Interd isc ip l inarySOCIAL

SCIENCES

www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

JOURNALTHE INTERNAT IONAL

of

Volume 5, Number 9

Deconstruction of Knowledge Nature in the Views ofDerrida and Feyerabend: The Possibility and

Necessity of Interdisciplinary Studies in HigherEducation

Saeid Zarghami Hamrah

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2011 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1833-1882 Publisher Site: http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Deconstruction of Knowledge Nature in the Views ofDerrida and Feyerabend: The Possibility and Necessityof Interdisciplinary Studies in Higher EducationSaeid Zarghami Hamrah, Tarbiat Moallem University, Iran (IslamicRepublic of)

Abstract: In this study, the nature of knowledge in Derrida’s views and Feyerabend's thoughts havebeen considered and compared to analyze the possibility and necessity of interdisciplinary studies inhigher education. The research method for comparing the thoughts of Derrida and Feyerabend iscomparative analysis, and the research approach in studying the nature of knowledge and the relationbetween its various domains is deconstruction. Derrida believes throughout the history of Westernthinking, some areas of knowledge as philosophy, mathematics and logic have been considered rational,and thus deemed important, whereas some other areas like literature, poetry and art have been thoughtirrational and considered less important. By using deconstruction, he concludes that various domainsof knowledge such as philosophy, literature and even new science are different language systems andbecause of the metaphoric, historical and interpretative nature of language, the various fields ofknowledge are not representations of reality and have a metaphoric nature. Therefore, none of themhave dominance over the others but are interdependent and intertwined. From a different perspectiveand by knowing the ideas of leading philosophers of science as well as by calling the nature of know-ledge into question, Feyerabend has ruled out the fundamental and methodological difference betweenscience and other domains of human culture and achieved results which are more or less like Derrida’sthoughts. Regarding the research findings, designing academic curriculums on the basis of horizontalrelationship between disciplines rather than vertical relationship, the interdisciplinary and multidiscip-linary designing and designing academic curriculums on the basis of subjects rather than disciplineshave been recommended.

Keywords: Knowledge Nature, Interdisciplinary Studies, Derrida, Feyerabend, Higher Education,Curriculum

Introduction

HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT disciplines dates back to ancient Greece. For in-stance, in his plan for public education, Plato (Bloom, 1991) suggested some dis-ciplines such as arithmetic, geometry, astrology, and philosophy (or dialectic). Healso considered essential differences between philosophy and science, as two dif-

ferent human fields of knowledge. However, he suggested teaching talented twenty-year-old youth to understand the integrity and closeness of the disciplines as well as their relationwith the universe as a whole.

In the modern era, with the expansion of knowledge boundaries and the necessity oftraining specialists in any field, the boundaries of knowledge strengthened and defined morethan ever. In criticism of categorization of different fields of knowledge, Foucault regardsthis categorization as a result of western rationalism. According to Foucault, the philosophers

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social SciencesVolume 5, Number 9, 2011, http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882© Common Ground, Saeid Zarghami Hamrah, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

of the modernism era, using Descartes’ reductionism view to understand the social phenomenawhich were and are a unique whole, divided them into simple components of human sciences,which were then termed psychiatry, statistics, law, pedagogy, etc. (Gutting, 2005).

Lyotard (2004), another post-modern philosopher, criticizes the isolation of scientificdisciplines from another point of view. According to him, now, in the era of informationtechnology in which all information is available for everyone, searching for the possible re-lations among various academic disciplines and scholastic subjects will provide new horizonsfor thinking in the field of knowledge.

Thus, considering the knowledge nature and normal status of phenomena in the world, itseems that some philosophers do not accept the artificial borders among different academicdisciplines and ask for revision and elimination of the borders.

