Some of these problems and' fa

liberal arts and interdisciplinary em.c..i

fully formed on the bald prairie of AJbc
intellectual convictions of people at Au
prides itself on teaching exceUena:
interdisciplinarity. As recently as fiYl
talking about the value and the teosioa
"BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME!"
In response to this lack, Dianoia was ..
FRUSTRATIONS IN INTERDISCIPLINARITY through the issues.
AND THE LffiERAL ARTS
All this looks good, but as alway!
Bruce Janz My own intuition of what liberal arb
Philosophy/Interdisciplinary Studies students) the active questioning of ideas
Augustana University College a sense of complacency by a well-told !
Alas, this ideal is depressingly 6u
attempt to teach a third-year intellectua
The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Liberal Arts (CIRLA) has fashion. My colleague (an economist) _
as its mandate to advance the dialogue about the nature and application of the a coherent narrative of the last three or Ii
liberal arts and sciences and interdisciplinary teaching and research, in post­ practice, and at the same time destabiW
secondary education in Canada and around the world. CIRLA attempts to by telling the stories of the history of phi
accomplish its mandate in diverse ways: through the publication of Dianoia Each of us would then raise questions Ii
(which until this issue has been under the Social Sciences and Humanities narrative the other had presented. We
Research Council of Canada funding CIRLA receives, but henceforth will be highlight the fact that the tensions ben
separate), through the sponsorship of colloquia and conferences, and through the academics tell are felt at a popular level.
establishment and maintenance of research forums and tools such as the own stories, the things that members
electronic mailing list CIRLA-L, the CIRLA gopher, and other initiatives. marginalized in order to have a story Ih
atgue that while we need to make sense (
are a good way of doing this), there are
NOW THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT IS OUT OF THE WAY••• the process of understanding has to take
continuities.
Actually, I thought it was important that the readers of Dianoia realize
that this journal is part of a larger commitment to research and dialogue, and Sounds great in theory. Studeol
that the various initiatives support each other. Having said that, though, readers enthusiastic- "But it doesn't make sense Ii
should also know that involvement with CIRLA or Dianoia is hardly an There was great resistance during the
unambiguous activity. The mandate is far from an evangelistic crusade designed disciplinary narratives. Now, this could
to convert the academic world to the true faith of liberal arts education. While However, for me at least, students seem I
we have a certain commitment to the liberal arts (or we would not have agreed often with very similar material. My t
to spend hours on administrative and editorial tasks, instead of writing within thing. The explanation must lie somrewb
our own disciplines), there are real questions and tensions, even frustrations, at What happened? I think we have iI
issue in this form of education. That may be why liberal arts education remains look" liberal arts. Students are requim
interesting-after all this time, the problems have not been worked out. studies course. These are tealD-tau&hl
conversation between two or more d
represented by disciplines). The studeaI

