciplinary research
is the indifference or hostility of scientists to working across established
boundaries. This indifference is noted in race theory, which would be a
necessary component of any AAE. Race theory is not, yet, accepted by political
philosophy as an ideology and would be an added academic discipline to an
interdisciplinary study in an AAE. However, many prominent race theorists offer
theories and work hard to the eventual inclusion of race theory being an
ideology in political philosophy.
African-Americans have needed to learn things
that the majority culture has not needed to learn and this unique learning
combined with other disciplines would promote knowledge for all of us and bring
about a better understanding of what diversity promotes. At the bane of their
existence and with the vicissitudes of life with which they were presented, the
slaves were able to survive against all odds like no other American ever
experienced. They passed this survival gene on to future generations. Within
the study of interdisciplinary epistemology, Huy and Mintzbert develop a
triangle of change and. Their paradigm would have extrinsic attention at the
top with funding agencies and research leadership and at the bottom; there is
intrinsic motivation from faculty and students. Systemic implementation would
be at the center with university management and structures and it is at this
level, that interdisciplinary research has its missing link. They have found sufficient
evidence of extrinsic attention to interdisciplinary research at the top. Using
this paradigm, there is no extrinsic attention that could trickle down to
pursue an endeavor in an AAE, which is interdisciplinary. However, a “grass
roots” endeavor would generate interest for such an endeavor.
Feminists argue for a feminist epistemology,
which would also be interdisciplinary and narrative. What is a belief, what is
true and what can be justified are embedded in their experiences as being
women. Their being in the world is quite different from the dominant White
males who have constructed the traditional analysis of argument. The project of
feminist epistemology shares the same paradigm with an African-American
Epistemology in that both are contextual. Our locations in the world are quite
different from that of White males as we understand and perceive both the world
and human activities from a different vantage point. The outstanding claim that
Narayan makes is that the integration of feminist perspectives in science and
knowledge is not merely adding details, but rather a shift of perspectives.
This is the precise claim that an AAE would also make as we reclaim the value
of our experiences. This shift is beneficial because it would enhance self-understanding
and change the nature of how the sciences and knowledge are understood and
interpreted. Another important claim is that both epistemologies are not
homogeneous. Neither group is monolithic and one could envision different
epistemologies in each group that would differ philosophically and politically.
Mainstream theories about human knowledge have been one-dimensional and have
ignored our histories and political interests. Western philosophy has
romanticized reason and science and dualistically seen emotion and the
particulars as the other side of the paradigm. The integration of emotions in
the cognitive activities and their importance of their contributions to
knowledge is the same for African-Americans. Feminists reject “the dumb view”
of emotion and favor an intentional conception that emphasizes the cognitive
aspect of emotions. It is not only a feminist perception and what has been
relegated to feminist thinking within a dualist paradigm. The other side of the
paradigm is rationalism, science and White masculinity.
The truth is that African-Americans
have deep emotions similar to females that are not shared by White American men
that explain much of what we think and do. As feminism theories extend the
scope health issues, equal wages, trade unions, marriage and the family, an
African-American epistemology would do the same. Historically, since slavery,
the dominant structure has tried to destroy the Black family. As women are seen
as the cornerstone of religious, moral and spiritual values, African-Americans
have deep roots in all of these areas, since slavery. We have needed these
values for our liberation and successes. Narayan asserts that positivism should
not be the only target of attack, because it does value liberalism’s political
emphasis on individual rights. She also acknowledges that non-positivist
contexts are also our enemies. Epistemic privilege is not to be taken for
granted; and that it is cooperation between oppressed groups and the dominant
group that will provide the possibilities of understanding. Feminist poetry and
fiction are a form of discourse and the express complex life experiences that
bring about knowledge that they would like to share with members of the group.
It has a dual purpose to bring awareness and understanding of those experiences
to others. African-Americans, as writers and poets have those same goals. Both
Feminists and African-Americans have knowledge of the practices of both their
own contexts and those of their oppressors, leading to critical insights and thus
have an epistemic advantage.
