Transgression – Transdisciplinarity – Translation

HERMENEUTICS, SOCIAL CRITICISM AND EVERYDAY EDUCATION pRACTICE ed. Rafał włodarczyk, wrocław 2020 rafał Włodarczyk university of wrocław TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon1 Limited as we are in every way, this state which holds the mean between two extremes is present in all our impotence Blaise Pascal, The Thoughts, 355 TRansGRessIon The phenomenon of dynamic development and wide dissemination of scientific­and­technical­knowledge­focuses­the­attention­of­sociology.­In­ particular it determines the state of its self­awareness, of course solely its own. By providing successive readings, especially intriguing ones, it inspires researchers and philosophers of science to verify them, as well as­to­conduct­further­research,­thus­influencing­the­course­and­forma­ tion of processes of developing specialist knowledge. Such intriguing impulses, which attract researchers’ attention, include the issue raised by­Wolf­Lepenies­in­his­essay­Fear and Science.­Lepenies­looks­at­this­ modern phenomenon not only from the point of view of the successes of the industrial revolution and the processes characteristic of modernity, 1­ Originally­published:­Rafał­Włodarczyk,­ “Transgresja­–­transdyscyplinarność­–­trans­ lacja”, [in:] Interdyscyplinarność i transdycyplinarność pedagogiki – wymiary teoretyczny i praktyczny,­ed.­R.­Włodarczyk,­W.­Żłobicki,­Impuls,­Kraków­2011,­p.­53–68. 27 which­have­contributed­to­the­growth­of­the­importance­of­both­fields­ and to their ordering and institutionalization, or philosophical efforts to examine their legitimacy, as well as the internal logic determining the appropriate ways of producing knowledge, division of labour and determining the tasks they should undertake in relation to this. The German researcher focuses his attention on science and technology in which western societies vest hopes to reduce or exclude fear of the forces of nature. The view of science as a radical means of reducing fear, if not eradicating it­altogether,­develops­in­early­modern­Europe­and­is­officially­confirmed­ and promoted by seventeenth­century academies […] 2. The­cognitive­enthusiasm­forming­the­scientific­mentality­of­modern­ researchers,­which­according­to­Lepenies­culminated­in­the­19th cen­ tury,­seems­to­be­not­without­significance­for­the­promotion­of­scien­ tific­attitudes­outside­the­narrow­circle­of­scientists­and­constructors,­ as well as for the assignment of social functions to science and tech­ nology. In other words, the development of science and its social sup­ port should be perceived in their interplay: Such­a­scientific­mentality­is­undeniably­gaining­in­importance­and­is­be­ coming a cultural given in western industrial societies, since science and technology are regarded here as the engines of the enlightenment and thus as the critical mechanisms which have liberated man from the forces of nature, which for centuries have been regarded as incomprehensible and which instill fear­­3. The progress of science and technology seen in this perspecti­ ve, which gives hope and has a real impact on the remodelling of the organization of western societies, numerous conveniences and an increase in labour productivity, builds up widespread belief in their effectiveness as a universal panacea. The development is mainly sup­ posed to foster the growth of the social sense of security. Therefore, 2­ W.­Lepenies,­“Lęk­a­nauka”,­[in:]­W.­Lepenies,­Niebezpieczne powinowactwa z wyboru, Warszawa­1996,­p.­36. 3­ Ibidem,­p.­35. 28 rAfAł włodArCzyk it can be assumed that research­oriented institutions designated in the social division of labour that enjoy trust and are strengthened by it have taken on the role of a kind of defensive mechanism of society, a­ buffer­ protecting­ its­ members­ against­ “direct”­ confrontation­ with­ fear, enabling, the delegation of fear of the forces of nature outside the framework of a typical social practice in the world of everyday life. And­if,­as­Lepenies­observes:­“Our­time,­more­than­the­earlier­periods,­ might be an era when large disputes about worldviews and politics evolve around the subject of fear” 4.­Then­it­is­so­because­“The­revealed­ inability of science and the politics it directs to deal with even a di­ stant catastrophe has its root cause in the inability of science to react appropriately to phenomena that cause anxiety”­­5.­Currently,­science­ and­technology­do­not­fulfil­the­function­entrusted­to­them­as­insti­ tutions,­which­constitutes­the­social­justification­indicated­here.­Their­ development not only fails to reduce social anxiety, but also introdu­ ces­numerous­threats­and­problems,­and­thus­intensifies­it. Self­deception is not a problem as long as science and technology conti­ nue to make spectacular progress in understanding external nature and in­ combating­ exogenous­ fears.­ However,­ this­ progress­ has­ been­ halted:­ genetic technology and the splitting of the atom have consequences that no longer eliminate fears, but awaken fears of irreversible pollution of the environment and destruction of our world of life 6. According­ to­ Urlich­ Beck,­ who­ studies­ the­ consequences­ of­ mo­ dernism­ like­ Lepenies,­ this­ new­ definition­ of­ the­ situation­ leads­ to­ a­radical­change­in­the­way­modern­societies­are­organised:­“we­are­ eye-witnesses­–­as­subjects­and­objects­–­of­a­break­within­moderni­ ty, which is freeing itself from the contours of the classical industrial society­and­forging­a­new­form­–­the­(industrial)­‘risk­society’”­­7. Beck places the re­evaluation of the relationship between science, tech­ nology and society in a broader perspective: the logic of the crisis of 4­ Ibidem,­p.­47. Ibidem, p. 49. 6­ Ibidem,­p.­51. 7 U. Beck, The Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity,­ London,­ New­ Bury­ Park,­ New­ Delhi 1992, p. 9. 