Fictional Bob takes a piece of a puzzle. He measures its height,
width and depth. He analyzes the lines and curves of its grooved
sides. He tests its composition and the ink used to print it. He
makes conjectures about the color choices and the symbolic meaning
of the details in the art. He smells it. He tastes it.
Fictional Bob refuses to find the puzzle piece’s place in
the bigger picture. Maybe Fictional Bob is a little unhinged.
But after all, this is what students entering the academic world
are being encouraged ““ even obliged ““ to do. Whether
investigating scientific principles in South Campus or
pontificating on art in North Campus, we are all encouraged to
specialize our ideas to the nth degree.
At the risk of being shunned from the trendy academic circles, I
would like to say this is a previously good idea which has been
taken to an extreme where it has gone bad. It led to a class that I
will never forget because it was such a waste of my time.
Let’s just say that in this class, I learned almost
exclusively about two specific artists in music and art history,
rather than the theories that should be taught in a core class.
Those theories sure would have come in handy for my later
specialized classes.
I understand the argument of specialization. To a certain
degree, I even agree that it is an important style of education to
hone and use ““ in moderation.
First year, I often used to write papers in which I tried to
integrate all the aspects of the world into one grand idea. They
were ambitious, but that’s about it ““ in the end, they
contributed little.
Still, the papers analyzing the tiniest details that I write now
contribute just as little to life. They are too specific to suggest
anything about a grand design.
Decontructionism is a literary theory that analyzes details to
prove there is no inherent meaning in anything. We’re
deconstructing ourselves to nothing. Postmodernists rejoice.
Out of curiosity, I Googled the word
“deconstructing.” The word received 671,000 hits. The
first linked me to “Deconstructing stupidity,” an
article in the Financial Times. A couple of scrolls down found me
at “Deconstructing circumcision,” from the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. I stopped at “Deconstructing
Deconstructionism.”
If I was interested, I might deconstruct the deconstructionist
article on deconstructionism, as found in a Google search for
“deconstructing.”
I personally have never been one much into all the trends. I
like holistic study. I also like deconstructing things into fun
details. I like to use the latter to prove an idea from the former.
I’m a rebel like that.
After all, deconstruction loses its relevance when it becomes
the end, rather than the means. There is no point to the
interesting details when we lose sight of the context that
they’re in.
Imagine the world, fragmented into these tiny pieces, with
people looking into their own magnifying glasses. We forget
we’re part of a larger world.
“Primitive” people may kill each other but
intellectuals are going to ignore each other to death.
The specialization of academic fields of study is going to
deconstruct itself to nothing.
We all need to realize the importance of this issue. We are the
future, and many of us are even the future of academia.
We can be the era that took the benefits of holistic mentalities
and specialized deconstructionist applications and merged them into
something more complete. They could complement one another. Just
like the way ecosystems function. After all, they have been here
much longer than any of us ““ and are a good model to
emulate.
As for Fictional Bob, he’ll be fine for now. I’m
helping him see the joys of fitting the little pieces together in
order to see the bigger picture that the puzzle makes. It’s
of a puzzle piece.
Specialists in deconstructing Syrian-American Viewpoint
columnists at UCLA are welcome to send critiques to
nhashem@media.ucla.edu.