Feminist, Indian and
African-American Epistemologies would differ from epistemology in that they are
social. Responding to the individualistic nature of classical epistemology,
social epistemology looks at the social practices of groups. The social
dimensions of knowledge and beliefs that institutionalized are emphasized in
this discipline
Social epistemology address the
needs of minorities, because it is contextual and subjective. The locations of
these distinct and oppressed groups are the bases for how they understand and
perceive both the world and human activities from a different vantage point.
The integration of their perspectives in science and knowledge is not merely
adding details, but rather a shifting of perspectives. This shifting of the
paradigm is beneficial because it enhances self-understanding and changes the
nature of how the sciences and knowledge are understood and interpreted.
Another important claim is that these epistemologies are not homogeneous, because
the members of each group may differ philosophically and politically.
Mainstream theories about human knowledge have been one-dimensional and have
ignored their histories and political interests. Narratives play an important
role in these epistemologies.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy says that there is little consensus of what social epistemology
would comprehend, but one some believe that it should be a radical departure
from classical epistemology. Feminist and An African-American Epistemologies
are indeed radical and social; they both
are narrative and justifications of our experiences in the world and the things
that we have learned and how we have needed to prioritize some types of
knowledge for our continual existence and progress in the post-modern world. In
an “Overview of Social Epistemology”, Steve Fuller defines it by three criteria
(1) under normal circumstances knowledge is pursued by normal human beings, (2)
each person or group is working on a more or less well-defined body of
knowledge and (3) each person or group is equipped with roughly the same
imperfect cognitive capacities. Not recognized by traditional epistemologists,
An African-American Epistemology satisfies the three criteria. An
African-American may very well be “one”
of many African-American epistemologies because African-Americans are not a
monolithic group of persons. One distinct AAE would be possible as a result
conservative thinking, such as the ideals that of Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas and his followings. They assert that the Civil Rights Movement
had no direct bearing on their success, but rather a “pulling themselves up by
their bootstraps”. An AAE is social and post-modern thought. The social
theories that would be considered are race theory, culture, social positions,
particularities, skepticism, subjectivity, discourse and our embededness in the
discourse, interpreted realities and relationships of power. African-Americans
have internalized these variables in a way that White America has not; and in
some ways, White America has not had the conscious need to think about them.
This is a normal paradigm of how African-Americans exist in a racist society. A
modern approach is discounted because of its correlation with a dualism from
which racism derives a concept of blackness and whiteness, superiority and
inferiority, etc. In the first criteria, even though Fuller uses the world
normal, there is embedded in this descriptor, the concept of normative. An
African-American Epistemology is definitely not normative; but, in fact, normal
human beings pursue this typology of knowledge.
Fuller takes the “normal
circumstances cited in the question to be universal, both historically and
trans-culturally, “a brute fact to be responsible not only for the variety of
products that have passed for knowledge itself”. Much of the information does
not appear to be trans-cultural and under normal circumstances, as Fuller has
described. Many historical facts have not been reported accurately about
African-Americans, especially in history books. Prior to the Civil Rights
Movement, little mention was made of the contributions of African-Americans to
American Culture. The point of distinction made here is that much information
researched by African-Americans is often rejected by White America, when
considering what knowledge is. The second criteria of more or less well-defined
bodies of knowledge are exactly what AAE is... Racism is not well defined and
not an ideology in political philosophy. The third criterion that recognizes
“imperfect cognitive capacities” permits one to begin thinking of how to
construct an AAE. If one acknowledges that we have imperfect cognitive
capacities, there should not be a problem in recognizing that there is a need
to depart from classical epistemology and begin to accept that sources and
theories of knowledge need to be more comprehensive in including diverse
social, cultural and race groups
The narrative of an
African-American epistemology includes the knowledge that we derive from our
history and race theory. It is worth noting that race theory and
African-American Epistemology are both interdisciplinary in themselves, because
they both include information and knowledge from a variety of other knowledge
bases. From the perspective of knowledge, the interdisciplinary study of
African-American epistemology and race theory is about subject matter just as
much as it is about process. Zack defines race theory as the ground on which
racial identity is constructed in the sciences, ordinary life, academic letters
and the forum in which such matters are studied and critiqued. Philosophers
have neglected race in their discussions to ethics, political philosophy,
epistemology and moral psychology. Philosophy has an obligation to critical
race theory. There needs to be re-conceptualization of political philosophy
that theorizes race as the major organizing principle of a global white
supremacy. Political philosophy recognizes the major ideologies as feminism,
anarchism, conservatism, liberalism, Marxism and socialism. Many Black scholars
note that White females are the true beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act,
even though a black female who was imprisoned for refusing to give her seat on
the bus for a White male began the movement.