90 Dj~
Spring 1995

lAKE SENSE TO ME!"
UERDISCIPLINARITY
IBERAL ARTS
Bruce Janz
Philosophyllnterdisciplinary Studies
Augustana University College
Research in the Liberal Arts (CIRLA) has
c about the nature and application of the
:iplinary teaching and research, in post­
uound the world. CIRLA attempts to
.ys: through the publication of Dianoia
lei' the Social Sciences and Humanities
CIRLA receives, but henceforth will be
DIJoquia and conferences, and through the
e:search forums and tools such as the
:JRLA gopher, and other initiatives.
:NT IS OUT OF THE WAY•••
dant that the readers of Dianoia realize
mmitment to research and dialogue, and
other. Having said that, though, readers
with CIRLA or Dianoia is hardly an
far from an evangelistic crusade designed
rue faith of liberal arts education. While
iberal arts (or we would not have agreed
editorial tasks, instead of writing within
e:stions and tensions, even frustrations, at
.y be why liberal arts education remains
Iblems have not been worked out.
Dianoia
Some of these problems and tensions arise from the actual practice of
liberal arts and interdisciplinary education. CIRLA and Dianoia did not appear
fully formed on the bald prairie of Alberta. Both arose from the educational and
intellectual convictions of people at Augustana University College. Augustana
prides itself on teaching excellence in liberal arts and innovation in
interdisciplinarity. As recently as five years ago it seemed that no one was
talking about the value and the tensions of the liberal arts, at least in Canada.
In response to this lack, Dianoia was launched and CIRLA was formed to work
through the issues.
All this looks good, but as always, practice is less glamorous than ideals.
My own intuition of what liberal arts means involves (in both faculty and
students) the active questioning of ideas and the willingness to not be lulled into
a sense of complacency by a well-told story.
Alas, this ideal is depressingly far from reality, as I found out in a recent
attempt to teach a third-year intellectual history course in an interdisciplinary
fashion. My colleague (an economist) and I decided that we wanted to both give
a coherent narrative of the last three or four hundred years of thought and social
practice, and at the same time destabilize that narrative. We did this, in part,
by telling the stories of the history of philosophy (my discipline) and economics.
Each of us would then raise questions for, and prod the sensitive spots in, the
narrative the other had presented. We used contemporary'l!lusic and art to
highlight the fact that the tensions between the grand explanatory· st~ries we
academics tell are felt at a popular level. We tried to show the "cracks· in our
own stories, the things that members of our own discipline ignored or
marginalized in order to have a story that makes sense. In short, we tried to
argue that while we need to make sense of things (and disciplinary explanations
are a good way of doing this), there are shortcomings to all good stories, and
the process of understanding has to take into account the cracks as well as the
continuities.
Sounds great in theory. Student evaluations, however, were less than
enthusiastic- "But it doesn't make sense to me" was a frequently echoed refrain.
There was great resistance during the term to the process of destabilizing
disciplinary narratives. Now, this could have been because we taught poorly.
However, for me at least, students seem generally satisfied in my other courses,
often with very similar material. My economist colleague reports the same
thing. The explanation must lie somewhere else.
What happened? I think we have illustrated here the tension in the "new­
look" liberal arts. Students are required at Augustana to take an integrative
studies course. These are team-taught courses that attempt to establish a
conversation between two or more different ways of knowing (usually
represented by disciplines). The students tend to resent having to take these
Spring 1995 91
courses, and the course evaluations show it. Why do they not like these basic skills such as speaking, writi.Og I
courses? There could be a number of reasons: discipline? •
1. Students may generally not like having to take anything outside of their These "weaknesses" ~ ~
chosen major. the focus of education, or more speci&
2. Students may regard the course as one in which professors are working But to understand the modem tensions
outside their areas of expertise, and therefore are less sure of the material. understand some of the origins of Ibe ,
(Professors, it should be said, have also voiced the same concern.)
3. Students often do not have any specific prerequisites for these courses, THE l\fEDIEVAL NOTION OF LD
and therefore this may be their first introduction to thinking between
disciplines. . "~iberal arts" is a very old CODCe!
4. Students may just like linear stories that make sense, and integrative theIr higher specialties, purported to
studies courses lack that linearity and coherence. education in the seven "liberal arts·: the
the quadrivium (arithmetic, astrooolD)
The fourth reason I suspect is the one behind some of the students' theology, law, medicine-assumed dW
hostility. Many of us (not only students) are more comfortable with stories that Middle Ages. Originally, then, stucJe:ot
make sense, that build from the simple to the complex, that have no cracks. could move on to the "higher" (i.e., ID
The history of academic story-telling in what we call "disciplines" reinforces this
tendency; through our various disciplinary narratives we gain an unshakable The progressivist understanding
faith in the ability of one discipline (our own!) to make sense out of everything, tempered with the conviction that tha1
or at least everything in a certain area. By inviting disciplines to talk to, and This commonality is expressed well in D
critique, each other, we ar~~nging students to question that conviction. We cover): "separate disciplines do not hm
call it teaching sfilaeiits--t~ think; the students see it as setting sail on a sea with as they are part of education, they alrea
no shores. But what commonality is there?
What I earlier called the "new-look" liberal arts is an attempt to draw the experience, but originally it seems that 1
strengths from the centuries-old tradition of liberal arts and sciences education, and expression than experience. In
and wed them to new ways of critically thinking through ideas. Put negatively, commonality came from Aristotle's SY"
it is an attempt to cover some weaknesses of (or answer some questions in) the There was no commonality of substance 4
liberal arts with interdisciplinary understanding, and vice versa. example, the studies of terrestrial and a
at all); every area began with its own urD
To what sort of (potential) weaknesses or questions am I referring? There was found in deductive method (which
are the ones you would expect: suspicion on the part of more specialized expression (which is why grammar I
disciplines toward a perceived lack of focus in interdisciplinary study; the sense quadrivium, then, was important as the I
that liberal arts education is impractical, or worse, the luxury of the wealthy, metho~ and expression. So knowledge w
idle, or unmotivated; the difficulty in modem times of ascertaining the goals and the skills and methods of discovery and ;
beneficiaries of a liberal education; and the constant public and government
suspicion concerning liberal education that does not unequivocally lead to (or There are several things to note ab
better yet, create) identifiable jobs. arts. First, "liberal" implied "abst.nlct.'
could master the abstract, the concrete
Also, there are potential weaknesses that arise in practice: how do you Individual members of a class, whether Ib
move from multidisciplinarity to interdisciplinarity? How is interdisciplinarity insignificant; if you knew that a set bad.
possible when faculty have been trained within disciplines, and are most individuals in that set varied was irreleYIIII
comfortable staying there? Do we need interdisciplinarity if we incorporate built into the structure of liberal arts edUI

