Interdisciplinarity, from slogan to practice
Where does the injunction to interdisciplinarity, so often repeated in the world of research, come from? The collective book edited by Wolf Feuerhahn and Rafael Mandressi, Histoire de l'interdisciplinarité (Editions de la Sorbonne, 426 pages, 35 euros), offers avenues for understanding its history. For the authors, it is not a question of reinventing false genealogies vaguely drawn from the ideals of cooperation of Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie or from the "synthesis" endeavors of the early 20th century. Starting from the uses and labels used, the lexicometric survey reveals the notion between the 1920s and the 1930s. It highlights both a diffusion from the United States to Europe, but also the eccentric position of these programs, which thrive outside the most legitimate institutions, at the intersection of minor disciplines.
It was through American philanthropic foundations that interdisciplinarity would become a true banner against the sclerosis of disciplinary divisions from the 1930s onwards. The Rockefeller Foundation thus campaigned with the League of Nations for an internationalization of science in order to encourage the establishment of a government of scientists dedicated to the management of the contemporary world from an epidemiological or economic perspective. Financed from 1940 by the American army, which saw it as a way of dividing up the world, area studies , for example, would bring together different disciplines (linguistics, history, anthropology, economics, etc.) in a particular region.
Three decades later, the label undeniably represents a marker of institutional modernity. In the context of the Cold War and decolonization, the rise of interdisciplinarity was structured by a watchword of efficiency: science must be better organized. An "interdisciplinarity administered" by institutions contrasted with an "interdisciplinarity claimed" by researchers. From 1960, the practice became widespread with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the General Delegation for Scientific and Technical Research, highlighting the weaknesses of the university.
You have 43.45% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
Le Monde