In this study, in order to analyze the possibility and necessity of academic interdisciplinarystudies, knowledge nature is studied from viewpoint of Derrida, the outstanding post-modernphilosopher, and is compared with the thoughts of the science philosopher, Feyerabend.Using a complex and specific language (Cahoone, 2003), as well as employing specificconcepts such as “logo centrism”, “metaphysics of presence”, “differance”, “writing”, and“deconstruction”, Derrida criticizes western philosophy from Plato on, and emphasizes itsrevision and adopting another way (Derrida, 1976). So first, Derrida’s thoughts, as relate tothe subject of this study, are evaluated and then compared with the thoughts of Feyerabend.This comparison is done as Feyerabend questions the nature of knowledge and science the-ories by considering the thoughts of outstanding science philosophers, as well as the assess-ment of different examples of scientific theories in various fields. Thus, the present study,which is an interdisciplinary research, evaluates the possibility and necessity of interdiscip-linary academic studies by analyzing and comparing the thoughts of the above-mentionedtwo philosophers who worked on two different fields.

Research MethodologyIn the study, by deconstructing knowledge nature and assessing the relations among its dif-ferent fields, the possibility and necessity of interdisciplinary studies in higher educationwill be investigated. Thus, two research approaches, comparative analysis and deconstruction,which is two approaches of qualitative research, (Given, 2008) is used in the following order:

a) In order to analyze and compare the ideas of Derrida and Feyerabend on knowledgenature, we first qualitatively analyze the texts remaining from the two philosophers in thisregard. Then we select comparative analysis to compare the ideas. According to Rihoux(2006), comparative analysis is the analytical comparison of subjects, propositions, individu-als, groups, and time periods which will reveal their similarities and differences. On theother hand, the main strategy of comparative analysis is called “constant comparative ana-lysis”, which is stated”… It involves taking one entity or piece of data, such as a statement,an interview, or a theme, and comparing it with others to identify similarities or differences.By isolating these aspects, it is then possible to develop a conceptual model of the possiblerelations between various entities “(Given, 2008, p. 100). Therefore, the concepts and pro-positions in the ideas of Derrida and Feyerabend on knowledge nature are compared usingconstant comparative analysis, after being separated and described. The ideas on knowledgenature are analyzed and discussed in the study, which will provide the basis for assessmentof the possibility and necessity of interdisciplinary studies.

482

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

b) Moreover, deconstruction is a type of review of any text to decentralize it and to findthose aspects of the subject that have been ignored (Silverman, 2004). It should be notedthat, by considering the definition of deconstruction as inadequate and invalid, Derrida regardsit as a type of attitude (Pinar and Reynolds, 1992); and instead of defining it, attempts toemploy it in his works. Regarding this, we have tried to deconstruct knowledge nature andthe relations among its different fields on the basis of analyzing and comparing Derrida’sand Feyerabend’s ideas, to evaluate the possibility and necessity of interdisciplinary studies.

Logocentrism and the Metaphysics of PresenceInspired by Heidegger, Derrida maintains that the western philosophical tradition has alwaysremained faithful to the metaphysics of presence from Plato on and consequently the depthof the concept of being has always remained absent. Regarding the unilateral attitude towardthe extended concepts of presence such as “self” and “logos”, he (1981 a) calls the metaphys-ical ideas of western philosophy the metaphysics of presence. The center of the metaphysicsof presence has been the human wisdom, thus Derrida holds the western philosophy to bealways wisdom-centered or, in his words, logo centered. According to Derrida, Plato’s twoworld theory, i.e., meaning world versus sensible world is the foundation of the metaphysicsof presence. This bipolar approach had a deep effect on western ideas such that metaphysicscould never free itself of it. He maintains that by proposing different dual concepts, Platoalways gave priority to one over the other. For instance, Plato talked about truth versusfalsehood, presence versus absence, subject versus object, speech versus writing, andphilosophy versus poem. To demonstrate the priority of speech over writing, he mentionedthe Socratic dialogues. In addition, he proposed the dual concepts of “life and death”, and“idea and phenomenon”, and assigned the first concept of each duality, which is good, tospeech, while assigning the second concept, which is bad, to writing. He maintained thatspeech is alive, while writing, owing to the absence of the author, is dead, subsidiary, oflittle value and also dangerous, as any kind of interpretation and misuse is possible.

