The Blind Men and the Elephant

Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

John Godfrey Saxe’s last four lines in ‘’The Blind Men and the Elephant’’, a poem based on an Indian fable about six blind men who come across an elephant for the first time in their lives and try to conceptualise it by touching it. However, all blind men come to feel a different part of the elephant, leading to complete disagreement on what an elephant is. The story illustrates how humans tend to take their partial experiences as a whole truth, and their individual perspectives as the one and only version of reality. Yet their perceptions are very limited; one should keep in mind that they may be only partially right, and only hold partial information.

Although the identification of an elephant may not sound very meaningful or relevant, the story gives us some useful insights. What if we replace the six blind men by six men from different disciplines (e.g., psychology, law, economics, geography, mathematics, and physics)? And instead of asking them about the identity of an elephant, we ask them to identify the world’s biggest environmental issues. Or, to make it even more challenging, we ask them their individual solution(s) to these issues. Chances are you will receive six completely different answers. Question is, are these answers different yet adequate approaches to the solution, or is there only a complete answer achievable if the men merge their areas of expertise and come up with an interdisciplinary solution together?

Apocalypse

Environmental consciousness; it’s a hot topic. In nearly all disciplines we are seeking the most fruitful ways to tackle environmental issues. We have to: If we do not change the way we exploit the planet right now, the unsustainable human pressures like overpopulation, overconsumption, climate change, and ecosystem destruction, will leave the earth desolate or even cause a planetary collapse, as apocalyptic as that may sound. Either way, we are jeopardising the health and well-being of future generations dramatically. So, we need to act now. The question is: Do we use our specialised knowledge and generate solutions within each field separately, or do we need to collaborate and merge our areas of expertise to act effectively? In other worlds: is an interdisciplinary approach necessary? Surely, specialised knowledge can be valuable, but if the blind men already fail in such a simple case, how do we expect this complex case to be solved without integrating knowledge?

Mix it up

If the six blind men in the Indian tale were to share their different ideas and experiences with each other, the story could have ended quite differently: by combining the bits of information each man obtained, the truth could be discovered and the elephant could have been identified without a problem. Shouldn’t it be the same with addressing environmental issues? Yes, if you ask me. And so do a myriad researchers. Scholars from different disciplines should collaborate and integrate their individual expertise to address environmental problems. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Many benefits could arise from merging perceptions: research points at an increased awareness of one’s own disciplinary knowledge, stimulation of the ability to perceive matters from different perspectives, establishment of extensive networks for idea sharing, and the initiation of more holistic outcomes. These advantages are useful for a wide range of issues, but could be especially beneficial for the environmental ones, because of their nature.

Ain’t no rest for the wicked

Many environment problems we are facing today go beyond complex, and can be referred to as wicked: these problems are almost resistant to resolution, as they involve various causal factors, are deeply connected to other problems, could be tackled in numerous ways, and are debated strongly. By definition, these problems need to be addressed as an open system and require multiple world views. Therefore, they demand interdisciplinary collaborations.

Take climate change, a wicked problem by nature. How could you possibly address this issue from one perspective only? Climate change entails ecological processes, and thus requires knowledge from the field of natural sciences. But it’s so much more than that: we have to understand the antecedents of these processes, the way people interpret and respond to them, the way human behaviour affect the environment and vice versa, the way governments approach these problems, the list is endless. Therefore these issues call for a broader and interdisciplinary approach. We need to use collaboration with other branches — such as as social sciences, humanities, engineering, and politics — to broaden our view.

Taking them blinders off

Let me give you an example. As an environmentally conscious person, I am always trying to find ways to influence people around me to act more pro-environmentally. I think that promoting individual pro-environmental behavioural is the number one way to a sustainable world. At least, that’s what I thought, until I realised I was highly influenced by my psychological background. Of course it is not the only way to a sustainable world. I had to be honest: my vision was shaped by my psychological, bottom-up orientated lens.

Only after speaking to scholars with a legal background I realised that I completely ignored the existence and importance of top-down legal structures and policies. If there were laws that would, let’s say, obligate schools to sell more healthy options, they would influence children’s diet‘s — simply because their options change. But then again, if most children choose the unhealthy option anyways, and the descriptive norm is to eat unhealthy, children will be less likely to go for that healthy alternative. What I am trying to make clear is that it isn’t either/or: it is an ongoing interaction between structures.

Another example. I could not grasp why my friend from Sint Maarten would never try any vegan food, even though most of our friends follow a vegan diet. From a psychological point of view this didn’t make sense to me: according to Social Norm Theory in psychology, behaviour is highly influenced by social norms, which in our case was holding a vegan lifestyle. Now why didn’t she comply even a tiny bit to that norm? And then it hit me. I was, once again, strongly shaped by my psychological background. I recognized I had to broaden my view: one cannot just look at individuals without considering them as embedded in a larger structure. Psychology and sociology are deeply intertwined. After speaking to my friend, I realized that the culture in which she grew up in — a culture in which eating meat is greatly valued — significantly influenced her individual decisions with regards to diet.

These are just small examples, but they show how easy it is to get lost in the tunnel of your own perspective. It’s useful to keep an open mind within every part of life, and to take off those damn blinders!

Every rose has its thorn

It may seem now as if interdisciplinary is the answer to everything, and that if we all just collaborate and keep and open mind we can solve all existing problems. But, alas, every rose has its thorn: even interdisciplinary research comes with downsides.

To start off with probably the most important issue: an effective interdisciplinary collaboration requires deep commitments and personal relationships. However, the importance of these relationships and the amount of effort it takes to develop them are highly underestimated. These relationships take a lot of time to establish, simply because scholars need to resolve differences in the way they perceive the world, and built up mutual trust. Researchers often think their own views and ideas are superior, and do not take a vulnerable position with regards to other perspectives.

Apart from a generally different perspective on the world, scientists learn to speak a specific language within their discipline, which makes communication in an interdisciplinary team challenging. Scholars may not understand each other, or — and this is even more dangerous- think they understand each other, while they actually mean something completely different. To briefly illustrate this, when I, as a psychologist, speak about values, I refer to the cognitive structures that guide behavioural choices. Yet, when I spoke to an environmental scientist about values the other day, I was slightly confused. It turned out that he had a whole different conceptualisation of the word ‘value’, as he implied ’Co2 emission values’’. This misunderstanding is only a small example of how easily you can get lost in translation in interdisciplinary teams.

Is it worth it?

It’s safe to say that an interdisciplinary approach is not an easy way out: not only do scholars underestimate the importance of deep commitments and personal relationships, researchers also think of their own views as superior, and are not open to other perspectives. On top of that, scientists learn to speak a specific language within their discipline, which makes communication in an interdisciplinary team challenging. But, there is good news. Although these issues may seem to be a heavy burden, they are practical in nature, which means they can be resolved.

To start off, time and space needs to be made available to resolve language barriers. If we take the time to understand each others worlds and specific language, this does not need to stand in the way of fruitful communication. On top of this, scholars need to build on mutual trust, see the limitations of one’s own perspectives, have respect for each other’s views, and be confident in one’s own knowledge without getting defensive.

This may seem as a great deal of recourses in terms of effort, time, patience and perseverance, but if we invest in relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations can become very effective. It can, for instance, stimulate the ability to perceive matters from different perspectives, establish extensive networks for idea sharing, and initiate more holistic and comprehensive outcomes. All crucial for problem solving.

So, if scientists conquer the difficulties they are facing in interdisciplinary teams, and step right outside their disciplinary box, the benefits of merging areas of expertise could skyrocket. And if we are really lucky, the environmental elephant might be finally uncovered.