Call to inter-disciplinary thinking in training

Not long ago Richard Posner, a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals published a book entitled “Public Intellectuals, a Study of Decline, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001). In it he argues the importance of intellectuals who have been trained in a specific field, but who can speak out credibly about issues that concern contemporary society. This type of “niche” (Posner, p. 5) thinker used to make courageous and intelligent statements that would be outside of her or his area of academic expertise, but because these thinkers were so respected precisely in their area, the public was willing to hear what they had to say on other topics.

“Public” is a strong word these days that when used in relation to persons implies “being widely known.” Thus the term does not apply to me. Nevertheless I do recognize and feel the need to speak out on major issues in society across disciplinary lines. In fact it is behind the creation of this modest site. The term “practical intellectual” may be more apt then, as much as that may sound like an oxymoron. I believe one cannot tackle the questions of multicultural proficiency training from one disciplinary angle only, nor do I think a discussion by specialists approaching it from different angles will necessary lead to a unified view.

Posner writes on page 51:”..academics are often smart and stupid, and this may not be sufficiently recognized by the laity. They are particularly likely to be both smart and stupid in an era of specialization, when academic success is likely to crown not the person of broad general intelligence but rather the person with highly developed intellectual skills in a particular field…The brilliant mathematician, physicist, artist, or historian may be incompetent in dealing with political and economic issues…But if the compartmentalization of competence and the underlying disunity of the self are not recognized-and they are not- a successful academic may be able to use his success to reach the general public on matters about which he is an idiot.”

I do not agree with everything Posner writes, but he does open the reader’s eyes to the need for viewing our society in a holistic way as this site is trying to do. The key words that operate at the center of my model of multicultural training are holistic terms that are at home in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, literature and religious studies. They are antithetical to the compartmentalization of experience. Identity is an inter-disciplinary category, so is sense of belonging, so is worldview, so are identification, language and integration. It is very hard to step outside of one’s field of expertise (in my case pastoral counseling) and write about health issues, cultural studies and try one’s literary luck, but nevertheless I have. I recommend it to those who come to the service of others with a specific expertise only to realize how limited the perspective is and how it calls for crossing over into other areas. It does mean stepping outside one’s comfort zone, but then it is outside the comfort zone that new strides are usually made. Multicultural proficiency requires understanding of management theory, organizational behavior, personality theory, religious worldview, sociology, cultural anthropology, education and other fields. It is in examining the contributions of these disciplines for multicultural training that I have found myself knowledgeable enough to be inspired by Posner’s study.