There's a wonderful event happening in Manchester at the moment. The Bound and Infinity bookshop in Tib Street is hosting a number of friends talking about physics (Peter Rowlands), Mathematics and Laws of Form (Louis Kauffman), architecture (Andrew Crompton) as well as interjections from art, music, philosophy, etc. I brought one of my PhD students from public health whose reaction was "where has this been all my life?!". Particularly wonderful was the fact that many attendees are quite young and thinking the kinds of ambitious thoughts that one has at 18 (and which academia is very good at knocking out of people). This event serves as encouragement to youth not to give in to the deadly institution.
I only encountered cybernetic thinking in my mid 30s and had the same reaction. I slightly kick myself that I might have got there sooner if I'd had the courage to speak to Stafford Beer in Manchester University music department when I was a student (he visited regularly to attend the Lindsay String quartet concerts). I wish someone had dragged me to a cybernetics conference at that age. But maybe it's best that that didn't happen.
The problem is that ambitious thinking doesn't have an easy ride in the university. This is really because of the pathology of disciplines that I wrote about recently. Disciplines are fiefdoms as Tony Becher pointed out (I discovered in a conversation with Ron Barnett a few weeks ago that Becher was responsible for helping Ron get on the academic ladder from his admin role in the university). People like Becher and Barnett know what universities are - and what they should be. If Barnett's example is anything to go by, there are likely to be more brilliant and original minds among the admin of the university than among the credentialed academics. That's a problem which we should do something about.
The real difficulty is that the career path for those who think in an interdisciplinary way just isn't there. Universities continually talk about interdisciplinarity, but they don't do it - and very often they don't know what it really is, which is revealed when universities try to create "departments" for interdisciplinarity.
The real problem is that institutions organise themselves into disciplinary boxes - departments with budgets, teaching loads, journals, etc. An interdisciplinary box is no better than a disciplinary box. Each box wants to maintain it's viability and compete with other boxes in the process. But interdisciplinarity doesn't belong in a box.
Cyberneticians often draw diagrams of organisations with boxes and wires/lines connecting them. Interdisciplinarity really belongs in the wires (the lines) not the boxes. But there is no career in being in the lines.
The interdisciplinary scholar's role is to flow through the institution between the boxes. It is a completely different kind of existence to existing in a box. This is not to say that boxes aren't important: there should be people in a history box or a physics box... Rigour does count for something. But boxes without people flowing through the wires stifles imagination.
This has been apparent to cyberneticians for decades. Gregory Bateson wrote this in an address to the Regents of the University of California in 1978:
"While much that universities teach today is new and up-to-date, the presupposition or premises of thought upon which all our teaching is based are ancient and, I assert, obsolete. I refer to such notions as:
a. The Cartesian dualism separating "mind" and "matter"
b. The strange physicalism of the metaphors which we use to describe and explain mental phenomena - "power", "tension", "energy", "social forces", etc
c. Our anti-aesthetic assumption, borrowed from the emphasis which Bacon, Locke and Newton long ago gave to the physical sciences, viz that all phenomena (including the mental) can and shall be studied and evaluated in quantitative terms.
The view of the world - the latent and partly unconscious epistemology - which such ideas together generate is out of date in three different ways:
a. pragmatically, it is clear that these premises and their corollaries lead to greed, monstrous over-growth, war, tyranny, and pollution. In this sense, our premises are daily demonstrated false, and the students are half aware of this.
b. Intellectually, the premises are obsolete in that systems theory, cybernetics, holistic medicine, and gestalt psychology offer demonstrably better ways of understanding the world of biology and behaviour.
c. As a base for religion, such premises as I have mentioned became clearly intolerable and therefore obsolete about 100 years ago. In the aftermath of Darwinian evolution, this was stated rather clearly by such thinkers as Samuel Butler and Peter Kropotkin. But already in the eighteenth century, William Blake saw that the philosophy of Locke and Newton could only generate "dark Satanic mills"
But this leads to the key message he says sarcastically that by 1979
"we shall know a little more by dint of rigour and imagination, the two great contraries of mental process, either of which by itself is lethal. Rigour alone is paralytic death, but imagination alone is insanity."