Interpreting Canon Authority Through Transdisciplinary Lenses:

Cybernetics, Ethics, and Social Change

Cristo LEÓN1
Office of Research & Development, NJIT, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, U.S.A. [ORCID: 0000-0002-0930-0179]
Marcos O. CABOBIANCO
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Viamonte 430, C1053 CABA, Buenos Aires, Argentina. [ORCID: 0000-0002-9178-6840]
Peer-Editor: Edgar MERITANO
Department of Sciences and Arts for Design, Research and Knowledge, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Mexico
[ORCID: 0009-0006-2264-4984]

ABSTRACT disciplinary research, particularly in the context of global

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between
the concept of canon authority and trans-disciplinary
studies, examining how canon authority has been
instrumental in fostering trans-disciplinary research
across various academic fields. Firstly, it explores how
canon authority, traditionally rooted in law, political
science, and philosophy, has been pivotal in advancing
trans-disciplinary approaches, especially in global
governance. By scrutinizing different perceptions of
authority and their implications for social relations and
legitimacy, the paper underscores the necessity of a
transdisciplinary methodology in research. Secondly, the
paper contrasts Wolfgang Iser's cybernetics model of
interpretation with conventional models, highlighting its
unique integration of poetics, hermeneutics, and ethical
considerations. This section emphasizes the role of
cybernetics in offering a multi-disciplinary perspective on
social change, challenging traditional interpretative
frameworks. Lastly, the paper addresses the minimal
influence of theorists like Huizinga and Caillois on the
study of canon authority within trans-disciplinary
research, underscoring a gap in the literature. This
comprehensive examination not only bridges diverse
disciplinary insights but also opens new avenues for
understanding the dynamics of canon authority in
contemporary research and its impact on societal and
ethical considerations.
Keywords: Trans-Disciplinary Communication (TDC),
Johan Huizinga (1872-1945), Roger Caillois (1913-1978),
Canon Authority, Transdisciplinary Studies, Cybernetics
Interpretation, Global Governance, Ethical
Considerations.
governance, ethics, and social change. This paper aims to
unravel these complex interrelations, offering fresh
perspectives on the role of canon authority in fostering
innovative research approaches across disciplines.
2. CANON AUTHORITY IN TRANS-
DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
This section examines how the concept of canon authority
has been employed in various academic disciplines to
understand and analyze trans-disciplinarity. It discusses
the diverse interpretations of authority and its effects on
social relations and legitimacy. Furthermore, the section
delves into the role of canon authority in facilitating the
interaction between science and stakeholders,
highlighting the importance of transdisciplinary research
processes.
The concept of canon authority has been used to study
trans-disciplinarity. Scholars in law, political science, and
philosophy have found the idea of authority helpful in
describing, explaining, and assessing global governance
[1]. The application of authority to transnational relations
has opened up fruitful arenas for research in terms of
legality, empirical analysis, and normative considerations
[2]. However, there are differing notions of authority and
how it emerges and affects social relations between
critical actors [3], as well as its relationship to
legitimacy [4]. The study of trans-disciplinarity requires a
transdisciplinary approach involving interaction between
science and stakeholders and calling for transdisciplinary
research and processes [5]. Therefore, the concept of
canon authority has been utilized to understand and
analyze trans-disciplinarity in various academic
disciplines [5].