5 TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 29 modernity­and­the­emergence­of­its­variant­which­is­reflexive­moder­ nity; the crisis of this modernity, for which one of the main determi­ nants was considered the planned and organized transformation of the conditions regarding functioning of western societies. Therefore, despite its revolutionary effects, such as the establishment of a new quality­in­the­form­defined­by­Beck­as­a­‘risk­society’,­the­change­itself­ should­be­seen­as­relatively­fluid: When modernization reaches a certain stage it radicalizes itself. It begins to transform, for a second time, not only the key institutions but also the very principles of society. But this time the principles and institutions being transformed are those of modern society 8. In other words, the threats posed by the modernisation process, hith­ erto of a local nature, as a result of the research progress and techno­ logical development, their intensity and systematic increase, have both increased­and­intensified,­which­has­fundamentally­changed­their­na­ ture and, in Beck’s opinion, resulted in the establishment of a separate ‘sphere’, not controlled by modern institutions, which generates risks that­are­difficult­to­define­and­assess­on­a­global­scale 9, the sphere re­ quiring radical changes in the way in which fundamental sources and methods of threat functioning are perceived and counteracted, and thus continue the process of modernisation on new principles: Modernity has not vanished, but it is becoming increasingly problematic. While crises, transformation and radical social change have always been part­of­modernity,­the­transition­to­a­reflexive­second­modernity­not­only­ changes social structures but revolutionizes the very coordinates, cat­ egories and conceptions of change itself. This ‘meta-change’ of modern society results from a critical mass of unintended side­effects 10. 8­ U.­Beck,­W.­Bonss,­Ch.­Lau,­“The­Theory­of­Reflexive­Modernization.­Problematic,­Hy­ potheses and Research Programme”, Theory, Culture & Society­2003,­Vol.­20,­p.­1.­See­ also:­U.­Beck,­“The­Reinvention­of­Politics”,­[in:] U.­Beck,­A.­Giddens,­L.­Scott, Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Stanford 1994,­p.­5–13. 9­ See­U.­Beck,­“On­The­Logic­Of­Wealth­Distribution­And­Risk­Distribution”,­[in:]­U.­Beck,­ The Risk Society,­op.­cit,­p.­19–50. 10­ U.­Beck,­W.­Bonss,­Ch.­Lau,­“The­Theory­of­Reflexive­Modernization”,­op.­cit.,­p.­2.­“This­ 30 rAfAł włodArCzyk Modernization of modernism, therefore, presupposes a social di­ vision of labour in which the role of science and technology is no lon­ ger clear. On the one hand, science and technology are still modern tools for reducing fear of the forces of nature, but on the other hand, fear of the forces released in the process of modernization requires the development of new means and methods of social prevention of threats­which­“they­also­cannot­be­determined­by­science” 11. Thus, the production of knowledge socially necessary to deal with new forms of threat exceeds the institutional order established as a result of mo­ dernisation and, as a social practice, ceases to be the domain of qu­ alified­ researchers.­ As­ Beck­ writes,­ “In­ risk­ issues,­ no­ one­ is­ expert,­ or everyone is an expert, because the experts presume what they are supposed to make possible and produce: cultural acceptance” 12. In the risk socjety, the recognition of the unpredictability of the threars provoked­by­techno-industrial­development­necessitates­self-reflection­ on the foundations of social cohesion and the examination of prevailing conversations and foundations of ‘rationality’. In the self­concept of risk society,­ society­ becomes­ reflexive­ (in­ the­ narrower­ sense­ of­ the­ word),­ which is to say it becomes a theme and a problem for itself­­13. Reflexive­modernisation­therefore­means­the­dissemination­of­research­ practices and the production of knowledge beyond the institutional fra­ mework­sanctioned­by­certain­procedures­specific­to­academic,­scien­ tific­and­technical­centres. TRansdIscIPlInaRITy It­is­disputable­to­what­extent­the­model­of­science­identified­with­the­ ideals of modernity was implemented in the times of the hegemony of new stage, in which progress can turn into self­destruction, in which one kind of modernization­ undercuts­ and­ changes­ another,­ is­ what­ I­ call­ the­ stage­ of­ reflexive­ modernization”­(U.­Beck,­“The­Reinvention­of­Politics”,­op.­cit.,­p.­2). 11­ U.­Beck,­“The­Reinvention­of­Politics”,­op.­cit.,­p.­6. 12 Ibidem, p. 9. 13 Ibidem, p. 8. TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 31 modernism, to what extent Western academies, research centres and institutions­ monitoring­ research­ and­ scientific­ careers­ absorbed­ it,­ thus incarnating a way of thinking about the production of knowledge taking into consideration such questions as: in which areas, at what modifications,­ social­ and­ moral­ costs,­ with­ what­ means,­ with­ what­ conviction or commitment, and with what resistance 14. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the history of research institutions, it is pos­ sible to trace the processes of disciplinarization and institutionaliza­ tion,­emergence­and­location­of­new­fields­and­specializations­within­ the­academic­division­of­scientific­work,­in­which­it­should­be­consid­ ered­typical.