Upon graduating from high school, the final stage of general education, society places in front of you a limited number of paths from which you choose one that guarantees you stable income, prestige, and value. It becomes a part of your identity and a measure of your worth, and it may become a curse that haunts you for the rest of your life. This is a characteristic of contemporary life that prepares individuals from their childhood to choose a field of specialization.
Specialization is a primary driver of any society’s development. More than 200 years ago, the economist Adam Smith emphasized the importance of division of labor when it comes to increasing productivity in his book “The Wealth of Nations,” which is considered one of the most important books in history. A company that divides the workload among individuals according to their specialization will outperform a company that rotates employees to work in all fields. Through each worker’s focus on their “specialization,” their skills develop, their experience grows, and the company becomes more efficient. This is the case in all advanced countries and enterprises.
When applying for a job, you will be directly asked about your specialization, about your deep knowledge in your specific niche. With the increase of specialists, productivity and development grow. Specialization is essential to us. However, the concept of specialization has penetrated the contemporary mind to the extent that it has become a frightening expectation. Specialization contradicts curiosity, flexibility, and freedom. It is an unavoidable evil – as described by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in one of his books. Continuous focus solely on one field comes at a cost, namely, the limitation of one’s horizons, detachment from reality, forgetting general knowledge, and the fear of immersing oneself in other fields despite their importance in shaping human intellect.
Specializing in science and technology has become a pretext for ignoring philosophy, history, art, and literature, as if they represent marginal knowledge that holds no value. Meanwhile, the humanities, social sciences, and literary specializations have an advantage over natural sciences in their comprehensive view of humanity and their proximity to the human psyche. Literary majors may not feel embarrassed by their ignorance and disregard for many scientific matters, since their specialization itself sets an expectation for the lack of scientific knowledge.
Flexibility is one of the most beautiful inherent qualities of humans. Specialization should not be used as an excuse to ignore the holistic view of humanity, nature, and life, nor should it discourage individuals from broadening their intellect. There are countless examples of individuals who have excelled because they diversified their fields of knowledge. However, recounting their stories may create a negative perception of monodisciplinary – which holds crucial importance today. Nevertheless, there is a proposal for the creation of a Nobel-like prize for those who excel in combining different specializations, given the significance of interdisciplinarity in the human quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
If we contemplate the academic sphere, we find that knowledge began as one state with a single language but diversified, with time, into dialects within multilingual cities. As a result, specialized researchers find it difficult to communicate with specialists in other fields and to bridge the gap between their specialized language and the language of general knowledge. They may even remain unaware of their location within the state despite their excellence in navigating their own city. In the current PhD system, we can clearly see the dilemma of specialization. Postgraduate studies emphasize specialization, which overshadows the philosophical dimension upon which the PhD system was originally built. Today, priority lies in new studies and novel discoveries, while the historical and philosophical aspects of specialization seem to be a waste of time and heaps of outdated information. Specialization has proven its worth, so what is the use of studying historical roots when there are books that present the latest developments and theories? When you specialize in a particular field, you immediately accept certain assumptions that leave no space for exploration due to the continuous accumulation of new information. This sometimes makes it challenging to answer questions from outsiders about your specialization, and at other times, it undermines your confidence. Today, doing your PhD has become more like a mechanical process based on a list of tasks determined by your research supervisor – with some exceptions. Consequently, this system has produced a significant number of individuals who lack understanding of the scientific method, even though a PhD is a testament to their competence in that regard. The holders of a PhD no longer possess the scientific authority they once had, as many of them lack basic logical thinking skills when faced with the general public. They understand their field, but they are ignorant of its realistic, social, and philosophical dimensions and implications. This has prompted some researchers to propose solutions to the dilemma of specialization in PhD programs, such as dedicating the first year to studying critical philosophy. During this year, the researcher would study the theory of knowledge, critical thinking, metaphysics, ethics, probability theory, and statistics. This would enable PhD researchers to have a broader perspective and a more comprehensive outlook that is not confined to a narrow field. They would possess the tools of critical thinking and not rely solely on scientific knowledge.
In the lives of the public outside the academic sphere, we find that specialization has created a fear of delving into other specializations. Each person is labeled with only one specialization, and anything beyond that is considered mere hobbies. Your specialization has become your field that you are not allowed to venture out of unless you switch to another specialization or choose a different path altogether. The question of “Should I follow my passion or ensure a stable income?” is repeated as if they are two divergent paths at a crossroads, as if delving into one means moving away from the other. This portrays a false image of the limitations of human flexibility.
There has emerged a form of aversion even towards acquainting oneself with other specializations, under the pretext that understanding them is difficult for non-specialists. If someone without a specialized degree presents a piece of information and makes a mistake, they are met with foolish ridicule, as the saying goes: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” which implies that every individual must carry knowledge in one field only.
Human beings are remarkably adaptable with a profound capacity for learning and developing. They possess vast imagination and constantly strive to comprehend the world around them. They live in a constant struggle with their innate curiosity, seeking to escape the limitations of specialization. However, speaking outside the framework of academic specialization does not imply speaking confidently about all matters and claiming to understand everything. The encyclopedic personality has long become extinct, and no one can encompass all. There is a distinction between being encyclopedic, specialized, knowledgeable, familiar, and aware. “Non-specialist” does not necessarily mean uninformed; perhaps it is more accurate to say that when someone speaks without familiarity, they may speak nonsense. Even specialists themselves can sometimes speak nonsense.
Finally, read about history, science, religion, philosophy, sports, economics, literature, and anything that piques your curiosity. Learn video editing, business management, photography, novel writing, and master whatever you wish to excel in. Liberate yourself from the curse of specialization.
T1622
