On Institutional Restriction of Academic Disciplines (1999)

The paper is published in Interaigitations:Essays for Irmengard Rauch ,ed. By F. Carr,  W. Harbert,  & Lihua Zhang, Peter Lang, New York, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

     Multi-faceted aspects of semiotics reflect both the intellectual and social crises of our era. Modern scholarly development stimulates the reorganization of social and human sciences in terms of interdisciplinary and intercultural strategy, pressing to first seek more pertinent classification for understanding cultural phenomena. Based on these social and intellectual backgrounds, semiotics undertakes an important task without parallel, in rearranging our way of doing research in the humanities. The semiotic challenge is directed toward three major obstacles in present-day academic life: a)scholarly, the classificatory ambiguity; b)institutiona1ly,the disciplinary autonomy; and c) socially, domination of academic authorities. The interdisciplinary status of semiotics is embodied in the attempt to separate and combine disciplinary elements at the same time; for some disciplines are too broad and others are too narrow. Both of academic tendency  cause epistemologica1-discoursive ambiguity in the humanities.

 Since the advent of modem science, intellectual progress has been measured first by more precise classification of natura1, social and cultural phenomena; the professional divisions have been systematically established over the past two centuries. Thus, an academic discipline has two basic parameters: the scientific operational procedure and the social operational institution. Cognitions, questions and solutions are treated within the established disciplines according to commonly accepted procedures of c1assif1cation. As a result, human questions of various kinds arc first raised according to the classificatory systems fixed in academic history. On one hand, scientific specialization of disciplines based on fixed classificatory systems fosters the advancement of knowledge; on the other, the same systems impose restrictions on knowledge that is organized within the rigidified institutions.

 Consequently, a number of questions are addressed first to fields or disciplines which are socially established in departments, institutes and academic centers. Those institutions provide specialists who are the authoritatively chosen people responsible for solving the related problems. The final outcome of the treatment of the questions depends first of all on the pertinence of the initial classification with respect to the questioning. Or simply, whether the authorized specialists are really the right persons for treating and solving the problem handed to them. Such problems are much less connected with natural science than the social and human sciences. The multifold composition of phenomena in the latter field makes effective classification more difficult. As a matter of fact, both division of disciplines and classification of scientific questions in social and human science are influenced by pragmatic tendencies which do not necessarily relate to the reality of human conditions and practice. With respect to non-Western phenomena, these problems become even more serious; there is more difficulty in raising, understanding and treating social and cultural questions. The present article attempts to indicate the prevalent problems concerning the disconnection between existing questions and the related disciplines which are authorized to solve the former; and why a semiotic approach can be an effective way to overcome the epistemological difficulty systematically caused by rigid classification systems.

2.  The problem in China
    While the problem exists seriously in the West, it exists even more seriously in China and in Western fields connected with China. The fo11owing academic examples are illustrative.

2.1. Film studies

    Twenty years ago there was in China a unified circle called "film studies”, which was incorporated into a larger circle called "the field of film", with film production as the center. The arrangement was determined by both ideological requirements and scholarly conditions. The former was due to the belief that film scholarship should serve film production and the latter to the belief that all knowledge of films was regarded as part of the same scholarly field which maintained its own epistemological conditions, operative custom and authorized experts. Because the authority of scholarly professionals exists in a personnel hierarchy, the top scholarly experts controlled scholarly direction and practice. As a result, the scholarly authority of film studies seriously obstructed the progress of mew film scholarship as the ideological restrictions became relaxed after 1978. Practical study, practical criticism, theoretical criticism, film theory and philosophy or aesthetics of film belong in fact to different intellectual and academic categories. An expert specializing in one or two of the above mentioned areas is not necessarily competent for related problems in other fields. The point is whether there should be one single discipline called "film studies" or different disciplines, although all of them are somehow connected with film. Because of a human tendency to maintain one's own traditional authority, the authorized expert spontaneously tends to oppose scholarly reform or a new "labor division" in film scholarship. Instead, the distinguished academic 1eaders tend to control everything in their own authorized "zone". The knowledge involved was therefore restricted by the o1d academic system that was based on the old epistemological classification. Only when the old structure of the academic discipline was deconstructed and the new, more reasonable scholarly labor division established in the field could scholarly and intellectual activity be more rationally rearranged. Personal authority in connection with scholarly direction and scientific efficiency is directly related to existing academic and epistemological systems of classification. In our example, the reformed labor division required first the separation of film production and film study, followed by the more practical and the more theoretical studies. The active results are connected not only with scho1arship but also with artistic practice and its social consequences. For this epistemological and academic transformation, semiotic approaches have played a considerable role in China. To a lesser degree, the phenomenon also exists in Western academics in general and film scholarship in particular. Thus far, film semiotics remains a dubious undertaking to many film professors. The reason is that there exist different types of film studies, each connected with different academic standards and disederata. Is there any necessity to build up a single hierarchy to unify these different scholarships?

2.2. Literary studies

    Among all branches of the humanities, 1iterature plays a leading role in Chinese cultural and social life. Similar to the case of film, there has existed a general professional field called "the Circle of Literature,” and "the Circle of Literature and Arts”, with literary creations of various kinds at the center. Criticism and theory to serve literary creation first and foremost; and criticism at different levels and theory are rolled into a sub-category "Circle of Theory". With a more important ideological role in Chinese society and history, distinguished novelists and poets maintain the basic direction and character of literary activity in China. So-called literary studies comprise mainly two categories: practical, moral-directed criticism and Philological studies. Whereas the former played a more important role in the extreme revolutionary era, the latter has been respected as intellectually more serious and productive. On the whole, creative, critical, historical and theoretical activities are widely woven into present-day Chinese literary life. Despite the fact that this tendency is rooted in the ideological mechanism, the epistemological confusion remains an active factor in the retardation of literary studies in China. On one hand, literary philology is the main type of literary scholarship in China, and on the other, theoretical activity in the circle is restricted by the overwhelming prestige of Chinese novel writing. Because of this traditional weakness of theoretical reflection in Chinese literature, the mechanism of Chinese literary life in this century remains unclear and even unattractive to literary scholars. Literature today remains basically a tool for maintaining the political and social balance. As a result, literary studies of various kinds are united in a single system with a hierarchical authority in which the top figures are philo1ogical in character. Since contemporary Western literary theories have intruded into China, they exist only on the periphery, playing a minor role in actual literary studies. A basic division between the creative and theoretical activities in connection with literary phenomena is yet to be   recognized.  Such a recognition could lead to a significant transformation of Chinese literary culture. For example, semiotic approaches in the field can help strengthen knowledge of the constitution and function of 1iterary studies.

2.3. Political studies

     Not until this century have Chinese political movements manifested an interest in studying political theories, although their basic motivating force remained to be practical rather than scholarly. Because so-ca11ed political theories of different Chinese parties are more ideological than epistemological, the politico-theoretical inf1unence in various Chinese communities remains at a lower level. Further, a basic confusion between scientific research and practical analysis has been prevalent. On one hand, every politician or journalist thinks he is competent to study politics because of his own direct experience or observations; on the other hand, every dissident thinks his moral criticism of the political or social wrongdoings of the authorities is tantamount to a political study. Therefore, this phenomenon is marginally studied in China. We can even assert that there has never existed a qualified po1itical scholarship in China in this century. However, the flaw has been least recognized by the Chinese themse1ves, in comparison with other fields. The reason is that the different political dimensions are mixed in the related scho1arship, which results largely in either ideological doctrines or practical, moral-causal analyses. Consequently, when the ideological-political theories disappears, the theoretical vacuum in political studies is more easily recognized. Practice-directed policy study and epistemology-directed political theory should be reorganized more delicately in China than in western political science. The function of politicians, ideologues, moral critics, journalists and theoretical analysts should be separated from one another. A related semiotic approach can further help separate different semantic and functional layers of political life. In any case, practitioners in the field are not necessarily more competent in understanding the political mechanism in Chinese society. The retardation of Chinese political and social reform is partly due to the lack of relevant knowledge of political science.

2.4. Studies of traditional opera

     Among all traditional Chinese arts, the situation of opera, especially that of the more elaborate ones, is ever more critical. Almost all suggestions and measures relating to opera in China are connected with practical reforms designed to meet the changing taste of the modem Chinese audience. More so than with the field of film, the "Circle of Traditional Opera" is weak in its scholar1y tradition. Everything concerned with cultural criticism has been discussed and treated by the authorized "experts” among whom the leaders are the experienced actors and actresses themselves. The first serious confusion of the identity of the specialty occurs between performative and scholarly practitioners. The so-called crisis is related to the many different levels of the changing society which can hardly be comprehended by the actors, directors and administrative officials in the field. As a result, the crisis can hardly be alleviated and opera, especially the most sophisticated one "kunqu", is steadily on the wane. The crisis lies not in the necessity for strengthening irrelevant aesthetical studies, as has been done to date, but in the need to appeal to a more permanent one, c.g., artistic semiotics, which can help separate different planes and their effects on the composition of this cultural phenomenon in its social-cultural and historical aspects. But few scholars understand that the most practical traditional phenomenon and the more theoretical Western methodologies can be combined for more effectively increasing our knowledge of the phenomenon, which remains one of our most valuable cultural heritages.

2.5. Historical studies

     Ideological historiography, political historiography, theoretical historiography and philosophy of history have long co-existed in China. But it is not difficult to establish that they in fact belong to different scholarly subjects. The close relationship between political and historical processes imposes on historiographic studies a practical involvement. Political authorities often employ historiography to achieve their political goals. In Chinese communities, historical studies are widely constrained by political circumstances. As a result, a number of important events and periods in modem Chinese history have been treated unscientifically. The most remarkable examples can be raised with the “Xi-An Accident” on the eve of the Sino-Japanese War (this event involved various political forces: the contemporary Chinese authorities, the Communist Party, the Japanese, the local military power and the intellectuals. The frequent reminder of this historical event in China has resulted on1y in the rearrangement of the balance of interest for each partner through an ever new interpretive rhetoric) and " The February 28,Tragedy” of Taiwan after the war (This involves the contemporary authorities, the present-day successors of those authorities, the local separatists, the Japanese, the Communist Party and the intellectuals. The essence of the reflection on the event implies the same utilitarian motive and result). Alongside these politics-directed studies of historical problems, the purely academic studies remain philological in nature. This philological tradition leads historica1 studies to neglect the knowledge of socio-causal and intellectual-moral aspects, rendering the most important field in social and human sciences much less effective in its potential for explanation and interpretation. Because the philological scholars are far from competent in grasping the theoretical dimension, they cannot be competent in understanding the entire purview of historical science. This constituent confusion about historiography seriously hampers Chinese knowledge of society, history and humanities. In the meantime, those conservative historiographic authorities are content with maintaining their scholarly power by obstructing the more profound epistemological studies.

3. The problem in Sinology

     In order to explain the epistemological constraint on established disciplines, Sinology as a professional field in the West merits discussion. The combination of the Western institutional framework and the Chinese material or objects makes it share the same epistemological confusion in connection with different problematic systems. In general, the fo1lowing scientific areas arc contained in the same field: linguistic, historical-Philological, philosophical, archeological-sociological historical-political and poliuca1. Unlike the estab1ished disciplines in the Western humanities, Sinology is still in its less well-established disciplinary state. Specifically, the sinologic "discipline" is only a customary combination of different scholarly areas. Thus, we can see here the functional confusion resulting from the fact that this academic field is in fact not specialized enough to deal with its different scientific tasks. The most remarkable among these tasks concerns political discussions in China. In the West the analogous political category must be divided into scientific and political activities. However, in sinologic political study, the two aspects are mixed, with neither being specialized. The sinologic-political activists are not genuine political professionals, nor are they genuine scholars of politics. Rather, they are informants on Chinese socio-political affairs working at a journalistic level. Or, they function as both critics and human rights observers for Chinese politics. Because, compared with most Western people ignorant of non-Western affairs, they know much more about China. This historical background determines the identity of sinologic scholarship. On the other hand, belonging to Western society, it is closely tied with Chinese situations; there exists close interaction between both sides. This field provides us a typical example of the confusion resulting from different scholarly directions. The confusion is also primarily due to the scant attention given to the classificatory imperative in doing research.

 While China lacks sufficient deep political scholars, Western counterparts are largely of the sinologic type. The results of the related studies are reflected in international media reports which are based upon commercial and political motives. The authority of political scholarship on China is based on social recognition or reputation. Here again we confront problems in the form of classificatory obstacles. The classificatory trouble is basically related to the establishment of criteria for judging authority or qualification in treating classified problems. Different criteria are pragmatically mixed or reduced to a single criterion of the authority or qualification: the level of reputation or authority. Despite divergence in its sources, reputation provides a unified measure of authority or qualification for intellectual analysis. How can reputation become so effective criterion of the authority or qualification for intellectual judgment? It is due to our commercialized mode of social life. The spread of message is carried out by journalism, which seeks reception of its informational goods. Then reputation can become the single useful condition for success in spreading a message of any kind. It is clear that journalism is not the basis for attaining truth but for stimulating reputation. Reputation therefore replaces truth as both end and means in political discussions concerning China. In addition, a11 of these discussions are employed not as part of Western political scholarship but as part of Western political practice in connection with China. In general, compared with other areas of social and  human sciences, political studies suffer more from semantic and institutional ambiguity.

4. Discipline and hierarchy

     The classificatory patterns of modern sciences lead to the specialized fields ca11ed disciplines, which in turn produce authorized academic leaders. The academic leaders become the responsible authorities for maintaining scholarly problems. As persona1ities, the academic leaders tend to maintain their academic power through persistence in the traditional scho1arship accepted or created by them or their procedures. Their academic benefit is rooted in the existence of specialized discip1ine based on the various kinds of traditional classificatory systems. The interdisciplinary and intercultural trend in academic life today is, however, contradictory to the established classificatory systems and consequently oppositional to the benefit of the academic leaders. This could be the immediate reason that the interdisciplinary practice is usually opposed by the main scho1arly trends in various fields.

 The academe hierarchy itself becomes a structural reason for the stability of conservative scholarly directions. Individual academic authority is further needed and used by many other colleagues claiming to be of the same lineage. The successful school leaders also create a collective academic power that is necessary for academic competition. The status of scholarly authorities is tied to a collective interest. For a "post-modern" society lacking the notion "truth", the genuine motive for doing scholarship is to gain academe success, namely public recognition. Without first considering which theory is closer to "truth ", school members are mainly concerned about proper strategy for protecting the prestige of the schoo1 and its leaders and promoting its academic benefits. The reputation of an academic leaders itself, therefore, becomes a means to strengthen the collective interest. Scientific works in the humanities have been the commercialized. The names of the authorized school leaders function as brand names in the academic market place.

  The history of Western humanities is the combination of scholarship of diverse distinguished scholars in various fields and periods. The so-called schools are centered respectively in the textual records of the remarkable figures and therefore the product of the humanities has been casually formed. The so-called disciplines are the collectives or combinations of the intellectual accumulations of those historical figures. But when intellectual combinations of this kind are shaped, they also bring about the institutional framework for further intellectual production in historical societies.

   Intellectual history itself promotes a productive autonomy to enrich itself along a continuous strategic line. Every new scholar creates his works within this historically formed framework. The interaction between historical scholarly autonomy (tradition) and contemporary individual experience (creation) is also occasionally shaped by the liberal status of the humanities. In any case, the traditional autonomy of one discipline, namely the successive combination of academic authorities, is more determinative in forming new thought; the latter is caused more by occasional historically shaped operative autonomy than by any horizontal academic experience. Within the intellectual traditions, the intellectual power-holders are the academic authorities that direct scholarly production. The prevalence of the historical over the contemporary tends to decrease scientific efforts, which must be more horizontal in nature and more positive in strategy. From this tradition we can understand why the individual figures or academic authorities have played so determinative a role in the constitution of the humanities. We have also an institution of "academic stars"; the world of the humanities consists of discontinuous individuals who are the academe power-holders. All academic practitioners organize their careers within the framework set by those authorized figures, either positively or negative1y. When attempting to challenge the authorities by creating some originality, that originality is formed according to the same common system and language. Similarly, scholarly divergence is formed within the same system as the discipline.

   Therefore, the recent fashion of historicism in the humanities has a link with the above analysis: academic authorities habitually tend to retrace and strengthen their historical roots. Intellectual tradition, academic authority and conservative scholarship are organically unified. As a result, the institutional compartmentalization embodied in the disciplinary system tends to insist on the traditionally established autonomies. Semiotics, however, plays a role in breaking up the professional, disciplinary and academic institutionalization
 
5. The role of semiotics

     The tem "semiotics" can be employed on various levels, playing different roles. As the most general designation, semiotics refers to reorganizations of the traditional academe systems of the world in terms of interdisciplinary theories. Because of its profound and comprehensive ambition, semiotics must be directed to the theoretical foundations of various disciplines, especially philosophy, which remains one of the most conservative traditional disciplines. Thus, the philosophical remains the central part of the humanities, which have undergone radical change since World War II. In light of the above explanation, we know that semiotics implies a "revolutionary" character in confrontation with existing academic power as embodied in the disciplinary systems. It is here that we are faced with a moral problem related to theoretical semioticians: Under the pressures of the existing academic system, what should they choose? They are required by the historical situation to defy the restriction and suppression of the academic authorities in various fields. Behind this intellectual courage there is also a traditional belief in scientific truth. Absent this mentality, semioticians would likely choose the least resistance and the more profitable path, and therefore their efforts would still need the check of the existing authorities, which alone guarantee the success of the academic market.

