Transdisciplinarity
through Structured Dialogue
Beyond sterile
dualities in meetings to the challenge of participant
impotence
- / -
Transdisciplinary
ambiguity
What indeed is
transdisciplinarity and who could possibly be interested in it? As with many
events that bring together unusual combinations of people, it is less interesting what it "is"
and
more interesting what a range of committed individuals assume it to be from their various
perspectives. Lack of detail in any preliminary announcements then contributes to diversity and
surprises.
Whereas many are
familiar with efforts at interdisciplinarity over the past decades,
transdisciplinarity is as yet poorly defined -- if it does not lie beyond definition as commonly
accepted. Clearly it is in some way associated with whatever can be understood to be
"beyond" interdisciplinarity and a discipline-bound perspective.
What it might be
is obviously of fundamental concern to philosophers, logicians and those
concerned with any form of epistemology or challenges to conventional logic. And philosophers
and mathematicians concerned with "complexity" were indeed represented at the event. But it
is
also of concern to physicists faced with the constraints and limitations of their methodology. But
the technical questions of such disciplines do not prevent those from the social sciences from
having their own understanding of its significance.
A choir of disciplines?
It would be inspiring
to imagine a choir of disciplines gathered together on such a challenging
occasion. How would they divide into sections -- and on the basis of what common qualities?
How would their multi-part song take form as a self- organizing whole? With what insights
would the functions of a Kapelmeister be performed -- if such a role was necessary?
Would transdisciplinarity
emerge as the musical form to which all perspectives collectively
contributed -- each according to some appropriate timing, each from an appropriate register?
Superposition of understandings
Transdisciplinarity
might be thought of as a challenge to space- binding and time-binding
learning. A congress would therefore tend to show evidence of superposition of layers of insight
and understanding which in other circumstances might be separated over time and space.
This could be seen
in the emphasis, from one perspective, on the conventional linear
organization of the event. There were many solo presentations in sequence throughout each
packed day. But, to the surprise of many, a significant number of these mirrored common
themes that transcended conventional logics. The transcendence of duality was evoked in many
ways.
But in a context
where it was to be expected that every participant's understanding was
necessarily challenged and stretched by unfamiliar insights, distinguishing fruitful insight from
unhelpful distractions was no easy task. The event could thus be read and heard in a variety of
ways through superimposed layers of meaning and noise. Participants were free to project
significance into the dynamics or to strip them of meaning altogether.
In an event of
this nature, requiring a configuration of complementary insights, must significance
for one necessarily be meaningless to another for the congress to function effectively? Can such
an event transcend its own limitations without the apparent presence of such conceptual hubris?
How is the experience of hubris to be balanced against that of powerful harmonies?
Logistic shocks
It is occasionally
argued that useful communication in a conference can be most quickly evoked
by subjecting participants to a shared shock of some kind. Clearly few organizers would be
prepared to indulge deliberately in such risky exercises.
A latin environment
offers many natural opportunities through which to subject northerners to
useful shocks. Scheduling and arrangements are liable to evoke northern nervousness under the
best of circumstances. When should one start to panic: when transportation arrangements seem
unpredictably fluid; when the event is opened in the absence of many participants; when hotel
reservations have not been made; when there is no interpretation into a language one
understands; when there is no complete programme...?
Shocks of this
kind can usefully force participants into a mental framework that is detached
from conventional expectations. Responding in the moment to emerging configurations of
circumstances then makes for a more harmonious experience than a stressful need for
predictability. Surprises can be more effectively evoked, met and enjoyed. Encounters with
other participants under such conditions then have a more realistic quality going beyond shared
interests or congeniality. The reality of the event then permeates the content and process rather
than being detached from them as a neutral framework. Taken seriously transdisciplinarity does
indeed call for transformation of the framework within which it is considered and exercised.
Searching for keystones
From within an
architectural metaphor, any assembly of disciplines can be seen as a
configuration of walls and pillars. Each presentation effectively positions a new part of the
structure. Participants can wander between the parts as they emerge -- and to the extent that
they can negotiate the various barriers and pitfalls of a complex building site. Finding one's way
around is no trivial matter. Certain parts may make it easy to get lost - especially when the mist
comes down and all sense of context and perspective is lost. One may have odd encounters
with participants mysteriously busy in distant and unfrequented parts of the structure. One may
be drawn into furious activity in other more frequented parts.
