• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

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.