­As­Krzysztof­Michalski­writes: Specific­disciplines­are­governed­by­internal­logic­and­have­different­pat­ terns of rationality. They break down, or fragment the world into parts and layers, prepare their objects, adapt different methods to these pre­ parations,­ define­ in­ their­ own­ way­ specific­ and­ non-specific­ terms­ that­ are to describe and explain them. The positive effect of this development is­ a­ rapid­ increase­ in­ knowledge­ and­ in­ the­ efficiency­ of­ science,­ while­ the negative effect is the problems of structuring, systematizing and inte­ grating this knowledge and the resulting communication problems in the relations between science and science and science and society­­15. What cannot be underestimated is the fact that we are dealing with overlapping of two levels of functioning of the academia, i.e. the­ scientific­ and­ administrative­ ones,­ whose­ progressive­ rationali­ sations, in connection with different practices, tasks, objectives and procedures for the production of specialist knowledge and bureau­ cracy, are not easy to reconcile. Bureaucratisation, according to the 14­ 15 32 See­e.g.:­W.­Lepenies,­Between Literature and Science. The Rise of Sociology,­Cambridge­1988;­H.­Schnädelbach,­“Science”,­[in:]­H.­Schnädelbach,­Philosophy in Germany 1831–1933,­ Cambridge­ 1984;­ J.­ Habermas,­ “Modernity.­ An­ Unfinished­ Project”,­ [in:]­ Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity,­ed.­M.­Passerin­d’Entrèves,­S.­Benhabib,­Cambridge­1997;­ ­J.-F.­Lyo­tard,­The Postmodern Condition. A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis 1984. K.­Michalski,­“Interdyscyplinarność,­transdyscyplinarność,­multidyscyplinarność.­Nowy­ paradygmat w nauce i badaniach”, Ekonomia i Nauki Humanistyczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Rzeszowskiej­2007,­Issue­16,­p.­85. rAfAł włodArCzyk concept proposed by Max Weber 16, introduces work division in which posts­ and­ tasks­ are­ interconnected­ whereas­ the­ criteria­ of­ verifica­ tion of the conducted activities are included in rules and regulations. However,­the­practices­and­objectives­of­research­conducted­within­ particular­disciplines­are­not­clear­and­definite.­They­depend­on­com­ plex and changing research contexts, on the one hand, the growth of knowledge, which requires constant reinterpretation of assumptions and meanings of its components, and on the other hand, the current state­of­transformations­of­the­world,­the­dynamics­of­which­influen­ ces, among other things, the re­evaluation of tasks pursued by science, distinguishing among them the tasks oriented towards solving current social problems. The question arises, therefore, about the principle and­significance­of­the­cooperation­of­both­planes.­According­to­Jür­ gen Mittelstrass, certain problems cannot be captured by a single discipline. This is true, in particular,­of­those­problems,­as­for­instance­rendered­clear­in­the­fields­ of environment, energy and health, which arise from issues not exclusi­ vely­scientific.­There­is,­and­this­not­just­in­these­fields,­an­asymmetry­in­ the­ developments­ of­ problems­ and­ scientific­ disciplines,­ and­ this­ is­ ag­ gravated as the developments of disciplines and science in general are characterised by an increasing specialisation­­17. It seems that at the level of functioning of an individual employ­ ed in a research institute, the asymmetry between the management of problems and disciplines overlaps with the tension with which the researcher is confronted, between the professional interest and the cognitive interest. Due to the clearly designated pulse to which the researcher is subject, and a strict division into bars containing compo­ nents of a measurable value, the rhythm of professional duties (annual See M. Weber, Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. G. Roth, C.­Wittich,­Berkeley,­Los­Angeles,­London­1978,­p.­217–226,­956–1005. 17­ J.­ Mittelstrass,­ “On­ Transdisciplinarity”,­ Trames­ 2011,­ 15(65/60),­ p.­ 331.­ See­ J.­ Mittelstrass,­“Transdisciplinarity­–­New­Structures­in­Science”­(the­paper­presented­at­the­ conference Innovative Structures in Basic Research in October 2000), http://xserve02. mpiwg­berlin.mpg.de/ringberg/Talks/mittels%20­%20CHECKOUT/Mittelstrasp.html (available:­1.05.2010). 16 TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 33 plans,­research,­publications,­promotions,­reports,­verification,­crite­ ria for evaluation of individual actions) may take the initiative, direct and give concrete dynamics to the practice of the researcher, who occupies the position, regulated by a score of rules, and located in the order of the amphitheatre of an institution. Administrative­links,­due­to­their­formal­nature,­are­easier­to­ma­ intain and sustain than communication and cooperation between di­ sciplines and researchers, which, without individual initiative, effort and commitment to integration on the part of individuals, can ulti­ mately cease, thereby fostering the separation of disciplines and the isolation of researchers. Therefore, interdisciplinarity, as Mittelstrass points out, which is the proper result of cooperation between disci­ plines­and­researchers­defining­their­competences­on­the­basis­of­an­ academic division of labour, is not a common practice accepted within traditional research institutions, but as such it constitutes a philoso­ phically­and­theoretically­justified­project­for­revitalising­the­idea­of­ scientific­disciplines,­justified­by­the­need­to­counteract­the­knowled­ ge disintegration; interdisciplinarity­–­German­philosopher­points­out­–­is­neither­something­ normal,­nor­something­really­new,­nor­the­true­essence­of­the­scientific­ order.­Where­it­works,­it­rectifies­misguided­developments­of­science,­but­ also­renders­apparent­that­(scientific)­thinking­in­larger­disciplinary­units­ has­manifestly­declined.­A­whole­should­again­arise­out­of­particularities,­ both in a systematic as well as in an institutional sense 18. While administration is related to institutional space and develops within­a­specific­territory,­the­specialist­knowledge­generated­cannot­ be­unequivocally­attributed­to­just­one­space.­After­all,­even­though­ it­derives­from­research­related­to­a­specific­place­or­body,­it­aims­at­ theoretical generalizations. Its abstract character eludes administra­ tion.