Especially challenging
is the difference in what is seen by different participants. Some seem only
to see a rather primitive structure in the earliest stages of its construction -- or in the final stages
of its decay into ruins. Others seem to see a completed temple of integrative knowledge and
insight in all its glory. Wandering around an atemporal structure that flickers unpredictably in
this way between reality and potentiality is a real challenge to understanding. Some participants
seem to be engaged in constructing a roof in the absence of any substantive walls to support it.
There are magnificent doorways which, in the apparent absence of any walls, seem to lack any
justification -- except as a powerful symbol of future possibility. Where do they lead?
Marvellous windows seem to lack any support and yet let in light of unforeseen quality. And, as
in the most famous Escher drawings, stairways to higher levels often seem to lead paradoxically
back to their starting point, defying any normal sense of gravity in the process. Arguing in
circles then takes on new meanings.
Most confusion
seems to lie around the nature of the keystones on which any such edifice
depends. It is one thing to construct walls and pillars -- most disciplines have long practice in
building conceptual edifices. It is another to find the form through which such knowledge
structures can be meaningfully related to others to bear a load at a higher level. This is the
challenge of conceptual scaffolding. Again, some participants have an almost mystical approach
to the substance and design of keystones, others lapse into technicalities that fail to arouse
confidence elsewhere. There is a sense that much work remains to be done.
Most challenging
to the unwary is the apparent ability of some participants to work on higher
floors of the structure when the lower levels do not yet seem to offer any substantive support.
How do they get up there? Some seem to have specially powered elevators. What keeps them
there? With what materials are they working? What do they think they are doing? Are there yet
higher levels that one cannot see through the confusing mists of one's limited understanding? Is
one effectively a ghost oneself to someone observing from another part of the structure?
War of the maps
Under such circumstances
it is useful to pay careful attention to those who offer maps and plans
of the structure that is emerging into collective awareness. At such an event, many offer such
maps. The event could even be described as a "map market" with some stall- holders making
harder sales pitches whilst others seem relatively indifferent to the interest of potential buyers.
Their maps sketch in relations between certain parts or offer a general understanding of the
whole.
But there are difficulties
with such maps. Often these are a consequence of the limited extent to
which the map-maker has explored the structure as a whole. Some maps are imbued with the
mystique and wisdom of antiquity. Others seem to be simply out-of-date. The map-maker may
deny that certain features are part of the structure. Some maps are very sketchy indeed. Some
are based on quite bizarre projections. Some provide an excessive amount of detail for only a
very small part of the overall structure. Some are really only technical drawings relating to
particular aspects of the construction. But it is also important to recognize that everybody does
not need the same kind of map.
Most disturbing
are the situations in which participants argue for the respective merits of their
own map -- effectively denying that of others. How can one find a way to reconcile the maps to
facilitate the ability of people to navigate the structure? For even the process of discussion is
fraught with difficulty when there is no common language and people are suspicious of the
experience underpinning any given map they are offered. In French the "War of the Maps" (La
Lutte Des- cartes) suggests an interesting twist to the challenge. It is of course possible that
the
higher dimensionality of the transdisciplinary arena makes it inherently unmappable -- or
transcendent to the normal function of maps.
Coffee...what a break
There is now widespread
recognition that the real business of meetings takes place at coffee
breaks and meals.
Coffee breaks are
indeed a real relief from the substantive indigestion of lengthy presentations.
A different pattern of communication ensues. It is this switch in mode which is poorly
understood. Clearly the presentations provide substance for dialogue in the breaks. And the
breaks reframe the way in which the presentations are understood. They are necessary
complements.
But as with the
digestive or respiratory processes of the body, it is questionable whether
organizers know how to get the balance right. Too much inspiration? Too little expiration? Or
just plain breathlessness because of the high altitude? Maybe conferences need some
communication analogue to breathing exercises -- provided they can protect themselves from
the ministrations of self-righteous conference gurus!
