Entre lo interdisciplinario, la indisciplina y la no disciplinariedad: riesgos y virtudes de los cruces teóricos y prácticos entre las disciplinas académicas

Abstract

In the last few decades there has been talk about interdisciplinary attitudes in the humanities and the social sciences. The results of these crossings, however have not been, in general, very One of the reasons for these relatively disappointing results can be found in the fact that many of the studies under the banner of show a significant lack of  on the researcher’s part, on at least one of the disciplines involved in the investigation. this paper, I’m going to concentrate on another problem: the extrapolation of categories from one discipline to another. I am going to reflect on pairs such as fuzzy domain/epistemic domain and hermeneutic theoretical understanding, so that I can argue why, despite the serious nature of some of its epistemological limitations, an approach that propitiates the encounter of disciplinary knowledges is something not only desirable but also necessary for some academic fields. I am going to refer, concretely, to archaeology, philosophy, and colonial studies coming from a literary and a cultural studies tradition. The idea is to show the limitations of this type of encounter of disciplines (that is to say, what things this encounter, in my opinion, can or cannot achieve) but also the kind of paths it can open for a better understanding of the world (or worlds) formed by objects, fauna, flora, nature, and human beings of the past.The idea, then, is to propose a series of possible view that allow us to see those objects of study that in the past seemed to be the patrimony of a single discipline under a different light. This is why it will be necessary to look for a paradigm different from that of interdisciplinarity, a paradigm not so based like interdisciplinarity on a loyalty to the disciplines in contact or in dialogue; to the protocols and rules of their disciplinarity past and present. The idea is, then, to de-discipline disciplines, to make them more porous but also more indisciplined. That’s why in this paper I advance the following hypothesis: the current status of academic discipline does not allow them, even if the cross pollinate each other, will not be able to produce an ethically acceptable knowledge if they are not strongly informed by a subalternist inflection. That is to say, any interdisciplinary or non-disciplinary project will end up being unsatisfactory if it does not rest on a fundamental principle: the mandatory and collaboration with the subaltern peoples related to the places and events of the past studied by academics. This is why the studies that I imagine as the future of interdisciplinarity or, better yet, nondisciplinarity, must be inspired by an spirit, by a sort of indiscipline, buy a rebelliousness against the form in which we understand knowledge production both in our current academic disciplines and in archaeologyDesde hace décadas se viene hablando de la necesidad de una actitud interdisciplinaria en las humanidades y en las ciencias sociales. Los resultados de estos cruces, sin embargo, no han sido, por lo general, todo lo productivos que se hubiera deseado. Una de las razones para esos resultados relativamente decepcionantes, puede buscarse en que muchos de los estudios llevados a cabo bajo el estandarte de la interdisciplinariedad exhiben una significativa falta de conocimiento por parte del investigador o investigadora, de, por lo menos, una de las disciplinas a las que se recurre para dar cuenta del caso de estudio. Es por esta razón que se ha hablado más de una vez de la interdisciplinariedad como una forma de juntar, no tanto saberes de origen diferente, sino más bien ignorancias provenientes de campos que poco tienen que ver entre sí.