{"id":566,"date":"2014-06-12T11:44:46","date_gmt":"2014-06-12T15:44:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/?page_id=566"},"modified":"2016-12-08T17:30:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-08T22:30:42","slug":"nathaniel-a-rivers-on-farrell-katharine-n-tommaso-luzzati-and-sybile-von-den-hove-eds-beyond-reductionism-a-passion-for-interdisciplinarity-new-york-routledge-2013-routledge-series-in-ecol","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/previous-issues\/impact-vol-3-no-2-summer-2014\/nathaniel-a-rivers-on-farrell-katharine-n-tommaso-luzzati-and-sybile-von-den-hove-eds-beyond-reductionism-a-passion-for-interdisciplinarity-new-york-routledge-2013-routledge-series-in-ecol\/","title":{"rendered":"Nathaniel A. Rivers on Katharine N. Farrell, Tommaso Luzzati, and Sybile von den Hove, eds. Beyond Reductionism: A Passion for Interdisciplinarity."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Katharine N. Farrell<\/strong>, Tommaso Luzzati, and Sybile von den Hove, eds. Beyond Reductionism: A Passion for Interdisciplinarity. New York: Routledge, 2013. Routledge Series in Ecological Economics. xxv + 317 pp. Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-415-47014-8.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is my unfortunate task to reduce an edited collection working against the very act of reduction, which the editors describe as \u201cthe systematic [\u2026] endeavor to interrogate the physical world, piece by piece, disclosing the secrets of nature\u201d (1). Set against the backdrop of the Anthropocene, the contributors to Beyond Reductionism: A Passion for Interdisciplinarity<\/i>, a mix of young and established scholars in and around what the editors label \u201csocial ecological systems\u201d (SES), pursue the past, present and future of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity work. Such work is a response to reductionism, which, all contributors agree, leaves us ill-equipped to face the complex and global challenges we now face. SES is, \u201cby definition, concerned with the interplay between complex living systems\u201d (2). Breaking up the world into pieces simply will not do. In terms of inter- and trans-disciplinarity thought, reading work in SES is compelling because with it we have research necessarily predicated upon such thinking (36). For those outside of SES, then, the book is a valuable field site to witness scholars simultaneously engaging in interdisciplinary work and reflecting upon the values and implications of that work.<\/p>\n

But before we get to the field site, we find two prefaces by Robert Costanza and Richard Norgaard, both of which enunciate what I see as the attitude of the collection. In his preface, Costanza links the nature of interdisciplinary politics to what, drawing on Deborah Tannen, he calls \u201cargument culture\u201d (xvi). \u201cThere is an almost obsessive desire in academia to stake out intellectual turf and defend it against outsiders\u201d (xvi). This desire makes it difficult to link scientific research and environmental policy, which requires us to move beyond our disciplinary comfort zones: reductionism is comforting. Costanza suggests the reductionism is in fact born of our inability to move outside these zones. Nevertheless, transdisciplinarity is the way forward that Costanza proposes. Resonating with Costanza, Norgaard writes of a new way to link research and policy not predicated upon an unreasonable faith in the ability of science to provide all the answers. Working within the narrow confines of disciplines, researchers have produced correct answers (\u201cpartly correct\u201d Norgaard says) that are nevertheless \u201cwholly wrong\u201d (xxi). By this, Norgaard means that narrow pursuits reduce complexity and so create \u201cunrealistic expectations\u201d about our own, human abilities to solve global problems (xxiii). Countering correct but narrow answers, Norgaard ask us to embrace humility. Humility and transdisciplinarity are, then, the spirits that animate Beyond Reductionism<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Part I (\u201cThe idea of \u2018ecological economics\u2019\u201d) offers readers \u201ca feeling for the general subject of interdisciplinary research concerning social-ecological systems and relationships\u201d and points to challenges faced by its practitioners (3). An exemplar of this offering is Joan Martinez-Alier\u2019s \u201cSocial Metabolism, Ecological Distribution Conflicts and Languages of Valuation,\u201d which provides a series of methods that address the common reduction of economic concerns to the exchange of commodities (\u201cactual or fictitious\u201d). Martinez-Alier\u2019s notion of metabolism attempts to make sense of global phenomena without reducing complex variables to a common denominator such as \u201ccommodities.\u201d \u201cBut the requirement for such an exercise,\u201d writes Martinez-Alier, \u201cis commensurability of values and a single language of valuation\u201d (29). The value of interdisciplinary work, Martinez-Alier suggests, is its ability to approach complexity through multiple vocabularies. In this way, readers get a feel for what interdisciplinary research is in SES: an attempt to work through complex problems without the desire to reduce that problem.<\/p>\n