"Trance-discipline"
Much has been be
said about the logical or other frameworks through which disciplines can be
related or integrated. Much stress can be placed on the need for understanding of a single
discipline before it can in any way be transcended. It is difficult to transcend that which one has
not acquired or gained some competence in. But then what is a discipline -- given that most
disciplines find ways to disparage or deny the legitimacy of others?
Then too, there
is a strong current, which was represented by some participants, favouring a
more experiential approach that is less dependent on ideas and more reflective of integrative,
grounded experience. Many spiritual, aesthetic and physical disciplines stress this perspective.
A more shamanistic
metaphor may be appropriate. In this sense the disciplines reflect the
habitual patterned (and often limited) behaviours with which many are often unfortunately
familiar in society today. Rather than a Kapelmeister, what the key player at a transdisciplinary
event then takes on are the functions of a Shaman. Through some suitably repetitive conference
ritual (not lacking at the 5-day event), the Shaman effectively evokes a "trance of the
disciplines" allowing new insights of a "supernatural" order to emerge. Like the Kapelmeister,
the Shaman uses disciplined chanting to good effect. Clearly to the detached observer, the sight
of a collection of disciplines indulging in activity of a dubious nature can only raise questions and
many doubts. And yet to others the "trance" offers experiential evidence of a higher order
whose operations are understood as vital to the organization of everyday life. What indeed
would entrance the disciplines and oblige them to constrain their habitual responses in useful
new ways?
Transcultural transfiguration
But why would poets
and artists of the highest repute choose to be present at such an event?
They have never received much consideration from the harder sciences. And yet they too
imagine a role for themselves in the transdisciplinary arena.
It is tempting
to accept that the sciences have reached the limit of their ability to articulate their
understanding of complexity in the formal languages which they cultivate. It is tempting to
foresee a time when higher orders of complexity can only be understood through the insightful
representations of the arts. For many participants that time may have already arrived. Formal
abstractions have come to be equated with aridity. The much sought integration may need to be
fired by experiential and aesthetic qualities.
Just as the scientific
disciplines must recognize their limitations in a transdisciplinary framework,
so it is with the artistic disciplines. Transfiguration is no trivial matter if it is to succeed. How
can
such disciplines bring to bear their aesthetic power to reframe and reconfigure that of which
others are aware? Of what idiosyncracies must they themselves be aware -- and leave behind
in this endeavour?
Symmetry
Each form of symmetry
can be said to imply the presence of a higher form of order. The nature
of that order can often only be surmised through a pattern of symmetry -- as a two dimensional
projection of what escapes the comprehension. The challenge is even greater when the
symmetry lies in the dynamics between intangible qualities or principles. This is especially so
when their apparent incompatibility can only be understood, if at all, as of a "complementary"
nature -- with all the paradoxical challenges this may imply.
It was for such
reasons that symbolists of various persuasion were attracted to the event. For it
is symbols that have been traditionally used to embody subtle qualities and it is through the
symmetry of symbols that higher orders of understanding are suggested. It is however one thing
to imply the possibility of such understanding and another to manifest it in practice -- especially
at a congress with others endowed with related or competing skills. But did some of these
differences, like those between the tones of specially tuned Tibetan temple bells, serve to create
the kind of interference patterns through which higher harmonics could be engendered and
heard? This calls for meeting skills of an unusually high order.
The local organizer
of the event, a well-known artist, had recently completed a book on five-
fold symmetry. But, curiously, and unrecognized by the organizers, the event was held in a hall
lit in such a way that the interference pattern between certain fixed lights created a striking
heptagram on the main wall -- an unusual pattern under any circumstances.
Design constraints
As with any work
of art, or any piece of research, there are outside influences that structure the
enterprise in ways that may appear less than fruitful. It is a truism that the more that a project is
international, intercultural or interdisciplinary, the lower the probability of institutional support.
This is hardly surprising when sponsoring and funding agencies are themselves organized to
reflect the high degree of fragmentation of contemporary society -- and pride themselves for
their practical realism and social relevance in doing so.
