Discussions regarding interdisciplinarity seem to almost always focus on: the validity of the rise of new disciplines, the increasing interconnectedness between disciplines, the relations between science and literature in particular, and the function and place of disciplines within modern day (and future) colleges. Of course, these discussions can lead to so many more, and, as Moran has proven, interdisciplinarity deals with so many more topics than those listed above. Interestingly (or maybe not), Moran’s arguments and statements about interdisciplinarity are only worth thinking about if we accept, just as Moran does, the inherent value of education. But who wouldn’t, right?
I was almost astounded when coming across something in my Anthropology textbook, Window on Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology. Conrad Kottak writes “Luis Inacio da Silva, or Lula, a former factory worker with only a fourth-grade education, served two terms (ending in 2011) as one of the Western Hemisphere’s most popular leaders” (403). An understandable immediate reaction, as mine was, is to feel completely dumbfounded. How could someone with only a fourth grade education be suitable to take the role of President of Brazil? Interestingly, Kottak almost seems to suggest that he was a suitable fit, saying “Brazil’s lower class (indeed the entire nation) benefited socioeconomically when one of its own was elected president” (403). Here, it seems that Kottak is making the bold claim that presidency is more about being able to relate to and understand the people, rather than being quite educated and therefore having a certain knowledge regarding which decisions would likely benefit the people. Our ethnocentric view, biased in many ways because of our American cultural views on the circumstances surrounding presidency, makes us prone to be critical of this president.
According to Kottak, however, he was “one of the Western Hemisphere’s most popular leaders” (403). Discussions regarding interdisciplinarity surround themselves in the root of education influence, therefore leading us to not even consider questioning the value of education in itself. I don’t mean to argue that education isn’t valuable, but maybe the conversation surrounding interdisciplinarity needs to begin somewhere that is less grounded and more inclusive. Indeed, this may not be the conversation that Moran wants to have, but it can still be one that is valuable too.