92 Dianoill Spring 1995

lOW it. Why do they not like these
:asons:
aving to take anything outside of their
s one in which professors are working
d therefore are less sure of the material.
re also voiced the same concern.)
pecific prerequisites for these courses,
first introduction to thinking between
ries that make sense, and integrative
and coherence.
!be one behind some of the students'
) are more comfortable with stories that
: 10 the complex, that have no cracks.
what we call "disciplines" reinforces this
:wy narratives we gain an unshakable
own!) to make sense out of everything,
By inviting disciplines to talk to, and
students to question that conviction. We
dent" see it as setting sail on a sea with
It- liberal arts is an attempt to draw the
D.of liberal arts and sciences education,
thinking through ideas. Put negatively,
es of (or answer some questions in) the
tanding, and vice versa.
:sses or questions am I referring? There
icion on the part of more specialized
cus in interdisciplinary study; the sense
I, or worse, the luxury of the wealthy,
Idem times of ascertaining the goals and
iii the constant public and government
!bat does not unequivocally lead to (or
sses that arise in practice: how do you
ISciplinarity? How is interdisciplinarity
ned within disciplines, and are most
eO ihterdisciplinarity if we incorporate
Dianoia
basic skills such as speaking, writing, and critical thinking into courses in every
discipline?
These "weaknesses" become apparent in a modern age that has changed
the focus of education, or more specifically, the sense of the value of education.
But to understand the modern tensions in the liberal arts, it will be necessary 10
understand some of the origins of the liberal arts.
THE MEDIEVAL NOTION OF LIBERAL ARTS
"Liberal arts" is a very old concept. Medieval universities, while they had
their higher specialties, purported to give the arts student a well-rounded
education in the seven "liberal arts": the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, logic), and
the quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, music). The specialties­
theology, law, medicine-assumed this basic grounding, at least in the early
Middle Ages. Originally, then, students needed some fundamentals before they
could move on to the "higher" (i.e., more applied) disciplines.
The progressivist understanding of the liberal arts, though, must be
tempered with the conviction that there is a cOnunorraHfy to the liberal arts.
This commonality is expressed well in Dianoia's mission statement (inside front
cover): "separate disciplines do not have to loo~ for common ground: insofar
as they are part of education, they already share this common ground .•
But what commonality is there? We might talk of the unity of human
experience, but originally it seems that the unity was more a matter of method
and expression than experience. In the medieval version of liberal arts,
commonality came from Aristotle's systematic categorization of all knowledge.
There was no commonality of substance or content between areas of inquiry (for
example, the studies of terrestrial and celestial motion had nothing in common
at all); every area began with its own unique presuppositions. The commonality
was found in deductive method (which is why logic was important) and in
expression (which is why grammar and rhetoric were important). The
quadrivium, then, was important as the most abstract applications of deductive
method and expression. So knowledge was fragmented, bound together only by
the skills and methods of discovery and inference provided by the liberal arts.
There are several things to note about the medieval version of the liberal
arts. First, "liberal" implied "abstract." It was assumed that if the student
could master the abstract, the concrete would come as a matter of course.
Individual members of a class, whether that class was biological or logical, were
insignificant; if you knew that a set had a certain characteristic, finding out how
individuals in that set varied was irrelevant. The disregard for the concrete was
built into the structure of liberal arts education, and explains why the problem
Spring 1995 93
of individuation was such a major preoccupation for philosophy in the late or even more abstract ones, like tbeoIoJ