Sponsors fear any
form of innovation but require that projects appear innovative. This is a
traditional dilemma for innovators. Transformative processes must be disguised as exercises in
the reinforcement of the status quo. But in the case of this event the external pressures were
even more severe. In order to be eligible for funding, an open discussion-oriented congress had
to be presented as a closed, traditionally- ordered sequence of presentations -- minimizing the
amount of discussion. But the final institutional "sting" was that promised funding was then
decimated just prior to the event -- effectively preventing any interpretation between French
and English-speaking participants.
Even under such
circumstances there is a need to maintain acceptable links to the institutional
world. The wise may even allow traditional protocol to rule in potentially transformative
environments -- giving to Caesar, what is Caesar's. The wisdom of allowing Caesar to claim full
responsibility for creativity and innovation has long been recognized -- even when he fails to
recognize the limitations of his understanding of it.
Participant impotence
In a transformative
environment it is to be expected that transformative insights would co-exist
with a total lack of transformation. Optimistically these extremes may be seen as necessary
complements to each other, with the one providing stability to give birth to the other.
The event did however
provide some striking lessons in collective impotence and paralysis.
What lessons are to be learnt from participants waiting impatiently outside the conference hall,
inadvertently locked, when there is an open window via which the door may be opened? And
what is to be learnt from highly intelligent participants observing, without reaction, as the bus
they are in drives kilometres past the sole turn off to their conference site? The latter incident
may of course be reframed in terms of offering new experience -- but there are limits to such
intellectual gymnastics.
But what is to
be said of a conference that emerged as highly structured despite declared
intentions to the contrary? How is it that participants can accept their individual and collective
impotence so readily? With even the "complainers" acting discreetly and non- disruptively
in the
articulation of their complaints. Participants even failed to move to reconfigure the seats in a
circle -- which would have facilitated any dialogue. Is this the route to transdisciplinary
transformation?
There is an instructive
story about four able-bodied participants in such a meeting:
There was an opportunity
for a real transformative change initiative. Everbody was sure that
Somebody would take the opportunity. Anybody could have done so. But Nobody did.
Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's responsibility. Everybody thought
Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody was failing to do so. It ended
up
that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done!
In this way the
congress modelled the fundamental challenge of contemporary society. The best
and the brightest indulge in the structures and dynamics of the past -- since they continue to be
well-nourished by them. At the same time they are aware of the need for new forms, and may
even discuss and enthuse about them at great length. But the silken cords binding to the past
are very strong: avoidance of rudeness, respecting the eminent, acknowledging support, need
to avoid jeopardizing valued friendships, cultivating possible future relationships (and funding),
reliance on the "tired and true", etc.
Participant impotence: Mea culpa
Blame and scapegoating
others obscures the need to understand individual responsibility. Such
impotence is most frustrating when it is conscious:
(a) As an opening
speaker, what "spell" prevented me from restructuring my presentation to
involve the participation of others in dialogue? Having advised the organizers on such specific
challenges prior to the event (Reflections on the organization of transdisciplinary
conferences, Transnational Associations, 1994, 5, pp 292-301), what exactly prevented me
from switching to an emphasis on dialogue -- especially since I had already distributed a
prepared paper to all? Agreed there is always a case for using a presentation to establish one's
own legitimacy and the coherence of any transdisciplinary enterprise. Caesar needs to be
reassured, even when he has withdrawn much of his financial support. Opening speakers are
expected to offer coherence. But perhaps the error is to be caught up in this role rather than
bridging to the urgent need for self-organizing dialogue as a contemporary challenge to both
content and process in meetings which claim to be innovative.
(b) As a participant,
what "spell" prevented me from vigorously protesting certain "abuses" and
styles of presentation? Why did I not plead for dialogue in a more open meeting? Is there no
limit to tolerance? But then again, I had already said my piece. With what justification could I
challenge the rights of others? But why not simply voice that dilemma? There were many others
holding that view.
By buying into
a traditional communication pattern, this was effectively reinforced for a whole
chain of speakers. And for each speaker it became more difficult to break the pattern and give
up the opportunity to say one's piece -- even though this precluded any dialogue.
Traditional speeches
from the podium are a comforting ritual - - a contemporary form of chant.
