"Region" Studies = Interdisciplinary Studies?

[Lauren the Librarian]

I see the region studies programs (eg Middle Eastern, East Asian) are now being grouped in the Inderdisciplinary Studies subforum. Is that just because thegradcafe is organizing them that way or is it because the academic community at large considers them interdisciplinary?

I can see how studying a region is mixed, ecomonics, geography, political science, history, women's studies... but they still seem rather humanities-like (or social sciency) to me.

Anyone got an opinion?

ps. I did see the thread in the comments section about this, but I'm wondering more about how region studies is perceived by the academics.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lauren the Librarian

[Roll Right]

I wouldn't argue that regional studies are interdisciplinary studies. I think that the board is just organizing things as they see fit.

[jacib]

I wouldn't argue that regional studies are interdisciplinary studies. I think that the board is just organizing things as they see fit.

I tend to see discipline as a method. There is a sociological method, a historical method, etc. There is also a body of theory that address these fields in general even if there is less clear of a method: while calling "close reading" the "literary method" might be pushing it, there is certainly a distinct body of theory meant to be applied in the discipline.

The interdisciplinary programs are defined by their lack of method and the limitlessness of their theory. They are fields rather than disciplines. There is no Middle Eastern Studies method, there is no Middle Eastern Studies theory. While there is Feminist Theory and Queer Theory, it is not meant to be applied to the discipline, but rather, it is meant to be applied to every discipline. Feminist theory is designed to engage a broad range of topics in both the Social Sciences and the Humanities.

For this reason, Religion always seemed to me an interdisciplinary program and indeed, at my school it was treated as such. I took as many classes with social scientists as I did with people who pored over ancient texts in dead languages. Of the nine people who graduated in my program, two projects were clearly sociological, two clearly historical, one a mix of history and philosophy, two could have been in classics, and one was Biblical, then there was me, overseen by a scholar of William Blake who could have been in the English department. Sadly, my graduate schools search has taught me that most of the time, it's not the case, and it's much more like Tomoko Masuzawa describes in the wonderful book The Invention of World Religions: People study saints or the Bible, or people study a pagan equivalent of saints or the Bible. I realized that, other than J. Z. Smith and Mircea Eliade, and some critics like Masuzawa, all the theory I found interesting came from the Social Sciences (mainly Anthropology and Sociology).

Anyway, grad school has made me sick to death of departments. I need to become superfamous enough to start nabbing joint appointments. This is my take on methods and fields today, we'll see if I still agree tomorrow.

[rising_star]

I think it's a tough question, and one that thegradcafe has spent the last 4 years struggling with. When I think about the people I know that are currently working on a Latin American studies graduate degree, they are studying any/all of the following: history, geography, anthropology/culture, biology, public health, public policy, literature, linguistics, and political science. Then, there's the projects that range across a number of these like immigration or agriculture. So, in my mind, the area studies are interdisciplinary.

More to the point though, over the years, the various regional studies have been in both the humanities and social sciences*, sometimes in both simultaneously with posters in one not aware of the posters in the other. My own university has some area studies in the humanities and others in the social sciences, though I doubt anyone could explain why Africana, East Asian, Russian and Slavic, and German Studies are humanities while Judaic, Latin American, Mexican American, and Middle Eastern Studies are in the social science. It might have to do with where faculty members hold appointments but even that is just a guess.

I think where we erred was in introducing the new category of "Interdisciplinary Studies" during the busy time, rather than during the dead part of the summer. But, it was a decision that bgk and I have debated for at least two years and we finally agreed that though it's messy, it is also needed.

*In the end, I doubt it's a big deal where we end up categorizing the regional studies fields as long as people are able to find them. Four years ago, there was a lengthy discussion about whether history belonged under humanities or social sciences (and, if bgk were to comment, ze'd probably point out that this is why there was so much reluctance to divide into these broad categories [as in Social Sciences, Humanities, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, etc.] to begin with as it wasn't part of the forum's original structure). During that debate, people tried to use the "But University X says it's this one!" argument. As it turns out, some universities place history in the humanities and others place it in the social sciences, with no clear indication of which it is based on prestige of the university or the department. Ultimately, it's worked out just fine and I don't think anyone on the history forum is still pissed about it being under humanities and not social sciences.

Edited January 17, 2010 by rising_star
to fix a bunch of grammatical errors

[Lauren the Librarian]

Anyway, grad school has made me sick to death of departments. I need to become superfamous enough to start nabbing joint appointments. This is my take on methods and fields today, we'll see if I still agree tomorrow.

I agree with your plan 100%. It worries me that interdisciplinary means no discipline, in stead of being open to and employing all disciplines. If a method is worth anything it should be able to be used in other fields.

Thanks all for your responses. This is something I've been mulling over for a while now. I think there's an end in sight, but there are a few things that I have to figure out first.