Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

638 Pierre de Bie
From this account of the advantages of drawing closer together the disciplines
in the field of the sciences of man, it must not be concluded that we should like
to see the multidisciplinary approach or the integration of the social sciences as
a panacea against the ills of specialization. Some of our contemporaries see in
the terms ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘interdisciplinary’, ‘integration of the sciences of
man,’ and even ‘unification of knowledge’ a magical virtue which we are by no
means prepared to accord to them. Truly interdisciplinary work is extremely
arduous and its realization is rare. The surest multidisciplinary associations are
outlined on the frontier between two disciplines; even there the dialogue between
specialists remains difficult, and if it is ever to be more than merely superficial it
demands an entire education on both sides.
On the theoretical plane, meetings between disciplines present dangers, which
the ambition for a common language increases rather than suppresses. Meeting
must not mean confusion; points of view must be compared, concepts and
interpretations must be added, and they must be accumulated until there is an
exhaustive comprehension of the subject under study. In the process of knowing,
the distinction between points of view has an analytical value which we must be
able to preserve: in an analysis of reality, the distinction between a psychological,
a sociological and a political point of view represents a positive point and a
value. It is thanks to the distinction between the points of view of disciplines
that the analysis is refined and becomes sharp. If the human mind proceeds by
analysis and synthesis, the latter operation must not be carried out at the expense
of the former. It may make it possible to go beyond and to remove differences
which are only verbal, but the principle benefit it offers is a richer knowledge in
finer detail. Based on an awareness of the multiplicity of approaches, it may
favour certain convergences and, above all, the discovery of complementary
aspects.
These observations are not a judgement on the way in which knowledge is
organized in our days between a number of disciplines. It is obvious that these
arrangements of disciplines result from many historical circumstances and they
may as such prove to be temporary, and peculiar to our own period. Certain
disciplinary categories will no doubt be supplanted by others, of which little is
heard today, and which may result either from people becoming aware of new
points of view, or from the alignment of sectors of research which today belong
to different disciplinary fields.
The poles of growth
In a static world, tradition keeps things in their place: activities are regulated,
behaviours are establishished, institutions are what they should be; the various
categories of individuals conform to their roles, as determined by an ordinance
which appears to be eternal. What is rooted in immobility is sacred because what
exists has a unique character, based on a tradition whose origins seem to be
lost in the mists of time; what is established is untouchable, and with no other
model in sight no one dreams of changing it.
But in a changing world everything wavers; things become different, hence