Other forms of communication involve a much higher order of risk. Failure to take such risk
prevents participants from bringing their collective insights to bear on the issues of how to
redesign or co-create their communication environment in the spirit of those insights which
purportedly unite them.
Are there other
ways of approaching such participant impotence? At an event in which there
was much stress on duality and its transcendence -- with an emergent third -- there might have
been a case for calling upon the insights of the psychoanalysts present, especially those of
Freudian orientation. Could such impotence be seen in terms of psycho- sexual metaphors?
Whether a question of impotence or frigidity in the face of transformation, it suggests some
deep- seated fear of conceptual "consummation" through which the excluded third takes form.
Faced with duality,
the transdisciplinary participant is effectively unable to act. As elsewhere,
such impotence can only be discussed with the greatest discretion. It must be disguised and
reference to it must be avoided in polite society -- despite its obvious implications for the
political impotence currently evident within the international community. This would suggest that
there is a need to completely reframe the way in which conference participants approach such
duality. As in contemporary society, the pattern of contextual stress is recognized as a severe
inhibitor of healthy response. But should this suggest a search for psychic aphrodisiacs to
facilitate the necessary response to duality?
Participant discipline
If a choir is a
useful metaphor, it highlights the need for the individual discipline of the
participants. It is one thing for meeting participants to claim to practice a discipline, but it is
another for them to act in a disciplined manner within a meeting. The issue of participant
discipline is seldom raised explicitly -- except in the stressful irritation of session chairpersons
endeavouring to ensure respect for a much abused meeting schedule.
The art of "terminating"
an inappropriate presentation remains elusive under the best of
circumstances. There are always participants who overrun their time, depriving others of similar
opportunities. To do so, some shamefully abuse their status as world authorities, honoured
guests or sponsors -- and are allowed to do so, despite considerable irritation. Some launch
into lengthy anecdotes from their life story, abusing real appreciation for their achievements.
Some see their presentation as an opportunity for personal dramatization -- so drama too was
well- represented at Arrabida! This may take the form of personal testimony -- converting the
gathering into a testimony meeting in which applause is required as necessary affirmation. Some
abuse a gathering as a marketing or self- promotional opportunity before a trapped audience.
At a gathering
in which many have a theoretical interest in self- organization processes, what
prevents them from acting in such a way as to augment the self-organization of the event itself?
Why the dependence on father figures to ensure good behaviour on the basis of dubious
criteria? Is it a proven fact that mature participants are unable to exhibit the personal discipline
to order their behaviour without such intervention? Perhaps attention should be focused on the
contrasts between a typical Western "organized" choir and the self-organizing variety
characteristic of some African cultures?
Ironically the
challenge of participant impotence in the face of such abuses may be taken as an
excess of participant discipline - - but of an antiquated kind. The challenge is that participants
misbehave when given the freedom to do so as presenters, but they behave like chastened
children, denying all responsibility, when relegated to the function of listeners.
There is a need
for a new participant discipline for those seeking to function in transdisciplinary
gatherings. A Charter of Transdisciplinary Meeting Participants might be a useful beginning
(cf Pattern of Meeting Participant Roles; the shdowy roundtable hidden within every meeting.
Brussels, UIA, 1993). As in the case of a singer, it would highlight the way in which a
participant could most useful contribute to a collective song. It would clarify entry cues and the
moments when a particular voice should cease. It would articulate the function of counter- point
and the disciplines of multi-part song. Different styles of singing would be contrasted (to avoid
vain attempts to combine the equivalent of Georgian chant and hard rock!). It would clarify,
despite the best of intentions, how each participant brings both key insights and unfortunate
ways of undermining the quality of the collective song.
Purpose: a new route to the "Indies"?
What might have
been the purpose of the congress? What quality was being optimized? Or
were there a multiplicity of mutually indifferent agendas?
At best a self-organizing
event could be understood to be refining and reframing a purpose
through its own processes. This would of course be anathema to any conventional sponsor and
to many participants. Intentions are expected to pre- date any serious project. Spontaneous
discovery is to be kept to a minimum. Meetings are expected to produce pre- defined
products. It is no wonder that meetings come up with very little that is new -- they are designed
that way. Meetings are not intended to focus on the transformative quality of the moment --
which may be why they do seldom give rise to anything of moment!
