In a society where great emphasis is placed on specialization and division of labor, there is likely to develop a notion that knowledge and techniques fall into 'natural' divisions, each pertaining to some discrete, well-defined aspect of living. One can of course, take issue with the 'naturalness' of the divisions. Like any other classification, division of knowledge and techniques into autonomous specialties can be justified on pragmatic grounds. Instead of asking. 'What are the 'natural' divisions ?' one may ask, 'Given such and such classification, what can be achieved ?'
The achievements of specialization are evident. Modern science and industry are so complex and the standards of scholarship so exacting that it is impossible for any one to master more than a narrow sector of knowledge. If achievements are measured by the extent to which man can know and manipulate his environment, then the pragmatic justification for specialization has been given.
However, there is also a sordid side to specialization. As Norbert Wiener has pointed out, A man may be a topologist or an acoustician or a coleopterist. He will be filled with the jargon of his field and will know all its literature, and all its ramifications, but, more frequently than not, he will regard the next subject as something belonging to his colleague three doors down the corridor, and will consider any interest in it on his own part as an un unwarrantable breach of privacy.1 The notions 'your field' and 'my field' carry with them two unfortunate implications. To begin with, such 'cubicle' thinking bears a disturbing resemblance to the process of severe 'inbreeding' with its accompanying tendency to loss of vigor. The damaging results of this tendency are not too serious, inasmuch as they are confined to