­As­Helga­Nowotny­notes,­bearing­in­mind­especially­the­character­ of the present development of science and research, 18­ 34 J.­Mittelstrass,­“On­Transdisciplinarity”,­op.­cit.,­p.­330.­See­also:­S.­Fuller,­Interdisciplinarity. The Loss of the Heroic Vision in the Marketplace of Ideas, www.interdisci­ pline.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/3­(available:­1.11.2009);­D.­Sperber,­“Why­Rethink­ Interdisciplinarity?”, www.dan.sperber.fr/?p=101­(available:­1.05.2010). rAfAł włodArCzyk Knowledge­ seeps­ through­ institutions­ and­ structures­ like­ water­ thro­ ugh­the­pores­of­a­membrane.­Knowledge­seeps­in­both­directions,­from­ science to society as well as from society to science. It seeps through institutions and from academia to and from the outside world 19. The union of bureaucracy and science is not mandatory. Both Nowot­ ny and Mittelstrass point out that the way in which dynamically de­ veloping research is practiced outside academic centres 20, also their dissemination does not lie within the boundaries of the structure of scientific­ disciplines,­ nor­ does­ it­ stick­ to­ methodological­ standards­ developed and adopted in traditionally practiced science. Therefore, as Nowotny claims, We need another language to describe what is happening in research. We identified­ some­ attributes­ of­ the­ new­ mode­ of­ knowledge­ production,­ which we think are empirically evident, and argued that, all together, they are integral or coherent enough to constitute something of a new form of production of knowledge 21. From­ the­ positions­ adopted­ by­ both­ researchers,­ it­ can­ be­ deduced­ that the transdisciplinarity characteristic of the new type of knowl­ edge development, which breaks the monopoly of the academia, is the result of the absence of organisational forms typical for traditional scientific­ institutions­ in­ the­ numerous­ spaces­ where­ such­ research­ develops. Therefore, it can be assumed that both types of knowledge development, i.e. disciplinary and transdisciplinary, will develop in parallel, but not independently of each other. 19­ H.­ Nowotny,­ “The­ Potential­ of­ Transdisciplinarity”,­ p.­ 1,­ http://www.helga­nowotny. eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf­(available:­1.05.2010). 20 Mittelstrass gives examples of such research centres and organizations, see J. Mittel­ strass,­“Transdisciplinarity­–­New­Structures­in­Science”,­op.­cit.­See­also:­S.­Krimsky,­ Science in the Private Interest. Has there Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?, New­York­2003. 21­ H.­ Nowotny,­ “The­ Potential­ of­ Transdisciplinarity”,­ op.­ cit,­ p.­ 1.­ Such­ new­ language­ seems to be proposed by John Urry in his work Sociology beyond Societies (see J. Urry, “Metaphors”,­ [in:]­ J.­ Urry,­ Sociology beyond Societies. Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century,­London,­New­York­2000,­p.­21–48). TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 35 transdisciplinarity­–­Nowotny­writes­–­does­not­respect­institutional­bo­ undaries. There is a kind of convergence or co­evolution between what is happening in the sphere of knowledge production and how societal insti­ tutions are developing. […] What we see today is a resurgence, for instan­ ce, of NGOs and other ways in which various kinds of stakeholders organise in shaping social reality. This is why the transgressiveness of knowledge is better captured by the term transdisciplinarity 22. Writing about the modern form of rational mass administration as the domination of knowledge, Weber pointed out that the develop­ ment­of­bureaucracy,­resulting­from­the­need­for­‘stable,­flexible,­in­ tensive and calculable administration’, is inevitable, although to a large extent dependent on technical means of communication for its preci­ sion­­23.­However,­he­also­pointed­to­two­exceptions­that­are­important­ in the context of the topic we are dealing with: Only­by­reversion­in­every­field­–­political,­religious,­economic,­etc.­–­to­ small scale organization would it be possible to any considerable extent to escape­its­[bureaucracy­–R.­­W.]­influence.­[…]­Superior­to­bureaucracy­in­ the knowledge of techniques and facts is only the capitalist entrepreneur, within­his­own­sphere­of­interest.­He­is­the­only­type­who­has­been­able­to­ maintain at least relative immunity from subjection to the control of ra­ tional bureaucratic knowledge. In large scale organizations, all others are inevitably subject to bureaucratic control, just as they have fallen under the dominance of precision machinery in the mass production of goods 24. 22­ 23 24 36 H.­Nowotny,­The Potential of Transdisciplinarity, op cit., p. 2. It should be emphasized that such terms as inter­, trans­ or multidisciplinarity are not consistently used in the literature­pertaining­to­the­subject­matter,­which­is­partly­connected­with­defining­ them,­ see­ K.­ Michalski,­ “Interdyscyplinarność,­ transdyscyplinarność,­ multidyscypli­ narność”,­op.­cit.,­p.­87–90. See M. Weber, Economy and Society, op. cit., p. 224. George Ritzer in the book The McDonaldization of Society (Los­Angeles­–­Melbourne­2019)­adopts­Weber’s­thesis­on­ the development of a rational bureaucracy as a starting point and then points to his new model of macdonaldisation, which, in his opinion, constitutes a contemporary radicalisation­ of­ the­ rationality­ of­ administration­ (see­ p.­ 19–66).­ See­ also­ the­ observations on macdonaldization of tertiary education and the whole education system: p.­74–75,­91–92,­126–127,­132–134,­150,­175–179. M. Weber, Economy and Society, op. cit., p.­224–225.­The­development­of­bureaucracy­ is­connected­with.­Last­chapters­(part­four,­chapters­2–7)­of­the­second­volume­of­­1840­ rAfAł włodArCzyk Weber’s analyses of the nature of bureaucracy shed some light both on the nature of the development of disciplinarity within traditional scientific­institutions­as­mass­associations­and­on­the­transdisciplinarity­ for which associations, private initiatives and businesses, and thus civil society actors, are the cornerstone­­25.