There was of course
the undercurrent of shared concern that disciplines have failed to respond
to the social challenge of the emerging social crisis. And in many ways their arrogance and
complacency have served to exacerbate contemporary problems and the conceptual gridlock
in responding to them.
What surprises
are in store for the transdisciplinary enterprise? What might it be expected to
discover in this way?
Meeting enfoldment
Given the quality
of those assembled at the monastery, it was to be expected that patterns of
insight would be articulated in such a way as to resonate with one another. Complementarities
were brought to light. Conceptual relationships and other bonds were affirmed. The harmonies
and discords relating particular perspectives were carefully cultivated and contextualized,
notably in relation to the rhythm of the meeting. Paradoxes were suitably held and configured.
The arduous sequence of presentations could be seen as the carrier wave for such construction
-- both occupying those susceptible to distraction as well as focusing the intentions of the
gathering. The conceptual scaffolding became progressively more transparent.
The metaphor of
an antenna is useful in this context. A suitable array of concept detectors can
be used to capture insights which are difficult to resolve under other circumstances. Whether
the antenna could have been better designed is another matter -- a circular array instead of a
linear one? And towards what was the array oriented?
But what was done
with the insights captured in this way? It cannot be said that they were
processed in any ordinary way - - although those looking for a conventional product will find
one. Rather they were somehow fed back onto the meeting processes so that the content
became the process. The gathering became producer and produced -- it became what might
be called a meta-object or a meta-subject. There emerged a form of self-reflexiveness that was
imbued with the aesthetic and spiritual qualities of the monastery and its environment. Perhaps it
was no accident that the monastery is nestled into the slopes of a sacred mountain on which
one of Portugal's most famous mystic poets had lived as a hermit. Beauty can function as the
subtlest of contextual frameworks.
Can a meeting be
said to enfold itself, gathering and configuring its elements into a higher
dimensional construct? Is this construct to be considered subject or object? Or, as emphasized
in a number of presentations, both-subject-and- object? Or again, in the light of Eastern logics,
might it also be neither-subject-nor-object? How may such a construct be said to act, if action
is how it should be understood?
Are the fragmented
frameworks of individual participant experience to be considered a
necessary counter-balance to such meeting enfoldment? For clearly there is never any lack of
participants who experience a gathering as a jumble of relative meaningless contributions. How
then do participants work together to evoke such enfoldment? And in what way does it touch
them thereafter?
Embodiment of insight
Was it an effort
to give form to Herman Hesse's Glass Bead Game in which the skills of the
sciences are so intimately entwined with those of the arts? As representative "singers" of
the
disciplines, what were participants striving to achieve through their responses to one another?
Can the quality
of the endeavour be more appropriately evoked by the following description by
philosopher Antonio de Nicolas (1978) of the four complementary conceptual languages of the
Rg Veda that are considered necessary to hold the complexity of insights and experience:
"Therefore, from a
linguistic and cultural perspective, we have to be aware that we are dealing
with a language where tonal and arithmetical relations establish the epistemological
invariances....Language grounded in music is grounded thereby on context dependency; any
tone can have any possible relationship to other tones, and the shift from one tone to another,
which alone makes melody possible, is a shift in perspective which the singer himself
embodies. Any perspective (tone) must be 'sacrificed' for a new one to come into being;
continuity, and the 'world' is the creation of the singer, who shares its dimensions with the song.
In ancient times, the infinite
possibilities of the number field were considered isomorphic with
the infinite possibilities of tone...Rg Veda man, like his Greek counterparts, knew himself to be
the organizer of the scale, and he cherished the multitude of possibilities open to him too much
to freeze himself into one dogmatic posture. His language keeps alive that 'openness' to
alternatives, yet it avoids entrapment in anarchy. It also resolves the fixity of theory by setting
the body of man historically moving through the freedom of musical spaces, viewpoint
transpositions, reciprocities, pluralism, and finally, an absolutely radical sacrifice of all theory
as a fixed invariant." (Antonio de Nicolas, Meditations through the Rg Veda. Boulder,
Shambhala, 1978, p. 57)
What next?
1. Constraints