1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of canon authority, while rooted in
traditional disciplines such as law and philosophy, has
evolved to play a significant role in the realm of trans-
disciplinary studies. This evolution raises questions about
how canon authority informs and shapes trans-
1
I would like to express my profound gratefulness to Dr. Edgar Meritano for his comprehensive and detailed peer-editing of this
document.
Additional quotes
“The disciplines of international law and sociology are
clearly and naturally separate, each with their own
canons, procedures, methods, tools, tropes, conventions
and tricks of the trade that can be learned respectively to
facilitate bi-disciplinary interventions or orderly (bi)-
disciplined reciprocal borrowing” [6]
“The present book is written by experts and practitioners
of interdisciplinary research and policy advice. It analyses
topical and methodological approaches towards
interdisciplinarity, starting with the current role of
scientific research in society. The volume continues with
contributions to the issues of knowledge and acting and to
trans-disciplinary deliberation. The final conclusions
address the scientific system as a substantial actor and the
relevant research and education politics.” [7]
“While literary studies had been done with the goal of
finding ever new arguments for the validity of the literary
canon and, as such, had gravitated towards the
consolidation of their tradition, neighboring humanistic
disciplines were gaining a newfound relevance by
reinventing themselves to comment on economic, social
and political phenomena of the immediate present.” [8, p.
78]
“This article critically reviews the history, historiography,
and sociology of knowledge of interdisciplinarity with a
focus on etiology, epistemology, definitions, relationships
among and between disciplines, intellectual and
institutional locations, and the organization of knowledge.
A new, more historical approach to the “problem” of
interdisciplinarity is proposed.” [9]
“This article explores the definitions, constructions,
understandings, and struggles around Cultural Studies as
a whole in Latin America, giving particular attention to its
central legacies and the differences among them.” [10]
3. CYBERNETICS AND INTERPRETATION IN
TRANS-DISCIPLINARY STUDIES
Here, the focus shifts to Wolfgang Iser's cybernetics
model of interpretation, contrasting it with traditional
interpretative frameworks. The section elaborates on how
cybernetics bridges poetics and hermeneutics and
incorporates a biological approach to the philosophy of
science. It also discusses the emphasis on ethics as an
integral part of interpretation, demonstrating the
multidisciplinary nature of cybernetics in understanding
social change.
According to Wolfgang Iser, Cybernetics as a model of
interpretation differs from other models of interpretation
by avoiding the strict opposition between poetics and
hermeneutics. While pioneers of poetics like Tzvetan
Todorov and Benjamin Harshav excluded interpretation
from the systematic literature study, Iser's approach
acknowledges the productive dialogue between his work
and systematic poetics [11]. Additionally, cybernetics
provides a multi-disciplinary theory of social change that
uses regulation, self-organization, and reflexivity models
to describe systemic problems. This differs from other
models of interpretation that focus on ideas, groups,
events, or variables. Furthermore, cybernetics adds a
biological approach to the philosophy of science,
emphasizing ethics as an essential aspect of
interpretation [12] or the act of reading [13]. In summary,
cybernetics, as a model of interpretation à la Wolfgang
Iser, offers a unique perspective that bridges the gap
between poetics and hermeneutics, provides a multi-
disciplinary theory of social change, and emphasizes the
importance of ethics in interpretation.
4. THE INFLUENCE OF HUIZINGA AND
CAILLOIS ON CANON AUTHORITY STUDIES
The final section addresses the limited impact of theorists
like Huizinga and Caillois on studies related to the
concept of the authority of the canon in trans-disciplinary
research. By highlighting this gap, the section invites
further exploration into how different theoretical
frameworks can enrich the understanding of canon
authority in trans-disciplinary contexts.
Huizinga and Caillois do not significantly influence the
studies regarding the concept of the authority of the canon
to study trans-disciplinarity. The papers provided do not
mention these authors or their influence on the topic [14]–
[16]
Additional
Chapter 1 Canon and Meaning (pp. 11-44)
An intuitive way to distinguish between canonical and
non-canonical works is to classify them according to the
authority and value that a community ascribes to certain
texts above others. In this sense, canonization is defined
in terms of the elements added to the text—sacredness,
authority, value, prestige, and so on. [17, pp. 11–44]
8. CONCLUSION
In closing, this paper underlines the critical role of
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Cynthia Shafer, and Jimena Serret for
their unconditional support.
Peer editor: Edgar Meritano, Department of Sciences
and Arts for Design, Research and Knowledge,
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Mexico
Nonblind Peer-Reviewers: XXX
Disclosure of Support Statement of Contributions
(DSSC)
No conflict of interest pertains to the research presented
above. The full DSSC can be accessed here: XXXX
10. SOURCES
[1] H. Enroth, “The Concept of Authority
Transnationalised,” Transnational Legal Theory,
vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 336–353, Nov. 2013, doi:
10.5235/20414005.4.3.336.
[2] G. I. Orderud and R. D. Vogt, “Trans- 1997. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1kgdfvd.
disciplinarity required in understanding, predicting
and dealing with water eutrophication,”
International Journal of Sustainable Development
& World Ecology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 404–415, Oct.
2013, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2013.814605.
[3] T. S. Kuhn and D. Hawkins, “The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions,” American Journal of
Physics, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 554–555, Jul. 1963,
doi: 10.1119/1.1969660.
[4] M. Hailbronner, “Constructing the global
constitutional canon: Between authority and
criticism,” University of Toronto Law Journal, vol.
69, no. 2, pp. 248–274, Mar. 2019, doi:
10.3138/utlj.2018-0024.
[5] B. Peters and J. K. Schaffer, “The Turn to
Authority Beyond States,” SSRN Journal, 2013,
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2363479.
[6] O. Korhonen, “Within and Beyond
Interdisciplinarity in International Law and Human
Rights,” European Journal of International Law,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 625–648, May 2017, doi:
10.1093/ejil/chx040.
[7] C. F. Gethmann et al., Interdisciplinary Research
and Trans-disciplinary Validity Claims, vol. 43. in
Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment,
vol. 43. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11400-2.
[8] A. Mironescu and D. Mironescu, “Premises for a
History of Romanian Literature from a Trans-
disciplinary Perspective,” Hermeneia, no. 23, pp.
73–84, 2019.
[9] H. J. Graff, “The ‘problem’ of interdisciplinarity in
theory, practice, and history,” Social Science
History, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 775–803, 2016.
[10] C. Walsh, “THE POLITICS OF NAMING:
(Inter)Cultural Studies in de-colonial code,”
Cultural Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 108–125, Jan.
2012, doi: 10.1080/09502386.2012.642598.
[11] J. Lindholm, “Cybernetic Epistemology,” ABHPS,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–51, Jun. 2023, doi:
10.11590/abhps.2023.1.01.
[12] S. Björninen, “Roles of Interpretation in Wolfgang
Iser’s Theory of Reading and Systematic Poetics,”
ENTHYMEMA, pp. 136-149 Paginazione, Jun.
2017, doi: 10.13130/2037-2426/8369.
[13] D. T. O’Hara and W. Iser, “The Act of Reading: A
Theory of Aesthetic Response,” The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 38, no. 1, p. 88,
1979, doi: 10.2307/430052.
[14] T. Dalrymple, “The death of the author,” BMJ, vol.
337, no. nov25 1, pp. a2717–a2717, Nov. 2008,
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2717.
[15] E. Lorek-Jezińska, N. Strehlau, and K.
Więckowska, “Perspectives on Authorship and
Authority,” ART, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–6, Dec. 2020,
doi: 10.18778/2353-6098.6.01.
[16] C. Thompson, “‘Authority is everything’: A study
of the politics of textual ownership,” IJEI, vol. 1,
no. 1, Nov. 2005, doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v1i1.18.
[17] M. Halbertal, People of the Book: Canon,
Meaning, and Authority. Harvard University Press,