It seems that the two extremes and preference of one over the other, has lasted in westernideas, in which philosophy versus literature, self versus otherness, man versus woman, andmathematics and technical sciences versus human sciences are the prominent examples. Inthis regard, Derrida mentions that philosophers have always considered the literary languageand discourse, especially that of poetry, as ambiguous, and preferred philosophical discourseover it. Marshal and Peters (1997) indicate “This attitude originates from Plato, who con-sidered philosophy as rational and poetry as irrational” (p.90). This dualism is also presentfor self and otherness. Plato dissociated subject from the object. Although in the ideas ofPlato’s predecessors, subject was the basis of everything, it did not depend on human or self.It was in Plato’s works that “human self” was called the subject (Heidegger, 1996) and selfor subject was considered as the basis and other or object was marginalized.

Deconstruction of Knowledge NatureIn order to put an end to the metaphysics of presence, Derrida employed the deconstructionapproach. In Derrida’s opinion (1988), providing a unique definition for deconstruction isinvalid, since he believes that concepts do not always have constant and univocal meanings.Nevertheless, he added that absence of univocal meaning will not lead to ambiguity and can

483

SAEID ZARGHAMI HAMRAH

be considered in alignment with enlightenment. At first Derrida selected the term “decon-struction” as a translation equivalent for the German term “destruction” which was used byHeidegger for putting an end to metaphysics. Thereafter, Derrida used “deconstruction” forreading and review of any text and assigned to it a new meaning.

So it seems that deconstruction can be considered as a type of text reading which leadsto its decentralization (Royle, 2003). Derrida believes that all western ideas are constructedon the foundation of centers such as logos (wisdom), ousia (subject), arche (the primaryprinciple), or telos (the final truth), whose roots are in Plato’s ideas (Garisson, 2003). Asthese ideas emerge and play central roles, other relevant ideas are ignored, suppressed, ormarginalized. This is the very process of the dominance of centers and consequently theexpansion of injustice. Derrida maintained (1981) that in deconstruction it is necessary toleave any foundations such as logos, ousia, or arche. He regarded deconstruction as a solutionfor decentralization of outstanding elements and emphasis on suppressed and marginalizedelements, and thus achieving justice.

By taking advantage of Saussure’s linguistic studies, Derrida deconstructed the knowledgenature of philosophy and decentralized some concepts such as the truth of philosophical andscientific discourse, speech, metaphysics of presence, “self”, and “subject”. In contrast, heemphasized metaphor, text, metaphysics of absence, and otherness. Saussure maintainedthat the function and meaning of a word in a language is not revealed only by studying itsroots. Rather, each word finds its meaning in relation to other words and concepts of thelanguage. In his belief, each language is a unique symbolic system of senses and values, inwhich the value and sense of each word is determined with regard to its specific rule in thelanguage and by comparison with other words and thus understanding their differences andcontrasts (Graic, 2000). Regarding this, Derrida maintained that each sign is signified by itsdifference from other signs. Thus, “the meaning of each sign is dependent on what it is not.So, meaning always lies in absence” (Kerdeman, 1999, p. 227). Therefore, the meaning ofeach word or concept is dependent both on its opposite concept and on its context. By ex-tending this characteristic of language to all textual forms including literature, philosophy,and even new sciences, Derrida defines each as a system of sense and value which followtheir own rules. Accordingly, the truth of each of these systems should be sought in its lan-guage, and none of these discourses can lay claim to truth beyond its language. It is on suchgrounds that Derrida sought truth in language and came to the idea that the expressions oflanguage, such as literature, philosophy and knowledge, are not reflections of truth, ratherthey have a metaphoric nature. By putting emphasis on metaphor, irony, and allegory as theinherent properties of a language, he assumes all linguistic types such as philosophy to beinterpretable, and concludes that philosophy does not have any priority over literary works.It can even be said that literary works have greater veracity, as they do not conceal theirmetaphoric characteristics. Emphasizing the metaphoric nature of each discourse andknowledge, he returns to the idea of Nietzsche (1974) that there are a great number of un-changeable and opposed perspectives.

