Entanglement is a curious phenomena where two or more things become almost inextricably linked.
Since this and last week’s discussions I’ve walked away from class with what I believe is a more nuanced, detangled (so to speak) understanding of theory. The place I’ve come to in my understanding of theory, is that theories are more or less perspectives or vehicles which we can adopt and use to systematically detangle and navigate worldly (and perhaps other worldly?) phenomena in order to gain a more complete understanding of issues, whatever they may be from philosophical dilemmas to social conflicts. I don’t doubt that wiser individuals have more accurate or developed understandings of theory than myself.
But in my understanding of theory, for instance, we can employ Marxist, structuralist, post-structuralist, constructivist, feminist, etc. theories/lenses/perspectives to look at and dissect phenomena in new ways in order detangle complex issues and form a more complete understanding of them. All of these theories (theoretical perspectives/lenses/vehicles) I mention come with associated “isms.” And it seems like in class we attach “ism” to theories as a pejorative, for to be ___-istic is to be narrow-minded.
But, are problems really better understood if looked at from as many different perspectives as possible? Or might these interacting, overlapping, competing theories only further entangle aspects of phenomena we’re trying to understand? In short, is it possible to overcomplicate, by way of excessive intellectual examination, the very phenomena we’re trying to understand?
Before I’m labeled as anti-intellectual, please understand this is merely hypothetical, intellectual pondering in the first place. At the moment I think collaborating as many perspectives as possible on an issue is better than only examining an issue from one or two perspectives or theoretical lenses.
Without completely committing to one theoretical lens in order to examine a single phenomenon is it possible to fully exploit all that perspective has to offer? I believe we fairly criticize those who commit to examining issues from only one theoretical lens as reductionist, but without such tunnel visioned academics would we ever achieve even a single fully developed perspective on anything? Not to say that the resulting analyses are fully developed anyhow.
We criticize works like “The Death of Nature” written by Carolyn Merchant and “Staying Alive” by Vandana Shiva for being too “eco-feminist.” Or we partially dismiss works like the “Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich for being alarmist.
I’m not saying these works are perfect or unworthy of criticism, but should be valued for completely devoting themselves to exploring a topic from a single, committed angle/perspective. It’s our job as readers, and particularly as an academic audience, to draw on all of these works to inform our own, well-rounded opinions. This might seem multi-disciplinary (already considered a shibboleth in certain academic circles [Proctor, 2013]) instead of interdisciplinary. And through thinking about theory I’m developing a better understanding of the challenge posed to interdisciplinary studies by the question, “can interdisciplinary studies delve ‘deep’ enough into issues to provide worthwhile, novel analysis of complex issues?” Are interdisciplinary approaches limited to only probing shallow depths of tangled phenomena due to their attempt at maintaining a wide, diverse theoretical lens? It’s almost a question of human capability to be able to maintain a wide interdisciplinary theoretical perspective and account for all the tangles when analyzing complex issues while simultaneously reaching a deeper understanding of said issue and not be labeled with the pejorative term “reductionist.” Is it appropriate even to conflate “deep” and “focused.” Or is wider actually deeper? These are implicit assumptions, that wide is shallow and focused is deep, that are problematic and further my confusion.
The tension is between the importance of precise brush strokes (Tom Rodrigues) to paint an accurate representation of a phenomenon vs. maintaining wide enough analysis to paint the entire work. To balance both is to approach Truth. The challenge, and opportunity, in environmental studies is that issues are so multi-faceted, tangled, and worthy of careful attention. Multiple theoretical perspectives are valuable to apply to “environmental dilemmas,” but none are sufficient alone. Interdisciplinary theory is, in and of itself, a grand entanglement of theory, entangled with another wad of complexity.
Our job in environmental studies is to disentangle complicated issues, while maintaining a perspective which acknowledges the complexity of the systems we’re working within.
We differentiate specific and valid, yet insufficient, theoretical perspectives, re-tangle them in interdisciplinary studies, and apply them all to the tangled webs of cause and effect that create phenomena in our world.
At this point the whole idea of a single “phenomenon” to even begin analyzing is baffling. Isn’t everything in the universe just a single happening? How can we even talk about a single issue as if such a thing existed?
To detangle a tangle with tangled tools is to find the self in the middle of the grand, universal entanglement we call life.
Any insight into these dilemmas is greatly appreciated.
Best,
-Ben
Many of the ideas I wrestle with above have stemmed from readings such as:
Proctor, James D., Susan G. Clark, Kimberly K. Smith, and Richard L. Wallace. 2013. “A Manifesto for Theory in Environmental Studies and Sciences.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3 (3) (April 25): 331–337. doi:10.1007/s13412-013-0122-3. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-013-0122-3.