New is something that can be debated as non-existent due to intertextuality. How can something be original or new if everything is inherently connected? It would have been seen before or at least a part of the ‘new’ thing/idea/thought/etc would have been seen before, consciously or subconsciously. But this assumption rests on every person having full knowledge of everything. And no one is that knowledgeable.
So, new is a possibility, but is that the goal of interdisciplinarity? When you think about disciplines, they can’t possibly be restricted the way everyone believes. Science itself contains math and English. Math could be considered a symbolic language, therefore related to English. And so on, every discipline can be related to another discipline in some aspect. However, this separation is necessary in some ways. Since people cannot be all knowing, they choose to follow a certain path — something they love or are passionate about or are just really good at. The separation of disciplines is needed to allow people to become all knowing about a certain field, giving them a sense of control and power.
When people pride themselves on their discipline as being better than others, that’s when the problem arises. If every discipline was treated equally and respected equally, the separation wouldn’t be so apparent or defined. Restrictions are usually made by people who don’t want interdisciplinarity.
Can a balance ever be achieved? Can we find a system that would allow for an environment with optimal learning conditions? Can we exist within and without interdisciplinarity?