Knowledge Nature in Anarchistic TheoryIn studying the history of science and ruling out the idea that considers this history as aprogressive and uninterrupted process, Kuhn (1952) described it as a process of formationand decline of various competing paradigms. A paradigm acts as a framework which causes

484

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

the followers to hardly be able to reflect on other competing paradigms. According to Kuhn,each paradigm has its specific criterion, based on which one can comment on that paradigm,while it is inappropriate to use it in the realm of other paradigms. On this ground, by emphas-izing the incommensurability of different paradigms, Kuhn states that “Like the choicebetween competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be achoice between incompatible modes of community life.”(p. 93).

By questioning the precise boundaries among paradigms and their incommensurability,Lakatos (1976) concluded that the unit of scientific discovery is not the scientific theory onits own; rather, it is the research program which comprises “hard core” and “protective belt”.

Similar to Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos, Feyerabend also criticizes the positivistic viewpointtoward science, and questions the logical empiricism in the description of the formation andgrowth of science, and consequently rejects deduction as a scientific method. Logical empir-icists (Sarkar and Pfeifer, 2006) maintain that sensory experiences can lead to scientifictheories which are compatible with reality. Feyerabend holds that such a viewpoint is notcompatible with scientific facts and, hence, will not be helpful in the growth of knowledge;rather, it will lead to some sort of dogmatism. Like Popper, Feyerabend holds that anysensory experience occurs in a context which is theory-laden, and therefore by changing thecontext and its theories, the observation and its result will change. Thus, the assessment ofvalidity of scientific theories on the basis of compatibility with reality is not possible, as thehuman sensory experiences are not direct and immediate reflections of reality. Therefore,scientific theory as a result of these experiences cannot be evaluated in relation to its origin,i.e., reality.

Like Kuhn, from the idea that various fields are different, Feyerabend(1999) concludesthat scientific theories are also different and incommensurable. For instance, Newtonianmechanics cannot be compared with Einstein’s relative mechanics, because these two theoriesare related to two different fields or to two different ideologies.

In a more general view and influenced by Wittgenstein’s thoughts, Feyerabend(1993)considers the different accomplishments of human cultures as “different forms of life”. Hebelieves that there is not a fundamental and general method or criterion for comparisonamong different forms. As one step forward, he considers western rationalism in a similarway and regards it as a fundamental epistemology, and by criticizing it, he distances himselffrom the thoughts of Popper and Lakatos. By rejecting any fundamental epistemology, heconcludes that rationalism not only is unique and universal as a theory of cognition andmethod of achieving knowledge, but also is not in a position to judge other epistemologicaltheories.

Thus, Feyerabend is against any unique methodological rule, as well as dividing theoriesinto philosophical and scientific ones using empirical or rational assessment. He also opposesthe intervention of any form of life in other forms. From the idea that “development of scienceis not dependent on any unique and specific principle or epistemology”, he concludes thatdifferences among methods and theories in different fields of knowledge are necessary forcriticism, challenge, and further exchange of ideas and, as a result, for transformation andprogress of knowledge. On such a ground, Feyerabend considers each specific epistemologyto be limited, and by stating that “anything goes” for the development of knowledge, termshis theory “an anarchistic theory of knowledge”. For further elaboration, he writes:” It is anever increased ocean of mutually incompatible alternatives. Each single theory, each fairly-tale, each myth is part of the collection forcing others into greater articulation and all of them

485

SAEID ZARGHAMI HAMRAH

contributing, via this process of competition, to the development of our consciousness”(1993,p. 21).

Deconstruction and Anarchistic Theory: A Different View of KnowledgeBy rejecting human in the position of the subject Derrida concludes that knowledge as theproduct of human cannot be a reflection of truth. Knowledge is limited to human language,and language is essentially metaphoric. Such a view has some results: first, none of the dif-ferent fields of knowledge such as literature, philosophy and science has priority over othersregarding its metaphoric nature. Second, language is historical, cultural, and interpretable,and will change or evolve by changes in the historical and cultural circumstances. Hence,knowledge is also interpretable, changeable and dependent on the conditions. Eventually,recognizing the relations among different fields of knowledge and their differences will helpto reach a more comprehensive understanding of them, because, according to Derrida, theunderstanding of any discourse is possible by considering its differences from other dis-courses.

