“Between, Across, and Beyond” Domains:

Under the conditions of hegemonic disciplinary ambitions that are nurtured within the existing university systems, meaningful communication between disciplines is not possible, according to Basarab Nicolescu*. He writes:

" Today there are hundreds of disciplines. How can a theoretical physicist truly hold a dialogue with a neurophysiologist, a mathematician with a poet, a biologist with an economist, a politician with a computer programmer, beyond mouthing more or less banal generalities? Yet, a true decision maker must be able to dialogue with them at once. Disciplinary language is an apparently insurmountable barrier of the neophyte is some area" (41).

 Nicolescu argues that solving the big problems, the really wicked, intractable problems the world faces today, is impossible because of various disciplines’ reified, specialized languages. The disciplines have specialized to the point they have created “a modern Tower of Babel,” he states (40).“Babelization” of meaning ricochets among the participants, never resting in consensus.  It is to say, according to how Nicolescu would interpret the endeavor, that they did not communicate on a meaningful level. 

Nicolescu believes that even if the most distinguished, accomplished scholars in their fields were gathered together, motivated, dedicated, and determined to solve a problem vital to human survival, “they would only be able to develop a generalized incompetence, for the simple reason that the sum total of competencies is not competence: on the technical level, the intersection between different domains of knowledge is an empty ensemble” (42). Their efforts would be, quite simply, Shakespearean theatre; “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

Yet, the current trend in higher education toward “multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” would suggest that an intellectual fusion and intertwining is opening the way to greater levels of knowledge that would harmonize the “Babelization” of disciplines. Nicolescu would disagree. He recognizes the value of the trend and writes that the goals of both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary inquiry nonetheless remain “within the construction of disciplinary research” (43).

Nicolescu’s recommendation for changing this state of affairs is transdisciplinarity, which concerns what is “at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines” (44). As transdisciplinary gains more validity in the academe, future researchers of leadership will explore the dimensions of “between, across, and beyond.” 

*Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity SUNY series in Western esoteric traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Print