Ted Toadvine - Six Myths of Interdiscipinarity (from Thinking Nature)

Thinking Nature Journal is a new online magazine, A Journal on the Concept of Nature. Here is a very brief statement from the editors when they posted Volume 1:

I hope that readers will find that the essays address the larger problem of trying to think nature in philosophical and ecological means and display the need for further inquiry into the conceptual.

There are many interesting articles in Volume 1, and they are currently seeking articles for Volume 2.

Volume 2 Call for Papers: Aesthetics
Posted on August 16, 2011 by Ben Woodard


For the second issue of Thinking Nature we are seeking papers which address the relation between nature and aesthetics. Writing on and about nature whether theoretical or not often relies on the aesthetic as a means of highlighting nature’s importance and the importance of ecological politics, activism, and living. For this issue we are seeking speculative and experimental approaches to the opportunity and problem of aesthetics as it crosses nature, the natural, and ecology.


Possible Topics:
Environmental Aesthetics
The relation of the sublime to nature and aesthetics
The importance of the visual for ecology/ecological critique
Anthrocentrism and Aesthetics or Aesthetics of the Inhuman
Aesthetics and the natural/artificial relation
Sentience and Aesthetics/Cognitive models and Aesthetics of Nature
Non-Visible Nature and Aesthetics


We are asking for completed manuscripts (in rough draft form or better) of 5,000 – 8,000 words with Chicago style references (footnotes and not endnotes).


We are also interested in art pieces, either single pieces or a small collection, either written, visual, or other.

The Deadline for submissions is January 31st 2012

Please email submissions to woodardbenjamin@gmail.com or timothymorton303@gmail.com

Posted below is the beginning of one of the articles I enjoyed from the first volume, from Thinking Nature V. 1.

/6/ - Six Myths of Interdiscipinarity
Ted Toadvine


Interdisciplinarity is a lot like biodiversity—everyone sings its praises, but no one really knows how to define it, how to measure it, or how to assess its actual value. There is, of course, a growing body of literature discussing interdisciplinarity from a theoretical perspective. It is not my aim here to analyze or contribute to those discussions, but rather to speak to the practical issues that emerge in the everyday contexts of academic collaboration. Specifically, I am interested in the role that the humanities play within the context of “broad interdisciplinarity” in environmental studies. By “broad” interdisciplinarity, I mean a conversation between disciplines that range across the spectrum from the natural sciences to the humanities. Interdisciplinary collaborations at finer scales—such as between biologists and landscape architects, or between painters and literary critics—often occur, of course. But “broad” interdisciplinarity poses a much greater challenge precisely because of the significant divergence, perhaps even incommensurability, between the ways that humanists and scientists define their problems and their methods. What interests me are the assumptions and narratives about interdisciplinarity that shape the academic context, including the development of curricula, the training of graduate students, the articulation of program goals, evaluations of research, and so on. In my view, these assumptions and narratives often constrain the contributions that humanists can make and limit the possibilities for genuine dialogue across disciplines. Here, my aim is to identify a few of these limiting assumptions, what I am calling “myths of interdisciplinarity,” in the hopes that doing so will encourage my humanist colleagues, first, to reflect more deeply on what our specific methods bring to the study of the environment and, second, to develop richer narratives about what broad interdisciplinarity might look like.


The first myth is that interdisciplinarity can be achieved by focusing on problem-solving. The usual understanding is that some environmental problem – e.g., water resource allocation, biodiversity loss, energy production, and most commonly today, climate change – is taken as the focal point of a discussion to which the different disciplines add their unique “perspective.” We each have our own toolkit or skill-sets, and genuinely interdisciplinary collaboration happens when we bring our distinct tools to bear on a common problem. This interpretation of interdisciplinarity is common in the theoretical and pedagogical literature and is mirrored by environmental studies mission statements and curricula across the country. Thus understood, humanists are expected to contribute their own useful perspective to solving specific environmental problems: the Pacific Salmon crisis, or the siting of toxic waste dumps, or fuel efficiency. And what will the contribution of literary critics, painters, philosophers, and poets be to solving such problems?

Read the whole article.