Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alfonso Montuori
Alfonso
Montuori
Americans have historically been a very practical people. Delving too much into the
realm of theory and ideas, let alone epistemology, has often been viewed askance; a
somewhat effete egghead distraction from the business of getting things made and
done. Theory is a complex and problematic term, and its also far more pervasive
than we may thinkeven among those inclined not to be sympathetic to too much,
or even any, theorizing. I suggest that there is a danger in what I see as an
increasing anti-intellectual tendency to dispose of theory or suggest theory is simply
an abstract opinion, as in it is just a theory, or some intellectual framework
removed from reality: so many castles in the air.
Most inquiry is intra-paradigmatic, meaning it goes on within an established
discipline and theoretical framework. The fundamental disciplinary and theoretical
assumptions remain largely unchallenged. Integral scholarship tends, by definition,
to be inter- or transdisciplinary. A central dimension of transdisciplinarity is that it
should be meta-paradigmatic. Transdisciplinarity involves moving across disciplines
and across theories. This means understanding the fundamental assumptions
underlying disciplines and theories as well as their underlying paradigms. Many
years ago Magoroh Maruyama coined the somewhat unwieldy but useful term
paradigmatology in an important paper on cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural
communication that still deserves a wider readership.
Disciplines and theories create understandings of specific topics through sets of
distinctions. In the process of transdisciplinary inquiry we acknowledge that,
because of its complexity, our topic will be studied in a way that goes beyond the
boundaries of one specific discipline or theoretical framework. We study how the
topic has already been approached through a plurality of theoretical lenses in
different and probably non-communicating disciplines. It is helpful to understand how
these lenses construct the topic; how they frame our understanding of it; what
distinction they make about what is central and peripheral; what the unit of analysis
is; what matters and what does not matter; and what is illuminated as well as what
is obscured, ignored, or simply left out.
So, in that sense, transdisciplinarity and integral scholarship require engaging theory
rather thoroughly and really becoming aware of how it shapes our understanding of
the world. But the term theory is getting bashed around a bit these days. There are
many ways in which the use of the term theory is problematic. I want to point out
some major areas of possible confusion, mostly because they are the source of
considerable debate; and in the process also highlight some of the dangers of
ignoring theory.
Disimissing Theory
At the most basic level there are the giving theory the elbow critiques, such as we
find in the evolution debate: its just a theory. This popular use of the term views
theory as a dirty word and dismisses it as, essentially, abstract speculation. The
theory of evolution is therefore entirely speculative, flimsy at best, with little
relationship to facts. Where is your missing link, Mr. Darwin? What about the
eyeball? It is just a story a particular group of people tell, and there are really no
criteria to differentiate between the speculations of an evolutionary biologist and
those of a layperson. Anyone can make up a story and, therefore, a theory. In this
context, theory is often opposed to fact, as in, a fact is real, a theory is not.
This more popular dismissal of theory is complicated by the relativization of science
as a way of knowing coming from a variety of sources, including of course the work
of Thomas Kuhn, sociologists of science like Bruno Latour, and feminist
philosophers like Lorraine Code, Evelyn Fox Keller, Carolyn Merchant, and others. If
before the way natural scientists used the term theory was arguably more clearly
defined and precise than the way social scientists did; now it all seems to be getting
more confusing. This adds a twist because it is a slippery slope from relativization
and challenge to complete dismissal. The often virulent backlash against so-called
postmodern authors has largely been about a sense that it rips knowledge from any
moorings and leaves us with nothing to hang on tono foundation at all.
Over the last decade or so I have become increasingly concerned that theory is
simply not appreciated any more. Now lets be clear, theory has never been loved in
the US to the extent that it has been in Europe. Recently the sociologist Howard
Becker steered me clear of a book by a well-known French sociologist whose work I
know he thinks of highly. Dont get that one, he told me, its not very good. Its his
theory book. He had to write it because in France youre nobody until you have a
theory.
A source of confusion in the postmodern debate is, I believe, cross-cultural. The
French love to play with ideas and words in a way that most Americans find
troubling and perhaps irresponsible. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari argued that
philosophy is about the creation of conceptstherefore, a creative process.
Invention, not discovery. This sort of thing is alien to what might be called our latent
positivism and our explicitly practical action orientation. But taken too far, our
ambiguity because it suggests that the proper authority has not been found.
The second stage is multiplicity. Perrys research suggests that the exposure to a
pluralistic world breaks down absolute categories of right and wrong as we begin to
see there are many different perspectives and a lot of grey areas. Rather than
believing in a single, absolute truth, we believe that there are as many truths as
there are people. The loss of the right answer swings us towards the view that
anything goesthat all perspectives are just a theoryand that one is as good as
the next. The self becomes a source of knowledge; and, in fact, there is a privileging
of subjectivity. You see it your way, I see it my way. An anti-authoritarian position
can develop as a reaction to the conformism of dualism.
Perrys third stage is contextual relativism. It emerges from an ongoing grappling
with multiplicity, as well as the realization of the ultimate futility and the nihilism of
multiplicity. If everybody is rightor nobody is wronghow can we make any
choices or commitments? Whereas dualism saw the source of knowledge as
external and objective, and multiplicity as internal and subjective, contextual
relativism reconciles the two in dialogue and appreciates the importance of context
in making choices. It looks for knowledge in the interaction between self and world
as an ongoing inquiry.
Perrys work points to the kind of complex thought articulated by the French
philosopher Edgar Morin, to Bernsteins pragmatic fallibilism, and to the work in
post-formal thinking familiar to readers of this journal. It also points to the importance
of cultivating a more complex, post-formal way of thinking in order to do justice to
transdisciplinary work. It frames our encounter with a plurality or multiplicity of views,
not as a reason for despair, but as a challenge to develop new thinking and creative
inquiry. This would recognize the need to grapple with theoretical perspectives as
creative openings into the world, which are themselves viewed through our own set
of, often mostly implicit, assumptions about the world. One way to begin
approaching theory, therefore, is to recognize that we all have our own theories, our
own set of creative frames and openings to the world, our own epistemology. As
Gregory Bateson put it, anybody claiming not to have an epistemology simply has a
bad one.
Transdisciplinarity framed in this way becomes more than simply engaging in
research using a plurality of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives. It becomes an
inquiry into the nature of knowledge, as well as demanding of the researcher an
ongoing process of self-reflection and self-inquiry an elucidation of how we
ourselves create our understanding of the world, how that understanding emerged
through our own personal and social history, by being embodied and embedded,
and how it (and we ourselves) can be opened and indeed transformed as we
develop a more nuanced, creative epistemology and way of being in the world.
About the Author
Alfonso Montuori, PhD, is Professor at California Institute of Integral Studies,
where he designed and teaches in the Transformative Leadership M.A. and the
Transformative Studies Ph.D. He was Distinguished Professor in the School of Fine
Arts at Miami University, in Oxford Ohio and in 1985-1986 he taught at the Central
South University in Hunan, China. An active musician and producer, in a former life
Alfonso worked in London England as a professional musician. He is the author of
several books and numerous articles on creativity and innovation, the future,
complexity theory, and leadership. Alfonso is also a consultant in the areas of
creativity, innovation and leadership development whose clients have included
NetApp, Training Vision (Singapore), Omintel-Olivetti (Italy) and Procter and Gamble.
Tweet
Facebook
LinkedIn