Moreover, Feyerabend concludes that scientific theories are not the rational result ofsensory experiences; rather, they are context-dependent. so, in order to examine the verityand falsity of scientific theories, one cannot adapt them to reality. Thus, similar to Derrida,he does not believe that knowledge is the reflection of reality and concludes that science,philosophy, and other forms of life are incommensurable, since their contexts, assumptionsand presuppositions are different and incommensurable (Sarkar and Pfeifer, 2006). On theother hand, there is not a unique or hyper-contextual method or measure, compatible withreality, based on which on can judge different forms of life and talk about the validity orinvalidity of a form in comparison with other forms. Methods and measures are field-depend-ent and are meaningful in relation to the field and may not be applicable and meaningful inanother context (Feyerabend, 1993). Furthermore, Feyerabend concludes that different formsof life beside and competing with each other, will lead to development of knowledge andextension of human awareness. On such a ground, Feyerabend regards the extension ofknowledge as the result of theoretical anarchism, rather than law and order, and considersemploying any method for knowledge extension to be permissive. Now, the necessity andpossibility of interdisciplinary studies in higher education can be evaluated.

Deconstruction of Hierarchical Structure of Knowledge: Possibility andNecessity of Interdisciplinary Studies in Higher EducationDerrida believes that different fields of knowledge, and beyond that, all human social,political, economic, and cultural activities, are of a linguistic and metaphoric nature, whichhe calls “discourses”, of which none is superior to and in a position to judge others (Graic,2000).

Along with this, Feyerabend (1993) criticizes the prevalent idea about the dichotomy andinequality of scientific and philosophical knowledge, in which scientific knowledge questionsthe validity of philosophical knowledge from a superior position since science is only alanguage game and so its methods and measures cannot determine the veracity or falsity ofphilosophical knowledge. The measures of any type of knowledge determine the “moves”the players should make. Appropriateness of a move in a game is not equal with its appropri-

486

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

ateness in another game, since there is not any common rule in games. In Lyotard’s opinion(2004), such an attitude toward different fields of knowledge is contrary to Hegel’s viewpoint.Hegel believed that different types of knowledge in a rational and hierarchical system lie indifferent stages (for instance, see Fig. 1). Unlike Hegel, Derrida and Feyerabend hold thatall types of knowledge lie in one level and beside each other, and since different types ofknowledge are limited to human language, there is not any deterministic border among them.

Fig. 1: An Example of the Hierarchical Structure of Knowledge

Such structures, limits the possibility of different and innovative relationships among variousfields of knowledge, owing to the following reasons: first, deterministic and dogmatic viewssuch as logical empiricism and rationalism are bases of the formation such structures. Suchbases impede the varied and flexible relations. Second, the unequal relation among thesefields in the hierarchy of knowledge deems some fields more important. This attitude reducesthe possibility of varied relations in curriculums by marginalizing or eliminating some fields.

Ideas such as Derrida’s deconstruction and Feyerabend’s anarchism theory are means torevisiting and breaking such unfair relations, and hence are the basis for varied and novelinterdisciplinary studies.

It seems that some points on the necessity of interdisciplinary studies can be extractedfrom Derrida’s and Feyerabend’s thoughts. Derrida maintains that concepts in different typesof knowledge are dependent on disparate and opposite concepts (Derrida, 1978). So, eachtype of knowledge is dependent on and even intertwined with other types of knowledge ina way that a more comprehensive understanding of that type requires the comprehension ofits differences with other ones (Cahen, 2001).

By emphasizing the fallibility of science, being historical and its dependence on specificconditions and measures, Feyerabend adds “[t]here is not a single rule, however plausible .

487

SAEID ZARGHAMI HAMRAH

. . The Copernican Revolution, the rise of modern atomism, the gradual emergence of [the]wave theory of life, occurred because some thinkers either decided not to be bound by certain‘‘obvious’’ methodological rules, or because they unwittingly broke them” (Feyerabend,1993, p. 14). Finally he concludes that various fields of human culture, ranging from scienceand philosophy to myths, metaphors, and poetry are dependent on and supportive of eachother, and develop human awareness in relation with each other and through competition.On such a ground, it seems that different flexible multifold relations among knowledge typeslead to surpassing limited methodological rules of each of the fields and to inclusion of newand different horizons into academic curriculums.

