It’s About Time

Everyone is guilty of yelling at their phone at least once in their life. It is a very strange concept if you really think about it. We scream at this inanimate object, as if we expect a response in return. It is not that we are actually angry at our phone. We are upset at the fact that our phone is already malfunctioning, despite purchasing it not too long ago. At least with my phone, I have noticed that it seems to subtly get worse and worse with every use. This then made me question as to whether or not our phones were built to last. It seems that technology these days takes advantage of our materialistic tendencies. They know that they can sell a product with a predisposed life expectancy because we tend to favor “new” over “old.” However, this is not a new concept. This characterizes the planned obsolescence, which encompassed the automobile industry of America in the 1950s. Demand was created for goods through stylistic changes in products. However, these products used bad craftsmanship to persuade Americans that they needed to replace their goods every so often. Manufacturers of products are essentially playing with time as they shorten the lifespan of goods to comply with our infatuation with the “next best thing.”  Everything has some form of relationship with time.   In this case, manufacturers are forcing the relationship for the sole reason to make money. If they wanted to make a product that would last longer, they could. As we grow and advance as a civilization, our ability to manipulate the boundaries of time only gets better. We can essentially control an object’s relevance in our world. This then made me question as to whether or not this concept also applies to the different disciplines.

Everything in our world is subject to the consequences of time, including the different disciplines. In the conclusion of Interdisciplinarity, author Joe Moran states that critics of interdisciplinarity acknowledge that the, “interdisciplinarity study represents the future of the university” (167). With this in mind, I believe that this can also be read as: the university represents the future of interdisciplinarity study. The relationship can be viewed as mutually inclusive, for both the university and interdisciplinarity study equally depend on one another in order to thrive. Without the different disciplines, there would be nothing to learn. On the other hand, without the university, there would be nowhere to learn. Both essentially rely on each other to maintain their relevance in society. There are so many moving parts, which both the disciplines and the university depend on. Their dependent nature ultimately comments on life’s ephemerality.   If we truly think about, things are always coming and going in our lives. From the fads, which characterize our childhood to the shows on TV which are no longer on air, there will always be something new to replace the old. There are also so many external factors, which dictate the life expectancy of everything from our phones to our own lives. The things that truly last in our world are the things that hold the most meaning to us. Things like relationships and heirlooms are what usually withstand the boundaries of time due to the time it takes to build the connection we have with them. Something will only be relevant if we make an effort to keep it in our lives. With this is mind, this makes me question as to whether or not the disciplines will maintain their relevance in our world. As a society, we value education as a means to better the quality of life, making it hard to not assess interdisciplinarity study as a crucial aspect of society. The disciplines do hold such an intrinsic legacy in our world that they will be here to stay in my lifetime. However, I cannot speak for the future, because anything can change in a moments notice.

Sources:

Kleiman lecture, September 17, 2015.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.