• The politics of knowledge in State Unis
• Film marketing and the future of knowledge production in SL

In an era when universities are expected to drive innovation, economic relevance, and social transformation, a quiet but significant conflict continues to unfold within State higher education systems: the struggle over academic domains. What appears on the surface as a curriculum dispute often reflects deeper questions about power, authority, and the very organisation of knowledge.

Such a case within a Sri Lankan State university is where the proposed introduction of a Film Marketing curriculum within a Mass Communication Department has triggered resistance from the Departments of Marketing Management, and Film and Television during institutional approval stages. While framed as a question of disciplinary boundaries, the dispute reveals a far more complex tension between managerial models of education and emerging interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge production.

At its core, the debate raises a pressing question: are academic disciplines intellectual frameworks for understanding the world, or institutional territories that must be defended?

A curriculum at the crossroads

The proposed Film Marketing curriculum was developed within a Mass Communication Department under doctoral-level academic supervision, drawing upon interdisciplinary scholarship from media studies, sociology, and marketing theory. It also incorporated international academic collaboration, including United Kingdom-based supervisory input, and was informed by broader developments in social science approaches to media industries.

Rather than treating film marketing as a narrow commercial function, the curriculum positioned it as a hybrid field located at the intersection of cultural production, audience behaviour, media industries, and communication systems. It sought to bridge theoretical and applied knowledge, linking academic inquiry with evolving creative and corporate industries.

However, at the Senate approval stage, the proposal faced strong institutional opposition. Representatives from the Marketing Management, and Film and Television Departments argued that the curriculum violated established disciplinary boundaries. They claimed jurisdiction over the subject area and raised concerns about academic encroachment.

This resistance exposed a deeper structural issue: the transformation of knowledge domains into defended territories rather than shared intellectual spaces.

Knowledge, power, and the architecture of disciplines

To understand this conflict, it is necessary to move beyond administrative explanations and examine the theoretical foundations of disciplinary formation itself.

From this perspective, academic disciplines are not simply intellectual categories; they are structures of power that regulate access to legitimacy, authority, and recognition.

Together, these thinkers reveal a shared insight: academic disciplines are historically constructed, politically embedded, and socially maintained systems — not natural intellectual divisions.

Film marketing as an interdisciplinary field

Within this theoretical framework, the emergence of Film Marketing as a field of study is not an anomaly but a reflection of broader epistemological change.

Film marketing cannot be reduced to advertising or commercial strategy alone. It is deeply embedded in cultural production, involving meaning-making, identity construction, audience formation, and ideological representation. Film operates simultaneously as an economic product and a cultural text circulating within complex social systems.

Marketing disciplines often focus on consumer behaviour, branding strategies, and market analytics. Film studies emphasise aesthetics, narrative structure, and representation. Social sciences contribute critical insights into ideology, reception, and media power.

Film Marketing, therefore, exists precisely in the intersection of these knowledge systems. It is not owned by a single discipline but constituted through their interaction.

In many Global North academic contexts, this kind of interdisciplinary integration is increasingly the norm. Universities combine insights from economics, psychology, communication, design, and cultural studies to address complex industry and societal challenges. The result is more adaptive, innovative, and socially responsive knowledge production.

The problem of disciplinary territoriality

Despite these global trends, many state university systems continue to operate through rigid disciplinary segmentation. This creates what can be described as academic territoriality — the perception that knowledge areas belong exclusively to specific departments.

Such territorial logic raises a crucial question: who has the authority to define the boundaries of knowledge?

In many cases, disciplinary resistance is not driven purely by academic concern, but by institutional dynamics involving authority, prestige, and resource allocation. Departments may perceive interdisciplinary initiatives as threats to their intellectual jurisdiction or institutional relevance.

From an anthropological and critical perspective, this reflects a deeper historical continuity. Colonial systems of education were structured through the rigid classification of knowledge, separating disciplines into hierarchical categories. These classifications continue to influence postcolonial universities, often unconsciously reinforcing fragmentation rather than integration.

An instructive analogy can be drawn: if an individual builds a structure on their own land, no permission is required from neighbouring landowners. Yet, within academic institutions, intellectual development is often subjected to negotiation, resistance, or institutional contestation. This reveals that what is being protected is not only academic quality, but also institutional control over knowledge domains.

From fragmentation to integration: A global shift

Across global higher education systems, there is a growing recognition that complex social problems cannot be addressed within isolated disciplinary silos. Fields such as communication, marketing, sociology, psychology, film studies, and business are increasingly interconnected.

This shift reflects a broader epistemological transformation: knowledge is no longer understood as segmented ownership, but as a network of interconnected systems.

For countries in the Global South, including Sri Lanka, this transition carries particular significance. State universities face the dual challenge of responding to global academic developments while addressing local socio-economic needs. Interdisciplinary approaches offer a pathway to bridge academic knowledge with industry, culture, and public policy.

However, this requires a shift in institutional culture — from competition between departments to collaboration across disciplines.

Reframing authority and the academic culture

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper issue: authority over knowledge production.

Disciplinary conflicts often reflect struggles over legitimacy, institutional recognition, and intellectual ownership. In some cases, they are reinforced by academic cultures that prioritise hierarchy over collaboration, and protection over innovation.

From a critical standpoint, these dynamics can be understood as remnants of older epistemological systems that privilege classification over integration. Such systems tend to prioritise stability over adaptability, even when the external world demands interdisciplinary solutions.

The challenge, therefore, is not to eliminate disciplines, but to reimagine their relationship to one another.

Toward a collaborative epistemology

The central argument is that disciplinary boundaries should not be treated as fixed territories, but as dynamic and evolving interfaces of knowledge production.

An interdisciplinary epistemology does not weaken academic rigour; rather, it strengthens it by enabling multiple perspectives to engage with complex realities. It shifts the focus from the ownership of knowledge to responsibility for knowledge.

This transformation is particularly urgent in state university systems, where public institutions are expected to serve broader social, cultural, and economic goals.

Ultimately, the future of higher education depends on its ability to move beyond fragmentation toward integration — beyond competition toward collaboration.

Conclusion: Universities as spaces of shared knowledge

The conflict over Film Marketing is not simply a curricular disagreement. It is a symptom of a deeper structural tension within modern universities: the struggle between disciplinary territoriality and interdisciplinary possibility.

By drawing on critical social theory, this demonstrates that academic disciplines are historically constructed systems embedded in relations of power. Recognising this allows universities to rethink their role not as custodians of isolated knowledge domains, but as platforms for collaborative intellectual production.

In an increasingly interconnected world, the question is no longer whether interdisciplinary knowledge is necessary, but whether universities are willing to transform their structures to enable it.

The future of state higher education will depend on this shift — from fragmentation to integration, from ownership to collaboration, and from disciplinary borders to epistemological openness.

In this sense, interdisciplinarity is not merely an academic innovation. It is a redefinition of the university itself.

The writer is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Kelaniya University’s Mass Communication Department

------------------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication