Trans-disciplinarity

In his inspiring article ‘Revaluing the environment’ Peter May breaks a lance for ecological economics (EE). I think that ecological economics, and also ecological philosophy, will turn out to be major cornerstones of a truly sustainable society.
Peter May says that EE has a trans-disciplinary grounding. I prefer to differentiate between multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity (Van Eijk 1998:227-34). The scientists in a ‘multi-disciplinary team’ can collaborate in an ‘inter-disciplinary mode’, but in many cases that cannot be taken for granted. ‘Trans-disciplinarity’ is quite another ball game. Let me explain. The critical task of a ‘uni-versity’ is, amongst other things, to develop insight in the cohesion of the sciences. Scientists need to reflect on the ‘universitas’, the cohesion, the unity-in-diversity of the sciences. The question which crops up immediately is what all scientific disciplines have in common. The obvious, yet often overlooked, answer is that all disciplines are known by a knower, a subject. The knower is the connection point, the condition, the pivot of all knowledge. Therefore, the point of departure for the development of ‘universitas’ is the scientist him/herself. Knowledge of the knower is the pivot of all aspects of knowledge. We can speak of a unity-in-diversity of the general knowledge quest: the mind of the scientist looks at various domains (matter, mind and spirit). We have to distinguish between the knower, the process of knowing and the known. In conventional science more and more information on objects of research (the known) is collected and methodologies (processes of knowing) are improved. The information processor or knower, however, hardly receives any attention. Perhaps we have to focus more on the knower and the various levels of consciousness that he/she can have access to. Trans-disciplinarity -the transcending of the various disciplines- refers in my view to ‘universitas’ and this unity-in-diversity of the sciences can only be found within the knower, in an underlying universal state of consciousness (pure or transcendental consciousness, ‘consciousness-as-such’ without any content of consciousness). Gaining access to this universal level of consciousness takes place in a process of experiential spirituality, within or without the institutionalized religions. In my view ecological economics achieves a truly trans-disciplinary grounding when experimental science and experiential spirituality are simultaneously practised.

Holism

The present approach to interdisciplinary studies focuses on common domains, on areas of overlap, between disciplines (Russell 1990:159). Only the interconnections at surface level are seen. The consequence is that students regard interdisciplinary studies as superficial and “as something of a light relief from the real business of in-depth study” (ib.:158). Holism, however, is not just a matter of interdependencies and cross-connections, it is the underlying wholeness which matters most (Ransijn 1985b). A holistic approach must pay attention to this deeper dimension, to the common underlying basis which allows the various disciplines to be perceived as different aspects of a whole. In addition to cross-connections between disciplines (inter-disciplinarity), the basic connection (trans-disciplinarity) requires attention. Trans-disciplinarity entails an integration of science and spirituality, an integration of scientific reflection and direct spiritual experience. Science and spirituality must be distinguished, but they do not have to be separated. Science studies the everyday, relative world characterized by differentiation, while spirituality focuses on the universal world of pure consciousness characterized by integration (see for the references in this paragraph: Van Eijk 1998).

Sustainability as a holistic property

Sustainability (with ecological, economic and social dimensions) is an integrative, holistic property just as human health (with physiological, psychological and spiritual aspects) is. Schumacher (1977:55) said that “we are now far too clever to be able to survive without wisdom”. I think he is correct. Trans-disciplinarity can bring us the wisdom so badly needed. But when trans-disciplinarity is seen as a kind of meta-theory, or overarching paradigm, the practicability of such an encompassing concept remains problematic, due to the fact that trans-disciplinary ‘modes of inquiry’ are not well specified. The unity-in-diversity of the knowledge quest is beautifully expressed in the Janus-face. Ecological systems are ‘holons’ (a term of Koestler indicating that systems are simultaneously wholes and parts) that can be studied by ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ approaches. The Janus-face does not only look downward and upward (to smaller and larger holons), but also inward and outward (combining ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ approaches in a holistic method). As a symbol of non-duality it exemplifies that experimental research and experiential spirituality can be simultaneously employed to create sustainable environmental systems.

Ethically guided institutional and behavioural responses, yes but how?

Peter May remarks that ecological economists “believe that issues of intra-generational, inter-species and inter-generational equity need to be explicitly addressed through democratic and transparent, ethically guided, societal choice”. And, he says, it is time “to face the reality of biophysical limits and to find institutional and behavioural responses to the underlying contradictions that have brought the global economy to its knees, and that have degraded biodiversity and overheated the planet”.
Ethically guided, societal choice -implying ecologically and societally appropriate institutional and behavioural responses- is indeed the crucial issue at hand. It is evident that ‘the mainstream preference for market magic’ -the ‘invisible hand’ that miraculously will take care of social and environmental problems- will not solve the current crisis. And the stalemate at the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change shows the inoperability of global agreements. Peter May refers to the Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom, who says that cooperation and communication are the most important tools to combat the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Cooperation and communication are indeed essential, but depend on trust. Covey (1990:270) distinguishes three levels of communication (defensive, respectful and synergistic) which are related to different levels of trust and cooperation among people. Only high-trust situations, characterized by synergistic communication, result into win/win positions: synergy means that 1 + 1 = >2. ‘Mini-cultures’ develop in which new possibilities emerge (the whole is more than the sum of the parts). In my view such mini-cultures are due to a coherent and high quality collective consciousness, which defuses societal distrust, fear and stress (Van Eijk 2010). Full control of development processes is not possible; we can only facilitate it by creating the right conditions for synergistic win/win situations. A coherent and high quality collective consciousness might be the single most important condition. It generates a high level of societal trust and effective and efficient cooperation among many actors. Ecologically and societally responsible behavioural change demands, most of all, consciousness development by individual citizens, who together can create a coherent collective consciousness.

References
1. Van Eijk T. (1998). Farming Systems Research and Spirituality. An analysis of the foundations of professionalism in developing sustainable farming systems. Ph D thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis2546.pdf
2. Van Eijk T. (2010). Development and Work Ethic in sub-Saharan Africa. The mismatch between modern development and traditionalistic work ethic. Free Musketeers, The Netherlands (to be published at end of March 2010).
3. Covey S.R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people: restoring the character ethic. A Fireside Book, Simon & Schuster, New York (First published in 1989).

‘Updated’ ethics

Jeffrey Sachs says in his article ‘Rethinking macroeconomics’ that a return to prosperity “also requires the reassertion of core values in economic life: integrity, fairness, justice for the weak, and sustainability for the future. … Our institutions and ethics come from a different era and have not yet been ‘updated’ to knit together a globally stable society”.
To my mind Sachs rightly underlines here the importance of values and ethics in the development of fair global macroeconomic governance. The interconnectedness of today’s world makes a return to superficial fixes dangerous. As Sachs says: ‘we are all intricately interconnected’ but ‘our politics and social networks remain mostly local’. Subsequently he argues that a large-scale stimulus [of a new macroeconomics that faces up to the three interconnected challenges of climate and energy security, food and nutrition security, and poverty reduction] requires “the nitty-gritty of public–private planning, technology assessments, demonstration projects and complex project financing”. Unfortunately, he does not indicate the relationship between this nitty-gritty (of planning, technology, demonstration and money) and the earlier mentioned ‘updated’ ethics. The underlying assumption seems to be that ‘planning, technology, demonstration projects (such as the Millennium Villages) and money’ can be organized, managed and coordinated by human rationality alone, without recognizing that the ‘updating’ of human ethics has to precede such an exercise. It is easy to mention the all-important role of ethics, but it is much more difficult to indicate how to ‘update or upgrade’ human ethics. It is recommendable that Sachs stresses the role of ethics, because relatively few authors do this, but the next step on ‘how’ to upgrade ethics and human behaviour is missing. For my own ideas on this issue, I refer to the references 1-4.

The fact-value dualism

Sachs argues that basic reforms in global governance and in macroeconomic science require entirely new ways of thinking. He says: “The challenge we face is to bridge the divide between macroeconomics and global governance, both in scientific and in policy terms … We have not solved the problem of the proper integration of scientific and technological knowledge in public policy making”.
The divide between politicians/policymakers and scientists is indeed large. There is no guarantee that scientific knowledge will be used by policymakers. Distrust between scientists, politicians and civil society seems to be on the increase, as the present fierce debate on human-induced climate change shows. According to the Dutch philosopher Herman Koningsveld the fact-value dualism, as part of the dominant scientific paradigm, is contributory cause to our ignorance or irrationality at the economic, political and cultural levels. Precisely this dualism seems to have contributed to the fact that normative matters are no longer topic of thorough scientific reflection in Western culture. On the other hand, the fact-value dualism (causing the divide between science and politics) is one of the most important normative attainments of our culture. Especially in our technocratic society, in which practical problems with a normative or political dimension automatically are translated into technical questions, the defence of this dualism is a matter of the highest importance, says Koningsveld.
The main question is how to ‘re-educate’ politicians and scientists so that they become wise men with insight in societal rationality and with a holistic perception (Van Eijk 1998: 167-8). This re-education of politicians/policymakers and scientists ought to entail a transcending of the fact-value dualism - a dualism which is simultaneously contributory cause to our lack of wisdom ánd an important attainment of Western culture. Such paradoxical situations cannot be ‘solved’ by logical reasoning alone: such ‘divergent problems’ (as Ernst Schumacher labelled them) can only be transcended by the infusion of a higher ability. Basically policymakers and scientists need an ‘updated’ ethics, in the words of Sachs. Today’s multiple crises (finance, energy and security crises) indicate clearly that the intellect alone cannot cope with the fact-value dualism. I believe that supplementing intellectual reasoning with experiential spirituality stands a better chance to generate wisdom. Scientists and policymakers will then be more qualified participants in a debate on global governance or societal rationality. My ‘belief’ is supported by scientific evidence (Van Eijk 1998). And mind you, also the worldview of the dominant positivist-oriented, technocratic scientists is grounded in a ‘belief’ – be it a single-minded belief in intellectual reasoning. Perhaps it becomes time to ‘rethink’ this dogged fixation on thinking alone. The continual identification with the rational-empirical consciousness needs to be lifted.

References
1. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/regulars/blogs/Minder-pretentie-meer-ambitie/Toon-van-Eijk-The-primacy-of-personal-change
2. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/Debate/Deep-democracy/Toon-van-Eijk-Multi-dimensional-development-civic-driven-change-and-collective-consciousness
3. Van Eijk T. (2010a). Development and Work Ethic in sub-Saharan Africa. The mismatch between modern development and traditionalistic work ethic. Free Musketeers, The Netherlands (to be published at end of March 2010).
4. Van Eijk T. (2010b). Societal Transformation through Consciousness-Based Development. Civic Driven Change through Self-Empowerment. (In press).
5. Van Eijk T. (1998). Farming Systems Research and Spirituality. An analysis of the foundations of professionalism in developing sustainable farming systems. Ph D thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis2546.pdf