White women have always enjoyed
“the notion of superiority” even though White men may not have thought of them
as being equal. They were yet pampered and coddled. The very way of looking at
the world is corrupted by the exclusion of the experiences and concerns of
African-Americans. African-Americans have historically used faith as a source
of knowledge and belief that we could overcome and we have succeeded. This is
not a unique experience for White America. This is just another experience that
has merit, but one that is denied by the orthodox political philosophers and
epistemologists. Race theory has not been acknowledged by political philosophy
as a major ideology, even though feminism became the sixth ideology following
the Civil Rights Movement. There is a resistance for the inclusion of race
theory and an African-American Epistemology into mainstream epistemology. Even
though race is not a recognized ideology, Mills, a prominent race theorist,
demands a reconceptualization of political philosophy that acknowledges and
theorizes race as the major organizing principle of global white supremacy.
Fanon, a psychiatrist, philosopher and revolutionist was influential in
post-colonial studies and he theorizes race within a paradigm of existentialist
phenomenology. This same paradigm could be useful for understanding an
African-American epistemology. Both would start from what it means to be in the
world, our existence in a racist society and how to survive and succeed against
all odds. This information is not known experientially by the dominant culture,
which is a major source of special knowledge for African-Americans. This is at
least a start in thinking about the two from the perspective of epistemology.
We can gain a net benefit from it. A major problem is that an African-American
epistemology does not even exist anywhere in the literature and perhaps, for
some, an insufficient idea.
As I consider race theory and an
African-American epistemology, each as interdisciplinary in themselves, the
combination of both would provide an enormous amount of information that could
be considered knowledge; even if not within the bounds of the TAK. Before
analysis can be done, there must first be recognition of the subject matter.
The journey is an uphill battle when one considers what to assess and how to
assess interdisciplinary education for these two ideologies. An
African-American epistemology is further from being recognized by
epistemologists than race theory. If there are questions in assessing the
techniques in already accepted disciplines, then the task is even harder when
trying to assess African-American epistemology and race theory. Complex systems
theory, informing the interdisciplinarity of race theory and an
African-American epistemology, would find linear relationships among the variables
from each of the ideologies because both are linked intrinsically. Certainly
critical thinking is required when considering these as legitimate areas of
study and inquiry. Perhaps, the problem is the unwillingness of the power
structure, including epistemologists to realize that these are neglected areas
of research and study. Synthesis and integration would be an easy task
especially if both of these disciplines were combined since they are distinct,
but yet connected and correlated in many areas. Audrey Thompson of the University of Utah
The assumption for teaching the course is that
knowledge is embodied, relational, contextual, and structural, political, and abstract. She believes that there
are different approaches to knowledge and it is not to be assumed that one
approach is more reliable than another is. Each approach relies upon coded
practices, methods and arguments. One of her assumptions is that there are
epistemological orientations. One African-American epistemological orientation
or framework is Black Nationalism. Postmodern, standpoint theory and pragmatism
are few of the arguments that support an African-American epistemology. She
asserts that knowledge claims are identified in particular discourses and
structural locations. There are several different contexts from which claims
can be drawn, e.g. For example, knowledge claims may be
Eurocentric (rooted in European and European-American traditions and values),
androcentric (referenced to male interests and worldviews), gynocentric
(woman-identified, referenced to female relationships and values), or
Afrocentric (grounded in pan-African traditions and culture). Assimilation
theory is not included, because it repudiates claims for any distinctive
African-American
epistemology. Epistemology should not be
reduced to politics, but the reality is that knowledge claims are regarded as
co-ordered with power relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment