Expertise

Blog 9

The section of Callanan’s article that spoke the most to me in terms of my own education occurs in the second paragraph of page six. She is discussing the classroom dynamic between students in the humanities and hard sciences – and their self-segregation along those disciplinary boundaries. What struck me was the comment that “students and scholars create identifications with home disciplines much like citizens create allegiances with nation-states” (6). The reason that it resonated is because it made me realize the extent to which I hide behind content-based knowledge in the form of one of the disciplines I study: Art History.

When trying to explain an idea, and really in general – I talk about art a lot. And to qualify that, I do find it simpler to use a concrete example than purely abstract thought.

However I realize that my knowledge of art is only becoming more specialized, more expert if you will. And that now when I use it – it is within the framework of Art Historical discourse, i.e. the way I was taught. While upper-year courses expect other considerations (such as sociology, religion, anthropology) to be applied to art, initially Art History is taught in a very linear manner, with a specific European canon (Coliseum, Chartres, Mona Lisa, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon). The assumption is that it is necessary to know these works to have any grasp of Art History. Which is problematic for several reasons, basically that the canon is not only biased in hurtful ways (i.e. Eurocentric, etc.) but also to a certain extent arbitrary. I would contrast this with a course such as RLG 200 Phenomenon of Religion, which does not aim to instill a canon of theory of religion – but covers major thought with case studies. It encourages the reflexivity that Callanan lauds from the outset of the student’s undergraduate career.

Although – it would be wrong not to note that the discipline of Art History is considerable more established than Religion, which would clearly be a factor in how adaptable any discipline would be in incorporating new theory.

Back to my original point: what I noticed was the extent to which I use the discipline of Art History as a form of self-identification. An example, you all would be more than familiar with would be my blog. As in “because I study Art History….” The reason I started talking about art in the first place, was because after the mid-term feedback – I tried to incorporate material not as closely related to the text (as per suggestion) and the only thing that I felt comfortable talking about was art.

Why is that the case? Well, I think that has to do with what is valued not only in the institution but society in general – you can’t talk about it unless you are an expert. Unless you know the facts. The history. The framework, theory and so forth. I think that it is easy to talk about what we are expert in – especially at the university because our knowledge becomes so specialized. Which may be a cynical comment, but I think that when we want to make a point in an interdisciplinary context it becomes difficult, if not impossible for others to argue if they are not “as expert”.

I guess that my point is that Callanan’s article did encourage a certain amount of reflexivity in me because it illuminated how inflexible I am in the way I think and argue.