ConclusionIt seems that the results of this study can be summarized as follows: first, different fields ofknowledge are of a metaphoric and interpretive nature and are not reflections of reality. Also,each field of knowledge possesses some criteria (such as methodology, important conceptsand presuppositions) that are functional in that field and cannot be used in judging otherfields of knowledge. The above-mentioned points necessitate questioning the hierarchicalstructure of knowledge. For instance, one can ask why philosophy is at the top of the hier-archy, and other sciences are at lower levels. Moreover, human knowledge has a historical,fallible, and changeable nature and, from this viewpoint, none of the fields of knowledgeincluding human or natural sciences are exceptional or superior. Finally, different fields ofknowledge which apparently contrast each other, are dependent and intertwined and thereis not any distinct and determining boundary among them. These results indicate that theboundaries among different fields of knowledge and scientific academic disciplines are notnatural and do not arise from their different natures. So, the traditional structure of academicknowledge can be revised; and, based upon the above-mentioned necessities, interdisciplinarystudies are recommended. Ultimately and on the basis of the findings of this study, the fol-lowing requirements and recommendations are provided for curriculum specialists and policymakers of higher education:

1- Designing academic curriculums based on the horizontal, rather than vertical, rela-tionship among scientific disciplines

In the traditional structure of knowledge, different disciplines have vertical relationshipsin a hierarchy, at the top of which lies a single knowledge. Derrida maintains that thistype of design leads to considering the disciplines which are placed at the top of thehierarchy or its higher levels to be more important, while other fields of knowledge aremarginalized. Marshal and Peters (1997) maintained that Derrida showed especial at-tention to literature, art, and metaphor in order to decentralize philosophy, mathematicsand logic.However, in the modern era, the general public and even specialists have adopted atechnique-centered view such that engineering and technological disciplines, and theirfoundations, i.e., the basic sciences, were in the center of attention, and human sciencessuch as literature and art were marginalized. Thus, in order to prevent the dominanceof disciplines such as philosophy or engineering sciences, which Feyerabend believesto result from dogmatic epistemologies such as western rationalism or logical empiricism,

488

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

horizontal rather than vertical relations of knowledge disciplines should be taken intoaccount. Horizontal relationships provide the foundation for novel and different com-binations of various human sciences and basic and engineering sciences. In other words,horizontal relationships expand the possibility of designing interdisciplinary studies,which will be elaborated on in the next recommendation.2- Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary design rather than discip-linary design

As was mentioned, post-modern philosophers including Derrida believe that there isnot a dichotomy between natural and social phenomena. Similarly, Feyerabend doesnot approve of the dichotomous viewpoint of scientific versus philosophical theories(1993). In a similar manner, Jordan (1989) pointed out the ideas of thinkers of differentfields of human sciences who do not regard these boundaries to be natural and believethat these boundaries have been provided for the convenience of scientists and librarians.In spite of the variation and extension of ideas, the integrative theories in the field ofhigher education curriculum studies suggest interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary andtrans-disciplinary studies in this regard. Concerning the ideas of Derrida and Feyerabendon knowledge nature, such studies are possible and necessary, as different fields ofknowledge are not naturally different and the apparently distinct disciplines are interde-pendent and intertwined. It seems that the dogmatic tradition of disciplines sometimesimpedes the interdisciplinary studies. For instance, sometimes such studies are notpossible as each discipline believes in its own epistemology and considers it in contrastto that of other fields. Such a viewpoint especially hinders interdisciplinary studiesbetween disciplines of human sciences and those of natural sciences. So, it is necessaryto adopt another approach. Accordingly, it seems that employing the concepts that canbe the subject of interdisciplinary studies is an approach to expand interdisciplinary,multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary studies. The approach will be further elaboratedon in the final item.3- Designing academic curriculums on the basis of subjects rather than disciplines