Middle Ages. stayed for only two or three years....
Second, "liberal" also implied "foundational." If students had the working on a higher degree. ScbolaBh
groundwork, they should be able to build up the superstructure of knowledge. tended to be inferior in quality, aJt:hougI
Liberal education came with all the implications of any foundationalism-that (see Kenny and Pinborg, 1982:11-11).
building on the foundation guarantees knowledge, that progress is possible, that arts were seen as a necessary prerequisi
structure assures the reliability of content.
, The historical sketch above may
The metaphor of the foundation calls up images of architecture. A hb,eral a~s, in that I seem to be implyinJ
foundation suggests that a body of knowledge is a static thing, built for centuries helfarchlcal, class-driven, and combativl
of use, like medieval cathedrals. A good foundation means that a structure will are. My point is simply that the libel
have permanence. Permanence meant that the structure could be built larger and process that has a certain beginning. W
more elaborately. A liberal education in its original sense, therefore, assumes present-day practice in the liberal arts i1
the progressive, permanent nature of knowledge. and negative aspects of the origins of I
echo down to the present day.
Third, as the name suggests, the "liberal" arts had something to do with
liberty, or freedom. These arts were liberal in two ways. First, they were the The liberal arts, then, have an •
arts that a free person could undertake (the original meaning of the term "liberal education in the liberal arts of the Midi
arts"). This sense of the term "liberal" points to class divisions. The liberal Aristotelian understanding of the com
arts were the pursuit of rela~ively well-off freemen. They were possible because convinced its students of the relative uni
some people had access to family wealth, or had some other form of income. truth, and of the split between the theor
Not everyone was liberated in the sense that the liberal arts required. Slaves hand, the students also gained a keen Sf
and women, for example, were left out, as were those who did not have the discourse in thought (after all, they becao:
financial resources to support this type of education. The medievals recognized that knowledge
only logical. And, contrary to the Reoai
As well, the liberal arts could be seen as the "liberating" arts, in that they a great deal of important work was doil
freed the student to have access to knowledge. The second definition suggests social organization, spirituality, and otbe
that if students had the necessary intellectual tools, they could explore any area
of knowledge. But what were these tools? They were the tools of abstraction, My students may be justified in fe
inference, analysis, and expression of a coherent argument that would persuade source of that frustration comes from tb
an opponent. They were tools that, while not necessarily useful only in education itself has its own cracks. As ~
confrontation, certainly historically found their use there. The medieval system same thing my intellectual history studenb
of education was more akin to warfare than anything else-the lecturers gave the once applied would guarantee a certain ki
students ammunition by reading and explaining the texts of the Bible, Augustine, student. But before giving up on ~
Aristotle, Peter Lombard, or whoever. Fully armed, the students waged mock trick left in my bag. Maybe the liben
battles called disputations, in which all issues had two sides and masters and template: interdisciplinarity.
students tried to thrust and parry their way to logical victory. The liberal arts
were the tools of war, not of peace, and they taught confrontation, not
cooperation. Construction of a viable position on anything always came at the INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND THE I
expense of the destruction of an opponent.
Interdisciplinarity does not assume
Finally, a liberal arts education was not the goal of education, but the foundation, but rather that it is located in III
prerequisite. Although it rarely happened (due to financial pressures), a bachelor Interdisciplinary research and teaching teal
of arts was supposed to be preparation for practical arts like medicine or law, and as such occurs in the creative teosic