   Consequently, the direct confrontation between the conservative/powerful intellectual trends and the reformative/weak intellectual trends becomes unavoidable. The reason lies essentially not in the fact that the motive for reputation is shared by both the conservative and the reformative scholars, but that the latter, i.e., the reformative ones, tend to move in the more "correct" or reasonable direction. And the correctness itself is based on the concept "truth" or its alternatives, viz. some criterion which is "objective" in relation to the subject's operation. The semiotic approach in general represents such a "rational-positive" direction because of the fo11owing traits: a) the interdiscip1inary, b) the intercultural, c) the institution-analytica1, d) the ideology-analytical and e) the semantic-analytical. All five poles in the semiotic strategy are inclined to break up the established academic compartmentalization and the existing hierarchy of academic power.

    a) The interdisciplinary. It is obvious that the interdisciplinary direction is in opposition to disciplinary centrism with the necessary result that the authorities of the discip1ines must be weakened accordingly.
 
    b) The intercultural. The phenomena or material of research should be as comprehensive as possible in order to spread the scope of the objects treated. It is evident that Western-centrism in historical documents will be replaced by the historical experience of the world. The traditional conclusions based on Western history must be revised following the expansion of human experience. On the other hand, the autonomy of non-Western cultural scholarship must be deconstructed as well. The Western-directed methodologies must be widely employed in the field in order to make the studies more intelligible.

    c) The institutional. It is mainly due to the contributions of structuralism that the determinative conditions behind the phenomena have become more important. We are not content with observing what appears but more interested in what makes the appearance possible. Accordingly, a number of studies in social and human sciences will be deepened and expanded.
    d) The ideological. For investigating social-cultural phenomena, the ideological dimension becomes more necessary and fruitful because of the historical existence of interpersonal power relations. In this dimension the interaction of power and cultural "tricks" is determinative for the formation of cultural-scholarly typology.
    e) The semantic. Compared with the highly successful natural sciences, social and human sciences are widely obstructed by the traditional semantic disorder in their textual documents. The immediate task of semiotics lies precisely in re-describing the historically transmitted manifestations. The intellectual autonomy caused by ancient textual tradition should welcome modern renovating works. The classical textual world does not maintain a privilege of keeping its original semantic or poetic ambiguity. In this respect the scientific and the poetic should be more clearly distinguished in order to have the classical heritage more meaningfully join in the ancient/modern dialogue. For non-Western cultures this necessity is sharper and more urgent.

6.Conclusion

     The history of disciplines amounts to the lineages of the individual authorities; the diachronic connection of individual scholars in a discipline tends to strengthen the status and function of the discipline. The constituent units of the discipline are the individual thoughts that are the objects and the working ground of practitioners in the discipline. The disciplinary units are the individual intellectual totalities, i.e., one's thought is accepted entirely in the discipline. The interdisciplinary, which stresses the interaction between different operative procedures rather than merely between different materials, first tends to disorganize the "individual thoughts", which are divided into different constituent elements. Those elements are employed in a different system from the original one as an intellectual unity. In other words, the intellectual elements of individuals are put into the operative systems formed through interdisciplinary rearrangement. The absolute merit of some individual thought is at first excluded. The intellectual units are no longer the entire thought of individuals but their constituent parts, which arc valued and employed in different disciplinary systems. This could be the most substantial contribution of the semiotic approach to the humanities today. We should overcome the historical causality made by the composition of individual thoughts. Consequently, the contemporary academic authorities affiliated with different disciplines should not become the absolute criteria for guiding our new thought and sciences. However, in actual academic life, the education of the humanities is still based on the texts of distinguished individuals. The situation is logically contrary to the interdisciplinary strategy, which tends to break up the restriction rooted in the academic lineages. The general lack of coherence between tasks, which are frequently formed in social and mental realities, and methods, which are, in turn, shaped by individual intellectual heritages, forces us to reorganize the institutions and compositions of academic tradition. If semiotics is viewed as only another discipline to join in the competition within the same academic framework, its renovating potential will be decreased. Theoretical semiotics is in essence a systematic methodology for analytically and synthetically reorganizing proccdura1 elements in different disciplines.