It seems that man has encountered and thought about the subjects and phenomena beforecategorizing various fields of knowledge. Some subjects and concepts such as matter,energy, life, time, air pollution, justice, ethics and many more are subjects and phenom-ena that all the people cope with on the one hand, and that are not confined to a specificdiscipline or field of knowledge on the other hand. For instance, the concept of matteris considered in physics as well as in chemistry and biological sciences. Furthermore,it is an important concept in philosophy, since one cannot talk about metaphysics, ma-terialism or spiritual philosophies without considering the concept of matter. Regardingthe energy sources, the Sun, oil, food, the smile of a teacher, and many other sourcescan be mentioned, which cannot be comprehensively studied in a specific disciplinelike physics. Similarly, Jordan (1989) also pointed out some other subjects such as time,symmetry, holism, reductionism, organism, and many more which are interdisciplinarysubjects. He quoted Holton to hold the number of interdisciplinary subjects to exceedseveral hundreds. Considering the possibility and necessity of paying attention to inter-disciplinary subjects, it is necessary to design and expand academic knowledge andcurriculums on the basis of subjects.

489

SAEID ZARGHAMI HAMRAH

ReferencesBloom, A. (1991). The republic of Plato, Trans New York: Basic Books, Second Edition.Cahen, D. (2001). Derrida & the question of education: A new space for philosophy. In Derrida &

education, Edited by Gerty. J.Biesta & Denise Egea – Kuehne, London: Rout Ledge.Cahoone, L. (2003). From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Black Well Publishing.Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.Derrida, J. (1978).writing & difference, trans. A. Bass, Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.Derrida, J. (1981). Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson, London: The Athlone Press.Feyerabend, P.K. (1993). Against method (3 rd Ed). London: Verso.Feyerabend, P.K. (1999). Knowledge, Science & Relativism: philosophical papers, Vol. 1 & 3, Edited

by J. Preston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Garrison, J. (2003). “Dewey, Derrida, and the Double Bind”, Journal of Educational Philosophy &

Theory, Vol.35, No. 3, Pp. 350 -362.Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. London: Sage.Graic, E. (2000). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Rout Ledge.Gutting, G (2005), Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: oxford university press.Heidegger, M. (1996). Being & Time, Trans. J. Stambaugh. New York: State University of New York

Press.Jordan, T. (1989). “Themes & schemes: A philosophical approach to interdisciplinary science teaching”,

Journal of synthesis, Vol.80, Pp 62-79.Kerdeman, D. (1999).”Between Memory & Differance: (Radically) Understanding the Other”. Journal

of Educational Philosophy & Theory, Vol. 31, No. 2, Pp 225- 229.Kuhn, T.S. (1952). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: university of Chicago press.Lakatos, I. (1976). “Falsification & the methodology of scientific research programs. In criticism &

the growth of knowledge. Edited by lakatos & Musgrave, London: Rout Ledge.Lyotard, J.F. (2004). The postmodern condition in the modernism reader, foundational text, ed. By

Michael Dorlet, London: Rout Ledge.Marshall, J; Peters, M. (1997). Postmodernism & Higher Education. In International Encyclopedia of

the Sociology of Education. Saha. L. J. Pergamon Press.Nietzsche, F. (1974). The Gas Science. Trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Press.Pinar, W. F; Reynolds, W. M. (Ed) (1992). Understanding curriculum as phenomenological and decon-

structed text. New York: Teacher college press.Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative

methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. Journal ofInternational Sociology, Vol. 21, Pp 670-706.

Royle, N. (2003). Jacques Derrida. New York & London: Rout ledge.Sarkar, S; Pfeifer, J. (2006). The Philosophy of Science: an encyclopedia. New York & London: Rout

ledge.Silverman, H.J. (2004). Derrida and deconstruction. New York & London: Rout ledge.

About the AuthorSaeid Zarghami HamrahTarbiat Moallem University, Iran (Islamic Republic of)

490

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

EDITORS

Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Norma Burgess, Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Peter Harvey, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Vangelis Intzidis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Gerassimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Massimo Leone, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. José Luis Ortega Martín, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Bertha Ochieng, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. Francisco Fernandez Palomares, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Miguel A. Pereyra, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Constantine D. Skordoulis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Chad Turnbull, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com