94 Dianoia Spring 1995

reoccupation for philosophy in the late
-foundational." If students had the
DId up the superstructure of knowledge.
nplications of any foundationalism-that
cnowledge, that progress is possible, that
eot.
ID.calls up images of architecture. A
~edge is a static thing, built for centuries
od foundation means that a structure will
Ibat the structure could be built larger and
in its original sense, therefore, assumes
mowledge.
~ -liberal" arts had something to do with
liberal in two ways. First, they were the
(the original meaning of the term "liberal
11- points to class divisions. The liberal
off freemen. They were possible because
11th, or had some other form of income.
LSe that the liberal arts required. Slaves
at, as were those who did not have the
~ of education.
,seen as the "liberating" arts, in that they
)Wledge. The second definition suggests
lectual tools, they could explore any area
lOis? They were the tools of abstraction,
Il coherent argument that would persuade
:" while not necessarily useful only in
md their use there. The medieval system
!han anything else-the lecturers gave the
plaining the texts of the Bible, Augustine,
. Fully armed, the students waged mock
n issues had two sides and masters and
. way to logical victory. The liberal arts
:e. and they taught confrontation, not
position on anything always came at the
!leDt.
I was not the goal of education, but the
ed (due to financial pressures), a bachelor
I for practical arts like medicine or law,
Dianoia
or even more abstract ones, like theology. Many teachers in the faculty of Arts
stayed for only two or three years, and taught to make money while they were
working on a higher degree. Scholarship that came out of the liberal arts often
tended to be inferior in quality, although there were some important exceptions
(see Kenny and Pinborg, 1982: 11-17). Thus, even at the beginning, the liberal
arts were seen as a necessary prerequisite for more lucrative pursuits.
The historical sketch above may seem to throw a negative light on the
liberal arts, in that I seem to be implying that the liberal arts are simply abstract,
heirarchical, class-driven, and combative. Are they not useful? Of course they
are. My point is simply that the liberal arts are the product of a historical
process that has a certain beginning. While this beginning does not necessitate
present-day practice in the liberal arts, it is still useful to reflect on the positive
and negative aspects of the origins of the liberal arts, and how those origins
echo down to the present day.
The liberal arts, then, have an ambiguous philosophical heritage. An
education in the liberal arts of the Middle Ages was thoroughly rooted in an
Aristotelian understanding of the compartmentalization of knowledge, and
convinced its students of the relative unimportance of i I1 dividual experience to
truth, and of the split between the theoretical and the prlletical. On the other
hand, the students also gained a keen sense of the importance of the place of
discourse in thought (after all, they became experts in dialectic and disputation).
The medievals recognized that knowledge had some commonality, even if it was
only logical. And, contrary to the Renaissance slurs against the Middle Ages,
a great deal of important work was done on the nature of the human mind,
social organization, spirituality, and other areas of human concern.
My students may be justified in feeling frustrated, but perhaps the real
source of that frustration comes from the realization that the liberal model of
education itself has its own cracks. As a professor, I may be looking for the
same thing my intellectual history students are: a nice linear story, a method that
once applied would guarantee a certain kind of product-the liberally-educated
student. But before giving up on making sense of the liberal arts, I have one
trick left in my bag. Maybe the liberal arts can be retooled using a new
template: interdisciplinarity.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND THE LIBERAL ARTS
Interdisciplinarity does not assume that knowledge is constructed on a
foundation, but rather that it is located in the interstices of traditional disciplines.
Interdisciplinary research and teaching tends to be concrete, rather than abstract,
and as such occurs in the creative tension and interplay that happens when
Spring 1995 95
disciplines address a common issue or engage in some dialogue. Each discipline c1ai~ to have perfected anything. But d
becomes that which constructively illuminates the presuppositions and all, it can also mean stagnation.
commitments of the other, rather than attempting to subsume aU other disciplines
under one way of knowing. Interdisciplinarity assumes cooperation, not
confrontation, and at its best is democratic, rather than hierarchical. And for
many, interdisciplinarity is the goal of education, the place where the most
WORK!
interesting research is conducted.
This makes interdisciplinarity sound like the cure-all for the limitations of Bonner, . ~eran. 1994. InterdiscipIinl
the liberal arts. However, it must be recognized that there are problems and thlnklDg and the university ordI
limitations inherent in interdisciplinarity itself. How, for example, can we avoid inquiry. In Dianoia 3(2)/4(1) Spr
the danger of simply mining other disciplines for the benefit of one discipline?
Can we avoid a "transdisciplinary" totalizing vision (or would we even want Janz, Bruce..1994. Review of lnlerdin:q,
to?), which makes all disciplines the handmaids of one new "meta-discipline?" by Juhe Thompson Klein. In Din.
(see Klein, 1990 and my review in Janz, 1994). Is it possible to come to a
stronger realization of th~~dentity of particular disciplines in cooperative Kenny, Anthony and Jan Pinborg. 1982
dialogue with other disciplines,'or does the field necessarily become competitive The Cambridge History o/Later jj
and isolationist? And, perhaps most importantly, does interdisciplinarity actually Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny an
water down research and teaching, making dilettantes and amateurs of us all? Cambridge University Press.
It may be that the rootedness of the historical liberal arts is needed to focus
interdisciplinarity and provide the initial basis for dialogue (similar issues are Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990.lnterdiscip
raised in Bonner, 1994). Detroit: Michigan: Wayne State P
Like my students, I have to come to terms with the fact that there is no
grand unifying narrative that "makes sense" out of education once and for all.
Liberal arts education in the modem university is being transformed, and a new
model for understanding knowledge is emerging. The emphasis on inter­
disciplinary research and teaching is a move in that direction, but it has to be
noted that this represents a change in the nature of liberal arts teaching, from
foundation to interrelation, from abstraction to intersubjectivity, from pre­
condition of knowledge to touchstone of knowledge, from suspicion to co­
operation. At the same time, it is also not a change at all, but a recovery, a
repetition (in Kierkegaard's sense), an attempt to restate for a new time what
was valuable about a past practice.
The point, then, is that things are not as simple as they seem. Liberal arts
does not have the unequivocally positive history that we might think. And,
interdisciplinarity has its problems as well. Some kind of self-conscious
dialogue is necessary between the two.
Well, will any of this satisfy the recalcitrant students in our inter­
disciplinary history of ideas course? Perhaps not. Maybe I'm not looking for
a cure at this point, but just an explanation for their frustration and a way to
frame the right questions about liberal education. These ruminations do tell me
that more thought has to be put into the new-look liberal arts before we can