­However,­if­we­also­consider­that­ the interdisciplinary projects, studies and publications, both collective and­ individual,­ arising­ within­ scientific­ institutions,­ have­ all­ the­ cha­ racteristics­of­voluntary­associations,­activities­and­initiatives­specific­ to civil society 26, where personal involvement, going beyond the rules and principles adopted is essential, we should perhaps recognise that both inter­ and transdisciplinarity, although stemming from different experiences and contexts, are an important component of modern reflexion,­resulting­according­to­Beck’s­thesis,­from­the­achievement­ by modernity of a critical mass of unintended side­effects. This would mean that not only can transdisciplinary research reinforce the inter­ disciplinary­tendencies­of­traditional­scientific­institutions,­but­that­in­ terdisciplinary research, conceived as an antidote to the disintegration of knowledge, should extend its scope to include knowledge produced outside the disciplinary order in the integration agenda and lay the foundations for a two­way transfer of knowledge and research practi­ ces. Weber’s analyses point to the fundamental limitations that can be placed on transdisciplinary research, which seems to be evidenced by the characteristics of trnasdisciplinarity given by Mittelstrass: 25 26 Democracy in America (see­A.­de­Tocqueville,­Democracy in America,­Chicago,­London­ 2000)­Alexis­de­Tocqueville­devotes­to­insightful­observations­on­the­concentration­of­ power in the institutions of democratic societies. See­E.­A.­Shils,­“Was­ist­eine­civil­society?”,­[in:]­Europa und die Civil Society, Castelgandolfo-Gespräche 1989,­ed.­K.­Michalski,­Stuttgart­1991;­M.­Walzer,­“The­Concept­of­Civil­ Society”, [in:] Toward a Global Civil Society,­ed.­M.­Walzer,­Providence,­Oxford­1995. In­this­context,­it­is­worth­quoting­the­remarks­made­by­Michalski:­“Such­a­structuring­ [disciplinary­-­R.­­­W.]­is­only­a­result­of­scientific­fashion,­which­in­addition­is­very­difficult­ to revise methodologically. This is evidenced, among others, by the fact that the ongoing change­ in­ the­ European­ model­ of­ science­ towards­ the­ synthesis­ and­ integration­ of­ research­defined­as­inter-­or­transdisciplinarity­is­not­a­reaction­of­science­to­internal­ scientific­criticism,­but­a­result­of­external­social­processes”­(K.­Michalski,­“Inter­dyscyplinarność,­ transdyscyplinarność,­ multidyscyplinarność”,­ op.­ cit.,­ p.­ 86).­ “Con­trary­ to­ popular­ definitions,­ the­ place­ of­ alternative,­ inter-­ and­ trans­disciplinary­ research­ is­ not ‘between’ or ‘over’ disciplines, but ‘beyond’ the traditional disciplinary paradigm” (Ibidem, p. 94). TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 37 transdisciplinarity­ is­ first­ of­ all­ an­ integrating,­ although­ not­ a­ holistic,­ concept. It resolves isolation on a higer methodological plane, but it does not­ attempt­ to­ construct­ “unified”­ interpretative­ or­ explanatory­ matrix.­ Second, transdisciplinarity removes impasses within the historical con­ stitution­of­fields­and­disciplines,­when­and­where­the­latter­have­either­ forgotten their historical memory, or lost their problem­solving power because­of­excessive­speculation.­For­just­these­reasons,­transdisciplina­ rity­cannot­replace­the­fields­and­disciplines.­Third,­transdisciplinarity­is­ a­principle­of­scientific­work­and­organization­that­reaches­out­beyond­ individual­fields­and­disciplines­for­solutions,­but­it­is­no­trans-scientific­ principle.­ [...]­ Last­ of­ all,­ transdisciplinarity­ is­ above­ all­ a­ research principle, when considered properly against the background I have outlined concerning the forms of research and representation in the sciences, and only secondarily, if at all, a theoretical principle, in the case that theories also follow transdisciplinary research forms­­27. According­to­Mittelstrass,­transdisciplinarity­being­“a­scientific research principle­that­is­active­wherever­a­definition­of­problems­and­ their­solutions­is­not­possible­within­a­given­field­or­discipline”,­is­not­ simultaneously­ “a­ theoretical principle that might change our text­ books” 28. Practice­oriented transdisciplinary research, representing and­prioritising­public­interest­over­scientific­interest,­does­not­place­ its projects in a broader theoretical plan and in the perspective of the ideal of unity of knowledge and thus does not go beyond the level of generalizations necessary for direct application and use of knowled­ ge.­ Although­ they­ undermine­ the­ order­ of­ the­ structure­ of­ scienti­ fic­knowledge­by­pursuing­cognitive­interests­where­necessary,­they­ are neither an alternative nor an adequate level of general knowledge necessary to carry out the theoretical and practical integration that is­ autonomous­ of­ the­ existing­ scientific­ knowledge­ system­ and­ not­ 27­ J.­Mittelstrass,­“On­Transdisciplinarity”,­[in:]­Science and the Future of Mankind,­Vatican­ 2006, p. 498. 28­ J.­Mittelstrass,­“Transdisciplinarity­–­New­Structures­in­Science”,­op.­cit.­Mittelstrass­ emphasizes­that­“This­characterisation­of­transdisciplinarity­points­neither­to­a­new­ (scientific­and/or­philosophical)­holism,­nor­to­a­transcendence­of­the­scientific­sys­ tem”­(J.­Mittelstrass,­“On­Transdisciplinarity”,­[in:]­Science and the Future of Mankind op.­cit.,­p.­497),­as­well­as­that­„pure­forms­of­transdisciplinarity­are­as­rare­as­pure­ forms of disciplinarity” (Ibidem, p. 498). 38 rAfAł włodArCzyk mediated therein. Orientation towards such objectives would require the development of an organisational apparatus for research, which entails­the­difficulties­signalled­by­Weber,­and­thus­a­loss­of­dynamism­ and independence characteristic of the activities carried out in small teams, which are not motivated by the development of bureaucratic rationality.