The complexity implicit in Martinez-Alier is subsequently intensified by Farrell, et al.\u2019s \u201cWhat Lies Beyond Reductionism.\u201d If we wish to move beyond reductionism, then we must not shy away from uncertainty, the fear that may very well motivate reductionism. Farrell, et al., reflect upon the six \u201cinevitable characteristics\u201d of interdisciplinary work: complexity, ontological diversity, methodological diversity, dominance and gatekeeper disciplines, a dual role for social science, and team research. These attributes clue us in to how the complexity of multiple vocabularies and values might be employed in interdisciplinary research: how does one maintain multiple methods across a team of scholars from multiple disciplines in the face of a discipline that sees itself as dominant? For instance, \u201cwithin projects combining contributions from social and physical sciences the orientation [within SES research] is often weighted towards physical science methodologies\u201d (47). Maintaining complexity in methodology is hard work, and Farrell, et al., describe that work.<\/p>\n

Part II (\u201cLife after reductionism\u201d) gives readers a glimpse \u201cinto the world of applied interdisciplinary\u201d investigations and analysis. A particularly compelling chapter (\u201cHow Ecofeminists Use Complexity in Ecological Economics\u201d) is in fact a conversation between four practicing ecofeminists: Ariel Salleh, Mary Mellor, Katherine N. Farrell, and Vandana Shiva. Salleh states that by virtue of their desire to \u201credraw conceptual connections,\u201d \u201cmost ecofeminist writing is transdisciplinary work\u201d (155). The conversation then works through ecofeminism as practice beyond reductionism. Mellor remarks that ecofeminism positions humanity as \u201cpart of a dynamic, interactive ecological process that [sic] cannot manipulate at will or without consequences\u201d (162). This lends itself, all the contributors agree, to a more holistic approach to ecological issues. Farrell pulls from a previous communication with Vandana where the latter argued, \u201cEcofeminism moves beyond reductionism by highlighting the integrity of ecosystem and organisms\u201d (163). Mellow subsequently adds, \u201cA holistic science would acknowledge that such complexity creates uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. This does not mean that we cannot take a reasoned approach\u201d (164). What shines through the conversation is how ecofeminism resists the narrow, piecemeal approach of reductionism. Resonating with Norgaard\u2019s preface, the contributors in Part II resist the temptation of certainty offered by reductionism, but nevertheless work to develop methods that allow us to deal with complexity. Incompleteness, contingency, and uncertainty are not reasons to stop research but calls to go on.<\/p>\n

Part III (\u201cInto the woods\u201d) points readers toward the possible futures of interdisciplinary research: that is, how we might go on. One chapter in particular stands out. Writing that we are \u201cstill grappling with what complexity means and implies for both natural and social science\u201d (284), Arild Vatn, in \u201cBeyond Reductionism: Issues for Future Research on Sustainability,\u201d argues, \u201cwhat seems clear is that single analytics and one-dimensional approaches are not going to provide us with the information and analyses that are required to take up the challenge of developing [\u2026] new forms of cooperation\u201d (303). In addition to outlining several interlinking research agendas, Vatn makes a convincing case that we must be able to first \u201cconceptualize what kinds of institutions we will need in order to advance our coordination capacities\u201d (303). Disciplines are tightly yoked to institutions, and vice versa. To embark upon inter- and trans-disciplinary work with no regard for the institutions in which it will take place might very well doom such an enterprise from the start. Indeed, another chapter, which combines the remarks of Brian H. Walker and C.S. Holding (\u201cProbing the Boundaries of Resilience Science in Practice\u201d), traces the history and possible future of institutions that support such work.<\/p>\n

As I conclude, however, I must note that the collection, as a field site, does little to explain or pull itself together. Given the range of the collection, the introduction is somewhat insufficient. It addresses the moment that the collection responds to, but does little to describe the collection, how it was put together, how it hangs together, or how it might be approached, made sense of, or traced. While not necessarily a critique of the collection, potential readers should be warned that some chapters are more accessible than others. Now, this is certainly not a problem, but it is does result in the collection feeling less developmentally coherent. I, for one, would have liked more guidance from the editors, but leaving work for the reader is as much an indication of the collection\u2019s strength as it is its weakness.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nathaniel A. Rivers
\nSaint Louis University\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Katharine N. Farrell, Tommaso Luzzati, and Sybile von den Hove, eds. Beyond Reductionism: A Passion for Interdisciplinarity. New York: Routledge, 2013. Routledge Series in Ecological Economics. xxv + 317 pp. Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-415-47014-8. It is my unfortunate task to reduce an edited collection working against the very act of reduction, which the editors describe as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7752,"featured_media":0,"parent":633,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/566"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7752"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=566"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/566\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":616,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/566\/revisions\/616"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}