96 Dianoia Spring 1995

agage in some dialogue. Each discipline claim to have perfected anything. But then, maybe perfection is overrated-after
illuminates the presuppositions and all, it can also mean stagnation.
lempting to subsume all other disciplines
isciplinarity assumes cooperation, not
:alic, rather than hierarchical. And for
f education, the place where the most WORKS CITED

iDd like the cure-all for the limitations of
recognized that there are problems and
ritself. How, for example, can we avoid
iplines for the benefit of one discipline?
:aIizing vision (or would we even want
mdmaids of one new "meta-discipline?"
nz., 1994). Is it possible to come to a
,f particular disciplines in cooperative
the field necessarily become competitive
IOrlantly, does interdisciplinarity actually
king dilettantes and amateurs of us all?
Listorical liberal arts is needed to focus
at basis for dialogue (similar issues are
Bonner, Kieran. 1994. Interdisciplinary dialogue and the tension between
thinking and the university order: An exercise in radical interpretive
inquiry. In Dianoia 3(2)/4(1) Spring: 1-24.
Janz, Bruce. 1994. Review of Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice,
by Julie Thompson Klein. In Dianoia 3(2)/4(1) Spring:138-140.
Kenny, Anthony and Jan Pinborg. 1982. Medieval Philosophical Literature. In
The Cambridge History ofLater Medieval Philosophy. Edited by Norman
Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny and Jan Pinhorg, 11-42. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History. Theory, and Practice.
Detroit: Michigan: Wayne State Press.

e to terms with the fact that there is no

ease" out of education once and for all.
iversity is being transformed. and a new
is emerging. The emphasis on inter­
move in that direction, but it has to be
!he nature of liberal arts teaching. from
traction to intersubjectivity, from pre­
1 of knowledge, from suspicion to co­
t) not a change at all, but a recovery, a

attempt to restate for a new time what

not as simple as they seem. Liberal arts

ive history that we might think. And,
s well. Some kind of self-conscious

the recalcitrant students in our inter­

lerhaps not. Maybe I'm not looking for
wion for their frustration and a way to
education. These ruminations do tell me
the new-look liberal arts before we can

Dianoia Spring 1995 97