­ However,­ the­ development­ of­ transdisciplinary­ research­ can­have­a­significant­impact­on­the­scientific­knowledge­system,­re­ inforcing the interdisciplinary trends potentially and practically pre­ sent­in­its­structure.­As­Mittelstrass­notes: If research takes on increasingly transdisciplinary forms, then temporary research cooperatives are the appropriate organizational form, and not isolated component systems. […] Transdisciplinarity would in this sense be­the­gadfly­of­the­scientific­order 29. TRanslaTIon The phenomenon of knowledge disciplinarisation as a result of com­ plex and uneven processes of specialisation, institutionalisation and division of labour is also worth looking at from a historical perspective. The­ book­ by­ Wolf­ Lepenies­ Three Cultures can serve as an example of­such­an­approach.­As­Lepenies­announces­in­the­first­three­units­ of­“Introduction”,­he­discusses­in­the­book­“connection­between­two­ groups of intellectuals: on one hand the men of letters, i.e. the writers and critics, on the other the social scientists, above all the sociologists”. For­the­middle­of­the­nineteenth­century­–­Lepenies­observes­–­onwards­ literature and sociology contested with one another the claim to offer the key orientation for modern civilization and to constitute the guide to living appropriate to industrial society. […] This competing discloses a di­ lemma which determined not only how sociology originated but also how it­then­went­on­to­develop:­it­has­oscillated­between­scientific­orientation­ which has led it to ape the natural sciences and a hermeneutic attitude 29­ J.­Mittelstrass,­“Transdisciplinarity­–­New­Structures­in­Science”,­op.­cit.­See­also:­L.­Witkowski,­“Problem­‘radykalnej­zmiany’­w­nauce”,­[in:]­L.­Witkowski,­Tożsamość i zmiana. Epistemologia i rozwojowe profile w edukacji,­Wrocław­2010. TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 39 which has shifted the discipline towards the realm literature. The con­ nection between a literary inteligentsia and a inteligentsia devoted to the social sciences was thus an aspect of a complex process in the course of which­scientific­modes­of­procedure­became­differentiated­from­literary­ modes [...]­­30. According­to­Lepenies,­still­at­the­end­of­the­18th­century,­the­way­ in­which­knowledge­on­social­research­is­practiced­was­not­diversified.­ In­the­mid-19th­century­Karl­Marx­or­later­Hippolyte­Taine­point­to­ Balzac’s Human Comedy, which was originally intended to be called Social Studies, seeing it as an unprecedented document of human na­ ture,­and­Henry­James­speaks­of­the­French­writer’s­opus­magnum­as­ a­counterpart­of­what­August­Comte’s­sociology­aspires­to­­31. Gustave Flaubert­and­Emil­Zola­saw­their­achievements­in­a­similar­way.­Howe­ ver,­not­only­in­France,­academic­sociology,­for­which­natural­scien­ ce­is­a­model,­tries­to­prove­its­scientific­excellence­by,­among­other­ things, dissociating itself from literature. Thus­there­was­soon­set­in­train­an­inner-disciplinary­process­of­purifica­ tion:­disciplines­such­as­sociology,­which­at­first­locked­recognition­within­ the system of knowledge and had to acquire it, sought to do so by dis tancing themeselves from the early literary forms of their own discipline, whose purpose was rather to describe and classify than to analyse and reduce to a system. […] The problem of sociology is that, although it may imitate the natural sciences, it can never become a true natural science of­society:­but­if­it­abandons­its­scientific­orientation­it­draws­perilously­ close to literature­­32. Sociology­is,­of­course,­just­an­example.­This­fragment­of­Lepenies’­ analysis allows us to make some additional comments on the relation­ ship between disciplinary, inter­ and transdisciplinary research. We can assume that the consolidation of the academic system of sciences has 30­ W.­Lepenies,­“Introduction”,­[in:]­W.­Lepenies,­Between Literature and Science, op. cit., p. 1. In the book, the author follows the fate of sociology and its being ‘in­between’ three­areas,­discussing­in­turn­the­situation­in­France,­England­and­Germany. 31­ See­Ibidem,­p.­4–5. 32­ Ibidem,­p.­7. 40 rAfAł włodArCzyk been accompanied by transdisciplinary research since its inception, but as sociology shows, the growing distance between academia and non­academic forms of knowledge production and the institutionali­ zation­related identity policies within individual disciplines have led to a gap between the two forms of research. The problem of relations, interdependencies­ and­ the­ flow­ of­ knowledge­ between­ disciplinary­ and inter­ and transdisciplinary research is not so much something new­as­it­is­now­returning­on­the­wave­of­reflexive­modernisation,­the­ necessity to counteract the isolation of disciplines in the structure of the­scientific­system­and­the­socially­perceptible­risk­generated­by­the­ development­of­scientific­research­and­modern­technology. The­subject­matter­taken­up­by­Lepenies,­and­especially­the­exam­ ple of tensions between science and literature, allows us to see and distinguish­the­specific­problem­of­translation,­which­is­specific­to­the­ flow­of­knowledge.­Two­ways­of­producing­knowledge­not­only­create­ separate structures, but also languages characteristic of each other, between which the transfer of knowledge and practices requires translation-related­competence.­According­to­the­assumptions­of­one­ of the hermeneutical theories, we can assume that all understanding equals translation, and the increase in hermeneutical competence is related to translation practice­­33. translation­is­–­George­Steiner­observes­–­formally­and­pragmatically­implicit­ in every act of communication, in the emission and reception of each and every mode of meaning, be it in the widest semiotic sense or in more speci­ fically­verbal­exchanges.