Divide and Conquer: Fragmentation in Science
Stephen Hawking's quest for a theory of everything highlights a pervasive attitude in science: the belief that all phenomena can ultimately be explained by universal laws, particularly through the lenses of quantum theory and string theory. This pursuit of generality, while ambitious, often results in laws that are abstract and less applicable to the varied complexities of the real world. Logic, especially in its twentieth-century mathematical incarnation, and theoretical disciplines like string theory, exemplify this trend, becoming increasingly detached from the concrete world in their pursuit of universality. Generality comes at the price of alienation.
A practical alternative that stays closer to the real world operates in parallel: the divide and conquer approach. Specialization has become the norm, with distinct communities working in physics, chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and numerous sub-disciplines, each with little overlap. While specialization allows for deep dives into specific areas, it also fragments academia into silos, making interdisciplinary communication and collaboration challenging.
However, when tackling global issues like climate change, this fragmented approach can converge, as seen with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC exemplifies how thousands of experts from diverse fields can unify to address a singular problem, demonstrating that intersectional dialogue can lead to a cohesive understanding and actionable solutions.
A similar "divide and conquer" strategy unfolds in critical theory, with specializations in feminism, queer theory, gender studies, postcolonial theory, and race theory, among others. These fields, much like their scientific counterparts, tend to operate within isolated communities. Unlike the tangible, measurable challenge of climate change, the core issues of critical theory—social justice and the societal fabric—lack a common goal that governments can rally around. This absence of a shared objective further complicates efforts to unify diverse perspectives towards common solutions, highlighting the complexity inherent in bridging fragmented disciplines.
In drawing these parallels, my intention is not to offer a neat conclusion but to shed light on the similarities between the fragmentation seen in the sciences and social sciences. Both realms demonstrate how a division of labor, while beneficial for in-depth exploration, can lead to isolation, hindering our collective ability to address the multifaceted problems facing humanity today.