­To­understand­is­to­decipher.­To­hear­significance­is­ to translate. Thus the essential structural and executive means and problems of the act of translation are fully present in acts of speech, of writing, of pic­ torial encoding inside any given language. Translation between different lan­ guages­is­a­particular­application­of­a­configuration­and­model­fundamental­ to human speech even where it is monoglot­­34. 33­ 34 See­H.-G.­Gadamer,­“Lesen­ist­wie­Übersetzen”,­[in:]­Gessamelte Werke,­Vol.­8,­Tübinge­ 1993;­G.­Steiner,­“Understanding­as­Translation”,­[in:]­G.­Steiner,­After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation, Oxford 1992. G. Steiner, After Babel,­ op.­ cit.,­ p.­ xii.­ “Any­ model­ of­ communication­ is­ at­ the­ same­ time­a­model­of­trans-lation,­of­a­vertical­or­horizontal­transfer­of­significance”­(Ibi­ dem,­p.­47).­See­also­R.­Włodarczyk­“Hermeneutics­Of­Translation­–­The­Fundamen­­tal­ TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 41 Both the differences between numerous idiomatic languages in which we operate and which we use on a daily basis, as well as the dif­ ferences between the order of thinking and the order of action require us to master and constantly develop our translation skills. The more often we use a language and its individual components, the easier, more­efficient­and,­consequently,­automatically­and­invisibly­for­our­ selves, the process of translation takes place. Practicing the research within­a­given­discipline­develops­our­translational­proficiency­in­this­ discipline,­and­thus­deepens­our­understanding­of­related­issues.­At­ the same time, however, this specialist orientation does not increase or even decrease our chances of communicating with experts prac­ ticing­ in­ another­ field­ and­ of­ transferring­ knowledge­ on­ both­ sides.­ Translation problems can also arise between practitioners in the same field,­ but­ in­ different­ environments­ that­ are­ not­ isolated­ from­ local­ influences­ and­ shape­ the­ language­ of­ the­ researcher­ or­ their­ group.­ In other words, knowledge of the dialect developed in a given centre of­cultural­anthropology­does­not­translate­into­proficiency­in­under­ standing­political­science­texts,­just­as­a­good­knowledge­of­French­is­ not­enough­to­understand­medieval­Latin­texts,­even­though­learning­ a foreign language of one’s own may help to master another, especially a similar one, and also broaden the understanding of the language we speak every day. We are multilingual and need to understand, so we need to be able to translate. In this context, the situation and the status of disciplines such as pedagogy, cultural studies and environmental protection should be highlighted. In pedagogy the auxiliary sciences such as psychology, sociology,­ anthropology,­ etc.­ should­ be­ taken­ into­ account.­ As­ they­ play the role of an essential component of the perspective adopted in the research on education, the conduct of which requires prior inte­ gration of knowledge from these disciplines and only with its partici­ pation­the­relevant­pedagogical­research­problems­can­be­identified­­35. 35­ 42 Aspect­Of­Dialogue.­Around­The­Concept­Of­George­Steiner”­in­this­book. See­K.­Rubacha,­“Związek­pedagogiki­z­innymi­naukami”,­[in:]­Pedagogika. Podręcznik akademicki,­ ed.­ Z.­ Kwieciński,­ B.­ Śliwerski,­ Warszawa­ 2003;­ T.­ Hejnicka-Bezwińska,­ Pedagogika ogólna,­Warszawa­2008,­p.­215–221,­241–246.­It­does­not­mean­that­we­can­ talk­about­something­as­self-sufficiency­of­other­disciplines,­see­L.­Witkowski,­Problem ‘radykalnej zmiany’ w nauce,­op.­cit.;­L.­Witkowski,­“Uwagi­o­interdyscyplinarności­ rAfAł włodArCzyk In­other­words,­the­field­of­pedagogy­has­a­lot­in­common­with­many­ disciplines, however, it does not overlap with any of them, nor does it function outside them. The same can be said of social psychology, cultural studies or environmental protection, taking into account their respective auxiliary sciences. The status of pedagogy can be described as interdisciplinary due to the fact that its self­determination requires the­integration­of­knowledge­from­the­scope­of­other­scientific­disci­ plines. Moreover, pedagogy, more closely than other disciplines, which are mainly cognitively oriented, is connected with social practice, and specifically­with­educational­practice.­The­pedagogical­studies­that­are­ to prepare for educational research and practice presuppose the deve­ lopment of competence in translation from the languages of auxiliary disciplines­into­the­languages­specific­to­pedagogy­and­its­sub-disci­ plines and in mutual directions between educational theories and edu­ cational­practice.­Educational­science­studying­pedagogies­which­are­ transdisciplinary, such as socially created knowledge and educational strategies­­36, develops its integrative potential embracing with it the phenomena which are characteristic for non­academic social practice, i.e. development of knowledge in the area of functioning of civil society. Due­to­our­potential­and­specific­conditions,­we­can­see­in­pedagogy­ the model of an institution of translation­­37, a discipline located on the borderline of humanities and social sciences, integrating and studying the conditions for the transfer of disciplinary, inter­ and transdiscipli­ nary knowledge, and capable of producing the knowledge necessary to educate­in­the­field­of­inter-­and­transdisciplinary­translation. w­ peda­gogice­ (z­ perspektywy­ epistemologii­ krytycznej)”,­ [in:]­ L.­ Witkowski,­ Ku integralności edukacji i humanistyki II,­Toruń­2009. 36­ Z.­Kwieciński,­“Pedagogika­przejścia­i­pogranicza”,­[in:]­Z.­Kwieciński,­Tropy – ślady – próby. Studia i szkice z pedagogii pogranicza,­Poznań­–­Olsztyn­2000. 37­ In­the­context­of­the­concept­of­pedagogy­of­asylum­(see­R.­Włodarczyk,­Lévinas. W stronę pedagogiki azylu, Warszawa 2009) we can talk about a particular area of research into education­which­have­asylum­–­like­qualities­of­an­institution,­organisation­or­trans­lation­ practices. TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 43 bIblIoGRaPHy Beck­U.,­“The­Reinvention­of­Politics”,­[in:] U.­Beck,­A.­Giddens,­L.­Scott, Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Stanford University Press, Stanford 1994. Beck U., The Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity, transl. M. Ritter, SAGE, London,­New­Bury­Park,­New­Delhi­1992. Beck­U.,­Bonss­W.,­Lau­Ch.,­“The­Theory­of­Reflexive­Modernization.­Problematic,­Hypotheses­and­Research­Programme”,­Theory, Culture & Society­2003,­ Vol.­20. Fuller­S.,­Interdisciplinarity. The Loss of the Heroic Vision in the Marketplace of Ideas,­www.interdiscipline.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/3­(available:­ 1.11.2009). Gadamer­ H.-G.,­ “Lesen­ ist­ wie­ Übersetzen”,­ [in:]­ Gessamelte Werke,­ Vol.­ 8,­ Mohr,­Tübinge­1993. Habermas­J.,­“Modernity.­An­Unfinished­Project”,­transl.­S.­Benhabib,­[in:]­Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity,­ed.­M.­Passerin­d’Entrèves,­S.­Benhabib,­ The MIT­Press,­Cambridge­1997. Hejnicka-Bezwińska­T.,­Pedagogika ogólna,­Wydawnictwa­Akademickie­i­Pro­ fesjonalne, Warszawa 2008. Krimsky­S.,­Science in the Private Interest. Has there Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?,­Rowman­&­Littlefield,­New­York­2003. Kwieciński­Z.,­“Pedagogika­przejścia­i­pogranicza”,­[in:]­Z.­Kwieciński,­Tropy – ślady – próby. Studia i szkice z pedagogii pogranicza,­ Edytor,­ Poznań­ –­ Olsztyn 2000. Lepenies­ W.,­ “Lęk­ a­ nauka”,­ [in:]­ W.­ Lepenies,­ Niebezpieczne powinowactwa z wyboru,­transl.­A.­Zeidler-Janiszewska,­Oficyna­Naukowa,­Warszawa­1996. Lepenies­ W.,­ Between Literature and Science. The Rise of Sociology, transl. R.­J.­Hollingdale,­Cambridge­University­Press,­Cambridge­1988. Lyotard­J.-F.,­The Postmodern Condition. A Report on Knowledge, transl. G. Ben­ nington, B. Massumi, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1984. Michalski­K.,­“Interdyscyplinarność,­transdyscyplinarność,­multidyscyplinar­ ność.­Nowy­paradygmat­w­nauce­i­badaniach”,­Ekonomia i Nauki Humanistyczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Rzeszowskiej­2007,­Issue­16. Mittelstrass­ J.,­ “On­ Transdisciplinarity”,­ [in:]­ Science and the Future of Mankind,­Pontifical­Academy­of­Sciences,­Vatican­2006. Mittelstrass­J.,­“On­Transdisciplinarity”,­Trames­2011,­15(65/60). 44 rAfAł włodArCzyk Mittelstrass­ J.,­ “Transdisciplinarity­ –­ New­ Structures­ in­ Science”­ (the­ paper­ presented at the conference Innovative Structures in Basic Research in October 2000), http://xserve02.mpiwg­berlin.mpg.de/ringberg/Talks/ mittels%20­%20CHECKOUT/Mittelstrasp.html­(available:­1.05.2010). Nowotny­H.,­“The­Potential­of­Transdisciplinarity”,­http://www.helga­nowot­ ny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf­(available:­1.05.2010). Ritzer G., The McDonaldization of Society, SAGE,­Los­Angeles-Melbourne­2019. Rubacha­ K.,­ “Związek­ pedagogiki­ z­ innymi­ naukami”,­ [in:]­ Pedagogika. Podręcznik akademicki,­ed.­Z.­Kwieciński,­B.­Śliwerski,­Wydaw.­Naukowe­ PWN, Warszawa­2003. Schnädelbach­H.,­“Science”,­[in:]­H.­Schnädelbach,­Philosophy in Germany 18311933,­transl.­E.­Matthews,­Cambridge­University­Press,­Cambridge­1984. Shils­E.­A.,­ “Was­ist­eine­civil­society?”,­[in:]­Europa und die Civil Society, Castelgandolfo-Gespräche 1989,­ed.­K.­Michalski,­Klett-Cotta,­Stuttgart­1991. Sperber­ D.,­ “Why­ Rethink­ Interdisciplinarity?”,­ www.dan.sperber.fr/?p=101 (available:­1.05.2010). Steiner G., After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992. Tocqueville­A.­de,­Democracy in America,­transl.­H.­C.­Mansfield,­D.­Winthrop,­ The­University­of­Chicago­Press,­Chicago,­London­2000. Urry J., Sociology beyond Societies. Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century, Routledge,­London,­New­York­2000. Walzer­M.,­“The­Concept­of­Civil­Society”,­[in:]­Toward a Global Civil Society, ed.­M.­Walzer,­Berghahn­Books,­Providence,­Oxford­1995. Weber M., Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. G.­Roth,­C.­Wittich,­University­of­California­Press,­Berkeley,­Los­Angeles,­ London­1978. Witkowski­L.,­“Problem­‘radykalnej­zmiany’­w­nauce”,­[in:]­L.­Witkowski,­Tożsamość i zmiana. Epistemologia i rozwojowe profile w edukacji, Wydaw. Na­ ukowe DSW,­Wrocław­2010. Witkowski­ L.,­ “Uwagi­ o­ interdyscyplinarności­ w­ pedagogice­ (z­ perspektywy­ epistemologii­ krytycznej)”,­ [in:]­ L.­ Witkowski,­ Ku integralności edukacji i humanistyki II,­Wydaw.­Adam­Marszałek,­Toruń­2009. Włodarczyk­ R.­ “Hermeneutics­ Of­ Translation­ –­ The­ Fundamental­ Aspect­ Of­ Dialogue.­Around­The­Concept­Of­George­Steiner”­in­this­book. Włodarczyk­R.,­Lévinas. W stronę pedagogiki azylu, Wydawnictwa Uniwersyte­ tu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2009. TRansGRessIon – TRansdIscIPlInaRITy – TRanslaTIon 45 Abstract: Successive parts of the article deal with the development of disci­ plinary, inter­ and transdicyplinary research and its mutual relations and­conditions­in­a­new­scientific­and­social­context­connected­with­ reflexive­modernization.­The­author­points­to­pedagogy­as­a­discipli­ ne that can be a model of an institution of translation, a discipline lo­ cated on the borderline of humanities and social sciences, integrating and studying the conditions for the transfer of disciplinary, inter­ and transdisciplinary knowledge, and which can develop the knowled­ ge­ necessary­ to­ educate­ in­ the­ field­ of­ inter-­ and­ transdisciplinary­ translation. keywords: pedagogy,­reflexive­modernization,­interdisciplinary­research,­trans­ disciplinary research, translation, knowledge transfers, integration of scientific­knowledge